Hotchkis E-Max tested against a 2010 SRT-8

[Hotchkis]

As Pro-Touring fans, you all are familiar with the stereotypes applied to our cars. How many times have you heard someone say, "old cars can't handle" or "new technology will beat any muscle car".

We put our reputation on the line and lent the Hotchkis 1970 Challenger, E-Max to the journalists at Edmunds Inside Line.

Editor Josh Jacquot and test driver Chris Walton took our yellow pro-tourer to the hills and the track where it was matched up against a new 2010 SRT-8 Challenger.

None of you will be surprised to hear that we held our own and then some.

Check out the photos, video and story on Insideline.com (http://www.insideline.com/dodge/challenger/2010/2010-dodge-challenger-srt-8-vs-1970-dodge-challenger.html)

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif


"There's only a whisker of difference in the comparative acceleration of these cars, with the modern Challenger barely edging the old car to 60 mph by 0.1 second. The SRT-8's 5.4-second sprint to 60 mph from a standstill (5.1 seconds with a 1-foot rollout, like on a drag strip) hardly overshadows the Hotchkis car's 5.5-second run (5.2 seconds with a 1-foot rollout, like on a dragstrip). The quarter-mile is similarly close with the SRT-8 finishing in 13.6 seconds at 104.5 mph versus the old car's 13.8-second run at 101.1 mph.

Braking from 60 mph had the SRT-8 stopping in 118 feet, yet the Hotchkis car nearly matched it with a stop of 123 feet, a genuinely impressive number for this nose-heavy, 3,494-pound machine.

But that's hardly the most impressive number recorded by the Hotchkis Challenger. Circling the skid pad at 0.93g is something we've never seen a muscle car accomplish, let alone one that's 40 years old. But that's exactly what the Hotchkis car does. Its modern counterpart can only manage 0.84g.

Less than 1 mph separates the cars through our 600-foot slalom. At 67.6 mph, the old Challenger shows it is up to the challenge, but its ultra-low ride height does it no favors on the slightly uneven surface, where the suspension finds the bumpstops more than once. As a result, the SRT-8 is marginally quicker at 68.8 mph."

[1BAGTO]

Pretty cool, great comparison!

[hechtrod]

Very cool! Just watched the video. Mo Fun for sure! Long live the classics with pro-touring updates! Love it!

[FoxGranadaChuck]

Sweet!! I prefer recirculating ball steering and torsion bars over rack-and-pinion and coil-overs any day!

[79PonchoUK]

Nice job! I like how the article suggests an old car with modifications as an alternative to a new car. Afterall, if there was no market for rattley, unreliable, harsh driving, grippy, unrefined cars when people are considering buying brand new, Lotus would go out of business. :lol:



Good marketing too - you've just made me want to spend more money with you. lol

[Ripped]

Nice work.

I'm not too familiar with the hotchkis challenger/cuda type susepnsion mods.

What kinds of things are done to the car to improve the suspension?

Are there any suspension mods which evolved from the AAR and T/A type chassis, or is it all new?


BTW I was running a 340cu W-2 motor for many years back in the day. Great little motor.

[sik68]

I saw this posted on Edmunds, I am so pumped to see that pro-touring is becoming more recognized and relevant. Thanks to Hotchkis for promoting the hobby the way they do.

To Hotchkis / others:

In the video of the slalom runs, the new challenger looks like it "takes a set" more quickly through each transition around the cones, looking more stable while the E-max seems like it really never locks in before it has to rotate back towards the other direction. Is this really just attributed to the bump stops as the video says, or is their some spring rate / shock valving discrepancy that needs to be honed in better on the E-max? What would you do to the challenger to make it run through the cones faster?

Again, very happy to see credit being dished out by the big-time rags.

[protouring70]

man some people have a ruff job!!!!!

Beautiful cars!!!

[BuzzKillian]

You probably don't have 45k in your Challeger either... do you?

[Scott Parkhurst]

Cool deal!

Were both cars on the same tires?

[MrQuick]

nice

[Gitter Dun]

Congratulations!! That is what its all about to me. Old muscle beating new muscle. Awesome!!

[79-TA]

Cool deal!

Were both cars on the same tires?

Nope. If you stop the video at 1:03, you get a good look at the E-Max's tires. They appear to be Yokohama Advan Neova AD08's, an aggressive 180 tw tire right on the limit for goodguy's autocrosses.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Yokohama&tireModel=ADVAN+Neova+AD08

I think the most aggressive tire on a stock SRT8 would be a Goodyear Eagle F1 supercar tire, a 300 tw tire.

[FoxGranadaChuck]

Really cool set-up from what I have heard.

[Scott Parkhurst]

Nope. If you stop the video at 1:03, you get a good look at the E-Max's tires. They appear to be Yokohama Advan Neova AD08's, an aggressive 180 tw tire right on the limit for goodguy's autocrosses.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Yokohama&tireModel=ADVAN+Neova+AD08

I think the most aggressive tire on a stock SRT8 would be a Goodyear Eagle F1 supercar tire, a 300 tw tire.


Noted...!

[Hotchkis]

Nice work.

I'm not too familiar with the hotchkis challenger/cuda type susepnsion mods.

What kinds of things are done to the car to improve the suspension?

Are there any suspension mods which evolved from the AAR and T/A type chassis, or is it all new?


BTW I was running a 340cu W-2 motor for many years back in the day. Great little motor.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Scott - we are running Advan Neovas, they're a great tire and we've had really good experiences with them so far.

Ripped - Our main philosophy with the E-Body hardware is improving factory geometry. Our tubular upper A-Arm uses a laser-cut bracket to relocate the pickup point, improving the camber curve, correcting excessive caster gain and reducing bumpsteer. The rear springs also use a geometry-correcting relocation bracket reduces roll steer. Other parts include front and rear adjustable sway bars, adjustable steering rods, adjustable strut rods and subframe connectors.

While the mods didn't evolve from the AAR cars, they share a similar engineering and design philosophy. Most of the other Mopar solutions on the market involve essentially gutting the car and replacing everything... we found that many hard core Mopar fans really want to preserve the soul of their car, they just want it to handle better. So... everything is bolt-on (except the sub cons) and improves what Mother Mopar did at the factory with modern geometry.

[Hotchkis]

I saw this posted on Edmunds, I am so pumped to see that pro-touring is becoming more recognized and relevant. Thanks to Hotchkis for promoting the hobby the way they do.

To Hotchkis / others:

In the video of the slalom runs, the new challenger looks like it "takes a set" more quickly through each transition around the cones, looking more stable while the E-max seems like it really never locks in before it has to rotate back towards the other direction. Is this really just attributed to the bump stops as the video says, or is their some spring rate / shock valving discrepancy that needs to be honed in better on the E-max? What would you do to the challenger to make it run through the cones faster?

Again, very happy to see credit being dished out by the big-time rags.

Sik68-

Because we knew Edmunds was testing against a comfortable riding new Challenger we set the front and rear shocks to a soft/nonaggressive bump and rebound setting. In fact this was close to the setting we used for the Del Mar Goodguys autocross.

Our Challenger works well in the GoodGuys slow speed, slippery autocross environment with this softer setup. The set up also generates the most grip on the skid pad and provides excellent launch traction at the drag strip. Essentially we compromised our set up on the slalom test in order to provide a very comfortable ride and excellent traction in the other tests. If we had attended the Edmunds tests we would have added more bump and rebound damping to the rear shocks to improve transient chassis response and speed in the slalom. The suspension geometry changes we designed Into our performance suspension package manage the tire contact patch throughout the suspension travel giving the car excellent grip and handling characteristics.

[sik68]

Sik68-

Because we knew Edmunds was testing against a comfortable riding new Challenger we set the front and rear shocks to a soft/nonaggressive bump and rebound setting. In fact this was close to the setting we used for the Del Mar Goodguys autocross.

Our Challenger works well in the GoodGuys slow speed, slippery autocross environment with this softer setup. The set up also generates the most grip on the skid pad and provides excellent launch traction at the drag strip. Essentially we compromised our set up on the slalom test in order to provide a very comfortable ride and excellent traction in the other tests. If we had attended the Edmunds tests we would have added more bump and rebound damping to the rear shocks to improve transient chassis response and speed in the slalom. The suspension geometry changes we designed Into our performance suspension package manage the tire contact patch throughout the suspension travel giving the car excellent grip and handling characteristics.

That makes good sense, thanks for your response. I have seen other videos of the E-Max where the car looks more go-karty than it did in this review, so it makes sense that your shock settings were softer here. Again, congratulations!

-Steven