Ok more bragging rights for us SRT6 guys. We are in the rare category of supercars that have a stock rating of having 100hp or more per liter. The new ZR1 has a 6.2 liter at 638hp, so you can call the six a ZR1/2 . As some of you found out how hard it is putting down 330+hp at the track, can you imagine harnessing 638hp!!!
Sorry guys I'm a cheby nut.

 

That ZR1 is one sick momma! I'm a Vette freak too..... Had 2 in the past..

 

Yeah - I threw this out some time ago based on an Autoweek article.

https://www.crossfireforum.org/forum...&highlight=zr1

 

Honestly, the 100 HP/liter is only impressive if the engine is not using forced induction. Pretty much anybody can get 100 HP/liter with a blower or turbo set up.

 

Ummm...pretty much anybody can do it naturally aspirated if they spend enough money. The catch is that anyone can do it a lot cheaper with a blower or turbo, that's all. Do you know how much the new Z06 costs? The PRICE is certainly impressive, but nobody has really achieved anything impressive by buying something that most other people cant afford.

 

I used to own a C5Z06 before the SRT and that car was an animal. The SRT is a smidgen faster in it's current form...

I have been reading on the vette forums that MANY vette enthusiasts are taking the base vette with the 438hp motor and procharging it for a few grand. From what I read it gives you car with 600hp plus to the wheel for a SIGNIFICANT amount less than the new Zr1.

If it was me I would simply get a gently used C6Z06. That car with just a tune/intake and good tires is capable of high 10 second passes.

If you need more than that from your daily driver you need to join the air force.

 

The S2000, my former car, made 120hp per liter NA stock and 135 per liter with bolt-ons(at the crank) I had it running mid 13's with bolt ons but it's nothing compared to a Z06 or modded crossfire when it comes to straightline. Boost it and it's another story, but all that power in a light car prone to oversteer can be dangerous.
Zo6 or a boosted S2000 would be my replacement if I lost the SRT-6 and couldn't find another. The ZR1 is a bit out of my price range but a beast non the less, if you can get all that power to the ground.

 

i have an 03 cobra that im looking to trade for an srt6...but i have personally taken vettes in the cobra before....c6s are always a close race but....the cobra getts the job done if your looking for a vette killer!!!!!let me know if anyone is interested in a trade!!!

 

I will say this, you are persistent. Most of us here REALLY like our SRT6's.

But surely you will find someone willing to trade sooner or later.

 

haha thanks man....even before i got the cobra i was looking at srt6s but i got a sweet deal on the cobra and it was literaly the nicest one ive seen just about anywhere...but insurance is just real high on the thing!! srt is $100 cheaper a month

 

I didn't think we were talking about modified engines, I thought this was about factory produced engines that break the magical 100 HP/liter mark. There are very few na motors that can do this.

 

Yes, that is what I'm talking about...and I think they let anyone who can write the check purchase any car they want. All it takes is money to buy a car with a naturally aspirated engine that breaks that barrier...nothing terribly impressive there. And while I am terribly impressed with the engineers that achieved it, I have to ask myself the question: "why?" The SMART people, with nothing to prove about how rich they are, buy a forced induction engine that produces the same performance for less than half the price. And what DOESN'T impress me about that naturally aspirated engine, is that once you fork over the mountains of ducats to obtain this item, you are now at the glass ceiling...lets see you do anything to it to improve the performance. Not going to happen. One of the major pulls of the industry towards forced aspiration is that it is so easily upgraded by the aftermarket once the car is purchased, and the factory is thereby released from having to warranty said vehicle. It's a win-win as long as the vehicle holds up to the punishment. The happy owner gets a new-smelling hotrod with insane performance, and the car manufacturers can get a strangle-hold on all the dollars they have been losing on warranty repairs for their performance lines of vehicles.

Chevy, being "The Land that Overhead Cam Forgot", is naturally the company that is still investing everything they've got into archaeic technology, when they could so easily achieve the same results by coming into the 21st century. But if it impresses some people that they can do the same things with pushrod, naturally aspirated technology by expending twice the resources and charging twice the price, then I'm glad those people are impressed. I, personally, am not.

I'm glad to see the ZR1 finally has a supercharger and is proving that Chevy can be taught...unfortunately they learn a little too late to save their failing company. Guess they had to dabble in projects like the Cobalt SS, etc. before they felt comfortable enough to put a real supercharger on a real performance vehicle and pound out the big numbers like Ford Has been doing for a decade.

I guess my point is: why do people have to hate on superchargers? Anyone who doesn't find the Ford GT an impressive vehicle just because its supercharged...well...
The Shelby GT500 mustangs are running mid to low 10's after being out for a vert short time...I've seen one break into the 9 second quartermile. It does it by using a supercharger on a dual overhead cam 5.4 liter engine, and some simple aftermarket upgrades...and I'm impressed. Who thought, back in 1994, when modular engines first came out in the Ford line, and everyday joe was struggling to see that 300hp mark, that we would be seeing mustangs that could pound out 800hp like it was a brisk set of jumping-jacks 10 years later?

There is nothing wrong with forced aspiration...its not cheating...its only the next step in the evolution of technology, and I'm sure, once forced aspiration is considered commonplace, whatever comes next will be considered cheating too..."Electric motors have all their torque available at all RPM...that's cheating. I'm not impressed. Anyone can run a 7 second quartermile with an electric motor...but lets see you do that with a steam driven engine!"

 

I've driven one and it was DAMN impressive. Kind of scary actually!

 

i have an srt6 and an 08 z06 and i dont think they have too much in common,
except that they're both pretty riotous to drive. (one a little more so)

the srt6 and the Z!?



[IMG][/IMG]

 

My Spirit breaks the 100 HP/liter with 224 HP from a 2.2L engine. Course its turboed and not very impressive today but back in 91 when it came out the HP was considered amazing.

 

Neon SRT4 and the PT Cruiser Turbo with various Stage kits are putting out from 250HP to over 300HP from 2.4 liters, so they're definitely in that 100HP/L club.

 

It was for only stock factory power ratings super charged, turboed, whatever but stock. Oh well some of you got to post what your high hp cars did at the track.

 

so whats in the garage with the v-12 in it? i bet its black too?

 

Before you get too caught up in some of these modern internal combustion marvels, I would remind you that if your great-grandfather bought a Duesenberg SJ eighty years ago, it would have come with dual overhead cams and a supercharger as standard equipment.

 

I'm assuming this is a response to people who put N/A engines on a pedestal. My question to you is, if you can get similar power, why not go N/A? You take out the complexity and extra failure points of a turbo or supercharger, as well as the extra weight. Not to mention that you have nonlinear response and a little lag with a turbo.

Puh-leaze. Why fix something if it isn't broken? I don't understand the fascination with HP/Liter, when a better criteria is a car's power/weight ratio, or an engine's power/weight ratio and dimensions. How is a 3.2L DOHC BMW I6 superior to a 6.0L OHV Chevy V8 when the Chevy engine is more powerful, lighter and smaller than the BMW engine? (search around: you'll find people swapping LS1 and LS2 engines into BMWs and REDUCING the total weight of their car because of the swap!). Judging an engine by displacement alone is silly, since its displacement does not reflect its actual total size. So is judging it by the number of cams or valves. The only indicators that should be relevant are it power/torque curves, and its weight and size. That means that if you can make more power in a smaller, lighter package with DOHC, more power to you. But technology for the sake of technology, without some other purpose, is pointless. Even Subaru acknowledged this with their Impreza 2.5RS (~1999-2000). They moved away from a DOHC design to a SOHC engine that provided the same power and torque and reduced complexity.

Besides, there is one advantage that an N/A engine has over an F/I engine: you can still turbo it!

On a side note, there's something wrong with this picture:

Crossfire SRT-6: 349hp (same engine as SLK32), 3200 lbs, 17/24 city/hwy mpg
Chevy Camaro: 345hp (same engine as C5 Vette), 3600 lbs, 19/28 city/hwy mpg

I know we're talking about two very different cars here, but the fact that two cars make the same power, yet the heavier one gets better mileage, is amazing to me.

To me, the '03-'04 Cobras have already proven this point. I love cars where you can turn a screw and make 200 more hp.

I wholeheartedly agree... I see nothing wrong with F/I or nitrous, or any tricks you can pull out of your sleeve, whether that's ultra-sticky tire compounds or running meth. I honestly cannot wait for electric sports cars to become mainstream, because that massive torque is better used to burn rubber than save the environment.