Ford GT vs. Viper SRT-10

[wanderer]

The viper with 850-hp and 1200 lbs. is pretty impresive,

the ford gt, on the other hand with its top speed of around

200 mph at a price tag of $140,000 is also pretty impressive, it beets the top speed of the viper which is around 190 which isn't that big of a

difference, but then again the viper is alot cheaper and in

my opinion looks better.

What do you guys think??

[Anzeige eBay]

Hallo wanderer,

 

kennst du schon Ford GT vs. Viper SRT-10 (Anzeige)? Dort ist vieles zu finden.

 

US Cars Ersatzteile (Anzeige) | US Cars Zubehör (Anzeige)

[LateNightCable]

850 hp. 1,200 lb. Viper, are you refering to some article you've seen or something? Please explain.

The Ford GT is more like $150,000, and probably more with inevitable dealer mark up. My opinion is, that the Viper is the better deal because it runs with the GT, and provides just as much flash for half the price, not to mention being much more accessible, which is important. The GT is the more balanced of the two though.

[Mongrel]

What do you guys think??

i'm more of a GT type of person myself i dont like the way the viper looks, and last i heard, the GT was hitting upwards of 200 mph, like ~210 and it has 550 hp, not 500, and the viper only has 500, not 850. besides, the GT handles better oh, i've been searching, and i have seen dealer mark ups on the GT past $300,000

[wanderer]

Well Car and Driver magazine said the viper had

800-hp I dont know why, and as for the looks viper

in my opinion looks exquisite.

[mv]

i suspect that it was the Venom

[cmill]

The only test results for the Viper SRT-10, was generated with a convertible!!! I have not seen any results for a hard top version. I beleive the only hard top version is the ACR, which does not count. I think it is pretty impressive that Dodge has made a convertible that can generate 1.0 G , and at times more, in a test. I think this would be a better comparison if we had the hard top street version to compare the two. Also, we have to consider weight, the convertible will be heavier than the hard top....that could make a slight difference

[wanderer]

Ive also never seen a Viper SRT-10 hardtop I dont know why

Dodge doesn't make one. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[LateNightCable]

They will eventually, the SVO Viper racecar gives you a good idea of what it will look like.

[wanderer]

The viper SRT-10 would look better with a hardtop

I saw a pic of the SVO racecar it looks pretty nice.

[Seb2]

Of all American cars the GT40 has always been my dream car. With all its racing history and good looks.

The Viper is also a great great car. The only American car these days that live up to name "Muscle car".

[Anzeige eBay]

Hallo wanderer,

 

schau doch mal hier zum Thema Zubehör für US Cars (Anzeige)? Eventuell gibt es dort etwas Passendes.

[Seb2]

One more thing to say.

The new GT got the Swedish Lysholm supercharger.

www.lysholm.se

Car have excellent tuning capacity. Wich we probobly will see in the future.

Also seen some quite cheap works with supercharging the Viper engine. Still with the stock bottom(high compression) and low pressure and make 800rwhp. But still such a conversion costs $15k+. And that engine can make 700hk+ without charging.

If i would rebuild the viper engine. I would have destroke the engine alot. To be able to rev the engine higher. Car allready got great bore for V10. Added a centrifugal supercharger wich works good with high revs. The turbo is realy overated you need to rebuild the headers for turbo. Just alot of work.

[Metfanant]

turbos are the way to go period, on any car really. A properly built turbo system will always make more power, and be more effiecient than a supercharger. This is because to run a supercharger you need to run a belt off the motors crank to turn the compressor. This does 2 things...adds unneeded stress on the crank, and causes parastitic loss(it takes power to turn the blower, therefore negating some of the power gained by the supercharger). Not to mention it is much harder to design an intercooler into a supercharger system than a tyurbo system. Now, the turbos use exhaust gases to turn the compressor, therefore, they do not put extra strain on the crank, or suffer from parastitic loss. Turbo systems are also much easier to play with. Boost changes are just as easy as turning a knob, while with a blower, you need to get a different belt, take the old one off, put the new one on, tighten it up etc...

....Moral of story TURBOS ARE BETTER...

Anthony

[LateNightCable]

I agree that turbos are a much more suitable option in most cases, but the talk of drag that a supercharger creates brings to my mind the system used by Mercedes-Benz for AMG. The engine computer monitors load and speed, and calculates when to engage an electro-magnetic clutch connected to the supercharger drive belt. So under light loads, or below 2,700 rpm. the engine runs naturally asperated. And when the clutch system engages, the charger comes in with boost seamlessly. This is a pretty trick ( and probably expensive ) feature, but it shows how the drawbacks of a supercharger can at least be lessened.

[Metfanant]

I agree that turbos are a much more suitable option in most cases, but the talk of drag that a supercharger creates brings to my mind the system used by Mercedes-Benz for AMG. The engine computer monitors load and speed, and calculates when to engage an electro-magnetic clutch connected to the supercharger drive belt. So under light loads, or below 2,700 rpm. the engine runs naturally asperated. And when the clutch system engages, the charger comes in with boost seamlessly. This is a pretty trick ( and probably expensive ) feature, but it shows how the drawbacks of a supercharger can at least be lessened.

lessened yes for sure, but how practical is that for the average s/c'er manufacturer? how much more expensive would that make their kits? would a vortech kit for a 5.0 mustang go from $3k to $4k?? is it worth it???

Anthony

[LateNightCable]

It would only be practical where cost were not an option, or until the technology trickled down and became cheaper and more widely used. They use this in Mercedes AMG cars, so a certain degree of high sophistication is expected by the market along with blazing performance. Whereas, the average gear head I doubt cares too much about sophistication, at least not at the expense of low cost. They just want power.

Those who want their power right there all the time will choose an SC regardless. But improvements in Turbo, in regards to lag have made turbos a very appealing option.

[Metfanant]

actually a properly sized turbo will create full boost BEFORE a centrifugal supercharger....a centrifugal supercharger(vortech, paxton, powerdyne,procharger) build boost as the RPMS climb....screw types(kenne bell) and roots type(eaton) are always cranking at full tilt so they give the benefit of instant boost, but that is not that case with centrifugal superchargers(contrary to popular belief)....like I said a properly sized turbo will achieve instant boost around 2500 rpms which makes them truly ideal for any application. A car like the Viper could even benefit from a slightly oversized turbo because the car creates enough torque down low to get the car out of the hole, and then as the turbo kicks in up top(oversized would mean a little lag) it would help the viper accelerate in the upper RPMS. Turbo lag is a thing of the past, and is truly a myth in todays applications, assuming you know what your doing when selecting the right turbo for your car...

Anthony

[skyline_r34v]

It all depends on the car's engine really. Just like the 3g eclipse's, the turbo is the worst option.

Turbo's IMO are nowhere near as efficient as SDS's. Turbo's produce lag STILL with boost creep and SDS's cause lil to no lag at all.

Turbo's u hafta wait til boost kicks in order to get power, with SDS's it's there when u need it.

Reliability goes with the SDS's, turbo's aren't a reliable source of power.

All-in-All, if you want instant boost and instant power get the SDS's. On *SOME* NOT all but on sum they don't make as much power as turbo's but to ppl (like me) value reliability and instant power rather than more power.

If u want more power *in some cases* with a nice kick in the seat in order to "feel" the power u have under the hood and u don't care much for reliability, then the turbo is obviously ur choice.

My take is, if u havva naturally aspirated car, i'd go with a supercharger. Cuz it's more reliable for ur engine that's NOT made for forced induction and will give u the amount of power u want WITH the reliability u want as well.

If u havva car that uses forced induction (any type) from the factory, then obviously u'd want to use a turbo for being able to gain alot more power cuz the engine would already be sumwat reliable since it's already made for forced induction.

[Metfanant]

turbos are just as reliable as as any other power adder on the market today. its all in the tuning. Its superchargers that add extra stress on the crank from the blower belt, and its more difficult to design a intercooler into the system to allow for proper cooling of charge temps... And like i said a properly sized turbocharger will produce no lag at all. If you consider lag full boost at 2500rpms or so then fine but IMO that is far from lag. Like ive said its actually centrifugal superchargers that build boost as the RPMS climb, and not turbos. Boost creep and crank walk are effects of a poorly designed engine, not a problem with turbos. Just like how Twin Turbo RX-7's blow up all the time because they would run lean and blow the apex seals. Not because they were turbocharged, but because the motor was weakly designed....

Anthony

[skyline_r34v]

I'm trying to tell u, yes NE sort of FI whether using nitrous oxide, SDS or turbo, tuning means everything.

Prove to me, i've YET seen a single turbo'd car that lasts longer than a SDS car.

SDS do not build boost until u shove ur foot down on the accelerator.

So unless u keep ur foot pressed against the pedal when ur going 500rpms then ur jus askin 2 replace ur gas every 3-4 days.

All turbo's create lag, no matter the properly sized turbo. U know that turbo's run by exhaust and exhaust gas will NEVER be consistent and NEVER be available right when u need it all the time.

I don't know wat other SDS for honda, acura, chevy etc etc include intercoolers or not but with our 3g eclipses IC's actually HURT the performance of the car and so r replaced with a water/methanol injection kit.

[Metfanant]

intercoolers may hurt the performance on a supercharged engine only in the case that the piping to the intercooler would have to run all out of the way to get there....intercoolers just cool the charge temps...they dont raise power levels or anything like that...if a turbo car doesnt last as long then its not setup properly, its not the turbos fault....

Anthony

[thepolarfoxqx]

positive displacement superchargers, which tend to heat the air up more than their centrifugal cousins due to the more violent nature of their mechanism do really benefit from charge cooling. When done elegently, like in the supercharged AMG cars, it can help keep the power curve running longer and keep the motor consistent, aside from making the most of the charge. Also, in the AMG cars, the S/C sits between the cylender heads, which is probably about the hottest place on the engine, so it is needed more. It really depends on the setup and the car. Some examples of production supercharged cars without intercooling are not very stellar though. Like GM's supercharged 3800 V6, that should gain more power than it does over the N/A 3800, i suspect an intercooler might fix it.

[LateNightCable]

Then again, I doubt GM is looking for maximum power with their supercharged 3800, but rather a nice safe power boost that can be cheaply recreated with a mass production engine without dipping into the mileage too much, it runs only about 8 psi. I believe. Boost past a certain point would be detrimental without charge cooling, and that would increase expense. GM also wants the pinache of being able to say a car is Supercharged! 8)

The conservative setup that GM uses on the 3800 makes for an inexpensive and attractive option, and it really does spice up the performance. There are also aftermarket pulleys available for this application to crank it up a bit more.

[thepolarfoxqx]

8lbs of pressure is a fair ammount. It should give more than 40hp. A new change has gotten power up to 265hp. Just the same, the 3.8 should be making 265hp naturally aspirated. The new GM 3.6 makes a naturally aspirated 255, but who knows. The supercharged 3.8 is unique if nothing else and makes an interesting driving experience. It is just my belief that they could have 320hp and power past 4500rpms if they intercooled and optimized. You just can't argue with more power, as long as they are spending for the S/C, why not spend a little more to really make it worthwhile.

[theKnowledge]

the thing with the new gt engine is i believe it is an upgraded version of the superchared 5.4 litre engined used in the lightning pick up truck. the truck itself is very quick and they took a very tourqy engine and got more power from it, no wonder the new gt is so fast

[thepolarfoxqx]

There is a big difference from the Lightening, well two actually. The first is that the GT has 4V/cylender SVT heads, the lightening had 2V heads. The lightening had a Roots type blower, whereas the GT has a lyscholm type, which is a lot of why it is more powerful and had tenacious top end.