Russ M
Enthusiast
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guibo:
And some more:
60-0: 115 ft, '01 ACR w/ABS (source: edmunds.com)
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/spin/48641/article.html
60-0: 124 ft, '98-ish GTS (source: Popular Mechanics)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/collector_cars/1997/8/showdown_mu scle_cars/index2.phtml
70-0: 157 ft, '97 RT/10 (source: C&D)
http://www.caranddriver.c om/xp/Caranddriver/roadtests/1997/October/199710_roadtest_dodge_viperrt10.xml?&Manufacturer=Dodge&Name=Viper&class=20&page=6
70-0: 153 ft, '03 SRT-10 (source: Automobile Magazine 11/02)
60-0: 114 ft
80-0: 196 ft, '03 SRT-10 (source: R&T Sports & GT Cars 2003)
I don't think there's a single test of a stock Gen II Viper with better braking numbers than the SRT-10. The only way to tell how much that difference truly is is to compare them on the same day at the same place with the same driver. That last one is particularly important, and probably explains the large discrepancy in braking figures for the Gen II Vipers. It seems that R&T and Edmunds.com can't modulate the non-ABS Vipers effectively (witness the huge plume of tire smoke emanating from the ACR in edmund.com's Viper/Z06/Cobra R comparo, during the Viper's braking test). MT and Popular Mechanics probably adopt a better threshold braking technique, and thus their numbers are generally better.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The test results from the magazines quoted here are not that far out of reach as compared to the SRT. Perhaps going to Stoptechs will make a Gen 2 stop as well or better than an SRT. But then again, dont forget the SRT will be getting break mods in the future as well.
And some more:
60-0: 115 ft, '01 ACR w/ABS (source: edmunds.com)
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/spin/48641/article.html
60-0: 124 ft, '98-ish GTS (source: Popular Mechanics)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/collector_cars/1997/8/showdown_mu scle_cars/index2.phtml
70-0: 157 ft, '97 RT/10 (source: C&D)
http://www.caranddriver.c om/xp/Caranddriver/roadtests/1997/October/199710_roadtest_dodge_viperrt10.xml?&Manufacturer=Dodge&Name=Viper&class=20&page=6
70-0: 153 ft, '03 SRT-10 (source: Automobile Magazine 11/02)
60-0: 114 ft
80-0: 196 ft, '03 SRT-10 (source: R&T Sports & GT Cars 2003)
I don't think there's a single test of a stock Gen II Viper with better braking numbers than the SRT-10. The only way to tell how much that difference truly is is to compare them on the same day at the same place with the same driver. That last one is particularly important, and probably explains the large discrepancy in braking figures for the Gen II Vipers. It seems that R&T and Edmunds.com can't modulate the non-ABS Vipers effectively (witness the huge plume of tire smoke emanating from the ACR in edmund.com's Viper/Z06/Cobra R comparo, during the Viper's braking test). MT and Popular Mechanics probably adopt a better threshold braking technique, and thus their numbers are generally better.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The test results from the magazines quoted here are not that far out of reach as compared to the SRT. Perhaps going to Stoptechs will make a Gen 2 stop as well or better than an SRT. But then again, dont forget the SRT will be getting break mods in the future as well.
