Possible 350 performance numbers.....

[65Terdlingua]

Since he said it would mean more shifting on the road course, he's talking about a shorter ratio, which would mean more torque multiplication.

-T

"which means you aren't getting the benefit of no shifts between 0 and 60, and you also aren't getting as much torque multiplication off the line as you could have with steeper gears."

It seems like he meant no shifting to 60, which means you need a lower ratio, which means less torque.

Sponsored

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

The numbers don't really even matter...this is all that you have to show any GM or Hellkitten owner...

 

[Zemedici]

Guessing the same but I don't think it will be any quicker. Needs to be quicker than the new SS.

1/4 will be quicker than the times stated, I know that.

we should place bets, as stated above.

 

[Hack]

A lower gear ratio to allow the car to get to 60 in first would actually mean a little less torque off the line.

I was stating two options:

1. Change the gearing so there's no shifting. Save time in 0-60 by not having to shift at all.
2. Change the gearing so you shift once, but at a lower speed. This is the option that will provide more torque multiplication off the line.

I hope this clarifies it for you.

 

[Trackaholic]

"which means you aren't getting the benefit of no shifts between 0 and 60, and you also aren't getting as much torque multiplication off the line as you could have with steeper gears."

It seems like he meant no shifting to 60, which means you need a lower ratio, which means less torque.

I see Hack just clarified and everyone had the correct interpretation!

IMO, based on the Laguna Seca reviews, it seems like the gears are plenty tall as-is, so if I were wanting quicker initial acceleration, I'd go for an even shorter rear-end. As it stands, I'm fine with how the car is setup from the factory.

My guess for performance is similar to the C7 Vette.
4.1 0-60
12.1 1/4 Mile

-T

 

[Hack]

I see Hack just clarified and everyone had the correct interpretation!

IMO, based on the Laguna Seca reviews, it seems like the gears are plenty tall as-is, so if I were wanting quicker initial acceleration, I'd go for an even shorter rear-end. As it stands, I'm fine with how the car is setup from the factory.

My guess for performance is similar to the C7 Vette.
4.1 0-60
12.1 1/4 Mile

-T

I would also consider a shorter (higher numerical) rear end gear.

I think with the poor gearing for 0-60 it will be a little slower than 4.1 seconds. More like 4.2 or 4.3. But it will be awesome on the road course.

You never know though. Steeper gears might make it too difficult to hook. I remember watching a Hellcat video where they tried over and over and they couldn't do much better than 4.7 seconds 0-60. They had a very sticky looking track area and they had Chrysler employees there as well as the magazine/video testers. I know the Hellcat has no shortage of torque. But it is heavy and has narrow tires. SOOO, like the rest of you I'm really looking forward to actual numbers so some of the speculation can end!

 

[Trackaholic]

I would also consider a shorter (higher numerical) rear end gear.

I think with the poor gearing for 0-60 it will be a little slower than 4.1 seconds. More like 4.2 or 4.3. But it will be awesome on the road course.

You never know though. Steeper gears might make it too difficult to hook. I remember watching a Hellcat video where they tried over and over and they couldn't do much better than 4.7 seconds 0-60. They had a very sticky looking track area and they had Chrysler employees there as well as the magazine/video testers. I know the Hellcat has no shortage of torque. But it is heavy and has narrow tires. SOOO, like the rest of you I'm really looking forward to actual numbers so some of the speculation can end!

Good points. Just went back to look at the gearing:

Will be interesting to see how the 0-60 and 1/4 mile go. The gears are not well optimized for either (seems like third tops out @ 116 or so, likely necessitating a shift to 4th at the end of the run).

For me, any laptimes published will give a better indication of the performance, whether or not the straight line times are mind blowing.

-T

 

[kirbydjohnson]

As a point of reference, according to www.zeroto60times.com

2012 Boss 302: 4.0; 12.1
2013 Boss LS: 4.1; 12.5

Obviously different tests/testers but food for thought on possible GT350 estimates.

 

[wproctor411]

thats what I am getting and would be very happy with those numbers
from an untouched production car:cheers:

I am buying an R model too and those are the times I was running with 295 NT05 tires (not the DRs) and about 425rwhp on my 2011, manual MT82. I was at roughly 3600lbs, 355 gears. The extra RPM and torque will surely help.

 

[wproctor411]

As a point of reference, according to www.zeroto60times.com

2012 Boss 302: 4.0; 12.1
2013 Boss LS: 4.1; 12.5

Obviously different tests/testers but food for thought on possible GT350 estimates.

The tires on those cars are worthless and nothing compared with the GT350 or GT350R tire sizes and compounds.

A 2012 Boss 302 with just an upgraded tire was running well into the 11s on street or strip.

Sponsored