Are 2000's really the fastest?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lee00blacksilverGTS

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 27, 2000
Posts
6,595
Reaction score
1
Location
Severna Park, Maryland
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

wasn't there a post on here a while back, that said the 2000 viper had some engine problems...mostly the earlier built vipers in year 2000, which most were painted black...that would be the only reason i would not buy a 2000 viper.

2000 cars built up to about mid October 1999 had an excessive oil consumption rate, they were all recalled and rebuilt by Arrow. It was a date issue not a color issue. Any color built during that time frame was susceptible to the problem. Anyone buying a 2000 of ANY color should check the build date on the door and make sure the Arrow rebuild was done if the date is October or prior. Those cars all came back from Arrow and put down better numbers that before the rebuild also.
 

Bill Pemberton Woodhouse

VCA Member
Supporting Vendor
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Posts
5,212
Reaction score
6
Location
Blair,Nebraska,USA
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Bravo ----correct it was in 99, and I believe there were some in November also.If memory serves me correctly ,and at my age that could be subject(ha ), it was the first 200 built
 

Bravo

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
126
Reaction score
0
Location
Middle Finger-Fingerlakes, NY
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Thanks Bill. I live up towards Syracuse and it was worth the effort to go out, shoveling a path (just had 5" of wet snow), uncover Fang, and check the date. I just stood and stared at the car. I just can't get over how hot these cars are. Just unbelievable.... like the first time I ever saw one.
Web pics just don't do justice.
 
OP
OP
A

agentf1

Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 27, 2001
Posts
2,608
Reaction score
0
Location
Phila Suburbs
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Sorry, Rogue, but you are falling for the hype that was perpetuated by the Forged Piston crowd. Folks have completely forgotten what happened back in 2000, due to all the silliness about the cast pistons.

In 1999 many Viper owners were concerned with the rumors of a PCM change and the issue that the 99 was the heaviest Viper built. This was real enough during part of the year, that folks were ordering or trying to find 1998 Vipers from us. Like so many rumors, it became almost fact for quite awhile, and later with interest in Supercharging the 99 gained a resurgence as it appeared to be the way to go for this mod. Folks completely forgot about said disparagement and frankly began trashing on the new hypereutetic cast aluminum pistons ( same process used on Porsche Twin Turbos and ZO6s ). This was new and unknown , so like many things in life it was perceived as not as good, because it was not understood. If you took a trip to Conner Ave. in late 1999 you were told right up front about the new motor and the gain in horsepower over the prior models. Workers all wanted you to know about the motor, and that you would not find the increase in print, but it was definitely up. By the end of the year (1999) the Plant suddenly was silent about any increases, and this even went over to Viper Days.

I was assisting Skip Thomas with the rules Matrix and we were charging an extra point for all 2000 models, as we knew there was a gain. Dodge came out weeks later and Mr. Thomas was required to not discuss this and to change the matrix back to where all Gen IIs were equal.Six years later this is probably fine to talk about as the personnel that requested this change are no longer around.

To sum it up, Vipers are hand built cars and year to year some ran better than others, and the funny thing is perceptions often become truth ( reality ) after years of banter. We have forgotten that in 2000 a red RT10 ran the fastest bone stock time of any Viper ( at that time ) with an 11.7 run at Englishtown.

The true fact about what the fastest Viper made has more basis in " Yellow is Fastest, " or " Black with Silver Stripes is fastest, " than many of the assorted theories we have all bandied about on the Forum these many years. The absolute truth is they are all fast, all the years are good, and the beast lives a life of it's own.

Coming from someone who has had forged pistons, cast pistons, etc. I found they all were great on the track and street, and frankly the best Snake out there is the one in your garage.

Respectfully,
Bill Pemberton

So Bill, did you find one for my garage yet. ;) I am counting on you buddy. You know what I want. :2tu:
 

Randy

Viper Owner
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,058
Reaction score
0
Location
Earth?
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

I was assisting Skip Thomas with the rules Matrix and we were charging an extra point for all 2000 models, as we knew there was a gain. [...] We have forgotten that in 2000 a red RT10 ran the fastest bone stock time of any Viper ( at that time ) with an 11.7 run at Englishtown.
Thanks for setting the record straight, Bill!!
Coming from someone who has had forged pistons, cast pistons, etc. I found they all were great on the track and street, and frankly the best Snake out there is the one in your garage.
Definitely agree.
 

ViperJoe

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 5, 2001
Posts
2,973
Reaction score
0
Location
Virginia
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Yes, a year 2000 Viper is faster that all the other year Vipers when it has forced air and NOS and all the other Vipers are bone stock.......sheesh!
 

kpham

Viper Owner
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Posts
62
Reaction score
0
Location
San Jose, CA
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

It's 00, it's red, it's badged ACR.
By all accounts here I must have the fastest stock viper!!!! :)
 

monnieh

Viper Owner
Joined
Dec 21, 2001
Posts
849
Reaction score
0
Location
Colleyville TEXAS
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Ok, I have the hypereutetic cast aluminum pistons and the 708 cam.

Time to get to the dyno or Ennis.
 

2002_Viper_GTS_ACR

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Posts
4,030
Reaction score
3
Location
Charlotte, North Carolina
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Ok, I'll weigh in. And while I buy my cars from Bill P. I cant say I 100% agree with him on this one.

1st its not really myth, as I have easily been to about 10 Dyno days including Vipers, and STOCK 96/97s MORE TIMES THEN NOT, put down more HP their their later year counter parts. I owned a 2002 and put down 410 rwhp, and was happy about it. Others did as much as 420-425 with old faithful blue and whites. So real world has shown me, stock for stock the earlier year gen 2's are actually stronger HP producing stock cars.

2nd I cant believe anyone would contest that forged pistons arent better then hyper eutectic? I know in a NA situation you would never know the difference, but when it comes to boost and spray, a forged piston can just handle more adverse conditions then a hyper eutectic.

3rd 2000 has THE hottest color I think, Steal Grey. PERIOD. Its the ONLY thing that would ever make me consider a 2000, but sadly hypereutectic pistons and no ABS makes it so even the color cant persuade me.

4th and Finally, I know this is going to piss off 2000 owners, but yes, its the least desirable year IN MY OPINION, becasue it has NOT the Good FORGED pistons, OR the ABS. All other gen 2 years you will get either Forged PISTONS or ABS. The ONLY year you get NEITHER is 2000.

Ok spam away, personally buying 3 vipers all new hopefully speaks volumes to how much I love these snakes, but I know the good, bad and ugly about them too. Like build quality on my 06 blows, but thats another topic.

Jon
 

Randy

Viper Owner
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,058
Reaction score
0
Location
Earth?
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

1st its not really myth, as I have easily been to about 10 Dyno days including Vipers, and STOCK 96/97s MORE TIMES THEN NOT, put down more HP their their later year counter parts.
Many of us have been to a number of Dyno days and seen the opposite. I always attributed it to more miles on the older cars, hence the lesser HP of the '96-'97 cars. For that matter, its often harder to find a bone stock early Gen II car to compare to - most of the ones around here are modified, which disqualifies them from the comparison. Are you sure the ones you speak aren't modified?
2nd I cant believe anyone would contest that forged pistons arent better then hyper eutectic? I know in a NA situation you would never know the difference.
I'm surprised you can't see the contradiction in what you just said; i.e., in a normally aspirated situation, the HE pistons are an advantage (which is why Dodge put them in), as they are lighter, and are perfectly fine for a stock NA application.
4th and Finally, I know this is going to piss off 2000 owners, but yes, its the least desirable year IN MY OPINION, becasue it has NOT the Good FORGED pistons, OR the ABS. All other gen 2 years you will get either Forged PISTONS or ABS. The ONLY year you get NEITHER is 2000.
The problem with your argument is that you seem to feel everyone cares about the piston's ability to handle forced induction or NOS. If you remove that from the argument (as many really don't care about forced induction or NOS), there is no advantage to going to a pre-2000 car, and you get a number of other upgrades that only appear in the later cars.

Many of us were fully aware of the differences in the pistons, which is exactly why we bought the 2000. For instance, I didn't care about the ABS enough to pay for it. Obviously an extremely foreign concept to many of the crowd that feels their pre-2000 car is somehow superior, but yes, the blindness of the argument does get a little tiring, and disappoints us a bit in our fellow Viper owners.
 

2002_Viper_GTS_ACR

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Posts
4,030
Reaction score
3
Location
Charlotte, North Carolina
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

lol, Randy, I get you own a 2000, and you want to defend it. I wont respeak what I already said. It was clear enough. I also know stock from non stock, and not eveyone likes to mod, so finding original 96 and 97s wasnt all that difficult back in 02. And I watched plenty of them dyno. Also the more miles the better up to a point. Motors need break in time. So I think you'd see a 11k motor will make more power then a 3-4k motor, all things being equal.

Ok thats it, said my peace, others can chime in, not going to ******* match with anyone on this topic, my real world experiences showed what I have stated.

Good luck with whatever viper folks chose

Jon
 

MoparMan

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Posts
2,054
Reaction score
0
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

wasn't there a post on here a while back, that said the 2000 viper had some engine problems...mostly the earlier built vipers in year 2000, which most were painted black...that would be the only reason i would not buy a 2000 viper.

No. That was a very poorly written post by me that unfortunately conveyed that impression if not read correctly. My black & silver 2000 GTS was one of the early ones built and had the oil consumption issue (from the powdered metal cylinder sleeves they used in those motors and the rings not seating properly) and I knew of a couple of other black cars with the same issue. Apparently, a few black cars were built early that model year and the remainder were built later in the run. Lee can give you more info about that.

I can tell you that pre-Arrow rebuild my car ran very strong. The only issue it had eas excessive oil consumption, but it did not smoke, it did not seem slower than other Vipers, etc. I would not hesitate to buy another 2000.
 

MoparMan

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Posts
2,054
Reaction score
0
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

" Black with Silver Stripes is fastest, "

Respectfully,
Bill Pemberton

You heard it straight from the man - black with silver stripes is fastest. :2tu:
 

Batboy

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Posts
997
Reaction score
4
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Batboy,
Would you happen to know how many silver/blue non ACR GTS's were made? I can't seem to find the information.

Something like 30. PM Mccarlin as he knows those numbers pretty well. HTH.
 

ROGUE

Enthusiast
Joined
May 25, 2006
Posts
276
Reaction score
0
Location
SoCal
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Ok, I'll weigh in. And while I buy my cars from Bill P. I cant say I 100% agree with him on this one.

1st its not really myth, as I have easily been to about 10 Dyno days including Vipers, and STOCK 96/97s MORE TIMES THEN NOT, put down more HP their their later year counter parts. I owned a 2002 and put down 410 rwhp, and was happy about it. Others did as much as 420-425 with old faithful blue and whites. So real world has shown me, stock for stock the earlier year gen 2's are actually stronger HP producing stock cars.

2nd I cant believe anyone would contest that forged pistons arent better then hyper eutectic? I know in a NA situation you would never know the difference, but when it comes to boost and spray, a forged piston can just handle more adverse conditions then a hyper eutectic.

3rd 2000 has THE hottest color I think, Steal Grey. PERIOD. Its the ONLY thing that would ever make me consider a 2000, but sadly hypereutectic pistons and no ABS makes it so even the color cant persuade me.

4th and Finally, I know this is going to piss off 2000 owners, but yes, its the least desirable year IN MY OPINION, becasue it has NOT the Good FORGED pistons, OR the ABS. All other gen 2 years you will get either Forged PISTONS or ABS. The ONLY year you get NEITHER is 2000.

Ok spam away, personally buying 3 vipers all new hopefully speaks volumes to how much I love these snakes, but I know the good, bad and ugly about them too. Like build quality on my 06 blows, but thats another topic.

Jon [/quote


Jon,

Oddly enough your findings have been exactly the same as mine. I've seen 97's lay down truly impressive numbers bone stock, and with a couple mods (smooth tubes, headers, etc) the gains proportionally get better than the later year cars due to the more agressive cam.

HU pistons offer only very slight advantages in weight. The major reason for using them in a production operation is longevity, and noise. Forged pistons have a higher coefficient of expansion and thus have a looser tolerance in the bore. This can and does lead to a little piston rock which makes a little clater. It doesn't hurt a thing, but it makes the motor harmonics sound more like a 70's big block than an exotic. The weight difference is negligible on the piston end.

That being said, is why I consider 00' the "bastard year" it has IMO nothing but the worst properties.

Steel Grey is a great color. Almost as great as Sapphire. . . Almost


I don't know where you guys are seeing the smaller cam cars make more power, but I have never once witnessed this. I have seen a 97' gts with nothing more than roller rockers, boost a pump, and a pair of T04 61's lay down 800rwhp on pump gas @ a hair under 11psi. From a future mod standpoint you can't touch the forged piston cars.

Did I mention the ABS that everyone praises ***** big hairy donkey :shocked: Heck I disabled it on my car cause it was such a hinderance.

Yes I own an 01'... only because I got an absolutely smokin deal on it, and it's a CA smog legal car so I didn't much care. That and if/when I mod it, the first step is to rip the motor out and build it, so it's a non-issue. After I replace this lame red with something attractive (aka sapphire, or possibly black).

At any rate, not buying any hype, just basing my judgement off of first hand experience.

But then again, what do I know. . . oh wait. :rolleyes:
 

rcdice

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 15, 2001
Posts
944
Reaction score
0
Location
Columbus, OH
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

No regrets with my 01.

Dynoed it when it was BONE stock. Numbers ranged from 421/437 rwhp/rwtq to 425/455 rwhp/rwtq. Dynojet.

ABS saved my butt once. Came over a hill on a country road, early on a Sunday morning, a deer jumped out in front of me. Came close enough I could count the individual hairs on his back. If it wasn't for the ABS I'm pretty sure he would of come through the wind shield or I would of hit a tree or both. Not the best road conditions, cool, wet morning air, happened very fast.

I really do envy the 708 cams. May do the heads and cam at some point. Will probably wait until my warranty runs out in mid 09.
 

NHL2133

Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Posts
1,521
Reaction score
0
Location
Greeley, Colorado
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Batboy,
Would you happen to know how many silver/blue non ACR GTS's were made? I can't seem to find the information.

Something like 30. PM Mccarlin as he knows those numbers pretty well. HTH.

Only 21 according to the registry. I never realized they were that rare.
 

Randy

Viper Owner
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,058
Reaction score
0
Location
Earth?
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

lol, Randy, I get you own a 2000, and you want to defend it. I wont respeak what I already said. It was clear enough.
Yes, indeed, you were clear; as I thought I was also. You're wrong. :cool:
I also know stock from non stock, and not eveyone likes to mod,
Which is exactly my point - if you don't want to mod - then the 2000 and later cars are actually better than their predecessors.
Ok thats it, said my peace, others can chime in, not going to ******* match with anyone on this topic, my real world experiences showed what I have stated.
And my real world experiences - 10 years and 100k miles in Vipers - are reflected in my viewpoint. I could have bought a 1999 for $5k-8k less than my year 2000, and perhaps strangely enough to you, I've not regretted that decision at all. So, while you're welcome to espouse your opinion of the inferiority of post-1999 cars, you've got to expect disagreement from those of us with perhaps just as much (or perhaps more) experience with the cars that know otherwise. :cool:
 

pocketAA

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Posts
321
Reaction score
0
Location
Allentown, PA
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Guys,
So is that why my 99 has some engine chatter because of the forged pistons? It is not loud and I had my car thoroughly inspected before I purchased it, but the engine does seem to make some chatter/ticking sounds. Can someone provide some more insight on this?

Thanks!
 

Inferno

Viper Owner
Joined
May 23, 2005
Posts
837
Reaction score
0
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

EDITED BY STAFF:

I seem to be quoting this alot lately, but one more time for the crowd....

From the Current Posting Policies:

2. Personal assaults, or ... comments derogatory to any ... individual will be subject to deletion.

3. Posts attacking other posters rather than disagreeing with the post will be subject to deletion.


Please keep it civil, there is no need for name calling or insults in a discussion like this.
 

Bravo

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
126
Reaction score
0
Location
Middle Finger-Fingerlakes, NY
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Hey the guy has an opinion and he's entitled to it. Why make it personal? Do you have past history with this guy or you just normally pissy before your morning coffee?
They are all good. The differences in them is like lining up mouse turds.
 

2002_Viper_GTS_ACR

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Posts
4,030
Reaction score
3
Location
Charlotte, North Carolina
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

EDITED BY STAFF:

I seem to be quoting this alot lately, but one more time for the crowd....

From the Current Posting Policies:


2. Personal assaults, or ... comments derogatory to any ... individual will be subject to deletion.

3. Posts attacking other posters rather than disagreeing with the post will be subject to deletion.


Please keep it civil, there is no need for name calling or insults in a discussion like this.
 

IEATVETS

Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Posts
2,348
Reaction score
0
Location
Cottage Grove, Wis.
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Now there is a post by Jeff(inferno) that we have all come to know and love.
I could really care less if my 00 is faster or slower or has cast pistons or ABS, etc. etc. It is a Viper and that is all I care about........and a damn good looking one, I might add!! :D
 

Kenny

Viper Owner
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Posts
329
Reaction score
0
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Just to throw yet another possibility in the mix---I have noticed that Viper motors become noticeably stronger with miles. Perhaps the mileage on the cars used as samples plays a factor.
 

SuperSaiks

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Posts
443
Reaction score
0
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

All I know is steel grey is the sickest paint that the Viper came in from the factory period and all others ****.

And that my Viper is better then your Viper, yes that means anyone's Viper.

Forged vs Cast, lumpy cam vs smooth, ABS blah blah blah.

This sounds like a elementry recess school fight, my dad is better then your dad,,,

Can't we all just get along hahah,,,, what's next US dot Vipers are better then Cdn Vipers.
 

PDCjonny

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Posts
5,999
Reaction score
3
Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Now that's a shame Randy won't be able to see Inferno's post. It was really going to get good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
153,647
Posts
1,685,252
Members
18,227
Latest member
Kkustelski
Top