Hellcat X

[BUTCH1]

They took a Hellcat and added TWO turbo's to it for over 800HP, giving it and a 1970 440 Hemi Challenger away in a contest, (+40,000 for takes) link.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Are they going to actually make and sell this or is this just a one off?

 

[KentState]

It's a one off.

Wonder if that's estimated crank HP or rear wheel. Lot of times shops will quote crank HP.

 

[master_shake_]

2 turbos only gets 100 horsepower?

isn't the hellcat 707 horse?

 

[Phanuel]

~707 with a supercharger.

So we're probably trading low end power for dyno queen numbers.

 

[master_shake_]

~707 with a supercharger.

So we're probably trading low end power for dyno queen numbers.

but it has both?

 

[DaTT]

but it has both?

Indeed it does.

 

[DaTT]

Not a huge fan of the Challenger, but I would drive that. Looks pretty mean.

 

[BUTCH1]

~707 with a supercharger.

So we're probably trading low end power for dyno queen numbers.

I think I read they intentionally kept the boost from the turbos on the low end, they probably felt that the supercharger would fail.

 

[BUTCH1]

Are they going to actually make and sell this or is this just a one off?

It's a one-off but that doesn't mean others might give it a shot but of course doing so will void any factory warranty and you have to think that 800+ HP is straining a lot of components in the drive-train.

 

[Beer4Me]

Looks like they're giving it away for a charity.

 

[DigDog]

not my kind of car. or my kind of supercar, either.

 

[BW86]

Seems kinda weak to only have 800bhp. A 2.3L blower and 2 62mm turbos on a 6.2L? Must be running pretty low boost. Blower probably chokes it.

 

[rancherlee]

They could probably remove the supercharger run the Turbos at the factory superchargers PSI, and make close to 800hp WHILE getting better efficiency. Blowers have come along way but I'm willing the bet that 2.3L still sucks over 50hp. The smaller Eaton M90's on several older cars took 25-30hp to drive @ 10psi, I know, I've removed a few and replaced them with single turbos and seen the gain. The ONLY reason to go turbos + supercharger is for insane boost levels, or a Diesel Pulling Tractor........ Then again the Hellcat is just about that heavy.

 

[BUTCH1]

They could probably remove the supercharger run the Turbos at the factory superchargers PSI, and make close to 800hp WHILE getting better efficiency. Blowers have come along way but I'm willing the bet that 2.3L still sucks over 50hp. The smaller Eaton M90's on several older cars took 25-30hp to drive @ 10psi, I know, I've removed a few and replaced them with single turbos and seen the gain. The ONLY reason to go turbos + supercharger is for insane boost levels, or a Diesel Pulling Tractor........ Then again the Hellcat is just about that heavy.

The blower on the Hellcat takes 80 HP to drive it. IDK if a manifold setup would be available to remove the blower and go that route but in any event a blower has no "lag", isn't dealing with hot exhaust gases either. Although a turbo setup vs supercharger is going to give you more available boost at high revs with an engine that big dealing with the waste-gate emissions might make it tough to get it past EPA smog-tests.

 

[MongGrel]

The Hellcat looks tasty, I'd almost rather have the old 440 that is given away with it.

One hell of a two for one deal whoever wins it.

*pun intended*

 

[BUTCH1]

The Hellcat looks tasty, I'd almost rather have the old 440 that is given away with it.

One hell of a two for one deal whoever wins it.

*pun intended*

Stylish and a gutsy 440, yea, not too shabby. Keep in mind though that in 1970 engine technology and power output far exceeded tire and brake technology which made for a scenario of a LOT of horrific crashes. It wasn't just the Fed's with tighter emission controls that caused the sudden decline in muscle-cars back then, it was the astronomical cost to insure one. If it were mine I would (if they already haven't), put on a modern 4-wheel disc braking system along with chassis upgrades as well.

 

[crashtech]

Stylish and a gutsy 440, yea, not too shabby. Keep in mind though that in 1970 engine technology and power output far exceeded tire and brake technology which made for a scenario of a LOT of horrific crashes. It wasn't just the Fed's with tighter emission controls that caused the sudden decline in muscle-cars back then, it was the astronomical cost to insure one. If it were mine I would (if they already haven't), put on a modern 4-wheel disc braking system along with chassis upgrades as well.

Probably be better to start with one that's not as collectible, like one that came with a slant six, then mod the hell out of it.

 

[BUTCH1]

Probably be better to start with one that's not as collectible, like one that came with a slant six, then mod the hell out of it.

True, although most people at the time opted for the 318 V8 at least, the slant 6 was one of the toughest engines ever created but would have been a dog in a car as big as the Challenger. Shit, you can buy a crate 472 Hemi (yes, they bored it out for more CID) for $14.5K. That's good for close to 600HP and it's built like a tank, one might get lucky and find a rebuildable 440 somewhere and come away with a much cheaper price but I doubt there are many of those around junkyards anymore.

 

[BUTCH1]

not my kind of car. or my kind of supercar, either.

I'm sorry, but you now must officially turn in your man-card. Saying that an 800HP one-of-a-kind beautiful Challenger is "not my kind of car" are words that cannot be spoken by a man.

 

[crashtech]

Well, I would take one type of forced induction or another, but both seems kinda ridiculous, imo... sorry.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, I would take one type of forced induction or another, but both seems kinda ridiculous, imo... sorry.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a10058/volvo-turbocharger-supercharger/

 

[crashtech]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a10058/volvo-turbocharger-supercharger/

I didn't think superchargers had much to offer in the way of efficiency, and frankly I'm not quite convinced, but thanks for the link!

 

[shabby]

I'm sorry, but you now must officially turn in your man-card. Saying that an 800HP one-of-a-kind beautiful Challenger is "not my kind of car" are words that cannot be spoken by a man.

If only it could go around corners like the camaro/mustang can then it would be nice.

 

[Viperoni]

I didn't think superchargers had much to offer in the way of efficiency, and frankly I'm not quite convinced, but thanks for the link!

They're not as efficient as turbo's for sure, but their powerband and breathing abilities are quite different as well.