Creampuff? I don't think so!

[Vic]

Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

Sometime ago, there was some smack talk about the newer Vipers being "creampuffs".

What I've learned is that my 2001 GTS has some improvements that make it a stronger car than some older ones-

1. Beefed up frame, around where the rack and pinion unit attaches.

2. Better cooling fan, flows more air.

3. Strong rims, that are allowed to run Hoosiers at Viper Days

And for safety:

4. ABS brakes

And for convenience:

5. Interior release for rear glass.

6. Perhaps best of all, my GTS has those "bomerang" shaped interior door release handles!!!

I'll bet there were other quiet improvements through the years..

Anyone know of any more, without getting into forged vs cast piston debates?

Also, who thinks their newer GTS side sills run hot?
Mine run cool enough to touch, unless its a real hot day out. Maybe there is better heat insulation on newer models, cause that really doesn't seem to be a problem on mine, even though I 've heard lots of other Viper owners complain about theirs. Saphire blue doesn't seem to yellow, either. Was that yellowing just on certain colors?

No flame war, please. I'm just tossing around some observations and questions.

 

[Eddie N]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

excuse my ignorance, but whats a "creampuff"?

oh, and the later models have the better colors (graphite, saphire, steel grey, etc)!!

- eddie -


<FONT COLOR="#ff0000" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">This message has been edited by Eddie N on 03-31-2002 at 11:41 PM</font>

 

[Vic]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

Eddie,

The first GTSs had a more aggressive cam, which made for a lumpy idle. This made the tranny shake, and contributed to neutral gear rattle. Later on, they stuck a milder cam in them, and made up for the lost horsepower in other ways. (?) I've heard that the difference in horsepower is so small, you can count it on one hand. And what with the variations in power output from car to car, some say there is no difference in power with the newer cars.

But the lack of the lumpy idle on the more recent models gives some people the impression that there is not the same "bite" of the earlier models (ie: 96, 97, and?) This leaves some people convinced that the older ones are better.

The new ones idle more smoothly, hence the "creampuff" designation.

I'm glad I've got the "rough-tough" steering, tough rims, better cooling. And ABS!

 

[Hoosier Daddy]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

Go to the local Bakery, they sell them there. Usually the filling is whipped lard with a bunch of sugar added! Actually even the more recent Dyno #s posted seem to be up a bit. Maybe some early attention brought to some owners posts of low #'s may have resulted in some adjustments, or in your model year less filling!

 

[Vic]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

Less filling, and tastes great.

 

[C O D Y]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

Power mirrors were added the same year as the rear GTS glass release.

Oh, don't forget cast pistons!..... J/K

I better stop making fun of the creampuffs, because I'm joining that club.

 

[MES]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

Don't the 96/97's have a stronger more aggressive clutch and shocks that are stiffer for better handling?? Just remember seeing that somewhere

May your "creampuff" be the creamiest and puffiest of them all

j/k

 

[genXgts]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

Vic, some vaild points!

Check out MES's site above and click on dyno results.

Excellent reference on Dynoed cars, it seems that the 96,97 and 98's seem to hit around 20 more horse to the tires that the creamies, to the point that some creamies with exhaust including headers dyno out the same as "lumpsters" with air filters, just an obversation and adding a little kindling to the fire...

However, and this is a biggie, the fastest time ever ran, was in a super-creamy 2000 Rt/10 (recorded in a mag test at 11.77), disproving both the GTS is a touch quicker theory and negating the creampuff quotient in the same run!

The power might be there on ealry GENIIs, but perhaps it's lost in a higer driveline loss that later cars???.........

 

[Venom Lover]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

My '97 GTS dyno'd at 425 rwhp and 467 ft-lbs bone stock.

My '01 GTS dyno'd at 415 rwhp and 450 ft-lbs with Corsa 3" catback as the only mod. Sorry I didn't do a totally stock base run for reasons I won't go into here. What do you figure the catbacks are worth? Over 10 hp according to Corsa, but I doubt it. Let's call it 5 hp and 5 ft-lbs just to be ultra-conservative for the purpose of this conversation. That's 410 rwhp and 445 ft-lbs estimated for my '01 bone stock.

Stock vs. stock, that's 15 rwhp and over 20 ft-lbs. And not to be boastful, but I have one of the stronger-running creampuffs that I've seen. At a local dyno day, '00s with catbacks were running more in the 405 rwhp range. (Maybe the '01s are slightly stronger than the '00s....)

 

[Henry Cone]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

For some interesting comparisons check out this thread. Not all creampuffs are soft and it does not necessarily take a lot of mods to get to 450+ RWHP and 500+ RW Torque..

Click here for Carolinas Region Dyno Day results

 

[Venom Lover]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

Matt,

Sure, DC has claimed the same 450 bhp for all Gen II cars. That doesn't mean they all dyno the same. Ford got in trouble with the '99 Cobras because they dyno'd below Ford's claim. DC is ok (at least as far as owners are concerned) so long as the cars all dyno at least at 450 hp x .87 = 391 rwhp (assuming 13% drivetrain loss). Same reasoning as Ryan's.

The non-creampuffs dyno around 415-425 rwhp stock, and the creampuffs dyno around 400-410 rwhp stock. So, they both are "at least 450 bhp," because both exceed 391 rwhp, which means a 450 bhp rating is ok for both. It's just that the creampuffs are less underrated than the non-creampuffs. Based on all the results I've seen, I think you're kidding yourself to say otherwise.

As far as getting dyno results from the same shop, I agree that's important. The results I cited above on my '97 vs. my '01 are from the same shop. I agree same day results are best, but I witnessed very little variation -- as in &lt;2 hp -- in SAE results at the shop I go to on different days (with the same mods), so I truly believe the 10-15 rwhp difference between what I saw on my '97 and what I see on my '01 are real.

Also, I did the SoCal club dyno day at the same shop last year, and the results on that day confirmed what I said above: no creampuff-vintage cars ran above 405 rwhp, even with catbacks and intake mods. Unfortunately there were no stock '97s-'99s, so it's hard to compare, but again on that same dyno on a previous occasion, I ran 425 rwhp stock in my '97.

Henry's results from his dyno day are interesting, but don't shed much light on stock vs. stock since as far as I can tell, there were only one or two cars there that were bone stock.

 

[Henry Cone]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

I agree that we had very few totally stock cars at our Carolinas Region Dyno Day. One of the points that I wanted to make was that we had a 2001 "Creampuff" pull 433 RW HP and 477 RW Torque with only K&N's and smooth tubes!!! This is one of the stronger Gen II cars with only these mods that I have ever heard of so at least in this case the "Creampuff" monikor is hardly appropriate, at least from a performance point of view!!

I still agree that they don't sound as good, though........

 

[Bill Pemberton Woodhouse]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

Heh, Hoosier Daddy, I noticed the new moniker!!! I am impressed , but since your spouse is from Japan ( Yokohama to be exact ) , does that make her Hoosier Mama? Like the numero 19, and the 93 Integra may have alot of miles on it, but I heard it won't start if it gets wet, what's da deal? Anyway, keep the new Viper Name , as it fits and it must mean you is gwanna run Unlimited in Viper Days?

 

[dadsvpr]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

here is a web site with the list i have compiled.

jason
http://www.thomasser.org/viper

 

[Vic]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

Hey, Jason, thats' a cool list of Viper changes through the years. Makes me even gladder that I got a rough-tough-cream-puff, more than ever. They just kept making it better!

On a serious note, has anyone ever heard of cast pistons going bye-bye under simular boost applied to forged ones?

I didn't see anything on your list on a major, major, change, that being the new style key fob.

You gotta love those newer key fobs!

 

[Nero]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

Has anyone compared mileage/breakin as a possible variance in power the cream puff's have compared to early model Gen2's?

 

[King GTS]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

My side sills still run just as hot as my previous Vipers. That said, I love my creampuff!

 

[Matt M PA]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

First of all, DCX still claims the same HP numbers for the Gen2 engines. I doubt that they could do that unless it's accurate. Remember the trouble Ford had with the '99 Cobras? it would also seem to me that comparing cars dyno'ed at different places at different times would be like comparing apples to oranges. A same day dyno test with several cars is the only way to be accurate.

 

[genXgts]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

Although it certainly wouldn't make for good publicity to lower the HP rating in 99 when trying to eliminate the roughness (NGR) of the earlier cars...........

ahhh yes add some more 93 octane to the fire.....

Regardless I think all GENIIs are under-rated, using 13.5% loss on 450 leaves around 390 at the tires, which all GENIIs hit, whatever the year! I'll go 460 gross on creampuffs and 480 gross on early GEN II's, anyone believe me?? I doubt it...... bias is my speciality.

 

[Venom Lover]

Re: Creampuff? I don\'t think so!

Ok, I give up. I admit the newer Vipers aren't creampuffs since they have nicer wheels, ABS, better fan, and above all else, a smaller rounder key fob.

For those in the Viper community who value power, the non-creampuff years definitely have an advantage. Not only do they dyno at least 10-15 rwhp above their creampuff brethren stock vs. stock, on average, they also respond better to exhaust mods. From what I've seen, headers+catback+intake on creampuffs yields about 430-435 rwhp. The same mods on non-creampuffs yield 450-455 rwhp. Not to pick on Trey, but my '97 dyno'd close to his numbers (456 rwhp, 490 rwtq), and he's got bigger headers, ported intake manifold, bigger TBs, and rockers. It's no magic; the '97s aren't better than Trey's car or any other creampuff. They just have a more aggressive cam.

Henry, the '01 that pulled 433 rwhp with just K&Ns and smoothies is a 6-sigma occurrence based on what I've seen. In fact it's unique. I haven't heard of any '01 pulling such numbers. I don't doubt that it happened, I'm just saying picking one outlier creampuff to compare against the median for '97s doesn't prove anything.

<FONT COLOR="#ff0000" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">This message has been edited by Venom Lover on 04-02-2002 at 09:21 AM</font>