3.5L 250 HP Overstated?

[ChargerS.X.T]

Some members have taken their V6 to have the HP measured and it usually shows 180-185HP stock. From what I have read shouldn't the HP be around 200-210 to account for 15-20% drivetrain power loss?
Is the 250HP rating "SAE NET" with the 2006 newer standards like General Motors is using?


A new voluntary power and torque certification procedure developed by the SAE Engine Test Code committee was approved March 31, 2005. This procedure (J2723) ensures fair, accurate ratings for horsepower and torque by allowing manufacturers to certify their engines through third-party witness testing. GM was the first auto manufacturer to begin using the procedure and expects to use it for all newly rated engines in the future.

A lot of car manufacturers were overstating the numbers and the Chrysler 3.5L has had the 250HP rating before the new standards were released in 2006.

[spoonerock]

Drivetrain loss in the V6 is more like 23% - 25%.

[ChargerS.X.T]

Why is it higher in the V6 compared to the V8?

[blairian]

im assuming that its due to the 4 speed with a deeper gear ratios?

[spoonerock]

im assuming that its due to the 4 speed with a deeper gear ratios?

No to the 1st, yes to the second.

The Charger 3.5L Engine has the same NAG1 transmission as the RT & SRT.

[blairian]

alright thats what i figured, i thought they had the 4 speed auto in V6's but learn somethin new everyday! :-)

[spoonerock]

alright thats what i figured, i thought they had the 4 speed auto in V6's but learn somethin new everyday! :-)

The 2.7s all have the four speed, and I think some early 2006 Magnum & 300s with 3.5s had a four speed, BUT NEVER the 3.5 Charger. :)

[ChargerS.X.T]

Isn't the final drive ratios for the V6 and V8 very similar?
2.87 vs. 2.82?

[spoonerock]

Isn't the final drive ratios for the V6 and V8 very similar?
2.87 vs. 2.82?

You have to factor in ft. lbs. of Torque. 250 / 390

Also, for 2006, the Final Drive Ratios were 3.66 / 3.55 according to dodge.com

[ChargerS.X.T]

Spoonerock-Is the 5 speed way more efficient than the 4 speed?
Car and Driver tested a 300 Touring with the 4 speed and it achieved 0-60 in 7.3 seconds and the quarter in 15.6 seconds @ 90.
These numbers seems too good to be true.
How much better do you think the 5 speed can achieve?

Here is the link to the information from CarandDriver:

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11447/chrysler-300-touring.html

[spoonerock]

Spoonerock-Is the 5 speed way more efficient than the 4 speed?
Car and Driver tested a 300 Touring with the 4 speed and it achieved 0-60 in 7.3 seconds and the quarter in 15.6 seconds @ 90.
These numbers seems too good to be true.
How much better do you think the 5 speed can achieve?

Here is the link to the information from CarandDriver:

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11447/chrysler-300-touring.html

According to Chrysler.com, the 300 Touring has the 3.5L engine with the 5 speed transmission. That is the one Car & Driver was testing, and yes, those are the times that us 3.5L Charger owners are getting:

http://www.chargerforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14835

The very base 300 has the 2.7L engine with the 4 speed transmission. :)

[ChargerS.X.T]

According to Chrysler.com, the 300 Touring has the 3.5L engine with the 5 speed transmission. That is the one Car & Driver was testing, and yes, those are the times that us 3.5L Charger owners are getting:

http://www.chargerforums.com/forums/...ad.php?t=14835

The very base 300 has the 2.7L engine with the 4 speed transmission.
__________________


However, back in 05 the 3.5L got the 4 speed in the 300's.
Have a look again at the link and in the grey box it says:


Lows: Lots of road noise, only a four-speed auto and no manumatic, low-budget shine on the plastic interior padding.

[blairian]

The 2.7s all have the four speed, and I think some early 2006 Magnum & 300s with 3.5s had a four speed, BUT NEVER the 3.5 Charger. :)

ah alright i gotcha, see always learnin!

[spoonerock]

However, back in 05 the 3.5L got the 4 speed in the 300's.
Have a look again at the link and in the grey box it says:


Lows: Lots of road noise, only a four-speed auto and no manumatic, low-budget shine on the plastic interior padding.

It appears that is correct. In 2005, the 300 Touring 3.5 DID have the four speed. In a 1/4 mile test run, I honestly don't know how much difference a 4 or 5 speed transmission would make, because you use only three gears to get through the run.

I think 15.6 might be a tad high with no mods, and density altitude would be a factor in comparing the times. Here is an example of another comparison for the same car:

http://www.dragtimes.com/Chrysler-300-Timeslip-4432.html

[wado1]

I've got a 3.5 SE 06 charger and I believe I have a 4 speed. When I do the autostick, it goes to 4 then it goes back to normal.

[cjsCharger]

If you have Autostick then you have the 5 speed transmission. The 4 speed has no Autostick feature, and is only on the 2.7s

[spoonerock]

I've got a 3.5 SE 06 charger and I believe I have a 4 speed. When I do the autostick, it goes to 4 then it goes back to normal.

There are 5 idicators - 1, 2, 3, 4, D

[wado1]

There are 5 idicators - 1, 2, 3, 4, D
ohhhhh, I get it. There really would be no need for a 5 indicator because thats the last gear...

[srt4evah]

How did they pull off a 7.3 run to 60 when Dodge claims 9.3 seconds to 60 for the 3.5L Charger?

[ChargerS.X.T]

How did they pull off a 7.3 run to 60 when Dodge claims 9.3 seconds to 60 for the 3.5L Charger?

Dodge claim of 9.3 is probably to get more people to buy the Hemi because they make more money on the Hemi than the 3.5L.
The V6 is more technologically advanced because it has 24 Valves and all aluminum. More costly to make and made in the US.
The Hemi has an iron block and is made in Mexico so its cheaper.
From the seat of the pants feel I would say 7.5-8.0 seconds is more accurate.

[maneval69]

The more power you put in front of the trans the less % power loss you get.
The trans takes a certain amount of energy to operate, then you have power loss due to friction. The friction is the only drain that increases as you apply more power.
Basically if the trans takes 60hp out of a 250hp engine. It may take 65hp out of a 350hp motor.
and there you have it 24% with the 3.5 and 18% with the Hemi.

[spoonerock]

How did they pull off a 7.3 run to 60 when Dodge claims 9.3 seconds to 60 for the 3.5L Charger?

The 7.3 is much more realistic. With the mods that I have, under normal temps (60F). My 0-60's run between 6.8 - 7.2.

A 9.3 would net you an 18+ 1/4 mile, and the 3.5 is much quicker than that!

[spoonerock]

The more power you put in front of the trans the less % power loss you get.
The trans takes a certain amount of energy to operate, then you have power loss due to friction. The friction is the only drain that increases as you apply more power.
Basically if the trans takes 60hp out of a 250hp engine. It may take 65hp out of a 350hp motor.
and there you have it 24% with the 3.5 and 18% with the Hemi.

Drivetrain loss in the V6 is more like 23% - 25%.

And there you have it! :grin:

[srt4evah]

How did they pull off a 7.3 run to 60 when Dodge claims 9.3 seconds to 60 for the 3.5L Charger?

Dodge claim of 9.3 is probably to get more people to buy the Hemi because they make more money on the Hemi than the 3.5L.
The V6 is more technologically advanced because it has 24 Valves and all aluminum. More costly to make and made in the US.
The Hemi has an iron block and is made in Mexico so its cheaper.
From the seat of the pants feel I would say 7.5-8.0 seconds is more accurate.

That doesn't make any sense, the 3.5L V6 still has to compete with the rest of the market, and claiming it has much worse performance than real-world would not make it look good against the competition.

As far as cost/complexity goes, do you have any numbers to support that? I know the new Hemi was designed to be cost-effective, but I can't imagine it being cheaper to build than the 14 year old 3.5L V6.

The Michigan State Police tested both the 3.5L and 5.7L Hemi versions of the Charger, and found 8.6 seconds to 60 and 6.5 seconds to 60, respectively.
http://www.allpar.com/squads/police-cars/charger-police-testing.html

Better than Dodge claims, for sure, and not bad at all compared to the competition.

[spoonerock]

The Michigan State Police tested both the 3.5L and 5.7L Hemi versions of the Charger, and found 8.6 seconds to 60 and 6.5 seconds to 60, respectively.
http://www.allpar.com/squads/police-cars/charger-police-testing.html

Better than Dodge claims, for sure, and not bad at all compared to the competition.


Check this out! All of us V6ers who are racing these cars at the track are doing MUCH better that the MI State Police:

http://www.spoonerock.com/id16.html

So even their numbers are fairly slow!

[ChargerS.X.T]

Check this out! All of us V6ers who are racing these cars at the track are doing MUCH better that the MI State Police:

Aren't the police versions heavier than the regular chargers?
I know that they use heavy duty (more steel than aluminum) suspension parts, steel wheels etc.

[Dmode11]

That doesn't make any sense, the 3.5L V6 still has to compete with the rest of the market, and claiming it has much worse performance than real-world would not make it look good against the competition.

As far as cost/complexity goes, do you have any numbers to support that? I know the new Hemi was designed to be cost-effective, but I can't imagine it being cheaper to build than the 14 year old 3.5L V6.

The Michigan State Police tested both the 3.5L and 5.7L Hemi versions of the Charger, and found 8.6 seconds to 60 and 6.5 seconds to 60, respectively.
http://www.allpar.com/squads/police-cars/charger-police-testing.html

Better than Dodge claims, for sure, and not bad at all compared to the competition.

I belive Dodge did that to fool the insurance man. The 3.5L is pretty cheap to insure if you have a good driving record. Conservative estimates are a good thing.

[spoonerock]

Check this out! All of us V6ers who are racing these cars at the track are doing MUCH better that the MI State Police:

Aren't the police versions heavier than the regular chargers?
I know that they use heavy duty (more steel than aluminum) suspension parts, steel wheels etc.

That might be true....but back when they were doing their evals(2005), they were testing several makes and models for future purchasing decisions. I went back and looked at their original report (about 50 pages of evals) and didn't see anywhere where they mentioned the cars being anything but stock.

[ChargerS.X.T]

2006 Dodge Charger SXT Road Test
August 10, 2005
by Justin Couture / American Auto Press


Speaking of that V6, the Charger SXT is powered by a high-output 3.5-liter dual overhead cam V6 which produces 250-horsepower and 250 lb-ft of torque. Used in other LX-chassis cars, its a mid-range engine that features smooth power delivery. Never once did the cars 3,800 pound curb weight burden the engine; its near-flat torque curve meant that power was constantly on demand, and no more than an ankle-flex away. While you wont be able to perform the same tire-smoking burnouts as possible in the more powerful HEMI-powered Chargers, the V6 is good enough to slingshot this full-size sedan to 60 mph in a respectable 7.4 seconds, quicker than its svelte figures suggest. Fuel economy is rated at 23 mpg in the city, and 35 mpg on the highway. After five days worth of testing, I managed to average 24 mpg, a figure acceptable for a mix of open-stretches of road and wading through long-weekend traffic, and darn pleasing for a full-size sedan.

The link is http://car-reviews.automobile.com/Dodge/review/2006-dodge-charger-sxt-road-test/1370/1

There are mistakes in that the 3.5L is SOHC not DOHC and the fuel economy numbers are incorrect.

[spoonerock]

Here you go guys ...... straight from the MI State Police!

http://www.nlectc.org/pdffiles/msp2006report.pdf

Knock yourselves out! :grin:

[Charles236]

I was pleasantly surprised by the 3.5's performance, I have driven many of them while working in a Dodge dealership a few years back. The older 3.5s always ran well, but didn't feel like they had much low end torque. The 3.5 in the Charger is pretty thoroughly re-engineered for all around performance, it actually reminds me of the way the old 383 felt in a late '60s sedan as far as performance comparisons.

[ga charger]

hp pwr is different a rear tire on most all cars 4,6,8 10,12 cylinder.

[ga charger]

charger chick dyno-ed over 200 on a post