When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Don't shoot me lol, just trying to understand more about the beloved m156 6.2L when compared to newer motors as well as missing potential power. The reason I pick these two motors is they actually are two of my favorite sounding NA v8's I've grown to love. Do believe the 392 is a great motor Dodge created aside from the hellcat motor. There is something about high compression NA V8's I just love, I've owned the new s550 5.0 coyote mustang but they lacked a lot of low-end torque with you can feel similar to the 6.2l in the Merc, plus I don't like the exhaust note of them. Currently have both a 2019 392 chargers and 2013 C63, though the motors are only .2 cubic inches different what makes the 392 have so much torque across the whole power band over the 6.2 Merc motor? Is it all the variable spark timing of newer motors that creates this? Attached dyno references of both stock dyno's, yes there will be different ones out there but wanted to show the big difference in torque between them.
Below is a stock 392 6.4, these are pretty standard numbers on average. Love the higher torque values.
Some video runs between them, there are a few on youtube, most are with the charger pulling downstairs harder yet if the C63 has tune/exhaust its much closer runs. Impressive for the heavy Dodges.
I dont think any na engine has surpassed the amg 6.2 .the sls black series makes 622hp and wiestec made 600whp on an sls black series on full bolt ons.
Name 1 other car that can make 600whp staying na on pump gas.
Power per cubi inches, that would go to Coyote motors believe they are leading the NA v8 power per cubi inch war.
Regardless, thought I was talking about M156 not the m159 to compare between. Safe to say the m159 has a lot of different parts, dry sump etc.. please show me a c63 na making 600 to the wheels. Most m159’s with fbo’s and high octane full are just barely hitting 500.
Last edited by brad65ford; 07-27-2019 at 11:41 PM.
Thought I said M156 not m159 to compare between. Safe to say the m159 has a lot of different parts, dry sump etc.. please show me a c63 na making 600 to the wheels. Most m159’s with fbo’s and high octane full are just barely hitting 500.
There is a few people running the sls air box and most 159s dyno 530whp stock.
Well you are comparing a dyno dynamics dyno to a dyno jet with a 1.03 correction factor.
Our cars make great low end and actually this is a first I've heard about them lacking.
I raced a scat car and beat him pretty bad at the track. Out trapped him by like 6mph
Dyno photos are just random, most will show the 392 makes a good bit more torque yet similar HP to the wheels. For 400 lb heavier of a car they hold their own against the lighter c63's, you can see they pull strong always with a hit (more torque) unlike the c63's which have to bring up the rpm and stay in the hp zone to begging to pull on them. I'm just wondering how come that is, especially since our motors are dual over head cam (is that making it worse for low end torque yet good for high rpm hp?), wasn't sure if variable spark timing had something to do with it and the older tech 6.2 isn't a good as the newer 6.4 tech etc...
I’ve never lossed to any 6.4 car ever. I usually gap them pretty bad off bottle. People get wrapped up in power figures. There’s more to than numbers... aerodynamics, gearing, etc.
The m156 and ls7 are the best N/a engines ever made. Both flawed but sinister.
i think 392’s are comfortable, quick cars that sound good and are pretty robust motors. Just think dodges interior fall
apart.
I’ve never lossed to any 6.4 car ever. I usually gap them pretty bad off bottle. People get wrapped up in power figures. There’s more to than numbers... aerodynamics, gearing, etc.
The m156 and ls7 are the best N/a engines ever made. Both flawed but sinister.
i think 392’s are comfortable, quick cars that sound good and are pretty robust motors. Just think dodges interior fall
apart.
I'm hearing you brother, there is something about the m156 that even made me come back for another and I don't do that often, I've been soiled by a lot of high end newer cars over the last few years. Agree numbers are numbers but I was just wondering about the older valve/spark technology of the m156 compared to the newer v8's today. Picked the 6.4 392 as an example since it has same hp yet a good bit more torque.
I'm hearing you brother, there is something about the m156 that even made me come back for another and I don't do that often, I've been soiled by a lot of high end newer cars over the last few years. Agree numbers are numbers but I was just wondering about the older valve/spark technology of the m156 compared to the newer v8's today. Picked the 6.4 392 as an example since it has same hp yet a good bit more torque.
First time I’ve heard someone claiming a pushrod engine is more modern than a dual over cam but ok?
Second multi spark plug engines have been around for awhile, most manufactures have switched off of them as they can manage to get near identical burn rates and less top end heat and flow disruption of the multi spark design by simply tuning the spark plug at different ignition tables or in some cases a single plug firing multiple times per ignition cycle.
First time I’ve heard someone claiming a pushrod engine is more modern than a dual over cam but ok?
Second multi spark plug engines have been around for awhile, most manufactures have switched off of them as they can manage to get near identical burn rates and less top end heat and flow disruption of the multi spark design by simply tuning the spark plug at different ignition tables or in some cases a single plug firing multiple times per ignition cycle.
GM has proven that push rod subject to the max over the last 10+ years. DOHC are way more complicated, its much easier to get more power out of a Chevy small block than any DOHC motor, it's been tested and proven. What drag race motor in nhra is dohc, none. Personally, I love the sound of an overhead cam motor, just wondering if this is the reason for less torque or possibly valving (spark or other) helps create more torque with the 6.4 motor. Not saying ones better than another just stating the are near the same cubic inches and the Dodge motor create a good bit more torque and same hp, yes and its a push rod motor.
Last edited by brad65ford; 07-29-2019 at 06:49 AM.
'04 E55 (Gone but not forgotten), '13 C63 P31 (RIP), another '13 C63 PP
Originally Posted by brad65ford
GM has proven that push rod subject to the max over the last 10+ years. DOHC are way more complicated, its much easier to get more power out of a Chevy small block than any DOHC motor, it's been tested and proven. What drag race motor in nhra is dohc, none. Personally, I love the sound of an overhead cam motor, just wondering if this is the reason for less torque or possibly valving (spark or other) helps create more torque with the 6.4 motor. Not saying ones better than another just stating the are near the same cubic inches and the Dodge motor create a good bit more torque and same hp, yes and its a push rod motor.
...well if you're talking top fuel and funny cars... that's because they're not allowed to be...
And less torque is due to better exhaust flow. Same reason SOHC tend to have more torque than DOHC too (super-simplified answer)
So you're saying the c63 w204 has a free-flowing exhaust? Wow. Have you ever seen the 6.4 stock exhaust, even has one of the best shorter factory headers, and 3" diameter all things that give more hp and less torque. Do not believe that is the reason at all, sorry. If anything the c63 would have more torque since its all backed up.
Last edited by brad65ford; 07-29-2019 at 12:54 PM.
'04 E55 (Gone but not forgotten), '13 C63 P31 (RIP), another '13 C63 PP
Originally Posted by brad65ford
So you're saying the c63 w204 has a free-flowing exhaust? Wow. Have you ever seen the 6.4 stock exhaust, even has one of the best shorter factory headers, and 3" diameter all things that give more hp and less torque. Do not believe that is the reason at all, sorry. If anything the c63 would have more torque since its all backed up.
The restriction is before the manifold. 2 exhaust valves flow more than 1. That's just a fact my guy.
I have ran many 392's and they are big heavy boats. As much power as the 6.4 makes, it just isnt in the right car. The C63 with bolt ons walks them pretty damn easily.
'04 E55 (Gone but not forgotten), '13 C63 P31 (RIP), another '13 C63 PP
Originally Posted by hachiroku
Someone really has done this? I've seem posts talking about how expensive it is, but not one of it actually being done...
I know Gulf Performance has done a few out in the Mid-East. Not sure if there are any in North America. I think all said and done it's around the cost of a blower and less power. Definitely cool to have that kind of power NA tho fo sho.
'04 E55 (Gone but not forgotten), '13 C63 P31 (RIP), another '13 C63 PP
I dont think the butchered hood is a requirement. That guy just has a gaudy aftermarket hood. I was looking at one on IG a couple weeks ago that had a 507 hood on it. Of course I can't find it now.
07-27-2019, 05:51 PM
