Australian Factory Supercar's Quarter Mile Times

[dave289]

Just how good was the e49 r/t charger.A very underated car.To post those times back then from what i beleive is a six cylinder car is very very impresive.

[Campo81]

Originally Posted by Steffo

FPV F6 Typhoon - 13.5 (magazine) 12.7 (real life at the strip)
FPV GT - 13.7 (magazine) 13.3 (real life at the strip)
HSV GTS 307 VE - 13.5 (magazine) 12.9 (real life at the strip)
HSV GTO VZ - 13.0
HSV SV300 - 13.2
Ford Falcon XR8 BA/F - 13.8 (magazine) 13.6 (real life at the strip)
Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo BF - 13.7
Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo BA - 13.9
Ford TE50 AUIII - 14.2 (magazine) 13.6 (real life at the strip)
Ford TE50 AUII & XR8 220kW - 14.3
Ford TE50 AU & XR8 200kW - 14.5
Ford Falcon GT EL - 14.9
Holden Commodore SS VX - 13.9
Holden Commodore SS VY - 13.8
Holden Commodore SS VZ LS1 & 6.0 - 13.7
Holden Commodore SS VE - 13.4

All I can think of for now... will post more when something pops into my head... haha

Did you remember them all or look em up?

[MethodX]

Ya it was a six. Triple webber Carbs.
On modern rubber they have recorded times in the 13's.

[Sorted]

Originally Posted by dave289

Just how good was the e49 r/t charger.A very underated car.To post those times back then from what i beleive is a six cylinder car is very very impresive.

Originally Posted by MethodX

Ya it was a six. Triple webber Carbs.
On modern rubber they have recorded times in the 13's

I can vouch for that

[dave289]

like i said very underated the e49.look at that 225 kw and 433 nm .0-96 km in 5.1.or is that 6.1?

0-160 kph e49 -14.1
e55-21.2.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by MethodX

The Corvette ZL1 - With the all aluminium big block.
low 11, high 10's.

http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/FAPC/ZL1Corvette.htm

The Yenko and Baldwin Motion Chevs.
Fast, and worth a packet.

I was going to mention the Yenco 427 Nova. 13.2 seconds for 1/4 and 10's with slicks.

[mcnews]

I have a Sports Car World magazine from 1972 that said the E49 could get to 100mph and stopped again before a 350 Monaro could get to 100mph :-)

----
paste below
-----


Road Test - Valiant Charger R/T E-49 (Sports Car World October 1972)

The stopwatches don't lie - but it's pretty hard to believe. A 0-100 mph time of 14.1 seconds! That's really flying - and the engine's no thumping V8 nor four cam V12.

It's Chrysler Australia's 4.3-litre in-line six, in a stormer called the Charger RT E49. Chrysler managed to scrape through the supercar furore that killed the phase four HO and Torana V8.

It had the first batch of its Bathurst contenders built before the storm broke, and in the hullabaloo over the GMH and Ford cars somehow the Charger was overlooked. So few people, us included, were prepared for the phenomenal performance of the E49.

It seems incredible that mild (mainly cam grind) changes to last year's E38 engine and the addition of the new four-speed gearbox can have done so much for straight line performance without sacrificing tractability.

The three-speed E38 was a brilliant enough performer, running the standing quarter in 15 seconds with a best of 14.8 and to 100 mph in 16.5 seconds. A Porsche 911S, generally acknowledged as the worlds best six-cylinder performer couldn't even match this time to 100 mph, putting down 17.1 seconds and getting over the quarter in 14.7. So the E49, which is utterly untroubled to lay 14.4 second quarters and record those 14.1 times to 100 mph is in a realm on its own.

Has there ever been a six that went like this? God knows, we thought the Phase Three HO was quick, and its time to 100 mph was 15.2 seconds. What would the Phase Four have done?

With such fantastic performance and with the restrictions that the three-speed gearbox placed on cam work removed, it would not have been unreasonable to expect the E49 to be a fussy, snorting sort of mill, with a power peak that came in like an elevator in the Empire State building.

But not so.

The most immediately noticeable thing about the engine is its tractability. We were hopping from an E38 into the car and getting backwards and forwards while we had it on test, and for low-speed ability there was nothing in it. The only difference came in peak hour traffic jams when the E49s plugs oiled up much more quickly.

On cold mornings it fired consistently with the first twist of the starter, not needing nor having a choke, and pulled smoothly and easily, with never a trace of falter. In fact, so willing was the engine from cold we had to keep reminding ourselves to let it warm up before opening up a bit.

Naturally, the hot six isn't as smooth nor strong at the bottom end as a V8, but it is still alarmingly steady down low. For instance, you can drive round town at a steady 1500 rpm - 30 mph - and never feel the need to change down unless you want hard acceleration. In fact the engine needs to come down close to 1000 rpm before it grumbles at all. Even then, with gentle throttle pressure it will still pull away smoothly enough and still with more strength than most drivers will ever feel.

But in terms relative to this engine, its real oomph begins from around 3000 rpm. That's where you really start to know you're flying, and can see the tacho needle starting to flash around the dial. The engine's maximum 302 bhp is developed at 5400 rpm, with the 320 lb/ft of torque at 4100 rpm.

We picked 5500 rpm as a Working limit, though the car will run past this quite easily if you want to go well into the red. At 5500 the gear maximums are 40, 61 and 85 mph, with a top speed of 112 mph. For the race track, with blue-printed engines, another 1000 rpm can be added to this, so that the car will easily top 130 mph.

Now, with such low maximum performance speeds you can see that in conjunction with the new gearbox Chrysler has used a lower diff ratio. It is 3.5 to one, and quite obviously it's a major reason for the E49 going so hard. This means that as long-legged touring car the Charger has lost some of its appeal but in mountain country and on the race track it's much better than the E38. The new Borg-Warner four-speed box suits the engine very well. The ratios feel particularly pleasant for full-bore performance, bringing the power on a smooth consistent zoom.

The shift itself is nice to use, still a little notchy, but with short throws. Location is excellent, and since the knob must be pushed down before you can slide the stick across to the left and forward for reverse there's no chance of picking it up accidentally.

With the well-spaced ratios and the totally instantaneous performance of the mill, the Charger is a hard-driving motorist's dream on the road. So strong is the top gear pull - take a look at our overtaking times - that down-shifting to power out of corners or overtake isn't necessary unless you really want to fly. That is, take 3.3 seconds (in third) to blast from 70 to 90 mph instead of top's mere 4.9!

I find it difficult to convey just what it's like to drive a car like this really fast. But I believe that unless you are an extremely experienced, capable driver you should not try. That doesn't mean that the Charger is difficult to drive at moderate speeds - it isn't. In fact, it's so fuss-free your mother could puddle back and forwards to the supermarket in it.

By the same token, it's not a particularly pleasant car to meander along in, especially on a winding road. Without the power being squirted on to make the car respond the way it is built to - as a racing car - the steering feels vague and sloppy and you tend to get frustrated because you think you're wandering around on the road too much.

But when the power is wound on hard, either in second, third or top the car responds. It responds beautifully, like a Ferrari or Lamborghini Miura. But you'd better know what you are doing because you will be going so hard you'll get few second chances. You need to know exactly why and how much you should back off the throttle coming into a bend, and what happens when you do.

You need to link gentle throttle movements - remember, you're controlling 302 bhp - to minimal steering wheel movements, and to have the whole lot set up on exactly the right line.

You need to know how and when to brake, and how to use the brakes to advantage to set the car up with the tail kicked out coming into a bend, because there is just so much power hard acceleration out of a 90 mph bend will have you going into the next one at 110, perhaps without realising how rapidly you've accelerated.

In short, you need to understand and be able to manage a big motor car very, very well. If you can't, you'll have little pleasure because it will scare the hell out of you and you'll only be aware of the wasted potential.

However, for someone who does know, the motoring is just magnificent. The car is a racing machine and it acts that way, responding to throttle, brakes and steering quite superbly. We ran 32/30 psi front to rear in the Goodyear Grand Rallies on the wide 7-inch ROH mags and found the selection perfect for the road.

The mildest understeer was detectable on tame or trailing throttle, with power evening this up to neutrality, and then mild power oversteer coming on during full-bore driving.

Roadholding, stability and safety is brilliant - as it should be.

As a test, we backed off sharply in a fairly tight bend at 90 mph. Doing this in some cars would produce an instant spin, or at best require desperate correction. Not so the Charger. The tail moved out fractionally and the nose tucked in to a similar degree, but that was it. Simply, it's just superbly stable and safe from this point of view.

Brakes on our car were not good. To make the pedal easier to push for road use, Chrysler had fitted the test car with a power booster. But the linings and pads had not been uprated accordingly and they were flat out to stop the car in 145 ft from 60 mph. They faded badly too. We'd have preferred the standard, unassisted picks even though they require big pressures to work.

To go with the new performance Chrysler has uprated the Charger's rear springs from 120 psi to 160 psi. This has stiffened the ride slightly, but it is still quite good for open road touring, and the benefits instability and handling are obvious.

There is some axle hop over heavy bumps but you quickly learn to allow for that.

The driving position annoys many people because the wheel is big and slopes slightly towards the right. Pedal layout is good except that the toe-and-heeling should be improved. And the dipswitch location is poor.

The Chargers instruments are small, but easy to see. The tacho, from normal production models, is red-lined unrealistically at 5000 rpm - 4000 below maximum bhp. Once again we noticed that the oil pressure gauge was unreliable, often oscillating furiously. The tacho on our car was also dangerously inaccurate, reading 4500 rpm at a genuine 5500 rpm.

The Charger does have spotlights mounted in its grille, but they're not good enough for the performance.

Trumpet horns are a sensible fitting, though.

Personally, we dislike inertia reel seatbelts in a performance car - you want to be held infirmly. The upper belt location is poor in the Charger too, so that the belt cuts into the back of your neck. The seats both front and rear are very good.

This particular Charger was the second we have had with a badly out-of-balance tail shaft, too. This set up a frightful vibration above 100 mph. Chrysler has a problem with them. Let's hope it's sorted out soon - a dropped shaft in such a high performer could be disastrous.

The fuel tank in the test car was the small 17.5 galloner, not the 35-gallon race job. Fuel consumption was surprisingly low for the performance. Running the test track figures dropped it to a worst of 13.8. On the open road you easily get 15 mpg.

Such is the incredible E49, a road-going racer and a damned good one at that.

It's excitement to the extreme, a high-performer that will probably set the outright six-cylinder performance standards for a long, long time.

Specifications

Make Chrysler
Model Valiant Charger E49
Price $4300
Weight 3010 lb
Fuel Consumption
Overall 13.8 mpg
Cruising 15-17 mpg
Acceleration
0-60mph 6.1 sec
0-100mph 14.1 sec
Quarter Mile 14.4 sec

P.S. The best 'drivers' car I have ever driven.

[4Vman]

I wish they tested the Phase 3 with the 3.9 ratio diff, its an easy 13 second car with the short ratio. Still, 14.1 from the 3.25 rear wasn't bad considering the aweful traction problems it had with the aquaskids..

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Campo81

Did you remember them all or look em up?

Remember them all.

That's just the tip of the iceberg... :

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I wish they tested the Phase 3 with the 3.9 ratio diff, its an easy 13 second car with the short ratio. Still, 14.1 from the 3.25 rear wasn't bad considering the aweful traction problems it had with the aquaskids..

Is it true that a forum member did 12.9s with with his Fairmont that had an HO spec motor?

Can't remember where, but I read it here somewhere.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Is it true that a forum member did 12.9s with with his Fairmont that had an HO spec motor?

Can't remember where, but I read it here somewhere.

A friend has done a 13.8 with his phase 3 with 3.5 rear and std spec HO Motor, the only difference was modern tyres.
The HO is deceptively heavy too, at 3600lbs its nearly 600lbs heavier than the E49, that's like carrying 3 extra people in the car.

[Sorted]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

A friend has done a 13.8 with his phase 3 with 3.5 rear and std spec HO Motor, the only difference was modern tyres.
The HO is deceptively heavy too, at 3600lbs its nearly 600lbs heavier than the E49, that's like carrying 3 extra people in the car.

Your forget to mention the HO has:-
2 extra cylinders
86 more Cubes
1.46 more Litres

if 100kgs is .1 of a second what is 600lbs? I am not that old so I dont understand lbs..........

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by DRHEMI

Your forget to mention the HO has:-
2 extra cylinders
86 more Cubes
1.46 more Litres

if 100kgs is .1 of a second what is 600lbs? I am not that old so I dont understand lbs..........

600lbs = 272.72kg.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by DRHEMI

Your forget to mention the HO has:-
2 extra cylinders
86 more Cubes
1.46 more Litres

if 100kgs is .1 of a second what is 600lbs? I am not that old so I dont understand lbs..........

600lbs or 270kgs is an enourmous handicap to carry.. but really the Charger was more a mid sized coupe, the Falcon is a Large 4 door sedan.
Allot of people also forget that the true year of manufacture model competitor to the Phase 3 was actually the 1971 E38...
The 1972 E49 was Chryslers answer to the Phase 3, the Phase 4 would have been the correct 72 model for comparrison, but as we know it didnt really eventuate.

[Bossxr8]

112 mph top speed. Thats not really that high is it compared to the HO. What was the HO's top speed, 225 kph I think. Whats that in miles.

Anyone know what the power to weight ratios are between them.

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by mcnews

I have a Sports Car World magazine from 1972 ..............

$h!t, Who pushed Mr Hedges button? Now we'll never hear the end of it.

Just joking Trev.

Daniel

[GTPete]

This is Ford Forums Aus could we at least have the PH3 first on the list.

[HEMI POWER]

Best recorded times for the PHASE 3 was 14.7, but it wasn't geared for the 1/4 when tested .The Phase 2 was the quickest down the 1/4 in the Ford camp with a best time of 14.4.The Charger ran a best recorded time of 14.2 making it the quickest car down the 1/4 mile out of any Australian muscle car in it's time.A friend of mine also has an RPO 83 with similiar specs as a Phase 3, gearing at the time of testing was 3.5's he could only manage a best time of 14.5 on pretty good rubber.Maybe in the best conditions and a perfect launch a 13 sec pass might of been achieved by the mighty HO's.


Alex.

[HEMI POWER]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

112 mph top speed. Thats not really that high is it compared to the HO. What was the HO's top speed, 225 kph I think. Whats that in miles.

Anyone know what the power to weight ratios are between them.

The Chrysler 6 never really had much punch up top but it was a weapon down low.My youngest bros has a VG Pacer with a E-49 spec engine 3.9 gears and runs 13.0 sec over the 1/4 in full street trim.By memory his MPH was very low though but had a great 660 time.

[SPK-250]

Originally Posted by GTS_300_Coupe

America had all the fastest muscle cars, I remember reading somewhere there were 3 muscle cars from 1969 -1975 that ran 10 second 1/4 miles from the factory stock.

The 1970 Chevelle SS 454 LS6 was the most powerful and fastest at 450hp and was capable of 13.7 on the standing 1/4 mile. If only the Monte Carlo of the Same year had the same engine it would have been a gun as they are some 200-300 lbs lighter than a Chevelle.

Actually the Plymouth Road Runner had 440ci and weighed only around 3400lbs and could do the quarter in 13.5 secs.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by HEMI POWER

Best recorded times for the PHASE 3 was 14.7, but it wasn't geared for the 1/4 when tested .The Phase 2 was the quickest down the 1/4 in the Ford camp with a best time of 14.4.The Charger ran a best recorded time of 14.2 making it the quickest car down the 1/4 mile out of any Australian muscle car in it's time.A friend of mine also has an RPO 83 with similiar specs as a Phase 3, gearing at the time of testing was 3.5's he could only manage a best time of 14.5 on pretty good rubber.Maybe in the best conditions and a perfect launch a 13 sec pass might of been achieved by the mighty HO's.


Alex.

The Phase 3 had the quickest time of 14.4, not the phase 2.

[HEMI POWER]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

The Phase 3 had the quickest time of 14.4, not the phase 2.

Don't think so.The phase 2 was better geared than the phase 3 for any 0-100 or 1/4 mile figure out of the factory.Thats why the Phase 2 was marginally quicker.
Most p3's had the 3.25's fitted.By memory 200 units were fitted with these and 50 fitted with the 3.5's and the other 50 was with the 3.9's.

[56L]

Originally Posted by HEMI POWER

Don't think so.The phase 2 was better geared than the phase 3 for any 0-100 or 1/4 mile figure out of the factory.Thats why the Phase 2 was marginally quicker.
Most p3's had the 3.25's fitted.By memory 200 units were fitted with these and 50 fitted with the 3.5's and the other 50 was with the 3.9's.

Correct me i am wrong but the phrase two had no rev limiter so it could punch past the phrase 3,s 6150rpm or there abouts rev limiter

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

The Phase 3 had the quickest time of 14.4, not the phase 2.

Phase II did 14.4.

[merlin]

I don't have any link to back this up but I do recall a magazine article where they tested some of those 12-13 second cars back from the 60's and 70's and found the main thing holding them back was the tyre technology. Fitted with today's tyres many of them managed 10's.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

112 mph top speed. Thats not really that high is it compared to the HO. What was the HO's top speed, 225 kph I think. Whats that in miles.

Anyone know what the power to weight ratios are between them.

225kph is 135mph, that's with the 3.25 diff and 6150 rev limiter that was its top speed (due to the limiter), they disconnected the rev limiter at bathurst and i think from memory they were around the 240kph (145mph) mark down conrod in 71, by 72 (improved production rules) i think they were closer to 160mph..

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

225kph is 135mph, that's with the 3.25 diff and 6150 rev limiter that was its top speed (due to the limiter), they disconnected the rev limiter at bathurst and i think from memory they were around the 240kph (145mph) mark down conrod in 71, by 72 (improved production rules) i think they were closer to 160mph..

But wrong with the miles per hour there.

225km/h is 140mph

240km/h is 149mph

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Steffo

But wrong with the miles per hour there.

225km/h is 140mph

240km/h is 149mph

First day back at work... coffee hasnt kicked in yet!!!

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

First day back at work... coffee hasnt kicked in yet!!!

Mmmm... coffee...

[sleekism]

Does anybody know what the XE Falcon Turbos ran???

What about the GTHO Phase5????

From memort the Plymouth Roadrunner with the 426 Hemi ran low 13's and then with modern tyres ran low 11's.

My mechanic has a Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS454 I wonder what times it ran??