Hmmmm, words from Ralph

Status
Not open for further replies.

Paolo Castellano

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 1, 2000
Posts
1,173
Reaction score
2
Location
Elburn, Il, USA
That would work too, but a roots has the advantage of a broader, low-end torque band. Agreed that the centrifugal may package better under hood, but my Vortech was sure hard to shoe-horn in my Camaro. I'd be happy with either solution

Enough about this supercharger talk................. Twin Turbos would be way easier to package on a Gen V and could be sized for incredible low end torque but still pull all the way to the top!

I am sure the factory could program the ECU properly for a turbo application.
 

I Bin Therbefor

Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Posts
387
Reaction score
0
Can a displacement blower be mounted in the center of the V ala the Edelbrock Corvette mount? The Corvette is a 90 degree V8, the Viper is a 90 Degree V10. Seems doable. :2tu:
 

I Bin Therbefor

Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Posts
387
Reaction score
0
If SRT brings its own driver, seems only fair for GM to bring its own driver. Also, who insures that both cars are "showroom stock?":dunno:
 

Simms

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Posts
3,320
Reaction score
0
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Did I hear Ralph correctly in the video, did he say the ACR will be available a little sooner than the convertable?
 

mnc2886

Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Posts
1,018
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston, TX
Did I hear Ralph correctly in the video, did he say the ACR will be available a little sooner than the convertable?

Since he did say that and the VCA has been shown pictures of the vert, there should be something on the ACR shared with the VCA soon.

In all seriousness, I don't think we need forced induction. You reach a point of diminishing returns on a track car. A ACR that drops another 200-250 lbs off the SRT base model with a trak-pak, give us 700 HP NA and I think the dominance will return. With 1500lbs of down force, it should be a monster at the track.
 

I Bin Therbefor

Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Posts
387
Reaction score
0
Did I hear Ralph correctly in the video, did he say the ACR will be available a little sooner than the convertable?

Remember, the emphasis is on racing and racing needs a coupe. In addition, the ACR will be a "modified" coupe requiring fewer changes to the production lines and a lot less quality concerns. The convertable top mechanism requires a lot of durability testing that is "unique" to it. Long way of saying, it's a quicker and simpler move to the ACR.:2tu:
 

KenricGTS

Enthusiast
Joined
May 7, 2001
Posts
1,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Alb. NM
“@RalphGilles: “@Kenric10: have you thought about forced induction on Gen 5?” let's just say we made it a perfect canvas ; )”

Bolt on from Mopar, ;)

I asked that question. I want boost! With my Ford GT, with just a pulley and tune I was at 643rwhp. With a Whipple I am at 766.6. If SRT bolted on a supercharger it would be a pulley change away from 100 more rwhp. My stock Gt put down 551.
 

palindrome

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Posts
25
Reaction score
0
I think they are complaining about the brakes because they just hopped out of the ZR1 with the CC brakes. If it was against the z06 with its steel brakes, they wouldn't have noticed or said anything.
 

elanderholm

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Posts
423
Reaction score
0
Location
Foster City, CA
Viper should stay NA. It's better for racing and more durable when driven hard. Hopefully the acr gets a dry sump. I would rather see a NA DOCH engine in a road race terror before FI. The one-77 makes 740 or so with a NA DOCH 7.4 liter engine.
 

V10lover

Viper Owner
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Posts
285
Reaction score
0
Location
Somewhere Back in Time
This is what the viper needs to dominate anybody, anywhere N/A IMO:

-Bring The cubic inch back to 8.0 for more spinning power(with the propper cylinder heads of course). No need for 8.4L, remember the gen 1s were 8.0. and it dominated at that time.

- Raise the compression to 11.0- 11.5:1. Viper's engine compression is too low for todays N/A standards. Z06 has 11:1 and I believe M5 and M6 have around 12.0:1. The lambos and ferraris ALL have more compression then the viper. If they pass emissions the viper would pass too so that emissions talk is B.S.
Compression is everything for a naturally aspirated engine today. Being around 10.0 - 10.2:1 is not beneficial at all for todays standards because you have an engine that is not good for boost nor is a strong N/A performer. Go high comp for N/A or go low for boost, please no in between....

- Design of NEW cylinder heads for the viper. DOHC( double over head camshafts TI-VCT). More rpm capability and with the engine back to 8.0 and higher compression it would have a lot of torque at all rpm. band and would also be higher rev than it it is now( maybe max rpm around 6800rpm or so) and spinning freely and achieving the torque/power band quiquer than ever. Valvetrain stability, no stinking pushrods to bend, etc, and etc..

These three mods above would put the srt/GTS engine around 700-800HP with tons of torque and tons of usable HP without lag which was one of the main problems of the gen 4 engine. Part was because of the CPU and part was the cam and that is why they've changed the cam on the gen 5 to help with that. With the DOHC design and variable cam timing you don't have this lag problems of a cam in block engine either. Sorry but, cam in block just doesn't do it for me nowadays. Look at the fastest motorcycles what are they? Harleys with that cam in block or the japanese ones spinning to 15.000rpm with overhead cam design??

FORD learned quick and did that to the Ford GT, GT500 and mustang GT at its best and they turnout to be great cars with the displacement available to them. The rest of the world also did that. Only Chrysler and Chevy have their motors with the cam in block and 2v/cyl. because of their stupid traditionalism. Hemis also should go in my opinion. Very old engine and very heavy for nowdays standards.... What worked in the past is not working in 2013 anymore. YOu either need boost or a very strong and modern DOHC engine to dominate today.

I hope GM and chrysler live aside their stupid traditionalism aside and step up to the game of the DOHC but keep their BIG cubic inch displacememnt to DOMINATE the streets and track!

Show me a viper v10 with 8.0 DOHC multi-valve and high compression design and I will be putting my deposit down tomorrow to buy that car.
 
Last edited:

KenricGTS

Enthusiast
Joined
May 7, 2001
Posts
1,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Alb. NM
This is what the viper needs to dominate anybody, anywhere N/A IMO:

-Bring The cubic inch back to 8.0 for more spinning power(with the propper cylinder heads of course). No need for 8.4L, remember the gen 1s were 8.0. and it dominated at that time.

- Raise the compression to 11.0- 11.5:1. Viper's engine compression is too low for todays N/A standards. Z06 has 11:1 and I believe M5 and M6 have around 12.0:1. The lambos and ferraris ALL have more compression then the viper. If they pass emissions the viper would pass too so that emissions talk is B.S.
Compression is everything for a naturally aspirated engine today. Being around 10.0 - 10.2:1 is not beneficial at all for todays standards because you have an engine that is not good for boost nor is a strong N/A performer. Go high comp for N/A or go low for boost, please no in between....

- Design of NEW cylinder heads for the viper. DOHC( double over head camshafts TI-VCT). More rpm capability and with the engine back to 8.0 and higher compression it would have a lot of torque at all rpm. band and would also be higher rev than it it is now( maybe max rpm around 6800rpm or so) and spinning freely and achieving the torque/power band quiquer than ever. Valvetrain stability, no stinking pushrods to bend, etc, and etc..

These three mods above would put the srt/GTS engine around 700-800HP with tons of torque and tons of usable HP without lag which was one of the main problems of the gen 4 engine. Part was because of the CPU and part was the cam and that is why they've changed the cam on the gen 5 to help with that. With the DOHC design and variable cam timing you don't have this lag problems of a cam in block engine either. Sorry but, cam in block just doesn't do it for me nowadays. Look at the fastest motorcycles what are they? Harleys with that cam in block or the japanese ones spinning to 15.000rpm with overhead cam design??

FORD learned quick and did that to the Ford GT, GT500 and mustang GT at its best and they turnout to be great cars with the displacement available to them. The rest of the world also did that. Only Chrysler and Chevy have their motors with the cam in block and 2v/cyl. because of their stupid traditionalism. Hemis also should go in my opinion. Very old engine and very heavy for nowdays standards.... What worked in the past is not working in 2013 anymore. YOu either need boost or a very strong and modern DOHC engine to dominate today.

I hope GM and chrysler live aside their stupid traditionalism aside and step up to the game of the DOHC but keep their BIG cubic inch displacememnt to DOMINATE the streets and track!

Show me a viper v10 with 8.0 DOHC multi-valve and high compression design and I will be putting my deposit tomorrow to buy that car.



I don't believe a DOHC engine will fit in the frame rails of the Viper. Too wide. SRT was going to experiment with a DOHCengine from parent company, but stopped cause it would not fit. I think the current engine is fine. Just ad some boost. Look what GM has done with ZR1.
 

V10lover

Viper Owner
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Posts
285
Reaction score
0
Location
Somewhere Back in Time
If there was no way to fit the DOHC they could go with SOHC. Single cam on top of each head would be a HUGE improvement over the actual engine design already and save space over the DOHC too. The cam in block has to go and they needed to bump up that mild compression on those pistons too.

There is no way to install a Positive displacement type of blower aka roots/whipple and have it to fit under the hood and not to interfere with the cross brace. Only option would be centrifugal and with that the entire car would need to be reinforced ( half shafts, diff, tranny, new tires, brakes, new radiator, intercooler, hoses, new CPU also) to handle the extra torque/power and weight. Also new electronics would be necessary to handle and work with the boost so probably a new computer would have to come to life or they would need to re-invent the actuall one to work with the boost maps and so forth.. With that I don't see the car costing less than 175-200K.
Adding boost to a viper is a very big project in my book. N/A still better for the type of car that the viper is even though I like boost better, just more fun..

Just look at the price between the Z06 and ZR1 when they were first released. Imagine that now with a boosted viper..Would be a milionaire only type of car..
 
Last edited:

elanderholm

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Posts
423
Reaction score
0
Location
Foster City, CA
Dohc engines of the same displacement are larger and weigh more so a DOCH 8 liter engine would not be in the cards, but DOHC is the best way to get 700HP+, meet emissions, and stay NA. Might need a smaller engine or different shape somewhat.
 

chorps

Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
778
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, Canada
No thanks to dohc. Packaging is too big and heavy compared to ohv designs. There's a reason why ohv has survived. Larger displacement yet smaller and lighter works well. Add modern features like direct injection and cylinder deactivation and the traditional ohv design is more than competitive. Also, the ohv is less stressed and has fewer parts which means lower cost to build and higher reliability.

The C4 ZR-1 would have been the basis for future Vettes if DOHC was so superior, but there's plenty of reasons why they retained OHV.

Sport bikes tend to be classed by displacement so it makes sense to optimize for breathing, but street cars like the Viper shouldn't be artificially restricted to some arbitrary displacement.

The Viper and the ZR1 wind up at the top of the heap more often than not, so what is the big rush to try and dump a format that works so well?
 

mnc2886

Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Posts
1,018
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston, TX
DOHC is not a good idea. You know that the GTR engine weighs more than an LS7 right? In reality, DOHC is a way for engineers to show off. It would prove no benefit other than maybe sounding better, but I actually like the way a Vette engine sounds and I fell in love with the Viper sound. Although that sound was an acquired taste like beer.

Look a DOHC would require a larger space for the engine, lower reliability believe it or not, and a waste of R&D for SRT.

The two things I think would make a world of difference would be to add a dry sump and DI. The dry sump would add 10-15 HP, reliability, and should let the engine rev a bit higher. The DI would allow for higher compression and more aggressive spark. 11.5:1 is nothing for a DI engine. Not to mention, it would make meeting emissions regulations easier.
 

Jay M

Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Posts
296
Reaction score
0
Today Ralph said that the ACR will be extreme. There's only a million ways to interpret that, but they are all good.

~Jay
 

VENOM V

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Posts
1,318
Reaction score
0
Location
San Jose, CA
What I wouldn't do to be a fly on the wall during an SRT engineering brainstorm. I hope they think BIG for the ACR. I'm sure they've weighed the different approaches we've been discussing, it will be exciting to see this story develop.
 

doctorbob

Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Posts
1,606
Reaction score
0
Location
Washington
I think good things are coming our way. Did I hear right that Ralph mentioned they are ordered out for coupes for two years? An "extreme" ACR with 1500 pounds downforce? If my Generation IV with 1000 pounds of downforce is speed limited to approximately 180 mph........what is the horsepower going to be for the ACR? :crazy2:

Hmmmmm.....sell ACR and buy new coupe( NOT)......keep ACR and buy new coupe and build new garage.....keep ACR and buy new ACR and build new garage........sell ACR and buy new ACR........keep ACR, buy new coupe, buy new ACR and buy new house( bingo).......oops where am I going to put the convertible?......buy new house and build new garage (just kidding)
 

elanderholm

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Posts
423
Reaction score
0
Location
Foster City, CA
No thanks to dohc. Packaging is too big and heavy compared to ohv designs. There's a reason why ohv has survived. Larger displacement yet smaller and lighter works well. Add modern features like direct injection and cylinder deactivation and the traditional ohv design is more than competitive. Also, the ohv is less stressed and has fewer parts which means lower cost to build and higher reliability. The C4 ZR-1 would have been the basis for future Vettes if DOHC was so superior, but there's plenty of reasons why they retained OHV. Sport bikes tend to be classed by displacement so it makes sense to optimize for breathing, but street cars like the Viper shouldn't be artificially restricted to some arbitrary displacement.The Viper and the ZR1 wind up at the top of the heap more often than not, so what is the big rush to try and dump a format that works so well?
No need to lecture on the issues with DOHC since everyone talking a obout it had already listed them...If you have a better way to hit 750 HP NA while meeting California emissions....I'm all ears. Your DI and compression increase won't do it.
 

mnc2886

Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Posts
1,018
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston, TX
No need to lecture on the issues with DOHC since everyone talking a obout it had already listed them...If you have a better way to hit 750 HP NA while meeting California emissions....I'm all ears. Your DI and compression increase won't do it.

Actually, the DI will do it. I think your underestimating what DI allows you to accomplish. In and of it self is a 10-15 HP bump, but it allows for much higher compression like 11.5:1, hell, even 12:1. That would be a significant gain over the 10.2:1 we have now. Also, it allows for a more aggressive tune. Lastly, it should allow for a little more aggressive cam. Add all these up and you're there.
 

BigDawg

Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Posts
644
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston
We need to be thankful the ZR1 exists... just as Chevy is thankful the Viper exists.

This. Bob Lutz, father of the Viper, stated that the Z06 was created because of the Viper. It seems like Chrysler cut his fun budget so he hopped to GM where they were more than happy to fund his skunkwork projects. Thus the all-too-capable C6 Z06 and ZR1. The Viper was what pushed GM to raise the bar, or try to at least.
 

bushido

Viper Owner
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Posts
822
Reaction score
0
Location
Monterey,CA
The new C7 Corvette is going to be using direct injection..
I think a higher revving 7.0L V10 with direct injection,and dry sump. Would be cool for the viper platform..

I really like the new steps GM is taking..
To meet an ambitious 3000-pound weight target, C7 is constructed like an aircraft. The three-rail space frame GM patented for C5 continues with major improvements. The hydroformed-aluminum main members developed for Z06 and ZR1 are now standard across all C7s, an upgrade enabled by transferring frame manufacturing from an outside supplier to the Corvette’s Bowling Green assembly plant. Carbon-fiber (CF) floor and bulkhead panels adhesively bonded between the central backbone and the perimeter rails augment structural stiffness. We also expect CF to replace all the sheet-molded fiberglass exterior panels. A single-piece lift-off roof—a Corvette feature since 1984—remains standard on the coupe.

Bucking the global trend toward boosted small-displacement engines endowed with ample power and exemplary efficiency, the new, fifth-generation small-block—rechristened LT1—is a 6.2-liter naturally aspirated V-8 embodying a blend of traditional and advanced technologies. Though it is an all-new design, the bore, stroke, displacement, bore-center spacing, deck height, and camshaft location all carry over from the 2013 LS3 engine. The three new (for Corvette) technologies are direct injection, variable valve timing, and cylinder shutdown. Incorporating those features drove new shapes for the combustion chamber, piston crown, and intake and exhaust ports. Before settling on an 11.5:1 compression ratio (up from the LS3’s 10.7:1), GM powertrain engineers investigated more than 75 alternative *combustion-chamber configurations, consuming a staggering 6 million hours of computer-processing time. Contrast that with 60 years ago, when Chevy chief engineer Ed Cole and 14 draftsmen needed only 15 weeks to design the original small-block V-8 with pencils, paper, and slide rules.

The 450 or more horsepower (at 6000 rpm) expected from the new engine—only 14 more ponies than the LS3 equipped with bi-mode mufflers—isn’t that impressive. There is, however, roughly the same torque as the Z06’s 7.0-liter LS7 V-8 below 4000 rpm and what we predict will be spectacular fuel economy. Operating this engine as a 3.1-liter V-4 during cruising should boost EPA combined mileage from 17–18 mpg to the low- to mid-20s, comparable to six-cylinder sports cars (BMW Z4 sDrive35i, Lotus Evora, Mercedes SLK350, Nissan 370Z, and Porsche 911).

A five-degree splay angle between the 2.13-inch intake and 1.59-inch exhaust valves benefits volumetric efficiency. Cast-iron exhaust manifolds are heavier but smoother-flowing and better at retaining heat than the welded sheetmetal headers used before. A molded-plastic intake plenum containing eight tuned runners stifles the buzz of the new high-pressure fuel injectors. For the first time in a base Corvette engine, a dry-sump lubrication system is optional.
The new Corvette small-block V-8 adds direct injection, variable valve timing, and cylinder deactivation, and makes at least 450 horsepower.

The beauty of the new LT1 small-block is its compact size, low mass (approximately one pound per horsepower), and overall practicality. The phasing device that shifts intake- and exhaust-valve timing in lockstep and valve lifters that collapse on cue to disable cylinders will keep a Corvette V-8 kicking for some time. There will definitely be more-powerful versions—expect both supercharging and greater displacement—and quite likely that aforementioned 5.5-liter V-8. The much-maligned pushrod/two-valve system has limitations but not in its ability to stave off the Grim Reaper.
more gears

The addition of more transmission speeds is a sure thing. Because the eight-speed Hydra-Matic that GM has under development won’t be ready when C7 enters *production this summer, it’s Aisin AW to the rescue. The world’s largest automatic-transmission manufacturer’s TR-series ’box fits the space vacated by C6’s six-speed auto while providing ample torque capacity and the eight forward gears needed to achieve exemplary gas mileage. The dual-clutch automatic that GM has fiddled with for years appears to be dead, at least for Corvettes.
 
Last edited:

VENOM V

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Posts
1,318
Reaction score
0
Location
San Jose, CA
There is no way to install a Positive displacement type of blower aka roots/whipple and have it to fit under the hood and not to interfere with the cross brace. Only option would be centrifugal and with that the entire car would need to be reinforced ( half shafts, diff, tranny, new tires, brakes, new radiator, intercooler, hoses, new CPU also) to handle the extra torque/power and weight. Also new electronics would be necessary to handle and work with the boost so probably a new computer would have to come to life or they would need to re-invent the actuall one to work with the boost maps and so forth.. With that I don't see the car costing less than 175-200K.
Adding boost to a viper is a very big project in my book. N/A still better for the type of car that the viper is even though I like boost better, just more fun..

Interesting discussion, a lot of good points. If you up the HP and torque with DOHC or SOHC, higher compression and/or other NA tricks, don't you still need to beef up the drivetrain and retune the CPU, same as you would with forced induction?

Looking just at the power plant:

On one hand, the SOHC or DOHC route: You have the daunting challenge of completely redesigning / replacing the existing pushrod V10 with an all-new engine. You still may have packagong problems to solve, as has been pointed out. Enormous undertaking.

On the other hand, you add forced induction to an already proven engine. You would only need minor tweaks to the existing V10 - lowered compression and a different cam are the primary changes, and may be all that are needed, since only moderate boost on this big cube V10 would yield monstrous torque without overstressing the internals. You could team with a supercharger manufacturer and let them do much of the work to come up with supercharger, intercooler, and the initial tuning. SRT does the final tune to optimize driveability. Also a lot of work, but are you sure it's more than an all-new SOHC or DOHC NA power plant? It might actually be less work.

The ACR could have a different hood to fit forced induction and add enough cooling to the intercooler to solve heat soak, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if SRT will be doing an ACR-specific hood for other reasons any way.

I think forced induction has an advantage in that once you do the basic work, it is easy to add more boost in the future, to take on anything the competitors throw our way. With a new highly efficient SOHC or DOHC NA engine, once optimized, it is much harder to squeeze more HP out of it, in future iterations.
 

Boxer12

Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Posts
2,618
Reaction score
1
Location
Colorado High Country
Was the 09 ACR the highest HP/TQ car on the market when it set the Ring record? Did anyone care about those stats? If the ACR were 200 lb lighter and had a DCT, it would BLOW AWAY the ZR1...add some handling aids like monoballs, and a transaxle, and viola, you have a car with no equal outside of GT racing. Too much emphasis on more power is going in the wrong direction (street racing). Just my 2c. :headbang:
 

V10lover

Viper Owner
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Posts
285
Reaction score
0
Location
Somewhere Back in Time
No thanks to dohc. Packaging is too big and heavy compared to ohv designs. There's a reason why ohv has survived. Larger displacement yet smaller and lighter works well. Add modern features like direct injection and cylinder deactivation and the traditional ohv design is more than competitive. Also, the ohv is less stressed and has fewer parts which means lower cost to build and higher reliability.

The C4 ZR-1 would have been the basis for future Vettes if DOHC was so superior, but there's plenty of reasons why they retained OHV.

Sport bikes tend to be classed by displacement so it makes sense to optimize for breathing, but street cars like the Viper shouldn't be artificially restricted to some arbitrary displacement.

The Viper and the ZR1 wind up at the top of the heap more often than not, so what is the big rush to try and dump a format that works so well?

PAckage is bigger and so is the hemi in the challenger and charger with their titanic IRON block. Not many people complain about it. There are many ways to save weight in a viper engine if it came with the DOHC design. One of them would be what for did with the 5 liter mustang adopting hollow cams and other lighter materials on its cylinder head construction. The 5 liter heads on the mustang flow more than the LS7 vette heads with its 7 liter final displacement. Talk about efficiency. DOHC and even SOHC are much, much better for power N/A or boost than cam in block design and the reasons for that are just so many.

I wish the new viper had the DOHC or SOHC design which would easily make 100-125hp more than the already 640 and with much more torque in the rpm band especially mid/higher RPM. Yeah, I would give up 50 lbs of extra weight for an extra 100-125HP in a much better engine. You can fix weight issues with lighter materials but you can't fix an engine design that is stuck in 1992. That is it, not much left in the actual engine with the actual design to go beyond 640hp and be street legal..

"The C4 ZR-1 would have been the basis for future Vettes if DOHC was so superior, but there's plenty of reasons why they retained OHV."

Yeah, the reason was, they were idiots and there was a bunch of excuses because of the GM stupid traditionalism for the use of the cam in the block(old school)! They messed up big time because they had a car that was a monster at that time and was breaking records. They had help from LOTUS and should of improved their technology even more for even better results.

1990 vette ZR1 had 375 HP @ 5800rpm with 11:1 compression and its 5.7L V8. Just for a matter of comparison, the same 5.7L engine with the cam in block(L-98) with the same fuel injection system made only 245-250HP @ 4000 rpm with 10:1 compression. The DOHC engine also made 30 ft-lbs of torque more than the cam in block engine. It was also an early design for the DOHC so if that was now a days with the technology available they would've surpass the mark of 100hp/ liter on that engine easy, easy..

YOu like it or not The DOHC or SOHC would've taken the new gen 5 to the next level. I am againtst them decreasing the cubic inch too much but if they stayed around 8.0 or even a 7.8L V10 the viper would've been an unbeatable car imo. Trust me, nobody would be complaining about low HP numbers as they are now which the car is even or losing to the ZR1 in some comparos..
 

V10lover

Viper Owner
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Posts
285
Reaction score
0
Location
Somewhere Back in Time
DOHC is not a good idea. You know that the GTR engine weighs more than an LS7 right? In reality, DOHC is a way for engineers to show off. It would prove no benefit other than maybe sounding better, but I actually like the way a Vette engine sounds and I fell in love with the Viper sound. Although that sound was an acquired taste like beer.

Look a DOHC would require a larger space for the engine, lower reliability believe it or not, and a waste of R&D for SRT.

The two things I think would make a world of difference would be to add a dry sump and DI. The dry sump would add 10-15 HP, reliability, and should let the engine rev a bit higher. The DI would allow for higher compression and more aggressive spark. 11.5:1 is nothing for a DI engine. Not to mention, it would make meeting emissions regulations easier.[/QUOte))

You make interesting points but still wouldn't do it.. DI is very complicated to do and a lot of money for 30-50 hp and you still stuck with the same engine of 1992.
DOHC is not showing off it is proven!!! Look at the gt 500 with the most powerful V8 in the world in a 5.8L with almost 670 hp!!!! GM can't go beyond 638 with a 6.2L!!!! .4 more liter and the numbers are still bellow the dohc.

GTR has a very small engine in a very, very well built package that can hold 800hp or so. GTR is a very heavy car that perform with the Z06 with the vette's lighter weight and better aerodynamic and bigger engine. The gtr has turbos that make the engine weight even heavier overall if you consider them part of the engine. because of being connected to the exhaust manifolds. Z06 engines presented more failures than the GTR engines even though those come with boost.
 

V10lover

Viper Owner
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Posts
285
Reaction score
0
Location
Somewhere Back in Time
Interesting discussion, a lot of good points. If you up the HP and torque with DOHC or SOHC, higher compression and/or other NA tricks, don't you still need to beef up the drivetrain and retune the CPU, same as you would with forced induction? Yes, but boost always put more stress on the entire car or drivetrein than N/A because of the extra torque and instant hit of the PD supercharger. Viper would also suffer to get any traction with a blower and would hurt on road racing(heat soak) as that was what the car was first design for. One last thing is that the viper would require a special supercharger made only to fit its engine and would need to be bigger than the zr1 one to feed the v10 well without overspinning. This engine and car need torque and power up top and not down low, where is hard to get traction and put the power down. That is why I like the N/A idea.

Looking just at the power plant:

On one hand, the SOHC or DOHC route: You have the daunting challenge of completely redesigning / replacing the existing pushrod V10 with an all-new engine. You still may have packagong problems to solve, as has been pointed out. Enormous undertaking.

On the other hand, you add forced induction to an already proven engine. You would only need minor tweaks to the existing V10 - lowered compression and a different cam are the primary changes, and may be all that are needed, since only moderate boost on this big cube V10 would yield monstrous torque without overstressing the internals. You could team with a supercharger manufacturer and let them do much of the work to come up with supercharger, intercooler, and the initial tuning. SRT does the final tune to optimize driveability. Also a lot of work, but are you sure it's more than an all-new SOHC or DOHC NA power plant? It might actually be less work.

The ACR could have a different hood to fit forced induction and add enough cooling to the intercooler to solve heat soak, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if SRT will be doing an ACR-specific hood for other reasons any way.

I think forced induction has an advantage in that once you do the basic work, it is easy to add more boost in the future, to take on anything the competitors throw our way. With a new highly efficient SOHC or DOHC NA engine, once optimized, it is much harder to squeeze more HP out of it, in future iterations.

The biggest problem of going FI with the positive displacement is that the hood would have to go up by A LOT!! Not only the supercharger wouldn't clear under the stock hood but, an intercooler would need to go under it and also the improved aerodynamic coefficient that was improved in the gen 5 would be down the drain too. The need to be replaced by a completelly different, talller and super expensive carbon fiber hood would bring price up even more. Ohh and the cross brace... NO WAY I see it happenning. The boosted viper would probably weight way more than a viper with the DOHC or SOHC as we all know that superchargers are very, very heavy and also are their supporting parts in the kit like extra hoses, intercoolers, clamps, etc.. All that adds up and we would have a viper heavier than the the one with new cylinder heads.

Centrifugal and or twin turbo would be much better if they wanna choose to go that route. I would love twin turbos :)

To me all they have to do is to come out with a kick ass pair of single or double OHC cylinder heads + raised compression + decrease the cubic inch to 8.0L or 7.8L V10. It seems complicated but they can make it happen and keep it under the hood instead of messing up with the hood. Changing the hood to a taller one would also change the way the car looks too much and maybe wouldn't look that good anymore hurting the sales.
 
Last edited:

VENOM V

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Posts
1,318
Reaction score
0
Location
San Jose, CA
The biggest problem of going FI with the positive displacement is that the hood would have to go up by A LOT!! Not only the supercharger wouldn't clear under the stock hood but, an intercooler would need to go under it and also the improved aerodynamic coefficient that was improved in the gen 5 would be down the drain too. The need to be replaced by a completelly different, talller and super expensive carbon fiber hood would bring price up even more. Ohh and the cross brace... NO WAY I see it happenning. The boosted viper would probably weight way more than a viper with the DOHC or SOHC as we all know that superchargers are very, very heavy and also are their supporting parts in the kit like extra hoses, intercoolers, clamps, etc.. All that adds up and we would have a viper heavier than the the one with new cylinder heads.

Centrifugal and or twin turbo would be much better if they wanna choose to go that route. I would love twin turbos :)

To me all they have to do is to come out with a kick ass pair of single or double OHC cylinder heads + raised compression + decrease the cubic inch to 8.0L or 7.8L V10. It seems complicated but they can make it happen and keep it under the hood instead of messing up with the hood. Changing the hood to a taller one would also change the way the car looks too much and maybe wouldn't look that good anymore hurting the sales.

Good response V10lover, I have to say that the level of knowledge and experience of the VCA members is impressive. My background is muscle cars that were fast in the straight line, I'm glad to be stepping up to a car that can also perform in the corners. I'm enjoying learning about what it takes to be fast around the track. I agree that a lightweight car with a high output, high tech NA power plant is perhaps the most elegant and appealing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
153,595
Posts
1,684,845
Members
18,160
Latest member
Nocluehow
Top