V6 Charger vs. 3.8L SC SS, or 3.9L Monte
#2
RE: V6 Charger vs. 3.8L SC SS, or 3.9L Monte
I've seen videos of them at the track, with a STOCK SS, NON S/C, and they win....
its he srt8's that are the scary ones to be near...
luckily, most people dont wanna pay 48000 for the charger srt8
its he srt8's that are the scary ones to be near...
luckily, most people dont wanna pay 48000 for the charger srt8
#3
RE: V6 Charger vs. 3.8L SC SS, or 3.9L Monte
Here's the info on a 2006 Dodge Charger base model with the V6 engine.
Info is from cars.com
I think the fact that the Charger is a little over 400 pounds heavier, may have had something to do with it.
[hr]
Engine
250-hp, 3.5-liter V-6
Specifications
Engine liters: 3.5
Cylinder configuration: V-6
Horsepower: 250-hp @ 6,400 rpm
Torque: 250 lbs.-ft. @ 3,800 rpm
# of valves: 24
Variable intake manifold
Sequential MPI
Recommended fuel: regular unleaded
Aluminum cylinder block
Aluminum cylinder head
Ignition type: electronic
Engine orientation: longitudinal
Fuel economy city: 19 mpg
Fuel economy highway: 27 mpg
Fuel tank capacity: 18.0 gal.
Estimated Performance Specs
0-60 mph: 7.50 seconds
1/4 mile: 15.62 seconds at 89.71 mph
Lateral acceleration: .80 g
Slalom: 58 mph
Standard Specs and Dimensions
Engine type: V-6
Engine displacement: 215 cu.in.
Engine horsepower: 250-hp @ 6,400 rpm
Engine torque: 250 lbs.-ft. @ 3,800 rpm
Valvetrain: SOHC
Valves: 24
Engine bore x stroke: 3.8" x 3.2"
Compression ratio: 9.90 to 1
Fuel tank capacity: 18.0 gal.
Fuel economy city: 19 mpg
Fuel economy highway: 27 mpg
Drag coefficient: .33
Curb weight: 3,800 lbs.
Exterior length: 200.1"
Exterior body width: 74.5"
Exterior height: 58.2"
Wheelbase: 120.0"
Turning radius: 19.4'
Ground clearance (min.): 5.2"
Info is from cars.com
I think the fact that the Charger is a little over 400 pounds heavier, may have had something to do with it.
[hr]
Engine
250-hp, 3.5-liter V-6
Specifications
Engine liters: 3.5
Cylinder configuration: V-6
Horsepower: 250-hp @ 6,400 rpm
Torque: 250 lbs.-ft. @ 3,800 rpm
# of valves: 24
Variable intake manifold
Sequential MPI
Recommended fuel: regular unleaded
Aluminum cylinder block
Aluminum cylinder head
Ignition type: electronic
Engine orientation: longitudinal
Fuel economy city: 19 mpg
Fuel economy highway: 27 mpg
Fuel tank capacity: 18.0 gal.
Estimated Performance Specs
0-60 mph: 7.50 seconds
1/4 mile: 15.62 seconds at 89.71 mph
Lateral acceleration: .80 g
Slalom: 58 mph
Standard Specs and Dimensions
Engine type: V-6
Engine displacement: 215 cu.in.
Engine horsepower: 250-hp @ 6,400 rpm
Engine torque: 250 lbs.-ft. @ 3,800 rpm
Valvetrain: SOHC
Valves: 24
Engine bore x stroke: 3.8" x 3.2"
Compression ratio: 9.90 to 1
Fuel tank capacity: 18.0 gal.
Fuel economy city: 19 mpg
Fuel economy highway: 27 mpg
Drag coefficient: .33
Curb weight: 3,800 lbs.
Exterior length: 200.1"
Exterior body width: 74.5"
Exterior height: 58.2"
Wheelbase: 120.0"
Turning radius: 19.4'
Ground clearance (min.): 5.2"
#6
RE: V6 Charger vs. 3.8L SC SS, or 3.9L Monte
Yah, that is a fully loaded SRT8 though, and I think that with my military discount, I was looking at 42,000 before taxes..
That was actually the first car I had lined up, but it fell through, and thats why I bought my monte from a dodge dealer, they had it layin around, and it caught my eye
it was love at first sight =)
Anyways, yah, the weight has alot to do with it, but the v6 just doesnt produce enough..
Now, the R/T V8 5.4L is the kicker... but I've still seen it get taken by a monte..
-Keegan
That was actually the first car I had lined up, but it fell through, and thats why I bought my monte from a dodge dealer, they had it layin around, and it caught my eye
it was love at first sight =)
Anyways, yah, the weight has alot to do with it, but the v6 just doesnt produce enough..
Now, the R/T V8 5.4L is the kicker... but I've still seen it get taken by a monte..
-Keegan
#7
RE: V6 Charger vs. 3.8L SC SS, or 3.9L Monte
wouldn't mind have a charger r/t myself... bang for the buck, the r/t would be the best way, that SR/T 8 is just too much money, plus i've seen those R/T's run with the new mustangs... i would probably die if i had the extra 80hp? or so the SR/T 8's have.