Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

WS-6 vs Charger SRT-8

This is a discussion on WS-6 vs Charger SRT-8 within the Kill Stories forums, part of the Racing Forums category; Well I am stopped at a light the other day and I see the charger pull out and turn onto ...

  1. #1
    Member 2001hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    213

    Black & Black
    2001 Firehawk & 2002 WS-6

    WS-6 vs Charger SRT-8

    Well I am stopped at a light the other day and I see the charger pull out and turn onto the road I am on. The light is about to change so I hurry up and play catch up. When I get up to it I can see that it is the SRT-8, so now I am hopeful that he we get space to run them. Since we were in traffic I could get ahead and behind the woman driving and get a good look at it. We were approaching a light that I could have made but wanted to get caught at the light with the charger. I am in the right lane and the charger is in the left lane. The charger hasn't thrown me a rev or anything so I wasn't going to launch it hard. When the light turned green I got rolling first when I heard tires and RPMs from the SRT-8, so I put it down. Through first and into second I had probably two cars. We are catching traffic now so have to shut it down. Pretty respectable, but for 500 horses they need to go on a diet BAD. Had it been a roll it would have probably been closer.
    Short version - my WS-6 vs Charger SRT-8 from a dig. Charger goes down by a few cars to 40 or 50 MPH.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    158

    Blue
    99 Z28

    Nice kill. As heavy as they are, they're pretty quick. From what I understand, their stock times are very close to ls1 f-body stock times.

  3. #3
    Junior Member Twistingreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    79

    White
    2001 Camaro

    Good kill. They are pretty heavy car, but still quick.

  4. #4
    Junior Member PAULlikesyourcar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Age
    32
    Posts
    75

    golden
    89 grand prix

    they only have 425 hp not 500

  5. #5
    Senior Member mrr23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    orlando, fl
    Posts
    7,134

    dark bowling green
    2000 corvette

    a friend of mine just took his to the track. went 13.2

  6. #6
    Senior Member slims00ls1z28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    1,212

    2005 GTO M6 Black
    2000 Z28 A4 Red

    AWD is its best advantage biggest drawback. What was the trap on that 13.2? Haven't had a chance to run one yet but looking foreward to it though.

  7. #7
    Senior Member mrr23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    orlando, fl
    Posts
    7,134

    dark bowling green
    2000 corvette

    from him directly

    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty
    Not so good weather conditions but it wasn't terrible.

    The car has 3 modes of traction control. I finally learned how to disable all of the traction control today and what a different world the car is launching it.

    I was able to pull off a 1.9 60' with these 20" rims and tires and only 255 wide.


    13.2 @ 106.9 mph




    I know it has more in it. We took video of the car but the video is on someone's camera that will probably take forever to get off and into my posession (spelling?).


    Anyway, I know it has high 12's in it and a higher MPH with way better weather conditions. And I'm still Bone stock with only 1,200 miles on the odometer.



    Here is a quick video one of my friends took of the car. The other video we purposely took is very good quality and I'm waiting for it. This run I went 13.2 @ 103 MPH with a 1.9 60'. After this run I let the car sit for two runs and it got real dark and a tad bit cooler. I gained almost 4 mph but my 60' was a 2.0x and I still went 13.2 I could of had a flat 13 at that point I think if my 60' was a 1.9


  8. #8
    Member 2001hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    213

    Black & Black
    2001 Firehawk & 2002 WS-6

    Quote Originally Posted by PAULlikesyourcar View Post
    they only have 425 hp not 500
    Ok I stand corrected. Guess that is what I get for taking a friends word for something and not double checking the facts. After checking supercars.net it says 425 horses, 420 lb/ft of torque, 4168 lbs and a 13.0 quarter mile. Don't guess 425 is really close to 500. Looks like I need to find my friend at work and smack him on the back of the head. After looking at the numbers it isn't really surprising the charger went down.

  9. #9
    Bolt-On Pimp ImpalaSSpeed96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ND
    Posts
    360

    Black
    01 Camaro SS

    Quote Originally Posted by cavpat View Post
    Nice kill. As heavy as they are, they're pretty quick. From what I understand, their stock times are very close to ls1 f-body stock times.
    No, they are much faster than the stock F-body times. They have no traction though. The HP numbers are underated. For the MPH I have seen them run, I think we have a classic case like the old buicks. I have never seen one go below a 13.2. Best trap speed i have seen was 110. GC was running 13.1s the other night at 103 and 104. Best time I have seen was in cold wx, 300C went 12.6 at 109 w/ only a CAI. They are insanely fast..... The GC cut a 1.80 60' the other night. I was absolutely shocked. All these times were on stock vehicles as well.
    96 Imp SS- 12.74@103, 1.74 60' out of fuel

    06 AWD TB SS- 12.58@106, 1.76 60'

    01 Camaro SS- Totaled

  10. #10
    Junior Member PAULlikesyourcar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Age
    32
    Posts
    75

    golden
    89 grand prix

    Quote Originally Posted by 2001hawk View Post
    Ok I stand corrected. Guess that is what I get for taking a friends word for something and not double checking the facts. After checking supercars.net it says 425 horses, 420 lb/ft of torque, 4168 lbs and a 13.0 quarter mile. Don't guess 425 is really close to 500. Looks like I need to find my friend at work and smack him on the back of the head. After looking at the numbers it isn't really surprising the charger went down.
    with that curb weight and the way they perform the 425 horse rating seems a little conservative though. if you ever hear one with headers and an exhaust they'll make you drool. they actually have a good tone stock too. if i were in the market for a big 4 door performance car i think i might prefer this over the ctsv but then again the caddy offers a manual trans.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    San Jose area
    Posts
    273

    Silver
    06 Charger SRT-8

    Quote Originally Posted by ImpalaSSpeed96 View Post
    No, they are much faster than the stock F-body times. They have no traction though. The HP numbers are underated. For the MPH I have seen them run, I think we have a classic case like the old buicks. I have never seen one go below a 13.2. Best trap speed i have seen was 110. GC was running 13.1s the other night at 103 and 104. Best time I have seen was in cold wx, 300C went 12.6 at 109 w/ only a CAI. They are insanely fast..... The GC cut a 1.80 60' the other night. I was absolutely shocked. All these times were on stock vehicles as well.
    We get 2.0 60fts as the norm, conditions depending and 1.9s are possible. I wouldn't say "much" faster, but there are more stock ones running 12s with 110mph trap speeds. I know F-bodies can trap 109mph stock, but it's rare.

    To the OP, the woman probably left the ESP ON, which means at least .3ths to pick up in the 1/4.

  12. #12
    Impounded
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,159

    Red
    2000 Trans Am

    I personally think they killed the charger, those cars used to be a thing of beauty now they just look to square and fat for my taste.

    I mean who here can say they would take a new one over the 69 or 70 charger.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    San Jose area
    Posts
    273

    Silver
    06 Charger SRT-8

    Quote Originally Posted by 2000T/A Guru View Post
    I personally think they killed the charger, those cars used to be a thing of beauty now they just look to square and fat for my taste.

    I mean who here can say they would take a new one over the 69 or 70 charger.
    300s are worse...

    Someone who wants to tie it at the drag strip, smoke it on the road circuit, not deal with 40yr old technology (and brakes) and likes all the luxury.

    If I had a choice for a 2nd car, a '68 or so Hemi Dart....

  14. #14
    Impounded
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,159

    Red
    2000 Trans Am

    There are better cars for all the things you described.
    Its really just the look, im glad you like it but i cant stand it
    Plus only the srt-8 has good performance the rest are even worse looking and weak cars.

  15. #15
    LS1-TA schrysler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    utah
    Age
    34
    Posts
    427

    Red
    1998 Trans Am Vert

    I Dont Know, I Am A Little Nervous For The Challanger To Come Out. But Then Again It Will Go Up Against The New Camaro (ls7 Please Please!)
    1998 Trans Am Vert, M6, Soon to be full of goodies......

  16. #16
    Impounded
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,159

    Red
    2000 Trans Am

    eh, im sure the challenger wil lbe nice and i like the look ive seen so far, but its not gonna touch the vette thats obvious.

  17. #17
    Junior Member PAULlikesyourcar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Age
    32
    Posts
    75

    golden
    89 grand prix

    Quote Originally Posted by 2000T/A Guru View Post
    eh, im sure the challenger wil lbe nice and i like the look ive seen so far, but its not gonna touch the vette thats obvious.
    that's what the new 600bhp viper is for not the challenger, the challenger is new camaro/gt500 comp.

  18. #18
    Impounded
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,159

    Red
    2000 Trans Am

    Right but the new viper will still loose against the 650 hp supercharged vette.

  19. #19
    Junior Member PAULlikesyourcar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Age
    32
    Posts
    75

    golden
    89 grand prix

    and just how do you know that?!

  20. #20
    Impounded
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,159

    Red
    2000 Trans Am

    The vetter is lighter with more hp. DUN DUN DUN

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Best charger??
    By sparkman0034 in forum External Engine
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-22-2010, 03:55 PM
  2. GTO vs Charger @ MIR 04/27
    By Damage Inc. in forum Eastern Members
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-25-2008, 04:20 PM
  3. New Charger ?s
    By MaxPlusTen in forum Almost Anything Goes
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 08:42 AM
  4. me vs charger srt-8!
    By tigersport14 in forum Kill Stories
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 04-11-2008, 11:19 PM
  5. R/T Charger
    By Fade2Black in forum Kill Stories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-31-2006, 09:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •