A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Ford Mustang
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hemi Challenger



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 29th 07, 02:05 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
John C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 120
Default Hemi Challenger


"BradandBrooks" > wrote in message
news:70pLi.256095$fJ5.199591@pd7urf1no...
>
> "John C." > wrote in message
> news:vRjLi.320$R%1.115@trndny06...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> You're just a little bit off. Total production for the 2007 GT500's
> >> came to 10,844 units with 8,150 of those being coupes and 2,694 being
> >> convertibles.

> > <snip>
> >
> > No kidding?
> >
> > That surprises the hell out of me. It's absolutely amazing that dealers
> > are able
> > to ask (and receive) so much "blue sky" on these cars, with those numbers.
> > It
> > must be the "Shelby" emblem bringing in all the folks that P.T. Barnum
> > told us
> > about.
> >
> > /raising glass/ Here's to the possibility that '08 will have as many
> > produced.
> >
> > John C. (MSRP...or bust)
> > '03 Cobra (improved)
> >
> >

>
> You sound a little bitter.
>


Hehe, I suppose I do.

Nah,... just a little disappointed. I'll live.
<shrug> The market is what it is.

I can't blame the dealers. As long as folks will pay the premium, might as well
maximize profits.
--
John C.
'03 Cobra (improved)






Ads
  #22  
Old September 29th 07, 03:19 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Joe[_56_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Hemi Challenger

WindsorFox > wrote in
:

> My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>> "Joe" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> WindsorFox > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Les Benn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower)
>>>>> even with a blower will be a dog compared to a Hemi Challenger
>>>>> with the new 6.1L Hemi Challenger and besides Ford can only build
>>>>> about 30 of the GT500 Shelbys a year. Dodge will eat them for
>>>>> lunch in sales. How many guys/gals do you know that are willing to
>>>>> buy a GT500 for 22K dealer markup over the 47K sticker? Mustang is
>>>>> all decoration. Dodge will rule again with the Hemi.Well at least
>>>>> There will be lots of mustangs on Dodge used car lots in 2008.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If you're still using the GT500 as a comparison I'd say you're
>>>> under
>>>> an incorrect assumption, especially if the 6 litre is as
>>>> disappointing as the the 5 litre hemi.
>>> So WF, tell us how either of the current Hemi engines are
>>> "disappointing".
>>>
>>> BTW, if you're simply rounding up the 4.7 Hemi to 5 liters and
>>> rounding down the 6.1 to 6, why not just round down the Ford 5.4 to
>>> 5 liters as well? Or why not call the Mustang 4.6 a "5 liter"?

>>
>> Round whatever the hell you want, your Mexican Hemi, no matter the
>> displacement can't hold a candle to Fords 32 valve supercharged 5.4
>> liter. Period...
>>
>>

>
> I don't have any reason to reply to any of his posts, but someone
> should inform him that the smaller hemi is not 4.7 litres and doesn't
> hold a candle to a Nissan 5 litre either, even without a blower.


Typical responses from these jerks.

Ask a simple question without implciation, get back bull****. I
should've known better.
  #23  
Old September 29th 07, 05:33 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Frank ess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 971
Default Hemi Challenger



John C. wrote:
> "BradandBrooks" > wrote in message
> news:70pLi.256095$fJ5.199591@pd7urf1no...
>>
>> "John C." > wrote in message
>> news:vRjLi.320$R%1.115@trndny06...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> You're just a little bit off. Total production for the 2007
>>>> GT500's came to 10,844 units with 8,150 of those being coupes
>>>> and 2,694 being convertibles.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> No kidding?
>>>
>>> That surprises the hell out of me. It's absolutely amazing that
>>> dealers are able
>>> to ask (and receive) so much "blue sky" on these cars, with those
>>> numbers. It
>>> must be the "Shelby" emblem bringing in all the folks that P.T.
>>> Barnum told us
>>> about.
>>>
>>> /raising glass/ Here's to the possibility that '08 will have as
>>> many produced.
>>>
>>> John C. (MSRP...or bust)
>>> '03 Cobra (improved)
>>>
>>>

>>
>> You sound a little bitter.
>>

>
> Hehe, I suppose I do.
>
> Nah,... just a little disappointed. I'll live.
> <shrug> The market is what it is.
>
> I can't blame the dealers. As long as folks will pay the premium,
> might as well maximize profits.


I suppose it costs a dealer less to let a GT500 sit and age on his lot
than he would lose by selling it at a reasonable markup. Someone will
come along with more dollars than sense and drive it away at some
ridiculous price, happy as a clam. One Ford store near me has a
black-with-dark-gray-stripes version (I like it a lot) with one of
those +$22,000 stickers on it. Been there since May. That's a long
time for any kind of product to be on the shelf. When do you suppose
the "best-by" date might be? Sooner or later the pool of
+dollars -sense buyers must run dry?

--
Frank ess

  #24  
Old September 29th 07, 06:15 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
WindsorFox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 449
Default Hemi Challenger

BradandBrooks wrote:
> "John C." > wrote in message
> news:vRjLi.320$R%1.115@trndny06...
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>> <snip>
>>> You're just a little bit off. Total production for the 2007 GT500's
>>> came to 10,844 units with 8,150 of those being coupes and 2,694 being
>>> convertibles.

>> <snip>
>>
>> No kidding?
>>
>> That surprises the hell out of me. It's absolutely amazing that dealers
>> are able
>> to ask (and receive) so much "blue sky" on these cars, with those numbers.
>> It
>> must be the "Shelby" emblem bringing in all the folks that P.T. Barnum
>> told us
>> about.
>>
>> /raising glass/ Here's to the possibility that '08 will have as many
>> produced.
>>
>> John C. (MSRP...or bust)
>> '03 Cobra (improved)
>>
>>

>
> You sound a little bitter.
>


Heh, I'll take that old Cobra off his hands for $12K so he can go
get one of those new GT500s D

--
"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett

"Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but
most of the words have no meaning in English" - Joe Canuck

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek
  #25  
Old September 29th 07, 06:36 PM posted to alt.autos.dodge,rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
WindsorFox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 449
Default Hemi Challenger

wrote:
> On Sep 26, 11:07 pm, "Les Benn" > wrote:
>
>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower)

>
> Oh, you're just being a slanderous *******.
>
>> even with a
>> blower will be a dog compared to a Hemi Challenger with the new 6.1L Hemi
>> Challenger

>
> I like the new Hemi. But I don't see how you've come to this
> conclusion. The 6.1 SRTs only run about 108 in the 1/4. The GT500s
> run an easy 110. (And do we want to add the GT500KRs and KR Super
> Snakes?) Or are you betting because the Challenger is going to be a 2-
> door that it'll be lighter. I say don't bet on it. I think we'll be
> lucky if it's south of 3,900.
>


IMHO the 5 litre hemi is over rated, under powered and drinks gas
like a dragster. I think that if they had used newer technology with OHC
and such. Yes it has 40% more power than the Magnum in my Ram did, but
gets worse mileage. A two door Dodge Ram Rumble Bee with the 345 HP hemi
has loses by at least 2/3 of the length of my Titan against it's four
doors and supposedly 305 HP and I get better mileage. Now I looked a
some of the differences between the 5 and 6 litre hemis and without
knowing it's real world mileage I'll say it's far more satisfying.
However, at least one difference is something that *we* would do after
market and replaces the cast manifolds with stainless tube headers. Also
it's still OHV.

--
"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett

"Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but
most of the words have no meaning in English" - Joe Canuck

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek
  #26  
Old September 30th 07, 02:46 AM posted to alt.autos.dodge,rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Joe[_43_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Hemi Challenger

WindsorFox > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 11:07 pm, "Les Benn" > wrote:
>>
>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower)

>>
>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous *******.
>>
>>> even with a
>>> blower will be a dog compared to a Hemi Challenger with the new 6.1L
>>> Hemi Challenger

>>
>> I like the new Hemi. But I don't see how you've come to this
>> conclusion. The 6.1 SRTs only run about 108 in the 1/4. The GT500s
>> run an easy 110. (And do we want to add the GT500KRs and KR Super
>> Snakes?) Or are you betting because the Challenger is going to be a
>> 2- door that it'll be lighter. I say don't bet on it. I think we'll
>> be lucky if it's south of 3,900.
>>

>
> IMHO the 5 litre hemi is over rated, under powered and drinks gas
> like a dragster. I think that if they had used newer technology with
> OHC and such. Yes it has 40% more power than the Magnum in my Ram did,
> but gets worse mileage. A two door Dodge Ram Rumble Bee with the 345
> HP hemi has loses by at least 2/3 of the length of my Titan against
> it's four doors and supposedly 305 HP and I get better mileage. Now I
> looked a some of the differences between the 5 and 6 litre hemis and
> without knowing it's real world mileage I'll say it's far more
> satisfying. However, at least one difference is something that *we*
> would do after market and replaces the cast manifolds with stainless
> tube headers. Also it's still OHV.


You and your Titan are full of crap. Post some proof, butthead.
  #27  
Old September 30th 07, 02:56 AM posted to alt.autos.dodge,rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
clare at snyder.on.ca
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 286
Default Hemi Challenger

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:36:15 -0500, WindsorFox
> wrote:

wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 11:07 pm, "Les Benn" > wrote:
>>
>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower)

>>
>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous *******.
>>
>>> even with a
>>> blower will be a dog compared to a Hemi Challenger with the new 6.1L Hemi
>>> Challenger

>>
>> I like the new Hemi. But I don't see how you've come to this
>> conclusion. The 6.1 SRTs only run about 108 in the 1/4. The GT500s
>> run an easy 110. (And do we want to add the GT500KRs and KR Super
>> Snakes?) Or are you betting because the Challenger is going to be a 2-
>> door that it'll be lighter. I say don't bet on it. I think we'll be
>> lucky if it's south of 3,900.
>>

>
> IMHO the 5 litre hemi is over rated, under powered and drinks gas
>like a dragster. I think that if they had used newer technology with OHC
>and such. Yes it has 40% more power than the Magnum in my Ram did, but
>gets worse mileage. A two door Dodge Ram Rumble Bee with the 345 HP hemi
>has loses by at least 2/3 of the length of my Titan against it's four
>doors and supposedly 305 HP and I get better mileage. Now I looked a
>some of the differences between the 5 and 6 litre hemis and without
>knowing it's real world mileage I'll say it's far more satisfying.
>However, at least one difference is something that *we* would do after
>market and replaces the cast manifolds with stainless tube headers. Also
>it's still OHV.

Absolutely nothing wrong with an OHV engine. OHC is no panacea and
involves more complex cam drives. OHC only comes into it's own with
high RPM operation. A cam in block V engine wirh pushrods and either
gear or chain camdrive is more durable than any cam-in-head design by
virtue of the chain/belt length and associated wear issues. Hemi head
complicates the push-rod/rocker situation a bit, raising the involved
reciprocating mass, which limits high rpm performance.
Same thing is true of 4 valve technology. Low RPM operation gains
nothing from 4 valve tech unless you also have variable induction
(shut down half of the intake at low RPM) to improve intake velocity
at low speeds.
The 4 cam setup on the Ford Duratec 6 is a potent arrangement above
5000 RPM without suffering from low intake velocity and poor cyl fill
at low RPM because of the variable tuned intake. But what a MISERABLE
peice of equipment to work on - and the 2.5 not only performs like a
3.8, but drinks like one too.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #28  
Old September 30th 07, 03:59 AM posted to alt.autos.dodge,rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
WindsorFox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 449
Default Hemi Challenger

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:36:15 -0500, WindsorFox
> > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sep 26, 11:07 pm, "Les Benn" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower)
>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous *******.
>>>
>>>> even with a
>>>> blower will be a dog compared to a Hemi Challenger with the new 6.1L Hemi
>>>> Challenger
>>> I like the new Hemi. But I don't see how you've come to this
>>> conclusion. The 6.1 SRTs only run about 108 in the 1/4. The GT500s
>>> run an easy 110. (And do we want to add the GT500KRs and KR Super
>>> Snakes?) Or are you betting because the Challenger is going to be a 2-
>>> door that it'll be lighter. I say don't bet on it. I think we'll be
>>> lucky if it's south of 3,900.
>>>

>> IMHO the 5 litre hemi is over rated, under powered and drinks gas
>> like a dragster. I think that if they had used newer technology with OHC
>> and such. Yes it has 40% more power than the Magnum in my Ram did, but
>> gets worse mileage. A two door Dodge Ram Rumble Bee with the 345 HP hemi
>> has loses by at least 2/3 of the length of my Titan against it's four
>> doors and supposedly 305 HP and I get better mileage. Now I looked a
>> some of the differences between the 5 and 6 litre hemis and without
>> knowing it's real world mileage I'll say it's far more satisfying.
>> However, at least one difference is something that *we* would do after
>> market and replaces the cast manifolds with stainless tube headers. Also
>> it's still OHV.



> Absolutely nothing wrong with an OHV engine. OHC is no panacea and
> involves more complex cam drives. OHC only comes into it's own with
> high RPM operation. A cam in block V engine wirh pushrods and either
> gear or chain camdrive is more durable than any cam-in-head design by
> virtue of the chain/belt length and associated wear issues.


I don't buy it. If there were such a difference Ford, Toyota and
Nissan wouldn't have made the change. That may have been true in the
past, but I think they are on equal footing now. As for "only in high
RPM operation," that's no longer true either if you look at the torque
ratings on the 5 litre truck engines by Ford, Nissan and Toyota.




--
"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett

"Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but
most of the words have no meaning in English" - Joe Canuck

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek
  #29  
Old September 30th 07, 05:18 AM posted to alt.autos.dodge,rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Michael Johnson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,039
Default Hemi Challenger

WindsorFox wrote:
> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:36:15 -0500, WindsorFox
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 26, 11:07 pm, "Les Benn" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower)
>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous *******.
>>>>
>>>>> even with a
>>>>> blower will be a dog compared to a Hemi Challenger with the new
>>>>> 6.1L Hemi
>>>>> Challenger
>>>> I like the new Hemi. But I don't see how you've come to this
>>>> conclusion. The 6.1 SRTs only run about 108 in the 1/4. The GT500s
>>>> run an easy 110. (And do we want to add the GT500KRs and KR Super
>>>> Snakes?) Or are you betting because the Challenger is going to be a 2-
>>>> door that it'll be lighter. I say don't bet on it. I think we'll be
>>>> lucky if it's south of 3,900.
>>>>
>>> IMHO the 5 litre hemi is over rated, under powered and drinks gas
>>> like a dragster. I think that if they had used newer technology with
>>> OHC and such. Yes it has 40% more power than the Magnum in my Ram
>>> did, but gets worse mileage. A two door Dodge Ram Rumble Bee with the
>>> 345 HP hemi has loses by at least 2/3 of the length of my Titan
>>> against it's four doors and supposedly 305 HP and I get better
>>> mileage. Now I looked a some of the differences between the 5 and 6
>>> litre hemis and without knowing it's real world mileage I'll say it's
>>> far more satisfying. However, at least one difference is something
>>> that *we* would do after market and replaces the cast manifolds with
>>> stainless tube headers. Also it's still OHV.

>
>
>> Absolutely nothing wrong with an OHV engine. OHC is no panacea and
>> involves more complex cam drives. OHC only comes into it's own with
>> high RPM operation. A cam in block V engine wirh pushrods and either
>> gear or chain camdrive is more durable than any cam-in-head design by
>> virtue of the chain/belt length and associated wear issues.

>
> I don't buy it. If there were such a difference Ford, Toyota and
> Nissan wouldn't have made the change. That may have been true in the
> past, but I think they are on equal footing now. As for "only in high
> RPM operation," that's no longer true either if you look at the torque
> ratings on the 5 litre truck engines by Ford, Nissan and Toyota.


There are a couple of reasons most engines have gone the OHC route. The
first one is reliability which reduces warranty repairs and gives the
buyer better longevity. The second is to maintain performance while
improving fuel economy. The current V-8 in the Mustang is a prime
example. The OHC layout allows for variable valve timing (VVT) which
improves engine performance across the entire rpm range, especially
torque numbers. In todays world I don't really understand why any auto
company would produce a new pushrod engine. Sure they can deliver
performance with them but it is impossible to apply some of the current
technology to them such as VVT.

Another good comparison, IMO, is the old 302 engine to the OHC 4.6L
engine. The 4.6L is an order of magnitude better than the 302. Ford
couldn't come close to the economy levels of the current 300 hp 4.6L
engine. Especially considering the 4.6L with VVT can put out another
30-40 hp with a few tuning tweaks that don't effect its economy during
normal driving. That level of performance with a 302 is possible but
economy flies out the window.
  #30  
Old September 30th 07, 06:57 AM posted to alt.autos.dodge,rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
My Name Is Nobody
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 475
Default Hemi Challenger


"John C." > wrote in message
news:vRjLi.320$R%1.115@trndny06...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> <snip>
>>
>> You're just a little bit off. Total production for the 2007 GT500's
>> came to 10,844 units with 8,150 of those being coupes and 2,694 being
>> convertibles.

> <snip>
>
> No kidding?
>
> That surprises the hell out of me. It's absolutely amazing that dealers
> are able
> to ask (and receive) so much "blue sky" on these cars, with those numbers.
> It
> must be the "Shelby" emblem bringing in all the folks that P.T. Barnum
> told us
> about.
>


NO it's 500 factory horsepower for $43,000 MSRP! I could care less if
Shelby or SVT is involved or not.


> /raising glass/ Here's to the possibility that '08 will have as many
> produced.
>
> John C. (MSRP...or bust)
> '03 Cobra (improved)
>
>



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hemi Challenger Les Benn[_2_] Dodge 132 October 16th 07 06:49 PM
Autos 1969 - 1977 ] [150de467] - 1970 Dodge Challenger Hemi(2).jpg (6/6) yvonttycomprendre Auto Photos 0 September 15th 07 11:09 PM
Last ones - File 129 of 139 - 1970 Dodge Hemi Challenger RT plum crazy fvl.jpg (1/1) Mike G[_2_] Auto Photos 0 December 31st 06 08:31 AM
Last ones - File 128 of 139 - 1970 Dodge Hemi Challenger RT plum crazy Engine.jpg (1/1) Mike G[_2_] Auto Photos 0 December 31st 06 08:30 AM
REPOST (By req): Gilmore Auto Museum - Sep 05 - 1970 Dodge Challenger R-T Hemi - fvr.jpg (1/1) Roadsign[_2_] Auto Photos 0 December 22nd 06 02:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.