Heng long Challenger 2 for the win?
06-08-2018, 03:40 PM
#1
Heng long Challenger 2 for the win?
Over the last five months I have beee doing some "for fun" comparison testing of the modern Heng Long tank line up(Challenger 2, Abrams T90)on a variety of trials type courses and posting my finding here on this sight. During this time I have received a number of PMs asking me for additional information and attempting to pin me down to which of the test tanks I thought was the best. I was not ready to declare a winner of the best overall performer until now. As the title of this thread says that overall winner is the Challenger 2.
During testing the Challenger 2 was deliberately handicapped with factory plastic tracks, but even still performed well. What the Challenger 2 brought to the testing that the others did not, was in my opinion the best factory suspension of all the modern Heng Long tanks. Its high ground clearance plus excellent range of travel (up/down) is clearly unmatched giving it the ability to conform its tracks more completely to the terrain and thus have better overall traction. It also provides for a smoother running tank at high speed over rough terrain. Though the Challenger 2 suffers from a long barrel overhang and fuel drums dragging these two issues are easily overcome with driving technic and the removal of the fuel drums.
Had I run the Challenger 2 with a set of DKLM Abrams metal/rubber padded tracks like those on the Abrams it was competing against I believe it would have walked away with the overall win by a large margin.
So if you are looking for excellent off road performance and handling in modern tank, look no further than the Challenger 2.
Here are a few photos showing the suspension travel differences between both a stock Challenger 2 and Abrams (tan) along with an Abrams (green) with a highly modified suspension. It is the difference shown in the photos below that won the day for the Challenger 2. As always your constructive input and questions are welcome.
^^^^^ Heng Long Challenger 2 above crossing over pipe.
^^^^^ Heng Long Abrams above crossing over pipe.
^^^^^ Heng Long Abrams above with modified suspension crossing over pipe.
^^^^^ Heng Long Challenger 2 crossing mound of dirt.
^^^^^ Heng Long Abrams crossing mound of dirt
^^^^^ Heng Long Abrams with modified suspension crossing mound of dirt.
During testing the Challenger 2 was deliberately handicapped with factory plastic tracks, but even still performed well. What the Challenger 2 brought to the testing that the others did not, was in my opinion the best factory suspension of all the modern Heng Long tanks. Its high ground clearance plus excellent range of travel (up/down) is clearly unmatched giving it the ability to conform its tracks more completely to the terrain and thus have better overall traction. It also provides for a smoother running tank at high speed over rough terrain. Though the Challenger 2 suffers from a long barrel overhang and fuel drums dragging these two issues are easily overcome with driving technic and the removal of the fuel drums.
Had I run the Challenger 2 with a set of DKLM Abrams metal/rubber padded tracks like those on the Abrams it was competing against I believe it would have walked away with the overall win by a large margin.
So if you are looking for excellent off road performance and handling in modern tank, look no further than the Challenger 2.
Here are a few photos showing the suspension travel differences between both a stock Challenger 2 and Abrams (tan) along with an Abrams (green) with a highly modified suspension. It is the difference shown in the photos below that won the day for the Challenger 2. As always your constructive input and questions are welcome.
^^^^^ Heng Long Challenger 2 above crossing over pipe.
^^^^^ Heng Long Abrams above crossing over pipe.
^^^^^ Heng Long Abrams above with modified suspension crossing over pipe.
^^^^^ Heng Long Challenger 2 crossing mound of dirt.
^^^^^ Heng Long Abrams crossing mound of dirt
^^^^^ Heng Long Abrams with modified suspension crossing mound of dirt.
Last edited by Fsttanks; 06-09-2018 at 12:36 AM.
The following users liked this post:
Markocaster (04-16-2020)
06-08-2018, 06:34 PM
#2
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: akron, OH
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you ever ran the leopard 2a6 ? I have one and an Abrams and the Leo has way better ground clearance and suspension in my opinion. I think Leo vs chally would be a good competition.
I come from a rc rock crawler background, it would be cool to see a real timed course with the different tanks to see which tank could get through the cleanest
I come from a rc rock crawler background, it would be cool to see a real timed course with the different tanks to see which tank could get through the cleanest
06-08-2018, 07:56 PM
#3
Have you ever ran the leopard 2a6 ? I have one and an Abrams and the Leo has way better ground clearance and suspension in my opinion. I think Leo vs chally would be a good competition.
I come from a rc rock crawler background, it would be cool to see a real timed course with the different tanks to see which tank could get through the cleanest
I come from a rc rock crawler background, it would be cool to see a real timed course with the different tanks to see which tank could get through the cleanest
Since you come from the rock crawling side of things you have a better understanding than most about the benefits of having lots of wheel travel “flex” and ground clearance. Not to mention approach and departure angles. I heavily simplify the test result write ups as many do not understand how it applies or benefits one over another. Not a lot of interest here for modern tank designs.
If you have time check out my last trials course threads as they are based on rock crawling and you might find them interesting
Last edited by Fsttanks; 06-08-2018 at 08:49 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Dreadnaughty (04-16-2020)
04-16-2020, 04:47 AM
#5
Excellent comparison right there, your review made it much easier for me to pick between the abrams and the chally, it's going to be my first tank haha. Is it better to get the metal road wheels for the chally out of the factory? or should I just upgrade it later
04-16-2020, 07:54 AM
#6
The new 6.0 versions of the Challenger are far better then the one tested two years ago. It now has a track tensioning system and hugely improved electronics. I would say because if this there is less tuning needed so go straight to buying the all metal road wheel version.
If you are going to run aftermarket metal/rubber padded tracks (which provide the best grip and off road performance) then you will need to add the axle shaft support bearings and upgraded the motor to 390s. Also consider a larger battery with more voltage then 7.2/4.
Also all the above applies to the new 6.0 Abrams as well. It too has a new track tensioning system and new electronics.
I have a bunch more current photos and videos on my Instagram @ fsttanks if you would like to see more of the modern tanks in action.
If you are going to run aftermarket metal/rubber padded tracks (which provide the best grip and off road performance) then you will need to add the axle shaft support bearings and upgraded the motor to 390s. Also consider a larger battery with more voltage then 7.2/4.
Also all the above applies to the new 6.0 Abrams as well. It too has a new track tensioning system and new electronics.
I have a bunch more current photos and videos on my Instagram @ fsttanks if you would like to see more of the modern tanks in action.
04-16-2020, 08:41 AM
#7
The new 6.0 versions of the Challenger are far better then the one tested two years ago. It now has a track tensioning system and hugely improved electronics. I would say because if this there is less tuning needed so go straight to buying the all metal road wheel version.
If you are going to run aftermarket metal/rubber padded tracks (which provide the best grip and off road performance) then you will need to add the axle shaft support bearings and upgraded the motor to 390s. Also consider a larger battery with more voltage then 7.2/4.
Also all the above applies to the new 6.0 Abrams as well. It too has a new track tensioning system and new electronics.
I have a bunch more current photos and videos on my Instagram @ fsttanks if you would like to see more of the modern tanks in action.
If you are going to run aftermarket metal/rubber padded tracks (which provide the best grip and off road performance) then you will need to add the axle shaft support bearings and upgraded the motor to 390s. Also consider a larger battery with more voltage then 7.2/4.
Also all the above applies to the new 6.0 Abrams as well. It too has a new track tensioning system and new electronics.
I have a bunch more current photos and videos on my Instagram @ fsttanks if you would like to see more of the modern tanks in action.
04-16-2020, 09:02 AM
#8
Does the 390 motor make a huge difference from the stock one? I mean if i get the metal version for the road wheels, idler, sprocket plus metal/rubber tracks, will the 390 motor be able to make it run as good as the version where everything is stock including the motor?
04-16-2020, 09:21 AM
#9
Yes the 390 motors will make it run as good and even better then stock. With one exception. Rubber padded tracks are very grippy and need a lot of power to turn such a long tank. I highly recommend getting a higher voltage battery then the stock one. Preferably in the 8.4-9.6 volt range and 3500+ mah. The new 6.0 MFU is rated to over 12 volts so keeping in the voltage range mentioned is well within a safety margin.
04-16-2020, 09:27 AM
#10
Yes the 390 motors will make it run as good and even better then stock. With one exception. Rubber padded tracks are very grippy and need a lot of power to turn such a long tank. I highly recommend getting a higher voltage battery then the stock one. Preferably in the 8.4-9.6 volt range and 3500+ mah. The new 6.0 MFU is rated to over 12 volts so keeping in the voltage range mentioned is well within a safety margin.
04-16-2020, 10:51 AM
#11
I do not run the smoke units because they look too toy like to my eye. I pull those out first thing. That said the new 6.0 tanks have a higher rated voltage smoke unit.
Generally speaking for the stock 6.0 HL tank with motor and track upgrades:
A 3 cell 11.1 Lipo is actually putting out 12+ volts peak and is at the max rating for the 6.0 system (and will fire the old 5.2&5.3 systems). I find the 3 cell Lipos when used with the 6.0 HL MFU produce to much power for the tanks (in either power option mode) and make them overly responsive, more breakage prone and unpredictable in their handling. Also at 12v you are at the max rating for the 380 or 390 motors and they get REALLY HOT REALLY FAST.
One reason I recommend old style NiMH batteries with the 6.0 system is the middle range of voltage that you can not get easily with Lipos. Lipos tend to put out more volts then listed for them, 7.4=8.4 peak and 11-1=12.1 peak. So you either have just enough or way to much.
If must run Lipos in 6.0 tanks because Lipos are what you are set up to run in other r/c hobbies then 2 cell 7.4 4000-5000+ mah. This will keep you in the peak 8.4 voltage range the longest which is the minimum I recommend for tanks with metal/rubber padded tracks or all metal tracks with highly aggressive cleats.
Generally speaking for the stock 6.0 HL tank with motor and track upgrades:
A 3 cell 11.1 Lipo is actually putting out 12+ volts peak and is at the max rating for the 6.0 system (and will fire the old 5.2&5.3 systems). I find the 3 cell Lipos when used with the 6.0 HL MFU produce to much power for the tanks (in either power option mode) and make them overly responsive, more breakage prone and unpredictable in their handling. Also at 12v you are at the max rating for the 380 or 390 motors and they get REALLY HOT REALLY FAST.
One reason I recommend old style NiMH batteries with the 6.0 system is the middle range of voltage that you can not get easily with Lipos. Lipos tend to put out more volts then listed for them, 7.4=8.4 peak and 11-1=12.1 peak. So you either have just enough or way to much.
If must run Lipos in 6.0 tanks because Lipos are what you are set up to run in other r/c hobbies then 2 cell 7.4 4000-5000+ mah. This will keep you in the peak 8.4 voltage range the longest which is the minimum I recommend for tanks with metal/rubber padded tracks or all metal tracks with highly aggressive cleats.
Last edited by Fsttanks; 04-16-2020 at 10:56 AM.
The following users liked this post:
Dreadnaughty (04-21-2020)
04-18-2020, 02:19 AM
#12
I do not run the smoke units because they look too toy like to my eye. I pull those out first thing. That said the new 6.0 tanks have a higher rated voltage smoke unit.
Generally speaking for the stock 6.0 HL tank with motor and track upgrades:
A 3 cell 11.1 Lipo is actually putting out 12+ volts peak and is at the max rating for the 6.0 system (and will fire the old 5.2&5.3 systems). I find the 3 cell Lipos when used with the 6.0 HL MFU produce to much power for the tanks (in either power option mode) and make them overly responsive, more breakage prone and unpredictable in their handling. Also at 12v you are at the max rating for the 380 or 390 motors and they get REALLY HOT REALLY FAST.
One reason I recommend old style NiMH batteries with the 6.0 system is the middle range of voltage that you can not get easily with Lipos. Lipos tend to put out more volts then listed for them, 7.4=8.4 peak and 11-1=12.1 peak. So you either have just enough or way to much.
If must run Lipos in 6.0 tanks because Lipos are what you are set up to run in other r/c hobbies then 2 cell 7.4 4000-5000+ mah. This will keep you in the peak 8.4 voltage range the longest which is the minimum I recommend for tanks with metal/rubber padded tracks or all metal tracks with highly aggressive cleats.
Generally speaking for the stock 6.0 HL tank with motor and track upgrades:
A 3 cell 11.1 Lipo is actually putting out 12+ volts peak and is at the max rating for the 6.0 system (and will fire the old 5.2&5.3 systems). I find the 3 cell Lipos when used with the 6.0 HL MFU produce to much power for the tanks (in either power option mode) and make them overly responsive, more breakage prone and unpredictable in their handling. Also at 12v you are at the max rating for the 380 or 390 motors and they get REALLY HOT REALLY FAST.
One reason I recommend old style NiMH batteries with the 6.0 system is the middle range of voltage that you can not get easily with Lipos. Lipos tend to put out more volts then listed for them, 7.4=8.4 peak and 11-1=12.1 peak. So you either have just enough or way to much.
If must run Lipos in 6.0 tanks because Lipos are what you are set up to run in other r/c hobbies then 2 cell 7.4 4000-5000+ mah. This will keep you in the peak 8.4 voltage range the longest which is the minimum I recommend for tanks with metal/rubber padded tracks or all metal tracks with highly aggressive cleats.
Spoiler
