SRT on BBC Top Gear

[quickysrt]

why wouldnt the viper beat the ford gt's time?

 

[Guibo]

I can think of some theoretical reasons why:
1) the Ford GT is mid-engined, which gives a lower polar moment of inertia
2) Ford GT has more weight over the driven wheels, which gives better traction coming out of tight corners
3) Ford GT doesn't have to contend with the sacrifices inherent in runflat tires (higher unsprung mass)
4) Being a closed coupe instead of an open-top roadster, chassis rigidity may be a factor
5) While they both weigh about the same, the GT is rated at 50 more hp (and in reality may be making much more than that); compare their 30-100 mph passing times.

 

[Snakester]

Yeah, I suspect that the Ford GT would be VERY hard to beat.
The European Vipers are slightly down on power compared to the U.S. models, and the Ford GT is highly underrated, most likely making over 600HP(crank).

Plus the Ford GT has tighter gearing, but the Viper's braking is better.

I'm just hoping that it beats the Ferrari 360CS, and the Porsche GT3 because that would discount any notion that the Vipers can't brake or handle well.

 

[Neil - UK]

The European Vipers are slightly down on power

The SRT used on this occassion for the filming is US spec, so it will have the full factory bhp There aren't any lower bhp European SRT's as yet, which is a good thing, Prodrive are still sorting them out

 

[Snakester]

I had read that Startech had been importing the SRT-10 Viper to Europe, but due to noise regulations it had to have a rear exhaust and lost a few HP.

I would love to see DC do whatever European conversion necessary and make sure that the Vipers were actually more powerful then ours here, as generally Europe needs more work done to impress them.

Thanks for the news that the Top Gear SRT-10 Viper will be a full HP U.S. car. I'm looking forward to hearing how well it does at their track.

 

[allanlambo]

Srt just ran an 8.13 on the Nurburgring.

 

[SnakeEye]

Srt just ran an 8.13 on the Nurburgring.

Who left the parking brake engaged?
The car's capable of delivering sub 8's period.

 

[InjectTheVenom]

When are they going to air the episode?

 

[Neil - UK]

not sure yet the new series hasn't started, but i'll update on this thread when I know more

 

[Autostream]

it is about time the European and British auto media took note and stopped bagging the US for producing big OHV engines - when reality is the US engines are smaller, lighter and more torquey than their high tech ***, UK, and European counterparts.... the only thing BIGGER on a US OHV V8 is the cubic capacity.

What you wrote is the Michael Moore approach to praising OHV engines! compare:

Horsepower/Liter
110.9 BMW M3 , 333hp , 3.2 6cyl , NA

97.0 TVR T350 , 350hp , 3.6 6cyl , NA
92.8 Porsche 997 , 355hp , 3.8 6cyl , NA
91.2 Acura NSX , 290hp , 3.2 6cyl , NA

67.8 Corvette C6 , 400hp , 6.0 8cyl , NA
60.2 Dodge SRT10 , 500hp , 8.3 10cyl , NA

This is what I been trying to say before. The C6 just makes paltry power for its huge engine. And at almost twice the size of the NSX, it really is huge. And it doesnt need to be.
I blame this on GM's yester-tech approach of keeping ancient designs in use just to save themselves money.

I'm not impressed with the Viper either. For 82 grand and 8.3 liters, it should have at least 600hp- since its obvious they didnt put too much $ into the dash or the drivetrain.

 

[fluffy]

The problem with your entire post is that hp/L is completely irrelevant. It simply does not matter. The LS1, LS2 and LS6 are smaller, lighter, get better gas mileage and make more power than the NSX's v6, the BMW I6 etc. The C6 makes an incredible amount of power for its size, setting a standard that BMW and Acura have yet to match in a street legal engine. Size != displacement, period. In every measurable capacity the LS2 is superior to the V6 and I6 you referenced.

But wait... maybe I've got your argument wrong. Perhaps you'd like to explain why, for example, a 5L 500hp engine is superior to a 6L 500hp engine?

 

[Autostream]

why, for example, a 5L 500hp engine is superior to a 6L 500hp engine?

ALL things being equal, thats easy...for one, the extra cost of buying the extra mass, two, the extra fuel bill in just running it, and three, the extra fuel bill in lugging around that extra weight.

And I highly doubt the C6's engine uses less fuel than the M3's and NSX's. The EPA figures are about the same, but the testing doesnt require the use of the C6's 2nd and 3rd gear. On an engine dyno, my money would be on the ****

but you tell me, would you prefer a 6L or 7L 500hp engine, or a 9L 500hp engine to a 5L? and why?

 

[fluffy]

And I highly doubt the C6's engine uses less fuel than the M3's and NSX's. The EPA figures are about the same, but the testing doesnt require the use of the C6's 2nd and 3rd gear.

Let's assume you are correct; in fact let's assume that the C6 gets 20% worse gas mileage than the NSX, that would mean 14mpg city, 19mpg highway: That would still mean that the larger displacement LS2 is more efficient, since it makes 40% more power for only 20% more fuel.

But in the end it gut instincts don't matter much; it's a fact that the C6 uses less fuel in general use. Maybe wide open it doesn't, I don't know... but I'd rather have an engine that gets good mileage during the 95% of the time I'm driving normally vs one that is slightly better at WOT. Besides, my experience with the LSx engines has been that they perform in line with the EPA figures... something I can't say about my Toyota Celica.

but you tell me, would you prefer a 6L or 7L 500hp engine, or a 9L 500hp engine to a 5L? and why?

Give me a 9L 500hp engine any day of the week. Reasons:

More torque (=> better mpg): Larger displacement engines make more torque, can be geared lower and turn fewer rpm for a given horsepower. This results in greater fuel efficiency despite the larger displacement because each cylinder is firing at a slower rate. That's why the corvette can easily maintain 30mpg on the highway at 1800 rpm while the NSX is turning 3000rpm at the same speed. More fuel is needed for each cylinder, but they fire less often.

Smaller: As displacement drops, the technology needed to produce the same amount of horsepower rises. Today this generally means overhead cams and VVT which negatively impacts the size and weight of an engine. A DOHC engine is enormous... far larger than a pushrod engine of similar power, even at twice the displacement. A smaller engine with less weight means increased fuel efficiency and a more nimble vehicle.

Cheaper & easy to fix: OHV engines are extremely simple engines. As such they are less expensive to build, and with few moving parts (no elaborate timing chains and multiple camshafts) they generally just run forever. When they don't it's a simple matter to pull them apart and fix whatever happens to be wrong.


Basically it comes down to this: larger displacement engines are smaller, lighter, cheaper and more efficient.

 

[Autostream]

Clarkson on the SRT-10:
"You could compare the new Viper with any Porsche, Ferrari, BMW or Mercedes. You could even compare it with the new Corvette, and it would lose badly. As a driving tool it is just as wayward and just as hopeless as its predecessor.
If it were available with right-hand drive I’d love to have one. It would set me out as someone who won’t conform to the English norm, someone who can forget who you are and not give a damn. It is the concept of hedonism made real. "

I agree, I would love to have one too, though it would be for the fifth spot in my garage(when I become rich).

 

[GR8_ASP]

I agree fluffy. In the end what is inside should not matter (unless of course you plan modifications). It should be outside engine dimensions, weight, efficiency, torque, power, refinement (willingness to rev, vibration, sound, etc.)etc. At no time is the number or size of the cylinders important except when they affect the overall performance.

And since peak torque and displacement are closely related, lb for lb I would choose the higher displacement engine.

 

[fluffy]

Oh, is the Top Gear review out already? I'll wait for the actual track numbers before I give Clarkson's BS any comment, but where can I find the printed version?

 

[SnakeBitten]

Clarkson on the SRT-10:
"You could compare the new Viper with any Porsche, Ferrari, BMW or Mercedes. You could even compare it with the new Corvette, and it would lose badly. As a driving tool it is just as wayward and just as hopeless as its predecessor.
If it were available with right-hand drive I’d love to have one. It would set me out as someone who won’t conform to the English norm, someone who can forget who you are and not give a damn. It is the concept of hedonism made real. "

I agree, I would love to have one too, though it would be for the fifth spot in my garage(when I become rich).

Any lap times???If it cant beat the Vette as Autostreams quote of Clarkson indicates, then my guess it did between a 1.27 and 1.30 lap...Cant wait to see how the Stig managed to make the SRT10 lose to the Vette...

Im not surprised one bit by his opinion on the SRT...The Vette is more civilised and much easier to drive and he maligned it...What chance did the crude SRT have...No one should be surprised at his verbal jabs....Looks like my time prediction on the first page of this post will be the closest to the actual lap time...I think I guessed the worst time out of everyone...

 

[Snakester]

Unfortunately, it was a foregone conclusion that Clarkson would horribly downplay the Viper's performance capabilities.
I bet that they ran it on a wet track.
I had at least hoped that the Stig would be able to get something good out of the car, but it appears that it was not to be.

Looking forward to seeing the numbers...

 

[Guibo]

Horsepower/Liter
110.9 BMW M3 , 333hp , 3.2 6cyl , NA

97.0 TVR T350 , 350hp , 3.6 6cyl , NA
92.8 Porsche 997 , 355hp , 3.8 6cyl , NA
91.2 Acura NSX , 290hp , 3.2 6cyl , NA

67.8 Corvette C6 , 400hp , 6.0 8cyl , NA
60.2 Dodge SRT10 , 500hp , 8.3 10cyl , NA

This is what I been trying to say before. The C6 just makes paltry power for its huge engine. And at almost twice the size of the NSX, it really is huge. And it doesnt need to be.
I blame this on GM's yester-tech approach of keeping ancient designs in use just to save themselves money.

But when they save themselves money, they also save you money. What other stock production car can you buy that is as fast as the C6 for that price? Not the NSX. Not the 997. TVR? Interesting you should mention that. What would you rather have? Hp/l or reliability? TVR owners themselves often say TVR should ditch their own engines and adopt Yank-tank V8's.

"My personal opinion is that the only way to reassure these customers would be either to ditch the current engine or keep it and offer an alternative .. such as the ultra reliable Ford Cammer .. or chevy LS6..

---http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=125769&f=13&h=0

Did you know that the failure rate for the TVR SP6 is about 40%? That's simply appalling.

So before you extol the virtues of specific output as it relates to some marques, don't forget what you're sacrificing. The Corvette's engine is light, compact (it'll fit in a Miata for chrissake), it's emissions-legal in all 50 States and is expected to meet Euro emissions standards (the TVR engine has a hard enough time meeting Euro 2 regs), makes a mountain of torque and hp (not only at peak level), and lets you have a 12-second car while giving up practically nothing in terms of warranty and servicing costs (the TVR engine is anything but low maintenance). Err...what's the problem here? Besides the fact that it might irk some who think they know better than GM powertrain engineers, how "behind the times" GM/Dodge are despite the fact that DOHC's have been around since ~1913.


As I've said before, the C6 can manage the 1-4 skip shift feature because its torque allows it to. Try the same thing in an M3 or NSX and it'll be like pulling a tank out of a crevasse. And no one has explained how the C5 got better fuel economy than the F360, 996 Carrera, and Jag XKR in a head to head test, w/o the skip-shift feature.

Viper's don't have skip-shift do they? Then how did the Viper match cars with much smaller engines in this head to head test (all driver over the same roads)?:
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/451366d.jpg


And comparing a 5.7-liter V8 to a 3.2-liter inline-6...Seriously! The M3 engine can acheive that because it's already so small. (Think: bore/stroke, reciprocating mass, compression ratios, etc.)

 

[Guibo]

Here's two cars, both with ~650 peak rwhp. But are they really "the same?"

You must be registered for see images

At peak levels, yes, they're the same. But what's happening at 3500 rpm? The one on the left has almost four times more power.

This is the problem with examining only hp/l figures, because it takes into consideration only PEAK hp levels. Unless you're racing in a displacement-limited series, or want to sell cars in a country with strict displacement taxes, or you've got a CVT (meaning you're at peak hp levels all the time, it doesn't mean that much in a practical sense.

 

[Autostream]

That wasnt from Top Gear, it was his own personal road test. He didnt mean it lost to those cars around a track, just an overall driving impression.

1:26.1 is my bet. With a 100 hp advantage, I think it'll beat the vette no problem even if it handles worse, but no way will it beat the Gallardo

It will def place within this section:
Noble - 1.25.0
Gallardo - 1.25.8
EVO 8 MR-fq320 - 1.26.0
Chevrolet Corvette - 1.26.8
Lotus Exige - 1.26.9
Porsche 911 GT3 - 1.27.2 (wet)
TVR 350c - 1.27.5
BMW M3 CSL - 1.28.0
MG SV - 1.28.6
BMW Alpina Z8 - 1.28.0
(take approx 4 seconds off for wet times)

 

[fluffy]

Is his test posted somewhere or is it in the print mag?

 

[Snakester]

Well actually that's MUCH better news! He always slams cars, gauged from his personal impressions. And that actually makes it more embarassing for him if the cars do well on their test track.

I would just love it if the SRT-10 Viper places within the top 10 of their fastest production cars!

That would make him eat his words. I don't care if he thinks that the Viper's impractical, or not on the technological leading edge. As long as it performs with the best of them!

 

[Autostream]

Err...what's the problem here? Besides the fact that it might irk some who think they know better than GM powertrain engineers, how "behind the times" GM/Dodge are despite the fact that DOHC's have been around since ~1913.

I dont know more than GM engineers, and I dont deny that a well designed pushrod engine is a match for any overhead cam design in terms of performance. But I also know that pushrods and single cams are ancient technology since they have been almost completely phased out by the rest of the world. And even chrysler and ford are in the process of switching over(including their trucks). But GM's been very, very slow.

But if it was my $45k to be spent on a newly designed 2005, I would want it to be cutting edge. Something high revving, mutiple cams, lots of valves with VVT to make me feel like Schumacher. I wouldnt feel comfortable writing out a check for a brand new car with leaf springs and 2 valve heads.
But you seem to like it alot, so you should really buy one. Plus you'd feel like Tony Stewart. To each his own. Just dont over-rev it, or you'll knock an exhaust valve off.

 

[Autostream]

btw, those are the updated top gear power laps times (their website has typo's)

 

[Guibo]

And even chrysler and ford are in the process of switching over(including their trucks). But GM's been very, very slow.

You must be talking about the new DOHC Hemi that's spreading through Chrysler's lineup like wildfire.
If you're GM (and you're saving $2.7B per year by using OHV, well, yeah. You'd be slow too.

But if it was my $45k to be spent on a newly designed 2005, I would want it to be cutting edge. Something high revving, mutiple cams, lots of valves with VVT to make me feel like Schumacher. I wouldnt feel comfortable writing out a check for a brand new car with leaf springs and 2 valve heads.

Then you have some serious insecurity issues. Sorry, you're on your own with that.
Multiple cams and VVT is hardly cutting edge. You should be talking about direct injection diesels, or hydrogen power altogether. Now THAT'S cutting edge.
Anywhoo. Have fun sitting in your driveway making vroom-vroom noises, pretending to be Schumacher. I'd rather be driving and (god forbid!) driving fast.
Still clueless about leaf springs I see.

But you seem to like it alot, so you should really buy one. Plus you'd feel like Tony Stewart. To each his own. Just dont over-rev it, or you'll knock an exhaust valve off.

I'm only vaguely familiar with NASCAR. Maybe you should've used a more appropriate analogy. Like maybe John Heinricy, Ron Fellows, Johnny O'Connell, Peter Zakowski, David Donohue, Justin Bell, Tommy Archer, Olivier Beretta, David Donohue, etc. You know, people who have driven supposedly outdated dinosaurs to victories at Le Mans, Sebring, Daytona, ALMS, 24 Hrs of Nurburgring, etc over their much more "advanced" competitors.

Valves and over-rev? Seriously you can't be so thick. Take a look at these:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=122991&f=5&h=0
http://members.roadfly.com/jason/m3engines.htm

And try to explain to me the importance of hp/l when your brand new car is off the road (and sometimes repeatedly) for a blown engine. It appears the application of technology has done nothing for reliability. But then again, complex systems are more likely to have glitches, aren't they?

 

[fluffy]

But I also know that pushrods and single cams are ancient technology since they have been almost completely phased out by the rest of the world.

Yes but why have they been almost completely phased out? There has to be a reason. BTW, OHC engines are much older than OHV... the Ford Model A and T were external camshaft designs, as were the engines of the late 1800s. The OHV concept was tried in 1919 by Chevy, but the concept was too advanced for it to work well. The first reliable OHV V8 was introduced by Oldsmobile in 1949, Ford and Chevy followed in 1954 and 1955 respectively. OHV engines were used in luxury cars and heavy duty trucks in the 1920s and 30s, but didn't find their way into mass produced passenger cars until later. OHC is the "ancient" technology, not OHV.

 

[onerareviper]

Err...what's the problem here? Besides the fact that it might irk some who think they know better than GM powertrain engineers, how "behind the times" GM/Dodge are despite the fact that DOHC's have been around since ~1913.

I dont know more than GM engineers, and I dont deny that a well designed pushrod engine is a match for any overhead cam design in terms of performance. But I also know that pushrods and single cams are ancient technology since they have been almost completely phased out by the rest of the world. And even chrysler and ford are in the process of switching over(including their trucks). But GM's been very, very slow.

But if it was my $45k to be spent on a newly designed 2005, I would want it to be cutting edge. Something high revving, mutiple cams, lots of valves with VVT to make me feel like Schumacher. I wouldnt feel comfortable writing out a check for a brand new car with leaf springs and 2 valve heads.
But you seem to like it alot, so you should really buy one. Plus you'd feel like Tony Stewart. To each his own. Just dont over-rev it, or you'll knock an exhaust valve off.

Youngster,

You're out of your league. Back.... Back.... Back to the VTECH page.

 

[Autostream]

Well grandpa, everyone's rattling on how the C6 is a technological marvel. Yet the reality is that the LS2 engine produces less power for its size than a Honda Civic base model. Thats not impressive. All that I've read here to impress me is the fuel mileage--and I couldnt care less about that-we're talking high performance sports cars, not econobox's.


If it were 1955, OHV's might be cutting edge. But its not. Its 2005, and OHV's are a thing of the past.
And dont start with the new Hemi. Extracting that much juice from pushrods required such a hot cams, that the thing shakes(literally) nervously at idle. And the fuel mileage? oh its great, because half the engine shuts down(MDS)at light throttle and cruise. Gimmicks. Thats how they get these low EPA figures instead of high tech engineering at the source.
Oh and emissions? A 'Hemi' is the worst possible design for that. Its pumps out NOx in lumps the size of baseballs. It almost didnt pass at the epa.
It was made for only one reason: Marketing! and its working. Oh that and that fact that it's cheaper to make than the 360 it replaces. hmmmmm, seems to be alot of that going around lately.

 

[Russ M]

Autostream, and a few others you are just plain wrong on this.

You seem to be judging an engines efficiency by its displacement/hp production and only on that. You should be taking many things into consideration when making such ignorant statements.

Weight
MPG
size
Longevity
Cost
Horsepower
Torque
Power band

Fact of the matter is that say an LS2 will beat just about every high reving, quad cam, 32 valve motor out there when you take all those things into consideration.

Displacement use to be a big disadvantage in the past when fuel economy could just not be achieved to even come close to small motors. Now you can get 20mpg from an LS6 just like an NSX, and the NSX as just an example will weigh more, have 1/2 the torque, and 2/3 the HP.

So when you take that into account why would Chevy need to spend 7 billion or whatever it is on a 4 cam 32 valve v8, just to make the same power and cost 4x more.