1st track test

[bushido]

Edmunds..

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2013-srt-viper-gts-track-test.html


Test Results:

Acceleration
0-30 (sec): 2.0 (2.3 w/ TC on)
0-45 (sec): 2.9 ( 3.2 w/ TC on)
0-60 (sec): 3.7 (4.1 w/ TC on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 3.4 (3.7 w/ TC on)
0-75 (sec): 5.1 (5.6 w/ TC on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 11.5 @ 127.3 ( 11.8 @ 125.3 w/ TC on)

Braking
30-0 (ft): 25
60-0 (ft): 101

Handling
Slalom (mph): 73.7 (71.0 w/TC on)
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 1.03 (1.03 w/TC on)

Db @ Idle: 58.0
Db @ Full Throttle: 86.2
Db @ 70-mph Cruise: 77.0
RPM @ 70: 2,000

 

[ViperSmith]

Acceleration: Launch control is fairly worthless on our low-grip test surface. Its 5,000-rpm base is too high and its closed-loop throttle manipulation (using front wheel speed) is both too slow and not effective enough. Basically, launch control resulted in a big burnout. I chose a 3,000-3,500 launch rpm and had the best luck with a little clutch slip rather than a dump. Shifter is awesome — much better than before. Never missed a gear.


So basically, they had a terrible environment to test it in.

 

[BlknBlu]

There will be better numbers than that.

Bruce

 

[SilveRT8]

The Good times are coming !
Order now, they'll go fast

 

[ACRucrazy]

Edmunds..

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2013-srt-viper-gts-track-test.html


Test Results:

Acceleration
0-30 (sec): 2.0 (2.3 w/ TC on)
0-45 (sec): 2.9 ( 3.2 w/ TC on)
0-60 (sec): 3.7 (4.1 w/ TC on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 3.4 (3.7 w/ TC on)
0-75 (sec): 5.1 (5.6 w/ TC on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 11.5 @ 127.3 ( 11.8 @ 125.3 w/ TC on)

Braking
30-0 (ft): 25
60-0 (ft): 101

Handling
Slalom (mph): 73.7 (71.0 w/TC on)
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 1.03 (1.03 w/TC on)

Db @ Idle: 58.0
Db @ Full Throttle: 86.2
Db @ 70-mph Cruise: 77.0
RPM @ 70: 2,000

Compared to the 2009

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/track-tested-2009-dodge-viper-srt-10.html

Test Results:
0 - 30 (sec): 1.8
0 - 45 (sec): 2.8
0 - 60 (sec): 3.7
0 - 75 (sec): 5.2
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 11.6 @ 125.7
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 3.4
30 - 0 (ft): 27
60 - 0 (ft): 107
Braking Rating: Very Good
Slalom (mph): 74.0
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 0.96
Handling Rating: Excellent
Db @ Idle: 58.5
Db @ Full Throttle: 86.1
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 74.0

Few things I noticed. The 2013 is 3db louder than 2009 @ 70mph (half as quiet)

The RPM @ 70 in the 2013 is 2000 :O

Overall similar performance numbers so far as "tested"

 

[phavyarden]

For sure there'll be quicker numbers than those, but they got similar number on the 2009 ZR1 and much better braking numbers.
0-60:3.8...3.5(1ft rollout)
1/4:11.5@128
I know that the Viper is an unique machine that's no all about performance, but i'm not very happy with the results. I was expecting a complete **** to the ZR1. They had 3 years to do it.
Hope the numbers at the track be faster

 

[Paul Hawker]

Don't read too much into this test. It was with a pre-production Viper without the finished software and suspension calibrations.

 

[PDCjonny]

For sure there'll be quicker numbers than those, but they got similar number on the 2009 ZR1 and much better braking numbers.
0-60:3.8...3.5(1ft rollout)
1/4:11.5@128
I know that the Viper is an unique machine that's no all about performance, but i'm not very happy with the results. I was expecting a complete **** to the ZR1. They had 3 years to do it.
Hope the numbers at the track be faster

Nobody would be happy with those numbers except Vette and GTR owners.
Let's wait and see before panicking.

 

[mnc2886]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZUxM3-HK20&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Here is the video. Honestly, these are bad numbers. They don't show anything has improved performance wise. The launch control system must be a big fail because it has yet to be demonstrated. It's funny how they mention it results in a huge burnout trying to use it. I've seen those brunouts several times now. The 0-60 better get close to 3.0. It has the power and tire, but apparently not the suspension or geometry to do it. Sorry, but I don't like excuses about pre-production model. You'd think a pre-production model would have achieved improved performance before they would've claimed it has.

 

[Vooodoo ACR]

Meh, they were on a low-grip surface. Can't wait to see some of the same day comparisons vs the competition.

 

[PDCjonny]

SRT supplied a pre-production car to Edmunds knowing they would publish the numbers?
Does that make sense?

 

[phavyarden]

Meh, they were on a low-grip surface. Can't wait to see some of the same day comparisons vs the competition.

They always test the cars at the same track

 

[Vooodoo ACR]

They always test the cars at the same track

The conditions are not the same.

 

[kdaviper]

There are many factors in these performance numbers that could make them better or worse. Things like altitude, road temperatures, tire temps, air temperature, barometric pressure, driver skill, etc. The only way to make a good comparison between 2(or more) different autos is to test them on the same day, same place, with the same driver, etc. Then the only reliable numbers would come from doing each test many times and taking their average.

 

[mnc2886]

There are many factors in these performance numbers that could make them better or worse. Things like altitude, road temperatures, tire temps, air temperature, barometric pressure, driver skill, etc. The only way to make a good comparison between 2(or more) different autos is to test them on the same day, same place, with the same driver, etc. Then the only reliable numbers would come from doing each test many times and taking their average.

Which is usually why the manufacturers publish their numbers, but not SRT....

 

[Bobpantax]

With the one foot roll out, he pulled a 3.4 zero to 60. Both his o to 60 launch and his quarter mile luanch were marginal. He did not come close to what a capable drag racer would do on launch. Also, his shifting in the quarter was less than quick. To really compare the Gen IV with the Gen V, we need the same driver on the same track with the same atmospheric conditions. Based on math alone, the Gen V has to be faster.

 

[bluestreak]

Which tires was it on?

:nm. Found it. Not the performance I was expecting with rcomps.

 

[ViperSmith]

Don't read too much into this test. It was with a pre-production Viper without the finished software and suspension calibrations.

on an admittedly bad surface, meh.

 

[BlackSnake99]

They got decent numbers out of the 911 Turbo on that same track...

Acceleration
0-30 (sec): 1.3 (1.7 w/ TC on)
0-45 (sec): 2.7 (2.0 w/ TC on)
0-60 (sec): 3.0 (3.7 w/ TC on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 2.8 (3.4 w/ TC on)
0-75 (sec): 4.2 (5.1 w/ TC on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 10.9 @ 125.5 (11.5 @ 124.3 w/ TC on)

 

[TrackAire]

Meh, they were on a low-grip surface. Can't wait to see some of the same day comparisons vs the competition.

What you just saw there was reality....the average street probably has less grip than the Edmunds test track. Too many people look at the 1/4 mile times run by others doing private track rentals with VHT sprayed to the 1/8th mile mark, perfect track prep, perfect DA, etc. Ever wonder why the fastest Viper, ZR1 and ZO6 times are all pretty much run at the same track??

Like you stated, it will only matter when the competition is run against us at the same track on the same day. The speed through the traps seems about right for the 640 hp....that is the number I wanted to come in faster. I was hoping that SRT was sand bagging a little on the 640 hp and the motor hp was underated....apparently not.

I'm a little worried that Edmunds claims the Corsas are not as sticky as the Sport Cups...I wonder how that will play out on road course lap time?

Not real excited about the listed numbers, but not devasted either. I can't wait to see some track times from Laguna Seca so we can get a real comparison to what this cars road course potential is.

Cheers,
George

 

[v10enomous]

I wonder what actual top speed is.

 

[djhartm]

Dang, those #'s pretty much blow.

 

[viper GTS-R]

Am I the only one that paid attention to the video, this isn't even the lightest SRT Viper...

That's a GTS with the track pack. Not sure if the weight difference there, if any, but that's another variable to consider.

--RS

 

[JAY]

Will wait to see something more conclusive , and consistant .

 

[SnakeBitten]

What's the purpose of letting a mag run numbers and publish it on a preproduction car that's not sorted out? It just leaves everyone scratching their head.

I'm hoping lap time won't disappoint. It's looking like it will just be as fast as the old ZR1 in the straights. Well back to patiently waiting for some real production numbers.

 

[madninjaskillz]

Crap numbers. They will get better. There is no way that all the reviews can so how much more improved than the old Viper it is and then churn out this putrescence.

btw: LOL @ 2 seconds 0-30.

 

[VIPER GTSR 91]

Dang, those #'s pretty much blow.

Agree, and new owners paying out the rear will really be pissed if these are hard numbers. Will keep my ACR for now.

 

[ViperSmith]

I have my doubts on these numbers. But, who knows. I don't see how it could be slower than the Gen IV.

Ill still be buying mine.

Consider me skeptical. Then again, how is Edmunds the first to publish numbers?

 

[utahviper]

I was under the impression that the traction/stability control was developed for three years and was supposed to be something special. Maybe around a track it will be better. As stated above, they got good numbers out of the Porsche turbo. Im disappointed with these numbers. They should have sent the fastest car there with a proven car that has been tested. There shouldnt have been any surprises, maybe it not a surprise to them. I guess this is the same numbers from the brochure=disappointed. I guess Ill wait to see what the other mags come out with.

 

[redtanrt10]

Surprised at all the disapointment? Everyone saw the spec's awhile ago, performance should be slightly better than the Gen IV. New Gen V is 100 lbs lighter and has 40 more hp at the flywheel than a Gen IV., when you start at 3450 lbs and 600 hp that isn't dramatic. The revolutionary changes are in the creature comforts.