Discussion in 'Challenger News, Articles and Media Reviews' started by stingray, Aug 1, 2022.
Bring on the aluminum-body-and-chassis Challengers!
Now the Challengers might be able to compete with the Teslas at the drag strip.
I'd like for someone to do a Youtube video of a Two Lane Blacktop-style race between Tesla and a Challenger across the USA.
I certainly hope this is not Plymouth all over?
There's a laundry list of cars that would beat the Challenger in that race.
Much as I love to do an American History X curb-stomp of Tesla, here are some facts to annihilate any idea of a Tesla winning anything resembling a cross-continent race.
The faster the Tesla goes, the more times it has to stop to recharge, not to mention finding a place with Superchargers to use.
A Challenger, at, say, 100mph, would get what, about 12mpg? That's 216 miles between ten-minute fill-ups. I will base calculations on that.
Even a Hellcat at 200mph only getting 2mpg or so, thus needing a total of 1400 fill-ups at 10 minutes each, plus a travel time of 7 hours, would yield 30.333 hours of TOTAL TRAVEL TIME.
Back to the the V6 or whatever Challenger at 12mpg/100mph. Actually, based on one person's statement of 28mpg at 75mph average speed, it's more like 15mpg, but we'll slam it down to 12mpg to make a point and give the Tesla a chance to really humiliate itself.
So, to go 2.16 hours at 100mph, then add ten minutes for to fill up the car, that's 2.32 hours per 100 miles. To go across the USA, one would have to start with a full tank, then fill up (assuming 2800 miles) about 12 times, for a total of 120 minutes of time filling up at an average speed of around 88 miles per hour
A Tesla, to travel at an average speed of 100 miles per hour, would need one heck of a lot higher driving speed to make up for the glacial pace of the charging if they could even find a Supercharger. In FACT, to go at the same overall pace, the Tesla would have to travel at around Mach 2.
I marvel that these facts have completely escaped the acolytes of the Cult of Tesla.
Here, you can look at it yourself. 57 hours at normal highway speeds.
https://www.tesla.com/trips#/?v=M3_2020_LongRange&o=San Francisco, CA, USA_SF San Francisco County [email protected],-122.4194155&s=&d=Miami, FL, USA_Miami Miami-Dade County [email protected],-80.1917902
Now, this is doing the speed limit. Regrettably for those that bray about how wondrous Tesla is and have the brand tattooed on their children's faces, (wait, Tesla worshipers are seldom the type to have human children, right?) the consumption of electrical power rises substantially with speed, which shortens the range substantially.
Unlike the fantasies of the Tesla cult members, going twice as fast does not need twice the horsepower. Anyone who has never not been in the same room as a physics book could know that going twice as fast uses EIGHT TIMES AS MUCH HORSEPOWER which, due to double the speed, means 4 times the power consumption per unit of distance, on an electric motor. An internal combustion engine, however, gets MORE efficient on a pounds-of-fuel-per-horsepower-hour basis at bigger throttle openings than it does at lesser throttle openings.
So, the idea of going 200 miles between charges becomes yet another in the long line of insane fantasies of the members of the Tesla cult unless the Tesla suddenly becomes twice as efficient at twice the speed, by some miracle unheard of in the entire history of all beings in all universes, EVER.
Let's assume you are going 100mph, aka about 1.66X 60mph in your little Tesla. This would result in a motive power consumption of about 2.75 times as much. This, at the very least, means 2.75 times as much time charging.
If this still by some miracle had the same range between charges, what would the now-extended charging times look like?
Instead of the 615 minutes needed to charge the car (added from their site) that Tesla worshipers bray and shriek about so loudly, it would need 1691 minutes to charge, which is 28 HOURS.
So, while the Challenger would take about 30 hours, in order to beat it the Tesla would have to travel 1400 miles per hour for two hours of travel time, then recharge at the recommended stops to do so.
The real world is the wrong place to try to bestow any kind of long-distance race supremacy on the Tesla, as is any forum not populated by foaming-at-the-mouth irrational Tesla fanbois (or whatever gender they made up this week.)
A Hellcat at a ridiculously-fuel-inefficient 200mph could theoretically beat a Tesla, at only 11 minutes/36 miles between fill-ups. A Hellcat at 100mph could beat a Tesla, even with a theoretical double (as in 4mpg) fuel mileage of the blown motor at WOT for the now 22 minutes the fuel lasted. I not know the mileage of a Hellcat at 100mph, however. In only know that Dodge said at WOT, the Hellcat would go 11 minutes on a full puny little goofy tank Dodge put in them.
I'd get about 25mpg in a Hellcat with Amsoil at 55mph or so, 24 with Mobil1 vomit in the engine. If it had a stupid-low rear end ratio, I would have gotten dramatically better mpg, as the blow Hemi absolutely thrives on low RPM driving. I drove it around in 6th at 30mph. (manual transmission, around 900 rpm, IIRC.) PS it has around 485 ft-lbs at 900 RPM, so it was not being lugged. It ain't a frikkin' Scat Pack.
Anyone who worships Tesla, feel free to provide any real-world experience, with documentation, to prove that this is not true.
Reality and math prove it to be the case that it would not work out in the favor of their little god, due to two things Tesla worshipers aggressively forget exist, that is, reality and mathematics.
Oh, and speaking of Teslas at 100mph:
Now, imagine the mayhem if you threw a couple 20-gallon jerry cans in the trunk of the Challenger, for 1025 miles between service station visits, which would add 2 minutes per jerry can to empty them and maybe a couple to fill them back up.
Can Teslas carry any Jerry Batteries?
Yes, no kidding. I don't think Dodge is ready to taste the barrel of a gun on whose trigger they have their fingers, yet.
You are going to the grocery store & in traffic. A bicycle is faster.
More potential good news for car guys, not the types who distance themselves from all things automotive except some reluctant participation:
The hydrogen vehicle is one that you can work on, uses an internal combustion engine, can go with exceedingly lean mixtures, and is not being touted by the Climate Weirdos, which means it is most likely a great idea. The same people silent on Certain Child Traffickers are amazingly vocal on false, made-up "crises" as cow farts, toasting a marshmallow, breathing, humans existing, etc, whatever.
Or, we could just keep using petroleum, and not blame the explosion of stars 230 million light years away on Jed from Virginia having a gas attack after eating some over-ripe 'coon he trapped out on the back 40.
Hydrogen can be regenerated as the car goes down hills too, from water, which can be harvested from the exhaust. What a concept. Unlike EV's, hydrogen has no upper limit on how fast you can (re)generate it, being able to absorb as much energy as your alternator or other electric braking source can provide. Again, this makes it superior to EV's on yet another front. In fact, big rigs could use it, as the upper limit on the facilities they could carry to cool exhaust, recover water, and generate and compress hydrogen and oxygen would be far higher than on a car.
Imagine being able to go camping and your only "jerry can" for fuel would be a means of generating some electricity, a mountain lake or stream, and your H2-mobile.
After a relaxing two-week stay, with your tanks all filled up, you could go home using only water.
Separate names with a comma.