PP vs. Non PP?

[14 TUX BL]

The answer is very simple without the back and forth discussions which clearly sounds gratifying to you based on your other post,there are plenty of options like trading in your non-PP for a PP just like i did,hope this helps you out.

Using the word "gratifying" is somewhat odd, saying "appreciative of an intelligent exchange of thought" would have been a much better description.

That aside, trading in for a PP defies the very reason for this thread, that being what is the actual difference PP makes in regards to acceleration. Hope that clears things up.

You bought a sport lux car, with wonderful power. As if having no manual trans option isn't bad enough, if the inability to defeat traction control really isn't a problem, that's incredible!

That's like having the world's fastest supercomputer with no mouse or keyboard to use it! Lol

Having a sport luxury vehicle does not mean having the need for defeating traction control!

That would be like not being able to use the highest speed on a blender, when you never really have use for that high a speed in the first place! Ha

... Someone posted on this thread the top end for PP was 122 mph and Non as 140 mph.

Nearly all published road tests of the SHO are PP models, and they list top speed at ~140 mph.

Thanks...maybe this is the reasoning behind the gearing change? PP models are all 20" wheels right?

Rich

20" are optional on non PP cars, I have them.

Difference in overall diameter of 19" vs 20" tires offered on the SHO is ~3/4" (28" vs 28.7").

[SHOnUup]

If this is all about performance, shouldn't there be a tuned side to the debate. The majority of us are running tunes here. I'd just like to hear some thoughts on that side of the spectrum. Like downsizing wheel size and stuff to add sidewall flex for grip. And, is turning off the traction control completely better vs just turning off the grannies, assuming that's what us non pp folk do.

Not trying to discredit your, what I see as a great open minded thread of discussion. Just adding another dimension.

Rich

[14 TUX BL]

If this is all about performance, shouldn't there be a tuned side to the debate. The majority of us are running tunes here. I'd just like to hear some thoughts on that side of the spectrum. Like downsizing wheel size and stuff to add sidewall flex for grip. And, is turning off the traction control completely better vs just turning off the grannies, assuming that's what us non pp folk do.

Not trying to discredit your, what I see as a great open minded thread of discussion. Just adding another dimension.

Rich

Yes sir, you're right! There definitely should be a tuned side to the debate, but maybe on a different thread so we can keep track of things.

I appreciate your input Rich, thanks. :-)

Now (interestingly enough) I found the info I was looking for as it regards a test of a non PP model. Check it out:

Popular Mechanics
Chrysler 300C AWD vs. Ford Taurus SHO
Sep 30, 2009
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a12885/4322127/

Chrysler 300C AWD
Base price $39,925
Powertrain 370 hp/398 lb-ft, 5.7-liter V8, 5A
Wheelbase (in.) 120.0
Length (in.) 196.8
Width (in.) 74.1
Axle ratio 3.07
Weight 4280
Brakes (f/r) 12.6-in disc/12.6-in disc, ABS, ESC
Tires (f/r) P225/60R-18

ACCELERATION (sec)
0-30 mph: 2.0
0-60 mph: 5.5
0-100 mph: 13.9
40-70 mph: 4.2
20-60 mph rolling start: 4.4
Quarter-mile: 13.9 @ 100.3 mph

BRAKING (ft.)
30-0 mph: 30.4
60-0 mph: 126.2

EPA fuel economy (city/hwy) 16/23 PM Fuel Economy 21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Taurus SHO
Base price $37,995
Powertrain 365 hp/350 lb-ft, 3.5-liter V6, 6A
Wheelbase (in.) 112.9
Length (in.) 202.9
Width (in.) 76.2
Axle ratio 2.77
Weight 4368
Brakes (f/r) 12.8-in disc/13.0-in disc, ABS, ESC
Tires (f/r) P245/45R-20

ACCELERATION (sec)
0-30 mph: 2.2
0-60 mph: 5.4
0-100 mph: 13.3
40-70 mph: 4.9
20-60 mph rolling start: 4.2
Quarter-mile: 13.7 @ 101.7 mph

BRAKING (ft.)
30-0 mph: 29.9
60-0 mph: 117.6

EPA fuel economy (city/hwy) 17/25 PM Fuel Economy 22

[SHOnUup]

Little pre-statement before watching video...it better outperform that Chrysler

Rich

[14 TUX BL]

LOL, but not a video (link to article).

But yes, even a non PP SHO with 2.77 gears/optional 20" All Season tires was faster than the nearly 100 lb lighter AWD hemi Chrysler.

[sunwolf]

LOL HEMI.

[14 TUX BL]

In a way, it doesn't figure ...

The 300C Hemi makes 5 more hp, 48 more lb-ft, weighs 88 lbs less, and has better gearing. Yet it was slower in 0-60 mph, 0-100 mph, 20-60 mph, 40-70 mph, the quarter mile, and had worse braking.

[sunwolf]

In a way, it doesn't figure ...

The 300C Hemi makes 5 more hp, 48 more lb-ft, weighs 88 lbs less, and has better gearing. Yet it was slower in 0-60 mph, 0-100 mph, 20-60 mph, 40-70 mph, the quarter mile, and had worse braking.

All about that torque band.

[SHOnUup]

In a way, it doesn't figure ...

The 300C Hemi makes 5 more hp, 48 more lb-ft, weighs 88 lbs less, and has better gearing. Yet it was slower in 0-60 mph, 0-100 mph, 20-60 mph, 40-70 mph, the quarter mile, and had worse braking.

Chrysler throwing cubic inches around with not so good results...lol

Rich

[FoMoCoSHO]

In a way, it doesn't figure ...

The 300C Hemi makes 5 more hp, 48 more lb-ft, weighs 88 lbs less, and has better gearing. Yet it was slower in 0-60 mph, 0-100 mph, 20-60 mph, 40-70 mph, the quarter mile, and had worse braking.

It's all that torque at 1700 rpm. Plug your dragstrip numbers into a 1/4 mile to hp converter and you will see what I mean.

[SHOnUup]

In a way, it doesn't figure ...

The 300C Hemi makes 5 more hp, 48 more lb-ft, weighs 88 lbs less, and has better gearing. Yet it was slower in 0-60 mph, 0-100 mph, 20-60 mph, 40-70 mph, the quarter mile, and had worse braking.

It's all that torque at 1700 rpm. Plug your dragstrip numbers into a 1/4 mile to hp converter and you will see what I mean.

For sure...our HP #'s get horrible estimated times. Then I plug in times to get HP and it's up around 500 hp.

Rich

[mval]

as a shomopar guy, got to remember FAC's performance cars other than the hellcat are real long in the tooth & even it's carriage is. 2008 technology & they struggle with same weight issue as our sho's. that being said i'll bet fomoco & gm wished that every car their main performance plant makes was sold with customer demanding them to step up production to meet demand.

[14 TUX BL]

In a way, it doesn't figure ...

The 300C Hemi makes 5 more hp, 48 more lb-ft, weighs 88 lbs less, and has better gearing. Yet it was slower in 0-60 mph, 0-100 mph, 20-60 mph, 40-70 mph, the quarter mile, and had worse braking.

It's all that torque at 1700 rpm. Plug your dragstrip numbers into a 1/4 mile to hp converter and you will see what I mean.

For sure...our HP #'s get horrible estimated times. Then I plug in times to get HP and it's up around 500 hp.

Rich

I've plugged in stock SHO numbers into several 1/4 mile-to-hp calcs and come up with 10-15 hp over what Ford advertises (4558 lb test weight/102 mph trap speed):

[FoMoCoSHO]

This was from the 2013 non-PP

Stock
Weight 4690
13.70@102.39
376.7 Horsepower

Stock plus 25% ish E-85
Weight 4690
13.31@105.19
409.58 Horsepower

Unleashed 3 bar + 25% ish blend tune
12.66@109.14
466.35 Horsepower

I must've fat fingered something when I used this initially.

These numbers look pretty reasonable...

[viSHOusTX]

Some good reading guys. I have a 2010 PP and I always wondered why my top end sucked I think the fastest my car has gone is 125-130 mph. But my 0-100 is killer especially with Nitto Invos all around. I am running a LET 93 tune and 20' wheels. Unfortunately due to my work schedule I haven't had a chance to hit the track hopefully I'll be posting some numbers from A LET tune. Thanks to you guys making this the best forum I've been on. Every time I get on I learn more and more we rookies are grateful and appreciate all the time and effort some of you vets spend on here. 👍


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk