SRT is faster than the ACR on the track for one reason

[Toronto_ACR]

The SRT is faster only for one reason compared to the ACR. The brakes. There is not much of a difference suspension wise once the ACR is calibrated. But the brakes are what make it faster and what will make it beat the porshe GT2. If the ACr had the same brakes the GT2 would be toast due to the huge torque dicrepancy between the cars. The SRT is a great car for the brkaes and afew pounds of weight saving. So you gen II and ACr owners should not feel like you have a hugely inferior car because you don't. I will be upgrading my brakes this spring. can someone tell me what brake system is the best for the track.

Thanks

 

[Fred(DrivingSchool)Kinder]

Disagree!

Put the 2003 brakes on an ACR(2001/2) and plan to stop with very little change.

The suspension (many) and frame changes, allow for better braking. Good luck making an ACR act like a SRT10. The added rear down force allows for better braking.
My opinion.

 

[Y2K5SRT]

I have heard really good things about the Stoptechs and know quite a few folks that swear by them. Love to hear from some of the track rats!

Chris

 

[motor602]

i was talking to my vipertech and if you want to make your GENII brake like an SRT, you better change the bias as well. He was sayin the put more in the back. Instead of the old ~80%/20%, its like ~70%/30% or 60%/40%, front to rear.

 

[Fred(DrivingSchool)Kinder]

StopTech brakes are great. I have the 14" 4 wheel system installed (on my ACR) and they are much better than the stock set-up with R4's pads. Even with more rear bias you see little improvement, without better weight management(more on the rear).

Pick any brake system you want for a GENI/II and the SRT10 will stop shorter.

My opinion

 

[Mike Brunton]

Upgrading your brakes won't do much for stopping distance, IMO. It might do alot for brake feel and fade resistance, but the limiting factor on stopping distance on a GenII Viper is the tires. If you can lock the tires up at speed, then you have MORE braking force than your tires can handle. Upgrading your brakes to provide MORE FORCE does nothing except maybe give better feel and let you lock the brakes up quicker.

The SRT brakes better due to revised suspension geometry that allows the car to transition more weight over the front wheels providing a higher downward (y) component of the overall force as opposed to a GTS/ACR which has a higher lateral (x) component. In other words, when you brake in an SRT, it pushes more DOWN on the front wheels... when you brake in a GTS/ACR is pushes more FORWARD on the front wheels.

No matter how much you spend on brakes, you can't replicate this in any GTS/ACR. It's built into the whole geometry of the car - just like the handling.

 

[46hemi]

The SRT is faster than an ACR, that information is definitely true. How many of these cars will actually make it to the track (GTS, SRT, or ACR)? I would be willing to bet the percentage will be very small. After all how many people actually buy a Viper for that purpose? The Viper is purchased largely for its look and rarity, and driving experience than its prowess on the race track. The GTS is far more a "race" car than the SRT will ever be. Race cars do not have remote trunk releases, cup holders, suede seating surfaces, programmable key fobs, etc and for that matter power windows, leather seats, air conditioning and a cd player. The SRT was built more for the stock broker than a stock racer. And even the GTS is a quantum leap from a true race car, but again both cars were not made specifically for the track.

The one aspect the SRT will never have is the classic Viper look. This car is the German/Japanese equivalent of what the Viper was. I recently heard a quote that sum's it up pretty good when I asked a WELL respected member of the Viper community what he thought of the SRT, his reply was "Its a Viper from the drivers seat only".

Every car manufacturer will be coming out with high HP cars in the very near future so what will set the cars apart? What will determine which cars are tomorrows icons?

There will only be one Viper. I am a huge Dodge fan, old and new, and I would love to own an SRT but it really depends on what you like As far as speed goes any tuner can build you a faster car than a stock SRT for less money. Faster on the track and in the 1/4 mile. So if it is not the fastest car out there then what is left? Like I said above I would love to own one of each, a Viper and an SRT. If you have both you still only have one Viper.

 

[Hoosier Daddy]

I'll end the stupid debate right here. I don't believe there will be any polishing crowd owners who will get there SRT on the track. But if that occasion would happen then the owner will not push the car over even 5/10ths of the cars ability for being afraid of a stupid stone chip. Let alone balling one up. Flat statement. There will not be one SRT that posts a lower lap time than me at any track I visit this year period. And I'm running a 98 GTS with stock brakes and tires. Bring it on Mo Fo's.

 

[Toronto_ACR]

You guys are all dead wrong. You are saying that the SRT has better geometry and that is why it stops and handles better. How do you then explain why the Vipers are kicking but in Europe and other racing events in North america. In europe they are using GEN II Vipers in FIA GT racing where they cant be beat for the last 2 years Blowing away Porshe, ferrari, lamborghini, and everything else. They are driving the same body style as the GEN II cars and what we are all driving. It is not the weight that makes those cars blow all others away. It is the braking and the different suspension that is made for racing. It is not the different frame geometry. It has been proven. You put the right parts on the GEN II cars and they cant be beat. So please stop the crap about geometry. The SRT cars stop better due to the brakes. Read the super car shootout in Car and Driver and see how the stop Teck brakes stopped the cars better than any other VIPER.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike Brunton:
Upgrading your brakes won't do much for stopping distance, IMO. It might do alot for brake feel and fade resistance, but the limiting factor on stopping distance on a GenII Viper is the tires. If you can lock the tires up at speed, then you have MORE braking force than your tires can handle. Upgrading your brakes to provide MORE FORCE does nothing except maybe give better feel and let you lock the brakes up quicker.

The SRT brakes better due to revised suspension geometry that allows the car to transition more weight over the front wheels providing a higher downward (y) component of the overall force as opposed to a GTS/ACR which has a higher lateral (x) component. In other words, when you brake in an SRT, it pushes more DOWN on the front wheels... when you brake in a GTS/ACR is pushes more FORWARD on the front wheels.

No matter how much you spend on brakes, you can't replicate this in any GTS/ACR. It's built into the whole geometry of the car - just like the handling.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[SnakeBitten]

One way to get Gen II to stop like SRT10..Put the Gen II body on the SRT chassis if it will fit...Voila....Best of both worlds....Just being silly killin time b4 superbowl...

But I do recall some old car mags I used to have were they would put Jaguar, Studebakers etc on C4 Corvette chassis...Insane....It would be ridiculous to do that with Vipers but its an interesting thought....

Also Toronto ACR Im sure its the handling behavior under full braking and turning that makes the SRT10 faster around the track not just its brakes....Im sure you can get a Gen II to stop within a few feet of an SRT10 as proven by C&D shootout...But do they feel and act the same in a turn....I think thats where the clear advantage goes to the SRT10 plus its lighter and faster, more neutral and forgiving....Never had seat time in a Viper of anykind so my opinions are based on what Ive read from all the car mags....

 

[Mike Brunton]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Toronto_ACR:
You guys are all dead wrong. You are saying that the SRT has better geometry and that is why it stops and handles better. How do you then explain why the Vipers are kicking but in Europe and other racing events in North america. In europe they are using GEN II Vipers in FIA GT racing where they cant be beat for the last 2 years Blowing away Porshe, ferrari, lamborghini, and everything else. They are driving the same body style as the GEN II cars and what we are all driving. It is not the weight that makes those cars blow all others away. It is the braking and the different suspension that is made for racing. It is not the different frame geometry. It has been proven. You put the right parts on the GEN II cars and they cant be beat. So please stop the crap about geometry. The SRT cars stop better due to the brakes. Read the super car shootout in Car and Driver and see how the stop Teck brakes stopped the cars better than any other VIPER.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, I said it was different suspension geometry that allows the car to transfer weight over the wheels. You're saying Vipers with different suspensions are dominating on the track? YEs, I agree! These cars you're talking about are NOT stock GenII Vipers - they are mostly highly modified.

As for the brakes, you can put a $10 million system on your car, but if the suspension isn't setup to take advantage of it, it won't do squat. The tires are the limiting factor - they can only provide so much grip to use for braking. Max grip is achieved when the tire is just before the point of sliding (when it slides, grip goes down). So, if you can lock your wheels, you can already use 100% of the available tire braking ability. Friction is a function of coefficient of friction and downward force pushing the tire to the road. When you brake, the car "leans" forward, pushing forward and down. The suspension setup, chassis geometry, center of rotation and other factors will affect what the Y (downward) component of the deceleration force is. The bigger the Y component is the more weight you're putting on the front tires. Since friction is a function of force and Cf, and you can't change Cf, you can change the force during braking and get better performance.

Do you think a Corvette outbrakes a GenI RT because the brakes are "better"? Can you explain how? Because it has nothing to do with the rotors, calipers, and pads - it has to do with how much braking force is available to the brakes. If you can use all the braking force you have, adding more braking capacity won't do anything, EXCEPT it will probably help fade or racetrack performance.

Face it - the SRT is the performance improvement over the GTS/ACR because of more than the brake pads they used. The suspension geometry is different and no matter what you do to a GTS/ACR, you won't be hanging with an SRT. We have guys who race saying how the stock SRT outclasses their race-prepped GTS's and ACR's. How is that possible unless the foundation of the car is significantly improved?

 

[jcaspar1]

Braking distances(60-0 mph):
Stock 98 GTS: 155ft (per R&T)
98 with front 332 setup: 113ft (per Stoptech)
98 with 4 wheel Stoptech: a few feet less
03 SRT-10: 100ft? (anyone see actual #'s)
02 ACR with Stoptech: ???

It seems that aftermarket brakes can make a big difference in stoping distance and should narrow the margin between the ACR and SRT in lap time. I am certianly glad the SRT is faster, it would be pretty lame to make a less attractive, more expensive car that was slower!!

 

[Russ M]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike Brunton:
First of all, I said it was different suspension geometry that allows the car to transfer weight over the wheels. You're saying Vipers with different suspensions are dominating on the track? YEs, I agree! These cars you're talking about are NOT stock GenII Vipers - they are mostly highly modified.

As for the brakes, you can put a $10 million system on your car, but if the suspension isn't setup to take advantage of it, it won't do squat. The tires are the limiting factor - they can only provide so much grip to use for braking. Max grip is achieved when the tire is just before the point of sliding (when it slides, grip goes down). So, if you can lock your wheels, you can already use 100% of the available tire braking ability. Friction is a function of coefficient of friction and downward force pushing the tire to the road. When you brake, the car "leans" forward, pushing forward and down. The suspension setup, chassis geometry, center of rotation and other factors will affect what the Y (downward) component of the deceleration force is. The bigger the Y component is the more weight you're putting on the front tires. Since friction is a function of force and Cf, and you can't change Cf, you can change the force during braking and get better performance.

Do you think a Corvette outbrakes a GenI RT because the brakes are "better"? Can you explain how? Because it has nothing to do with the rotors, calipers, and pads - it has to do with how much braking force is available to the brakes. If you can use all the braking force you have, adding more braking capacity won't do anything, EXCEPT it will probably help fade or racetrack performance.

Face it - the SRT is the performance improvement over the GTS/ACR because of more than the brake pads they used. The suspension geometry is different and no matter what you do to a GTS/ACR, you won't be hanging with an SRT. We have guys who race saying how the stock SRT outclasses their race-prepped GTS's and ACR's. How is that possible unless the foundation of the car is significantly improved?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mike, at least we agree that an SRT/10 is not an improvement over the RT/10. We all know those GTS/ACR things are just wanna be viper anyways

.

 

[Russ M]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jcaspar1:
Braking distances(60-0 mph):
Stock 98 GTS: 155ft (per R&T)
98 with front 332 setup: 113ft (per Stoptech)
98 with 4 wheel Stoptech: a few feet less
03 SRT-10: 100ft? (anyone see actual #'s)
02 ACR with Stoptech: ???

It seems that aftermarket brakes can make a big difference in stoping distance and should narrow the margin between the ACR and SRT in lap time. I am certianly glad the SRT is faster, it would be pretty lame to make a less attractive, more expensive car that was slower!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe the quoted numbers for a stock Gen 2 viper are accurate above. From what I recall its 122 feet from 60, maybe 155 from 70. An SRT was tested at 110 or something close to it.

 

[46hemi]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
no matter what you do to a GTS/ACR, you won't be hanging with an SRT.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess the SRT goggles are stronger than we all thought!

 

[jcaspar1]

Russ,
Here is what I was using from the Stoptech data sheet.
Test Results:
StopTech 332 mm front brake setup
? 60 - 0 113 feet versus 155 feet (source R&T 7-98) Correct per my R&T
? 80 - 0 202 feet versus 278 feet (source R&T 7-98)
? 100 - 0 315 feet versus 353 feet (source MT 8-00)

Car and Driver lists 185 ft from 70 mph. Motor Trend lists 121 ft from 60 mph(00 ACR). I have never seen data for an ABS equipped Viper.
The 332mm front setup I installed definitely allows me to stop much faster but not nearly as fast I am sure as the SRT with its ABS.

Track times will all be irrelevant if you can't run the SRT on a road course/drag strip due to lack of a hard top!!

 

[George Murray]

SRTs will be raced. Just wait and see. Plenty of racers bought '03s.

Of course, the yellow ones will be the fastest. When they're built. Or repainted.

 

[SoCal Rebell]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoosier Daddy:
I'll end the stupid debate right here. I don't believe there will be any polishing crowd owners who will get there SRT on the track. But if that occasion would happen then the owner will not push the car over even 5/10ths of the cars ability for being afraid of a stupid stone chip. Let alone balling one up. Flat statement. There will not be one SRT that posts a lower lap time than me at any track I visit this year period. And I'm running a 98 GTS with stock brakes and tires. Bring it on Mo Fo's.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Just wait "Snowboy"

In this stupid debate lets not forget "driver skill" probably the biggest difference of all.

 

[slaughterj]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoosier Daddy:
I'll end the stupid debate right here. I don't believe there will be any polishing crowd owners who will get there SRT on the track. But if that occasion would happen then the owner will not push the car over even 5/10ths of the cars ability for being afraid of a stupid stone chip. Let alone balling one up. Flat statement. There will not be one SRT that posts a lower lap time than me at any track I visit this year period. And I'm running a 98 GTS with stock brakes and tires. Bring it on Mo Fo's.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I bet they will because you'll be busy changing my transmission again, or fixing some such other breakage

 

[Mike Brunton]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 46hemi:

I guess the SRT goggles are stronger than we all thought!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said that in the context of braking.

So you think that by putting on the stoppiest of stop techs, you would be able to match the SRT's braking numbers? I doubt it.

Russ, we all know the RT's are slow... accept it man, and move on

As for the better braking numbers... can someone explain to me why, considering that you can lock up the brakes in a GTS easily, aftermarket brakes can decrease stopping distances? If you mess with the bias, then sure, you can shorten up the distances... but just going to different brakes ain't gonna do it.

I have seen braking distances all over the board for the GTS/ACR... I've seen everything from around 160' down to 120'. I'd love to see more qualified numbers on these cars. I'd also like to see more qualified numbers on the SRT.

I guess the bottom line is... the SRT doesn't stop so much better simply because of different brakes, it's a whole suspension geometry thing. The people who have posted dialogue with the SRT engineers have confirmed this. If someone disagrees, I would sure like to hear some factual info on why that is.

As for stoptechs claimed numbers.... well, I got a throttle body airfoil for my Vette and they claimed 10hp increase (more with exhaust), so does my Vette make 10hp more than others?

 

[M. ROD]

Magazine tests:

*70-0 =&gt; 172ft, '96 GTS (source C&D, 9/96)
*60-0 =&gt; 129ft, '97 GTS (source MT, 5/97)
*60-0 =&gt; 122ft, '97 GTS (source MT, 5/98)
*60-0 =&gt; 117ft, '00 RT/10 (source MT, 8/00)
*100-0=&gt; 353ft, '00 RT/10 (source MT, 8/00)
*60-0 =&gt; 121ft, '00 ACR (source MT, 11/00)
*60-0 =&gt; 104ft, '03 SRT-10 (source, MT 11/02)
*100-0=&gt; 296ft, '03 SRT-10 (source, MT 11/02)
*70-0 =&gt; 153FT, '03 SRT-10 (source, C&D 11/02)

 

[onerareviper]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>As for the better braking numbers... can someone explain to me why, considering that you can lock up the brakes in a GTS easily, aftermarket brakes can decrease stopping distances? If you mess with the bias, then sure, you can shorten up the distances... but just going to different brakes ain't gonna do it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can answer this.... Stoptech actually puts a 'smaller' caliper in the front, on there big-brake 2 wheel upgrade. This changes the bias, because the rears get more use..... Does this increase stopping distance, balance, and pedal feel? I would say yes, and everyone who has a set says so... P.S. - I don't have a set.

On the other hand, why not increase the size of the rear caliper to help bias? Well, someone on this board has done so with great results. Do a search, and you should be able to find the post - Sorry, I can't remember the link....

 

[Janni]

We had a nice opportunity to talk to Herb Helbig at VOI7 while folks were flogging the 2003s on the larger of the 2 autocross courses. We had just come from driving the '03s on the smaller Neon autocross course (luck of the draw - we got the crappy course - but it was enough to know I wanted one...)

Anyways, we were both so impressed with the overall feel of the car under conditions like braking, acceleration, turn in, and it's overall manners- we just had to ask some questions. Brakes were NOT the reason for the dramatic improvement in stopping distances. Suspension changes were. The 2001 and up ABS cars have much improved brakes because not only ABS, but they have dynamic proportioning. This is HUGE - as it finally allows you to make us of those things on the rear rotors. Back to back rides on the track in a 1996 and a 2001 comparablely set up cars will highlight the difference. While the 1996 is pushing through the front tires and diving significantly, the 2001 is squatting and stopping using all four of its corners.

The limitation comes in on suspension. The Gen II's geometry has a tendancy to bind and not allow it to stay as planted as you'd like. You have to have the wheels bearing weight as evenly as possible to get maximum braking. The suspension in the 2003s was freed up so much that the car can remain more compliant to a variety of suspension variations, allowing it to stay planted and make maximum us of those nice new brakes.

That's why the 2003 FEELS so much different than my Gen II - suspension - NOT brakes. And the ACR shocks, while allowing some adjustability cannot overcome the inherent suspension geometry issues to make it equal to an SRT. And swapping the brakes won't either.

Thanks to Herb for the education.

And lastly, PLEASE do not compare your street car to the cars that are currently running in Europe (GTS-Rs). Those are completely different animals and a nothing like your car. I know you'd like to think you are running something close to a $250K purpose built race car, but you're not.

And a PS to Hoosier Daddy - you're just taunting us to get a roll bar installed in my new car and let Henry wail on it at ViperDays, aren't you? Please don't encourage him - he has his own toys...

 

[Joseph Houss]

Janni,

Please, oh please, let Henry do it! ... even for just one session?

Yours truly,
Joey!!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Janni:
And a PS to Hoosier Daddy - you're just taunting us to get a roll bar installed in my new car and let Henry wail on it at ViperDays, aren't you? Please don't encourage him - he has his own toys...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Larry Macedo]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I'll end the stupid debate right here. I don't believe there will be any polishing crowd owners who will get there SRT on the track. But if that occasion would happen then the owner will not push the car over even 5/10ths of the cars ability for being afraid of a stupid stone chip. Let alone balling one up. Flat statement. There will not be one SRT that posts a lower lap time than me at any track I visit this year period. And I'm running a 98 GTS with stock brakes and tires. Bring it on Mo Fo's.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alan,

When was the last time they did a Geiger sweep of your reactor? LOL

I'll take your challenge if someone would let me borrow their SRT?

BTW, Thanks for the C4 referral!

 

[Toronto_ACR]

janni I can appreciate your response and it seems that you are very knowledgeable. But I never said that our cars were the same as the FIA GT cars. I know they are highly modified. But you said that it is all geometry when it actual fact the cars in FIA GT and in T1 the cars are using the stock frame but with rollbars put in. The main difference in the improvement in the SRT compared to the 02 ACR are the brakes and the suspension which can be installed. I also heard from someone that the vette stops a lot better due to the different geometry. Well the cars in T1 are using the stock bodies with stock frames but improved brakes. Which cars are cleaning up. The VIPERS are cleaning up in SCCA T1 as well as overseas. We would cleaning up in American Le Mans also if we had the factory behind it. The facts are that we clean up against the competition when we have race prepped parts installed. ALL COMPETITION. Dont forget that the SRT is also a bit lighter which means a lot when stopping. Every pound means a lot when you have to stop from 100 just like every pound means a lot when you have to accelerate from 0.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Janni:
We had a nice opportunity to talk to Herb Helbig at VOI7 while folks were flogging the 2003s on the larger of the 2 autocross courses. We had just come from driving the '03s on the smaller Neon autocross course (luck of the draw - we got the crappy course - but it was enough to know I wanted one...)

Anyways, we were both so impressed with the overall feel of the car under conditions like braking, acceleration, turn in, and it's overall manners- we just had to ask some questions. Brakes were NOT the reason for the dramatic improvement in stopping distances. Suspension changes were. The 2001 and up ABS cars have much improved brakes because not only ABS, but they have dynamic proportioning. This is HUGE - as it finally allows you to make us of those things on the rear rotors. Back to back rides on the track in a 1996 and a 2001 comparablely set up cars will highlight the difference. While the 1996 is pushing through the front tires and diving significantly, the 2001 is squatting and stopping using all four of its corners.

The limitation comes in on suspension. The Gen II's geometry has a tendancy to bind and not allow it to stay as planted as you'd like. You have to have the wheels bearing weight as evenly as possible to get maximum braking. The suspension in the 2003s was freed up so much that the car can remain more compliant to a variety of suspension variations, allowing it to stay planted and make maximum us of those nice new brakes.

That's why the 2003 FEELS so much different than my Gen II - suspension - NOT brakes. And the ACR shocks, while allowing some adjustability cannot overcome the inherent suspension geometry issues to make it equal to an SRT. And swapping the brakes won't either.

Thanks to Herb for the education.

And lastly, PLEASE do not compare your street car to the cars that are currently running in Europe (GTS-Rs). Those are completely different animals and a nothing like your car. I know you'd like to think you are running something close to a $250K purpose built race car, but you're not.

And a PS to Hoosier Daddy - you're just taunting us to get a roll bar installed in my new car and let Henry wail on it at ViperDays, aren't you? Please don't encourage him - he has his own toys...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Janni]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Toronto_ACR:
janni I can appreciate your response and it seems that you are very knowledgeable. But I never said that our cars were the same as the FIA GT cars. I know they are highly modified. But you said that it is all geometry when it actual fact the cars in FIA GT and in T1 the cars are using the stock frame but with rollbars put in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you did say that they are the same body style with brake and suspension upgrades. And in fact, they are NOT a stock Viper frame - they are completely different from the ground up. The suspension pickup points are all different - the is a purpose built race car, NOT a frame they grabbed off the line at CAAP and decided to make into a GTS-R. If that were the case, at ViperDays a few years ago, the GTS-Rs would not have had a distinct advantage because all he competitors could have retrofitted every single part onto their stock GTSs. They couldn't and therefore were not competitive. Also, they wouldn't cost $250K....


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> The main difference in the improvement in the SRT compared to the 02 ACR are the brakes and the suspension which can be installed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's the GEOMETRY - i.e. where the suspension connects to the frame, where the center of gravity is, where the weight distribution is, how much travel the suspension has... etc, etc, etc. You cannot bolt this stuff on and have the same thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> I also heard from someone that the vette stops a lot better due to the different geometry. Well the cars in T1 are using the stock bodies with stock frames but improved brakes. Which cars are cleaning up. The VIPERS are cleaning up in SCCA T1 as well as overseas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

T1 class in SCCA REQUIRES you to run stock brakes. Shocks and springs are upgradeable, but no remote mounted reservoir shocks. So much for that argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> We would cleaning up in American Le Mans also if we had the factory behind it. The facts are that we clean up against the competition when we have race prepped parts installed. ALL COMPETITION. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not just parts - if it were that easy - we'd all be ordering out of the Mopar Performance Parts catalog and have ourselves GTS-Rs... Factory support means you get one off parts - things not available out of any catalog. You get computer programming, you get race engineers, you get skunkwork production parts.....


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Dont forget that the SRT is also a bit lighter which means a lot when stopping. Every pound means a lot when you have to stop from 100 just like every pound means a lot when you have to accelerate from 0. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The weight savings is negligible - helps some, but it minor compared to the other things...


The SRT is a new car - from the ground up. It cannot be replicated by buying stock parts and putting them on your GTS OR ACR.

 

[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_muscle_cars/index2.phtml

70-0: 157 ft, '97 RT/10 (source: C&D)
http://www.caranddriver.com/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.

 

[KepRght]

bah

just give me an 04 GTS that doesnt look like an oversized bmw Z4

 

[jrkermode]

SRT is faster than the ACR on the track for one reason. It's a 10 year newer design.

And, it doesn't look anything like a Z4. Forward of the doors its a direct crib of the Ferrari 550. Aft of the doors it's an S2000. Yet, put it side by side with an RT/10, and there's no mistaking its a Viper. Weird.