Re: Are SRT\'s considered
Don't take it to seriously, just play along with them.
The term "creampuff" is a name in which all newer and better vipers get called by the old gen 2 guys. Take it the same way I do when a mustang, camaro, vette, or old gen 2 guy tells me his car is better, just smile and shake your head up and down. It's one of the ways they try and feel good about their cars. If they're comparing their car to yours, who do you thinks is holding the standard?
I love my Smooth Creampuff. Some of the best things in life smooth and creamy. Take pro sports for example, ever hear of a great player being labeled "loose chunks"? But how about "smooth as butter"?
I wouldn't trade one smooth running, tight fitting, creampuff for two chunky running, gear grinding, loosened bolt, TSB ridden old gen2 cars, even if they gave me all the stock bolts that rattled off.
.
.
.
No need to get to excited, I'm just having fun with the chunky rattlers.
Now how can 500 hp be considered a creampuff? Never experienced the neutral gear rattle and would hardly consider that a performance indicator. The lumpy cam does convey performance, but at 50 hp less it would be the creampuff in this comparison. The cast piston debate rages on. Yet what percent have needed to upgrade their pistons to expand the performance envelope. I would think it would be relatively few.
All in all I cannot think of any reason the SRT would be considered a creampuff in comparison to a Gen I or II. Higher horsepower, lower weight, better traction, substantially better brakes and higher cornering limits. Creampuff ... Not!
