The proof of what I am saying is in the MT Dyno test.
"According to K&N's dyno results, the Challenger SRT Hellcat puts down 635 hp and 591 lb-ft of torque at the rear wheels. Assuming a 12-percent drivetrain loss (automatics are getting more efficient each year), that means this Hellcat puts out about 722 hp at the crank."
This is within the range of the SAE testing requirements and not an under-rating by the Factory.
Yep, supercars of the 80's are tame by today's standards. I've been saying for the last 10 years, and continue to say, that today is the "good old days" for muscle cars! They are way faster, way easier to drive, and you get in, turn the key, and go. You don't have much maintenance any more; how many kids today could change a set of points? I, for one, would rather be driving than working on the car.
Slippery and performance at high speed are 2 different things. The Vette chose more down force to improve handling and keep it glued to the road (more like an Indy car) while the Hellcat chose less to make it more like a NASCAR. The Vette actually has a greater coefficient of drag than the Hellcat by choice.
The Vette builds tremendous down force which makes the car heavier as it goes faster. The Hellcat has less to help it's massive profile and weight cut through the air resistance and still keep it on the road.
To quote the Hellcat engineers "At speeds over 150 mph you are really more flying the car than you are driving it."
The Vette can make a much sharper turn at 160 mph than the Hellcat ever will, but in a straight line the Hellcat leaves it behind.
Just to second what GDaddy said, I read a recent review of the C7 Z06 Corvette with optional Stage 3 aero and the reviewer noted that on the track it actually had a lower top speed on the long straight than the old ZR1 but it posted a better lap time because it has even more aggressive aero than the ZR1 did.
Another point - the Hellcat accelerates just as hard as either Vette despite a much worse power to weight ratio. You can't explain that by aerodynamics either.
But for a lack of traction, it would run the same 1/4 mile times AND speeds.
Given that it is 1,000 pounds heavier that points to the 6.2 having more than just 50 or 60 more horses than the ZR1/Z06
Ddaddy - that still doesn't add up
Any of you have that 1/4 formula on your computer put all 3 cars in there and I bet the Hellcat is underrated
What doesn't add up is they both basically trap at 128 in the 1/4 mile - same with the Z06 (even the 8spd auto Z06) despite both Vettes having vastly superior power to weight ratios
The power to weight ratio changes dynamically across the RPM range and the gearing makes a huge difference as to where you are in the power band and when.
Here is a chart of the engine RPM and MPH of both cars for comparison. As you can see, the gearing differences are substantial.
This graph helps in understanding the dynamic effect of gearing on horsepower and speed.
You can see that although the Hellcat is heavier, it's gearing allows it to quickly get to the top end of the power band through 100 mph.
You can also see that the Hellcat is reaching the top of 5th gear at 160 mph while the ZR1 is near the bottom of 5th gear. This is why the Hellcat makes up so much time between 100 mph and 160 mph vs the Vette.
Here is another graph that shows why the Hellcat can get the same 0-60 mph time as the ZR1.
You can see that the dynamic RWHP is the same for the two cars through 40 mph and at 45 mph the Hellcat actually has better power to weigh than the Vette before it drops off again.
Average it all out and you can see why they get the same times.
It's all out there just waiting to be processed into easy to understand graphs and tables. Gear ratios, tire sizes, dyno curves, etc. I did the rest by just using basic engineering calculation and processing into excel spreadsheets and creating graphs.
Distilling raw data into easy to understand formats to enable meaningful interpretation and conclusions is a large part of what I do for a living.