1999+ creampuffs vs. 1996-1998 muscle vipers: post your dyno results

[Venom Lover]

It seems some previous posts (e.g., "How not to run a 550") incited the recent "2000 Vipers are no creampuffs" thread. In the latter, there is much anecdotal discussion both ways, no offense intended to those who claim that based on driving both, they can discern a difference one way or the other between pre-'99 cars and '99s-and-beyond. (I hope I'm getting my facts right that the cam changed in 99 and beyond.)

To me, "one feels stronger than the other" holds no water. No offense, but except for the top 5% of drivers (which does not include me, for the record), I doubt anyone can tell the difference between 15 rwhp on top of a base of 400 rwhp (I'll save your having to do the math and just tell you it's <4%). Even a drag race or rolling race between the two depends on the driver.

So, I propose the following survey to collect some real facts on this matter. If we get enough posts, we can do a little statistical comparison on the differences. Unless the moderators close this thread or move it to a different section, where it will perish with all other posts that end up there....

Please post the following:

(1) Model year and body style
(2) Modifications (preferably stock)
(3) SAE corrected peak power and torque results
(4) Model of dyno and location tested

Let me lead off.
(1) 1997 GTS
(2) Stock
(3) 425 rwhp / 467 rwtq
(4) 248C Dynojet at R&D Dyno in Gardena, CA

This post is not intended to be offensive. I am really interested in learning if the cam (or something else) makes a difference in dyno results for stock Vipers of different years.

 

[Maverick The Electrician]

Mine was around 400 to the tires bone stock.

 

[BobK898]

What's up Mike?

1. 2001 Red RT/10 Creampuff with chocolate sauce
2. Smooth tubes, S&B Filters
3. 424 RWHP, 458 Torque
4. Dynojet 248C, Mustang Muscle, St Louis, MO

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

My 98 RT/10
Mods: K&N, smooth tubes, muffler removed.
Dyno 1st pull: RWHP = 420, RWT = 472
Dyno 2nd pull: RWHP = 424, RWT = 468

Haven't dyno'd my 97 GTS.

 

[jcaspar1]

Here's mine:
1997 GTS, 12k miles
Dynojet, Sacramento, CA
SAE 422HP/457 TQ
Actual 431HP/464 TQ
Truck radiator hose smooth tubes and K&N's

 

[Y2K5SRT]

Okey Dokey:

1. 2000 GTS
2. Tubes, filters, Snake Oyl rear muffler delete
3. 436.1 rwhp, 483.1 rwtq
4. Dynojet 248C at MC Racing, Overland Park, KS
(note: He has a picture of my car with the results on his "wall of fame" for all to see. Funny stuff!)

That was the engine before it went to Arrow and with roughly 10,000 miles. After Arrow did the rebuild and with just 1,000 miles (same mods):

435.2 rwhp, 479.7 rwtq - see for yourself

Now, if you REALLY want to see some Viper dyno numbers, try this post from May when we did our Dyno Day here in Kansas City. While I removed some of the pictures from the server since the post (sorry, ran out of room on the server), the numbers are all there. You can see darn near every year right up through 2001. Includes the mods and everything. All were on the same Dynojet 248C at MC Racing in Overland Park, KS.

Now, two other notes:

1. Kendall's Venom 600 on the post referenced above is now a Venom 650, as he wanted more power than what he put down that day at the dyno. It left for Houston the next day.

2. While I like the comparison in this current thread, I think it is also VERY interesting to compare the horsepower and torque curves. I think you will find the '00+ have a little less lower end "grunt", but pull harder at the top and for a longer time. Oh, and the changes were indeed on 2000 and later cars. The 1999 had the same cam and pistons as the earlier Gen II's.

Hope this helps!

Chris

 

[ronviper]

Cream puff deluxe 2000 red GTS, k&n filters, borla back half exhaust, mopar computer= 425rwhp and 478ft/torque. The car had just 1500 miles at that time, it is much stronger now will re dyno again with 4500 miles on the car.

 

[BWoodbury]

1) 1996 GTS
2) Borla Cat Back, K&N's, Smooth Tubes
3) 426 rwhp / 466 rwtq
4) DynoJet in Elk Grove Village, IL

 

[SoCal Rebell]

Listed in sig below, Dynojet 248C, SAE corrected with 1,200 miles on Arrow rebuilt motor.

 

[nutsRT]

2000 RT/10
Dyno'd with 2800 miles
425.1 RWHP
469.5 Ft-LBS
Belanger headers,smooth tubes,K/N,MOPAR performance computer,Boorla Cats.
3.55 gears,aluminum flywheel,SVSi short shifter

I am considering another dyno at 8-9K miles since other have mentioned the "snake" gets stronger with more miles.

 

[Kid97GTS]

The numbers are interesting, but even with SAE corrections and identical model dynojets, it is still pretty hard to compare results from an October run in CA to a July run in FL. Yeah, yeah that's what the correction factor, etc. is for, but I'd be willing to bet there is a pretty wide variance regarding the individual calibrations of the dynojets, along with operator variances, individual tolerances, etc.

The ideal comparo would be same day, same conditions, same machine (maybe a worthwhile VOI or Viper Days activity?). PMUM and his creampuff and me and my '97 (both with only tubes and filters) made three consecutive runs back to back, same day, same dyno. All three of our runs were +/- about 5 hp, with mine being about 425 rwhp and PMUM's going for a little under 400 rwhp for minimal enjoyment. And no, PMUM does not have a defective car (it's been gone over), it's just weak. I'd be interested to see any similar comparisons, if not on the same day, at least with the same dyno.

By the way, I know everyone wants to feel like their purchase was a good decision and they have the best kung fu, etc., but at least PMUM is man enough to admit he has a creampuff (insert jokey smiley face). Hey, not every purchase is the pinnacle of its kind (I really thought those parachute pants would be timeless).

 

[Y2K5SRT]

Agree with Kid 100%. I also think there are variations with particular cars and in some cases even based on break-in. For example, the "old style" cam set up in one of the local '99's should have been a kicker at our Dyno Day, but it was the weakest Gen II. It had a very, very gentle break-in - well past 1,000 miles. In case anyone missed the post that shows the results of several Vipers dyno'ed the same day on the same machine, including this '99:

<center><FONT size="4"> CLICK HERE TO SEE THE RESULTS </FONT s></center>

You will find just about every other year listed there as well, including a 2000 and a 2001. We are going to set up another Dyno Day VERY soon (probably within the month) and should have several more cars, including the Venom 650 and Doug Levin's latest masterpiece. I am stoked!

Chris

 

[Mike Brunton]

I've dynoed my car twice, in the same form.

First time, cold December day, no humidity, etc. (20k on car)

(1) 1998 GTS
(2) K&N's, claude short smooth tubes, rear muffler delete
(3) 415RWHP, 465RWTQ
(4) Dynojet 248c, ACS Racing in Hanover, MA


Second time VERY humid day, hot, middle of July (25k on car)

(1) Same as above
(2) Same as above
(3) 418RWHP, 461RWTQ
(4) Dynojet 248c, New England Dyno in Worcester, MA

One thing we ALL noticed is that these cars are VERY heat sensitive. We had guys who would pick up 20-30hp just from cooling down the motor. I picked up 20lb-ft TQ just from a cool motor. These were my best runs both times... I think comparing one dyno to another is not a bad thing - I think they are pretty darn close, overall. I think I would dyno SAE corrected numbers that were within 1% of each other given the car being in the same temperature range.

 

[Bill Pemberton Woodhouse]

Red 98 GTS
Bone stock
Ran behind Chris Marshall on a public street and he couldn't pull me - course I stayed the same distance behind him too. So, I'll just use his numbers for mine. Chris has good numbers and this saves me lots of money.

 

[PMUM]

Pemberton, did you hang with him because you ran over the rumble strips....errr curbs?

 

[SoCal Rebell]

Wow, Kid97GTS you actually drove your Viper to a dyno shop????????? Now if we can only get you to take it to the track!!!!!

WAR ON VIPER OWNERS WHO DON'T TRACK THEIR CARS.

 

[ronviper]

Kid97gts, sorry to say you are out in left field check the dyno numbers. Also i ran a 1998 venom 600 and beat him by 4to 5 car lengths if what the other driver said is true. Evan Smith drove a bone stock 2000 rt to 11.72 at 120.8 mph that was in the mopar magazine. To run a 120+mph takes more power than you are making so which car is the real cream puff. Lumpy cams and lot's of noise doesn't make a car fast, in most cases it's the combination the driver has put together.

 

[Kid97GTS]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ronviper:
Kid97gts, sorry to say you are out in left field check the dyno numbers. Also i ran a 1998 venom 600 and beat him by 4to 5 car lengths if what the other driver said is true. Evan Smith drove a bone stock 2000 rt to 11.72 at 120.8 mph that was in the mopar magazine. To run a 120+mph takes more power than you are making so which car is the real cream puff. Lumpy cams and lot's of noise doesn't make a car fast, in most cases it's the combination the driver has put together.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's o.k., Ron, you do not have a creampuff. Feel better? I guess it's just PMUM who got jobbed from the factory.

 

[RockyTop]

My 97 GTS bone stock was:

rwhp:407.9; TQ: 435.5

With an add of K&Ns only (no straight tubes) it did:

rwhp:421.9; TQ: 452.7

I then added SVS Headers, straight tubes, modded stock air box (rain baffle still in), bigger throttle bodies (I should not have done this without engine mods - - it robs torque) and SVS Cat-back exhaust and got:

rwhp: 450.7; TQ:482.2 (Note that addition of headers, exhaust, etc. only resulted in an increase of about 29 rwhp and about 30 lbs. of TQ - this was pretty expensive hp/TQ)

I last dynoed the car after just having pulled off the track at VIR and still very hot. Yes, these cars are definitley very heat sensitive. It now has the above mods (yes, even the throttle bodies), plus hi-flow cats and Roe calibrator. It did the following:

rwhp: 464.0; TQ 495.5 lbs.

The last runs also benefitted from the engine breaking in further over this whole 2.5 year/15,000 mi. period. I did play with the Roe calibrator some (we only did three runs) and saw a range by enriching the mixture/altering advance of 9 rwhp and about 7lbs TQ.

 

[Chuck 97 GTS]

Last year my car did 401 RWHP and 449 LB-FT bone stock with 1800 miles.

Recently did the following pulls:

VEC-1 set to 0,0 (essentially turned off):

420 RWHP / 456 LB-FT
422 RWHP / 459 LB-FT


VEC-1 set to +14 (Low), -16 (High):

428 RWHP / 465 LB-FT
428 RWHP / 464 LB-FT

Other changes from last year are as follows:
* 4000 miles
* Smooth tubes
* S&B filters
* Bosch Platinum plugs
* New intake manifold gaskets that don't partially block the intake ports


Seems to me that when stock, the 00-01 cars in general are just as strong if not stronger that the earlier GenII's. They don't seem to respond as well to header and exhaust mods.

 

[ronviper]

Kid97gts the reason i respond in this manner is perspective older model vipers and new buyers may believe this, and miss buying a great car.I do believe in every model year cars, some do not perform up to *****. I am sorry Pmum car is an under achiever but you have seen many responses stating otherwise by many happy 2000 & 2001 owners. I love fast cars, have a good weekend.

 

[GTS Dean]

'96 GTS, 11k mi, K&Ns + smoothies, hot off the street on a hot, humid day in Houston:

413hp, 449tq
DynoJet 248C

 

[Mike Brunton]

Ron,

I don't think newer Vipers are making less power, but they seem to take longer to break in (which sounds right if the motors are tighter and have tighter tolerances).

However you are dead wrong when you say it takes more power than that to hit 120mph in trap speeds. My best is 121mph, and my car only has K&N, smoothies and no rear muffler. When it's hot, it was dynoed at 409RWHP. Cool it dynoed at 418RWHP. When I ran a 121 trap, the car was VERY hot - the temp guage was 2/3 towards the red.

The key to getting good MPH from these cars is quick shifts so that you keep the RPM's up and get a "boost" going into the next gear. I believe ANY GTS with 400RWHP will trap at 120mph if driven right and shifted lightning-quick.

 

[treynor]

'01 RT/10, Dynojet 248C

BONE STOCK 1150 miles: 408 RWHP, 442 RWTQ
K&Ns & Tubes, 1250 miles: 415 RWHP, 448 RWTQ

 

[ronviper]

Mike your point is well taken however mph is plain horsepower, ask any tuner they will tell you how much horsepower you have to make to do 120+mph. It depends on weight and how much power the car is making, there are some vipers which will never see 120+mph no matter how fast they shift in the 1/4 mile. If you don't make the power you don't make the mph., i have been drag racing for years and continually try to add horsepower to my combinations just to go faster. Mike why do we all spend so much with aftermarket tuners if not to go faster? My 1987 grand national ran 10.97 sec.2 121 mph yet my viper which out mph it cannot et the same why? I have read and talked to Tom Welch who is a very good racer his car on motor runs 11.40's again with more mph than my buick but it still doesn't et as well. The point i am making Mike, is no matter how you cut it shifting faster without the appropriate horsepower (400 not enough) will not make you run 120+mph.

 

[ronviper]

Thanks dgeviper1 my point exactly "400rwhp" will not get you 120+mph no matter how fast you shift, sorry Mike. I have seen some posters say they are only running 114 mph, i don't think faster shifting will pick up 7 more mph. Maybe 3 to 4 mph would be more in the range however i could be wrong.

 

[Venom Lover]

Well, I'm not sure I'm learning much, due mostly to the varying levels of mods in all your cars, but thanks for the response! Didn't everyone do a baseline run when your car was stock? Just curious. (I know some of you bought your cars used with mods already, though.) In general, it looks like most '97s generate really good sounding numbers, with some exceptions (due to weather?), where there seems to be some variance in the '00s and '01s. Thanks again for the response.

Albert, what year?

BobK, things are good -- how are you and your non-creampuff-'01 doing?

Chris, I'll check out your link and try to collect some statistics when I have more time. Alas, things are crazy at work right now -- lots of travel.

Mark B, how are you doing?

Kid97GTS, I agree there is probably variance between different dynomometers, but I don't see how we'd ever enough Vipers on the same dyno machine do to what you suggest. However, I haven't seen Chris's link yet, so maybe that's a good source of info. I do believe SAE corrections are very good at taking out differences in atmospheric conditions. I dyno'd once in December (cool day) and once in August (hot day) with the same mods, and the two runs (SAE corrected) were within &lt;1 hp of each other.

Pemberton,

Mike B and ronviper, you both make good points. You can't achieve 120 mph trap speed without enough power. On the other hand, if you have 435 rwhp, it is possible not to achieve 120 mph trap speed by granny shifting, easing it off the line, etc.

 

[David Jenkins]

Guys, look at it this way. Chassis dyno's lie. It said his car made 409 and it ran 120. Obviously something is wrong. Maybe the track was down hill with a tail wind.dj

 

[ronviper]

David look at it this way Mike Pavloff 456rwhp with 490ft/tq = 11.6 @ 122mph. Also B. woodbury 426rwhp with 466ft/tq = 12.46 @ 119mph are they running up hill? Dyno numbers are great however the track tells the real story.

 

[Mike Brunton]

Ron,

You don't have to teach me about drag racing, ET or MPH - I've been drag racing for years. I have dyno slips with my car making anywhere from 409RWHP to 418RWHP. 418 was when the car was cool (temp guage to the left of the 190 mark). I have made probably 100 passes down the 1/4 in my Viper. I don't ALWAYS trap at 120, but I have hit 120-121 in the car several times.

Now you explain to me, how is it possible for my car that I *KNOW* dynoed at a VERY BEST of 418 when cool, to trap at 121 when it was VERY hot (temp guage 2/3 towards the red, and the car had been idling in the stage lanes for a long time)?

You don't have to LIKE it, but it IS a fact. There are also other cars here that MPH around 120. I know MPH is a function of power, but it can vary a few MPH based on traction, engine temp, air temp, etc. But I *HAVE* run 120mph with about 410 at the wheels. Again, you don't have to believe me, but it doesn't change the *facts*.