0-60 Time

Steeveee

TRX Fan
Founding Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
85
Gallery
37
Reaction score
367
Location
The Colony, Texas
Current Ride
2018 Raptor
So this has been on my mind since I ordered the truck and accept the 0-60 time of 4.5 seconds, but doesn't that seem way slower than it should be? I mean I understand the weight and size thus the quarter mile time, but with 4 wheel drive and all that power, shouldn't this be in the 3's easily? What am I not understanding? I was reading the tire thread we have and some argue that even street tires wouldn't make the difference. I know the Trackhawk and Durango are different platforms completely but still thought it would be closer in 0-60 to those animals at least. Thoughts? Can we get it there without power adders but getting existing power to the ground better?
 
So this has been on my mind since I ordered the truck and accept the 0-60 time of 4.5 seconds, but doesn't that seem way slower than it should be? I mean I understand the weight and size thus the quarter mile time, but with 4 wheel drive and all that power, shouldn't this be in the 3's easily? What am I not understanding? I was reading the tire thread we have and some argue that even street tires wouldn't make the difference. I know the Trackhawk and Durango are different platforms completely but still thought it would be closer in 0-60 to those animals at least. Thoughts? Can we get it there without power adders but getting existing power to the ground better?
Rough math is a tenth of a second for every 100lbs in the quarter. Weight kills. Its just a really heavy beast.
 
Totally understand 1/4 mile, but shouldn't it effect 0-60 much less?
I don't know, getting 6400lbs to start moving is a lot of work, after a while you at least have some momentum to build on, yes this was a very scientific answer. LOL!
 
Totally understand 1/4 mile, but shouldn't it effect 0-60 much less?

Nope.... the 0-60 is a function of the 6300lb weight...plus the driver and the stuff you have in the glove box....hahaha....call it 6500...good news is the truck seems built to handle the weight and power...the bad news is there is no free lunch

The parasitic hp loss on these trucks are going to break some people's hearts hahaha.. Our 702 hp trucks are going to put somewhere around 560hp to the wheels...AWD plus beefy differentials plus beefy axles, drive shafts etc etc will suck away the hp before it gets to the ground...The heavy weight will also cause the power from the motor to generate more heat = less power to the ground...

This is why our OFF ROAD beasts will get destroyed on the street by something like a trackhawk......destroyed... A stock 5.0 mustang gt with 460hp is not worth messing with either unless you are betting the driver is sleepy....ours is a truck....hahaa...its amazing it is as fast as it is....
 
Last edited:
My guess is electronic "torque management" to protect the driveline.....plus the sheer mass of the truck and tires is a lot to get moving.
 
I wonder if Pedal Commander will be making an option for the TRX? I’ve had one on my last two trucks and it makes a world of difference. You may laugh, but I’m telling you......

*edit* PC does NOT increase horsepower, simply put, it let’s you get to your power faster by taking any lag out of the acceleration.
 
I think 4.5 0- 60 is amazing, in 2004 I built a supercharged ram 1500 quad cab 4X4 with a GSM supercharger pushing 15 pounds of boost , it ran almost identical numbers as the TRX for 0 - 60 times and quarter mile times , besides the track hawk and any other high performance all wheel drive vehicles we are going to dust most high horsepower cars by the simple fact they can not get a good hookup ( traction ) out of the hole. I ran plenty of street races back then and beat a lot of muscle cars that on the track with proper conditions would have mopped the floor with me . Running the street is a whole different ball game , you would be surprised what you can compete with on the street. Not that me or you guys would ever do anything illegal like that lol . Just my worthless two cents and experience
 
Plenty of Hellcat mods like pulley, pinned crank, CAI, exhaust, killer chiller, carbon/aluminum drive shaft, gear swap, and tune should be available at some point.

But FCA has a weight problem, going to have to drop weight, get some HP and would probably be low 4's 0-60
1602574729566.png


Played with this calculator and would need 825 at the flywheel to get to 4 seconds 0-60 if its accurate.
1602575179919.png
 
Need some carbon fiber fenders and hood

 
4.5 seems right for the weight. Plus the rotating mass of those size wheels and tires have to be a lot to get moving.

I wouldn't be too concerned. Being all time 4wd should make it pretty damn consistent. You will probably surprise a few of those sub 4 sec vehicles on the street that won't get traction.
 
So this has been on my mind since I ordered the truck and accept the 0-60 time of 4.5 seconds, but doesn't that seem way slower than it should be? I mean I understand the weight and size thus the quarter mile time, but with 4 wheel drive and all that power, shouldn't this be in the 3's easily? What am I not understanding? I was reading the tire thread we have and some argue that even street tires wouldn't make the difference. I know the Trackhawk and Durango are different platforms completely but still thought it would be closer in 0-60 to those animals at least. Thoughts? Can we get it there without power adders but getting existing power to the ground better?
 
4.5 seems right for the weight. Plus the rotating mass of those size wheels and tires have to be a lot to get moving.

I wouldn't be too concerned. Being all time 4wd should make it pretty damn consistent. You will probably surprise a few of those sub 4 sec vehicles on the street that won't get traction.
You are absolutely right, in anything that theoretically does under 4 seconds, the road conditions and driver reaction becomes key. And here a high mass AWD is in your favor as it should run the same 4.5 sec all day every day which will make this a nice super cars killer on most days.
 
Agreed.. I recently had my 2018 Trackhawk stolen, and ordered my TRX, which I am more excited about.
But to your point, stock of 3.5 zero to sixty, and with the middle tune from Livernois 2.7 to 60... My first thing is getting the T-rex pullied, tuned ect and at least close to the stock trackhawk times... Just my plan. Good or bad..

Ps... I put almost 20,000 miles on the Hawk with the tune without issue, so confidence is pretty high
 
I think it's a mixture of weight and the gears. Had they went with 4:10's it may have helped a little. 3:55's seem odd for 35's.
 
Last edited:
In good company especially for a 6300 lb. truck!

0-60 AT 4.5 SECOND CLAIM:
Aston-Martin DB9 5.9 V12 - [2012]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Audi A5 RS5 4.2 Quattro - [2010]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Audi A5 S5 3.0 V6 Turbo - [2016]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Audi TT RS 2.5 Coupe Quattro - [2009]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Bentley Continental Flying Spur Speed 6.0 W12 - [2008]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Bentley Continental GTC Speed - [2009]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Bentley Continental GTZ Zagato 6.0 W12 2d - [2008]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

BMW 5 Series 540d xDrive G30 - [2017]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

BMW 5 Series M550d xDrive F10 - [2013]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

BMW 6 Series 650 4.4 V8 - [2014]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

BMW 7 Series 760 Li - [2012]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

BMW X6 M 4.4 V8 Turbo E71 - [2013]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Fisker Tramonto 5.4 V8 - [2005]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Ford Focus RS 2.3 Turbo - [2016]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Ford Mustang FR 500 - [1999]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Holden HSV GTS Supercharger - [2002]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Lexus GS -F 5.0 V8 - [2015]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Lotus 340 R - [2000]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Maserati GranTurismo MC 4.7 V8 - [2017]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Maserati GranTurismo Sport 4.7 V8 - [2012]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Maserati Quattroporte GTS 3.8 V8 Biturbo - [2012]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Maserati Quattroporte GTS 3.8 V8 Twin Turbo - [2017]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Mercedes CL Class 600 Coupe Bi Turbo - [2006]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Mercedes CLA 45 AMG 2.0 Turbo - [2013]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Mercedes CLK 63 AMG - [2006]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Mercedes CLS Class 55 AMG - [2006]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Mercedes E Class 55K AMG - [2003]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Mercedes S Class 63 AMG - [2006]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Mercedes S Class 63 L AMG - [2009]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Mercedes SL Class 63 AMG V8 R230 - [2008]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Mitsubishi Lancer Evo III - [1995]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Morgan 3 Wheeler 2.0l V-Twin - [2011]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Nissan 370Z Nismo - [2009]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Porsche 911 50 Years 911 Edition - [2013]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Porsche 911 GT3 996 - [2003]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

Porsche Cayman GTS PDK 3.4L - [2014]
0-60 mph time - 4.5 seconds

1/4 MILE TIMES AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME 12.9 SECONDS CLAIM. And more importantly at at a quicker trap speed -108 mph then all of the below:

Porsche 911 Carrera S PDK 991 - [2011]
12.87 seconds @ 106.3 mph (171.1 kph)

Bentley Continental GT 4.0 V8 Turbo Convertible - [3996]
12.87 seconds @ 106.3 mph (171.1 kph)

Mercedes G Class 65 AMG 6.0 V12 - [2017]
12.88 seconds @ 106.3 mph (171.1 kph)

Mercedes C Class 63 AMG Estate - [2015]
12.88 seconds @ 106.2 mph (170.9 kph)

Dodge Challenger TA 392 - [2017]
12.88 seconds @ 106.2 mph (170.9 kph)

Bentley Continental GT 6.0 2d W12 - [2003]
12.88 seconds @ 106.2 mph (170.9 kph)

Audi A6 RS6 Avant 4.2 V8 Twin Turbo - [2002]
12.89 seconds @ 106.1 mph (170.8 kph)

BMW 3 Series M3 GTR E46 - [2001]
12.9 seconds @ 106.1 mph (170.8 kph)

Lotus Elise 1.8 S2 Sport 190 - [2003]
12.9 seconds @ 106.0 mph (170.6 kph)

Lotus Exige 240 R - [2005]
12.91 seconds @ 106.0 mph (170.6 kph)

BMW 3 Series M3 CRT E90 - [2011]
12.91 seconds @ 106.0 mph (170.6 kph)

BMW X6 M 4.4 V8 Turbo E71 - [2013]
12.92 seconds @ 105.9 mph (170.4 kph)

BMW X5 M Sport 4.4 V8 - [2009]
12.92 seconds @ 105.9 mph (170.4 kph)

Lamborghini Countach LP500S - [1982]
12.92 seconds @ 105.9 mph (170.4 kph)

Mercedes C Class 63 AMG - [2007]
12.92 seconds @ 105.9 mph (170.4 kph)

BMW Z8 5.0 V8 2d LHD - [2000]
12.92 seconds @ 105.9 mph (170.4 kph)

Audi A4 RS4 4.2 FSI Cabriolet - [2006]
12.92 seconds @ 105.9 mph (170.4 kph)

Lotus Esprit S4 3.5 V8 Turbo - [1996]
12.92 seconds @ 105.9 mph (170.4 kph)

Maserati GranTurismo MC Stradale 4.7 V8 - [2011]
12.92 seconds @ 105.9 mph (170.4 kph)

Plymouth Road Runner 426 Hemi V8 1st Gen - [1968]
12.93 seconds @ 105.9 mph (170.4 kph)

Mercedes C Class 63 AMG Saloon - [2011]
12.93 seconds @ 105.8 mph (170.3 kph)

Mercedes CLS Class 63 AMG Shooting Brake - [2012]
12.93 seconds @ 105.8 mph (170.3 kph)

Maserati Quattroporte GTS 3.8 V8 Biturbo - [2012]
12.93 seconds @ 105.8 mph (170.3 kph)

Ford Focus RS500 - [2010]
12.93 seconds @ 105.8 mph (170.3 kph)

Audi A3 RS3 2.5 Turbo - [2018]
12.93 seconds @ 105.8 mph (170.3 kph)

Aston-Martin DB9 5.9 V12 - [2003]
12.94 seconds @ 105.8 mph (170.3 kph)

Fisker Tramonto 5.4 V8 - [2005]
12.94 seconds @ 105.8 mph (170.3 kph)

Porsche 911 Carrera S Cabriolet 997 - [2008]
12.94 seconds @ 105.7 mph (170.1 kph)

Audi A8 6.0 W12 SWB Quattro D3 - [2004]
12.95 seconds @ 105.7 mph (170.1 kph)

Dodge Challenger SRT-8 6.4 V8 392 - [2010]
12.95 seconds @ 105.6 mph (169.9 kph)

Porsche 911 Targa 4 991 - [2014]
12.96 seconds @ 105.6 mph (169.9 kph)

Mercedes SL Class 63 AMG V8 R230 - [2008]
12.96 seconds @ 105.5 mph (169.8 kph)

BMW 3 Series M3 Coupe Frozen Edition E92 - [2010]
12.97 seconds @ 105.5 mph (169.8 kph)
 
Last edited:
0-60 time is a standard benchmark but it's rarely the whole story. I've ridden in a Tesla that can do 0-60 in under 3 secs. Sure, it shoves you in the seat, but it's not nearly the same experience, at least to me, of a the sound and sensation of a big V-8 taking twice the time. Porsche has tried to go 100% PDK with their cars, and they are amazingly fast, but nearly every article I have read the writer would prefer the driving engagement of a manual even if the PDK is faster 0-60. Again, it's more about the experience than the time and I expect the TRX to be quite an experience.
 
0-60 time is a standard benchmark but it's rarely the whole story. I've ridden in a Tesla that can do 0-60 in under 3 secs. Sure, it shoves you in the seat, but it's not nearly the same experience, at least to me, of a the sound and sensation of a big V-8 taking twice the time. Porsche has tried to go 100% PDK with their cars, and they are amazingly fast, but nearly every article I have read the writer would prefer the driving engagement of a manual even if the PDK is faster 0-60. Again, it's more about the experience than the time and I expect the TRX to be quite an experience.

Thats one of the reasons I’ve kept my Porsche 997 Turbo Cabriolet, the manual, they stopped making the turbo w/ a stick & it’s one of the best ever.
 
I wonder if Pedal Commander will be making an option for the TRX? I’ve had one on my last two trucks and it makes a world of difference. You may laugh, but I’m telling you......

*edit* PC does NOT increase horsepower, simply put, it let’s you get to your power faster by taking any lag out of the acceleration.
I have one on my Sierra Denali 6.2. I run it at 75% (sport 4) never had it on sport+ but it does make a world of difference. It takes all the lag out of the electronic throttle.
 
Well no matter what we get to enjoy having the world's fastest 0-60 production truck....right up until the Telsa truck comes out and runs a 2.9 hahahahaha
 

Latest Discussions...

RAM-TRX Vendors

justboltons.com BwoodyPerformance.com Granger Chrysler Jeep Dodge RAM OffRoadAlliance.com/ solisracinggroup.com Mark Dodge.com AirRyd.com Forced Induction Interchillers SDHQ Motorsports
Back
Top