SRT-10 Gawk Factor (or lack thereof)

[GR8_ASP]

Vic how do you get 575 lb ft from an engine that is rated at 525? Sounds like a typo to me. Not that 525 is bad mind you. I just wish my SRT had the full compliment. Right now I hate to say it but my RT/10 has more torque.

 

[Y2K5SRT]

Vic how do you get 575 lb ft from an engine that is rated at 525? Sounds like a typo to me. Not that 525 is bad mind you. I just wish my SRT had the full compliment. Right now I hate to say it but my RT/10 has more torque.

I assume that it was referring to the torque at the flywheel, which is underrated on EVERY Viper ever made, assuming a driveline loss of some sort. I know that many use an "average" of 12.5%. The Gen II Viper has been rated at 490 torque, yet how many dyno at 430 rwtq or less? None that I know of. Take my 503 rwtq on the SRT (dyno'ed) and divide that by .875. You come up with 574.857 torque at the flywheel. Accurate driveline loss? Dunno, but it is conservative compared to many estimates and a little high compared to some. Wish I had seen those VCA Notes to see what the reference was!

Chris

 

[Vic]

Here is the sentance from page one of the Spring VCA notes.

"These reports reveal flywheel horsepower in excess of 515, and torque hovering in the very exclusive neighborhood of 575 lb/ft!"

Yep, he's talking about flywheel measurements. But thats still incredible, and not too shabby!

Even though I am not thrilled by the SRT looks, I still like it in a limited sort of way.

I think that Dodge made some very substantial performance improvements over the Gen2, and they are to be commended. But I don't feel the excitement for this car that I did when I first saw the RT, and then the GTS, and as such I feel less inclined to remain a Viper customer. The Ford GT is looking like an attractive next goal for me, God willing, and the creek don't rise.

Why couldn't have these performance criterias be implemented in the Gen2 Viper? Waaaah!

 

[GR8_ASP]

Don't know if the driveline loss calc can be used for torque. Seems like it should be the same but maybe it is speed related. Dunno. Also, I would think that the torque peak would be the highest error point for the dyno as the drum acceleration would be the highest. Curve fitting and other algorithms could impact the peak value alot.

I have seen the performance curves of the SRT engine on a dyno and can state unequivocally that it does not make 575 lb-ft. It made the numbers it is rated for, pure and simple. No more and no less. Just wish mine did.

 

[GTS Dean]

The SRT does not *feel* as strong as the numbers suggest. Nor does it look as good as it could. It handles impeccably. And, did I mention that IT STOPS LIKE NOTHING I'VE EVER EXPERIENCED!!!!!!

 

[DBK1]

"These reports reveal flywheel horsepower in excess of 515, and torque hovering in the very exclusive neighborhood of 575 lb/ft!"

Can't say I like the SRT looks too much, but **-leeee [******]. You just can't argue with the power and new braking.

 

[Vic]

I wonder if going to a more typical 72 degree block would get a few more ponies out of our V-10s? The current 90 degrees makes for a herky-jerky twist on the crank.

That uneven syncopated twist on the crankshaft can't help matters much, and may result in lost HP from the constantly varying kinetic engergy in the cranshaft, flywheel, and valve train mass?

Balancing is said to make more HP. And if balancing an engine is so important, then maybe making a smoother running 72 degree V10 is also important? Would stand to reason.

They got it up to 515 Bhp, it would be interesting to see what more can be wrung out of it, naturally.

 

[Guyver1]

I think that not everyone things the SRT is as mean-looking as a GTS, but I'm of the personal opinion that a Comp Coupe wins the contest against a GTS. Those cars just look MEAN!