Motor January 2016 - Chrysler 300 SRT v HSV R8

[Syndrome]

Article says the Holden has atrocious fuel consumption but nowhere in the article does it mention the actual figure. Must be pretty bad if they did not want to show it. Can't put one of the main sponsors of the magazine in a bad light.......

[Big_Daz]

I think you will find its in the Information page (where the price, power, etc is)...

[Chopped]

WHAT??! A 6.2ltr Supercharged 400kw V8 in an 1800kg sedan uses a lot of fuel when driven like it should be....I don't believe it.

[Dave R]

Calling it atrocious is some kind of twisted favour? A favour would have been to print the economy figure somewhere but not talk about it in the article. Even then, I think it goes without saying that a large sedan powered by a 6.2L supercharged V8 will drink. If you can afford the 80 or 90 grand they're asking, I'm sure you can afford the fuel.

[4vxc]

Originally Posted by Chopped

WHAT??! A 6.2ltr Supercharged 400kw V8 in an 1800kg sedan uses a lot of fuel when driven like it should be....I don't believe it.

exactly who gives a crap when you are buying a performance car

[Syndrome]

Originally Posted by Big_Daz

I think you will find its in the Information page (where the price, power, etc is)...

You think I have not already looked at that section. Not listed.

[mick74GT]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

You think I have not already looked at that section. Not listed.

Of course in a road thrash it will have terrible fuel consumption. I have an E3 Maloo. Averaging under 12L/100k as a daily (work ute) for the last 20,000ks . 40 % inner brisbane traffic 60% m1 to te Gold Coast everyday. It's great on fuel.

Got an xb gt as well. Would probably just get to Brisbane and back from the GC on a tank of juice lol. They've come a long way

[Syndrome]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Calling it atrocious is some kind of twisted favour? A favour would have been to print the economy figure somewhere but not talk about it in the article. Even then, I think it goes without saying that a large sedan powered by a 6.2L supercharged V8 will drink. If you can afford the 80 or 90 grand they're asking, I'm sure you can afford the fuel.

True. But it was only the R8 which was labelled as atrocious. The SRT is faster, cheaper and uses less fuel.

[1TUFFUTE]

Let's assume the guys testing the large heavy v8s aren't dumb enough to allready know the fuel will be terrible.......but to then add on that its atrocious....says something to possible buyers in my opinion.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

True. But it was only the R8 which was labelled as atrocious. The SRT is faster, cheaper and uses less fuel.

But the N/A R8 was quicker than the SRT, how can the LSA be slower?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

True. But it was only the R8 which was labelled as atrocious. The SRT is faster, cheaper and uses less fuel.

Being blown, it was always going to drink more than the NA SRT, particularly given how those journos would have been driving them. What's interesting is their claim that the SRT was quicker (in a straight line I assume, unless Chrysler have made some changes to that chassis). What were the numbers? Lately Motor's straight line testing has been controversial to say the least.

[Brazen]

I think they throw terms around like that so they can seem socially or environmentally responsible.

I was reading a review about the new Landcruiser based Lexus LX570 with a 5.7 litre V8 and weighs 2.7 tonnes and they were saying how bad fuel use is at around 16 litres per 100km and I'm thinking Ive known of BA Falcons that get worse.

I think it's a bit hyperbole sometimes.

[chookaradley]

In a recent Carsguide comparo the SRT did a 4.5, 0-100. Whilst the Redline and XR8 both did 4.9. Would not surprise if the SRT matched the LSA R8

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by chookaradley

In a recent Carsguide comparo the SRT did a 4.5, 0-100. Whilst the Redline and XR8 both did 4.9. Would not surprise if the SRT matched the LSA R8

I thought they were still a high 12, 13ish second rig? Regardless, the way in which the 6.4 does it (NA and that sound) is the bee's knees.

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

True. But it was only the R8 which was labelled as atrocious. The SRT is faster, cheaper and uses less fuel.

So what was the outcome of the comparison between these two? Was there a winner? What were the 0-100 and 1/4 mile time etc? You have to give us more from the review than just the R8 had bad fuel economy..

[Robos F6]

I think the R8 ran 12.60 and the SRT8 ran 12.67, plus the SRT8 now runs a 8 speed tranny which surely helps

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Being blown, it was always going to drink more than the NA SRT, particularly given how those journos would have been driving them. What's interesting is their claim that the SRT was quicker (in a straight line I assume, unless Chrysler have made some changes to that chassis). What were the numbers? Lately Motor's straight line testing has been controversial to say the least.

Keep in mind that the 350 kW Chrysler now has an 8 speed Auto VS the HSV's 6 speed auto. Weights are quoted at 1965 kg for the Chrysler and 1974 Kg for the HSV wagon.
Motor clearly got the cars to hook up well as you can see from the 0-60 kilometre per hour times, and from my own GPS timing data, I'd confidently say that their 60 foot times (with maximum rollout) should have been around 1.8 seconds which is hard to beat in a front engine rear drive roadcar on street tyres. I think the track must have been very good.
The GPS measured times that they printed from Heathcote are below, temperature is listed at 27 degrees, and for an interesting comparison I've added two bits of my own GPS data that my stock untuned FG Turbo Auto has managed.
I've taken 0-60 km/h data from a run that my car managed at high altitude on a high grip surface (0-60 km/h in 2.27 seconds at 25 degrees with full fuel load, 90 kg driver and 20 kg's in boot) and used the very accurate Racelogic software to work out exactly what 400 metre time and speed that particular 0-60 km/h launch would have given my car if I could have matched it when I ran the car at WSID on my first run (there wasn't enough grip on the night to get a particularly good 1st gear launch in Drive and on that first run I launched in second gear which gave an actual 12.97 sec 400 metre time at 180.04 km/h and I got a 12.731 second timeslip).
I should mention that the temperature at WSID was 8 degrees cooler than what Motor had at Heathcote (I had 19 degrees) and apparently according to SAE tables that could have given my car a modest power advantage of around 1.6%. I had a full sized spare and jack in the boot and the equivalent of just over half a tank fuel load.

Chrysler 300 SRT.......HSV Supercharged Wagon...Stock Untuned XR6 T Auto
0-10..........0.29...........0.30
0-20..........0.67...........0.65................... ..................0.63 seconds
0-30..........1.01...........0.96
0-40..........1.40...........1.35................... ..................1.45
0-50..........1.82...........1.74
0-60..........2.24...........2.18................... ..................2.27

0-70..........2.72...........2.69................... ..................2.81
0-80..........3.27...........3.23................... ..................3.36
0-90..........3.82...........3.88................... ..................3.92
0-100........4.49...........4.54.................... ..................4.51 sec @ 70.31 M

0-110........5.20...........5.32.................... ..................5.18
0-120........5.94...........6.11.................... ..................6.07
0-130........6.69...........6.96.................... ..................6.95
0-140........7.66...........7.86.................... ..................7.85
0-150........8.65...........8.83.................... ..................8.83
0-160........9.69...........9.94.................... ..................9.91
0-170.......11.08..........11.23.................... ................11.11
0-180.......12.50..........12.57.................... ................12.62 sec @ 397.21m

400m.12.60@180.54....12.67@180.75 km/h.................12.68sec@ 180.24 k's

[2242100]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

So what was the outcome of the comparison between these two? Was there a winner? What were the 0-100 and 1/4 mile time etc? You have to give us more from the review than just the R8 had bad fuel economy..

The HSV got the win by the "slimmest of margins" they said.

[shaness8]

Originally Posted by 40RDT

So what was the outcome of the comparison between these two? Was there a winner? What were the 0-100 and 1/4 mile time etc? You have to give us more from the review than just the R8 had bad fuel economy..

HSV R8 wins, they said SRT goes hard $17000 cheaper, as for performance there's nothing in it.

[Cobra]

That 6.4 Hemi is a beast. Surely it's pushing more than 350kw? I love it how it's a bees' dick quicker in every way than the LSA - that's got to upset the apple cart a bit! I know that the HSV runs a six speed tranny versus the eight speed of the SRT, but seriously that 400kw LSA powered wagon is slower than a 335kw R-Spec GT.

[701let]

Originally Posted by Cobra

That 6.4 Hemi is a beast. Surely it's pushing more than 350kw? I love it how it's a bees' dick quicker in every way than the LSA - that's got to upset the apple cart a bit! I know that the HSV runs a six speed tranny versus the eight speed of the SRT, but seriously that 400kw LSA powered wagon is slower than a 335kw R-Spec GT.

That's the slowest LSA powered HSV I've seen. Maybe it was just that vehicle?

[chookaradley]

Im really surprised at tge Clubsports weight. I thought the SRT would have it well covered, but the LSA engine must be one heavy mill.

[b0son]

Well, the N/A R8 hoses the SRT around a track https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mviQwqKwjnc

I'm guessing the LSA would be quicker still.

[chopstar87]

the biggest issue with the SRTs is launching them.. they are difficult to get a good launch (245 rears), but If you do,, Boom!

the big thing about the 392 Hemi is its torque... yes its 350kw, but the Torque is 637nm from a NA engine.. and the 8 speed would be helping a lot as well. if you can keep the wheel spin down when launching the vehicle, you will get a great time... too many people don't launch the thing correctly, so the times can be very all over the place.. I have seen people get the new model down to 4.3 to 100

am I shocked a HSV win here... nope.. its motor... lol!

[Qwerty321]

To be honest if parts were cheap and quite common I'd make a beeline for the Chrysler. Whilst the SRT may look better (debatable. It looks mafia which I love) and drive better, the HSV would be way easier on the wallet.

[nstg8a]

The lsa really is getting horrendous fuel consumption figures.


My boss bought a gts when they first came out, and quite a few jiggly issues (like a lot of Aussie built stuff, price doesn't remove that issue) but the fuel usage was unreal.

I know people say it's a big supercharged v8, you don't buy them for them for the fuel economy.
Put it this way, he never got more than 250kays from a tank city driving, and Open road driving made little difference.
It spend more time at the workshop than it did at his house in the few months he had it. They admitted the fuel usage was way outside accepted figure but couldn't work out why.
HSV actually ended up 'buying' it back off him, and he ended up buying a n/a r8.

He's a long time HSV buyer, he knows what to expect buying big v8s.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by 701let

That's the slowest LSA powered HSV I've seen. Maybe it was just that vehicle?

How much slower than the GTS are the 400kw R8s etc? That wagon seems to be pretty heavy, bordering on two tonnes.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Chopped

WHAT??! A 6.2ltr Supercharged 400kw V8 in an 1800kg sedan uses a lot of fuel when driven like it should be....I don't believe it.

It was actually just shy of 2000kg, probably well over 2000kg as tested. You can safely assume that when people comment on the LSA's horrendous fuel consumption, they've factored in a 6.2L blown engine guzzling fuel. But when that fuel consumption is above and beyond even what's reasonably expected even for a blown V8, you can expect some questions to be asked. Everything has a limit, and even blown V8s must somewhat conform to the relative expectations.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Cobra

That 6.4 Hemi is a beast. Surely it's pushing more than 350kw? I love it how it's a bees' dick quicker in every way than the LSA - that's got to upset the apple cart a bit! I know that the HSV runs a six speed tranny versus the eight speed of the SRT, but seriously that 400kw LSA powered wagon is slower than a 335kw R-Spec GT.

Looking closely at the low speed data shows that both cars launched extremely well so I wouldn't be surprised if the cars tanks were about full and with 80 kg drivers, that would bring the Chryslers weight to around 2045 kg (4508 pounds) and the HSV's weight to around 2054 kg's (4528 pounds).
Using the "Wallace Racing ET and MPH in 1/4 Calculator" and putting in the end speeds and weights gave me an estimated 373.77 kW (501.24 HP) for the Chrysler and 376.75 kW (505.23 hp) for the HSV.
I think it's worth keeping in mind that in addition to it's having 2 more gears than the HSV, the Chrysler has a new transmission, so I'd expect it to drag less power than the HSV's transmission which I believe is known as a heavy duty transmission, so perhaps the Chryslers engine might be looking just a little bit too good by comparison.
That said though it seems to be a great motor and a good car.
I should mention that when I used the Calculator, I took 1 k off the Motor end speeds, because Dragstrip end speeds are averaged over the last 66 feet and Motors Racelogic end speed data would have been the speed at 400 metres. At this performance level around 1 k is the correct adjustment to make.
In summary I'm thinking that the HSV may perhaps have been just a bit short of 400 kW and the Chrysler may just have been a bit better than the claimed 355 kW figure.

Interestingly when I calculated my stock untuned XR6 Turbo's power from it's end speed and racing weight, it came out at 335.9 kW, but I had a temperature advantage which would have handed my car a bit over a 1.5% power advantage, so to get a rough idea I'll take off 1.5% and that would bring my car to 330.86 kW at the flywheel.

Of course that's way above the claimed 270 kW, but as my GPS test gear has shown, the car gets a 10% acceleration boost from 98 fuel compared to 91, so as I was using the premium fuel I suspect it was getting somewhere around 10% more power and as Dyno tests have indicated, the overboost appears to be worth 10 to 12%.
So if I add 10% to 270 and then add a further 11%, I get 329.67 kW which is just over 1 kW short of the above 330.86 kW figure and my Dyno sheets point to it having close to 330 kw at the flywheel.
A bit off topic I know, but I suspect still of interest to quite a few forum members.

As a final point, a former FPV employee who should definitely know, has told me that the F6 also has an overboost feature that is worth around 10% above it's 310 kW figure so that would put it at 341 kW and I suspect that might be a conservative figure. Note though that it's 310 figure was obtained on 98 fuel).