wikicars.com says that the srt6 actually has 349 bhp, not the 330 chrysler states...
anyone know about this?

 

349hp is what is quoted for the SLK32 and since it is the same engine.... The difference might come from a bit different air intake and the exhaust which might account for the 19hp. (if there is a difference)

 

I believe the wikipedia page for the SRT-6 was made by forum members too.

 

yep, but I'm talking about wikicars, not wikipedia
http://wikicars.org/en/Chrysler_Crossfire_SRT6

 

Marketing ploy to keep Xfire from competing directly with SLK sales and since Mercedes was the parent company of Chrysler at the time they had to toe the line and advertise the lower hp. But even Car and Driver (I think) had an article saying hp was the same as SLK32.

 

It has to be about 349 bhp. Come on let's face it, 0 to 60 in under 5 sec. The car is just dam fast!

 

The Mercedes cars have 17" rear wheels which are lighter and spin quicker than our 19's. So I would think they put down more power to the wheels because of it.

 

349 & 330 are at the crank - driveline not calculated in.


(there are other issues with this statement...but no need to get in to them)

 

WRONG that has Nothing to do with it nor does that make ANY difference.
I am going to put 10" rear wheels on my SRT and Really Fly!
Sorry just can't let one this far off go by without commenting.
Mike

 

Any change in rotating mass or even the distribution of that mass will change a chassis dyno result. For instance, changing to lighter racing discs with aluminum hats but larger diameter rotors often reduces HP readings on a chassis dyno as the mass has been moved further from the rotational axis.

It does boggle the mind a bit because you KNOW changing tires, wheels or such can't affect engine output, but because most dynomometers work by calculating acceleration against the inertial resistance load of the drums (sometimes eddy current resistance is also added) any rotational mass change in the loop can change the result.

You are right, though...there is certainly no effect on engine output. But I'm still going to put GoKart wheels on my SRT and leave you in the dust!

 

Its been said a few times on here that chrysler uses different cams and some exhaust change to limit the srt6 power vs the slk32.

Drumroll please...... I really doubt that chrysler changed anything in the cams for the srt6. Its too much $$$ to R&D that. Their whole goal was to save money by using a pre-built engine.

The way to limit power on a pre-built engine vs its original design is to limit the air going into it. They did that by putting the two bottleneck crimps into the stock srt6 intake, right before the throttle body.

Also, a slightly milder ECU tune is probably done to also limit power.

 

Good answer, good answer. Sounds good to me. Tune and air right on the money. Also with the weight differences of each car, dont think they wanted the srt faster in any tests.

 

same engine, built in the same factory, every engine put together by its very own mechanic...Mercedes controlled the sale of this car...why do you think it has a pan under it when most if not all US marketed cars do not have one? Because Mercedes requires the pan for its customers so nothing will ever drip in their garages...mine is now in the corner of my garage...I like to be warned I have a leak, god forbidding that ever happens...as for the slk32 vs srt6...watch the videos of the test and tune...I went up in smoke with my worn out tires the first time...got traction second time, no contest...I have 2/32 of tread left, but I thought the track was the place to finish them off, now I wish I had put the new ones on, but my times were pretty good anyway...so the HP is there, you just have to get to the ground....

 

This is not exactly correct anymore. My Dodge Magnum SRT has a similar pan. (so this means 300s, Chargers, & Challengers also have them - I bet alot of others now)

 

There is absolutely no way Chrysler went with different cams. Not only is it an R&D issue, but had this happened then Chrysler would have then needed to stock replacement cams. The engines are the same and I agree that any HP reduction was due to air restriction and tune.

 

I completely agree that the supposed splash-shield is just a leak-collecting pan. You can keep customers away from warranty work if they have no idea theres a problem, and most leaks won't hurt the car until warranty is up.

And I agree with the guy who said the pans are showing on new chryslers. Thanks to the late 90's partnership of Daimler/Mercedes, chrysler has learned some new tricks.

 

Do the bottom pans help with aerodynamics? I know my GTI also came with one.

 

Wow!

I can't believe this is rearing its ugly head again. Some forum searching will show that the car was simply under-rated by Chrysler. It was a marketing ploy so that the cheaper Chrysler wouldn't be seen having as much power as the much more expensive Mercedes SLK 32 AMG.

You need proof? Simple: go to www.dragtimes.com and look up times on stock SLK 32 AMG's and SRT-6's. They're practically identical. So aside from slightly different aerodynamics, and slightly different weights, the cars run the same numbers. You can't run the same numbers at the track without having the same amount of power.

Also, guys like HDDP have torn the engine apart top to bottom. I believe he said that all the parts are the same as the SLK 3.2 L, except for the injectors. But don't quote me on that.

 

It makes complete sense what you're saying that Chrysler would just underrate the car. But, theres no denying the bottlenecks in the srt-6 intake vs the slk intake. Right? Honestly I haven't seen the slk32 intake but we all know the SL55 intake, and its pretty clear chrysler was intentionally trying to limit air intake.

Also, physically limiting air intake probably means they adjusted the fuel accordingly in the ecu tune also.

 

The wikicar article was indeed written by our fellow members, the SRT-6 engine is exactly the same as a Benz SLK-320AMG & does produce 349hp. As Tom mentions above this has been a topic of discussion for many years & the consensus is that Chrysler understated the hp at Benz request.