quickysrt
Enthusiast
why wouldnt the viper beat the ford gt's time?
The European Vipers are slightly down on power
Srt just ran an 8.13 on the Nurburgring.
it is about time the European and British auto media took note and stopped bagging the US for producing big OHV engines - when reality is the US engines are smaller, lighter and more torquey than their high tech ***, UK, and European counterparts.... the only thing BIGGER on a US OHV V8 is the cubic capacity.
why, for example, a 5L 500hp engine is superior to a 6L 500hp engine?
Let's assume you are correct; in fact let's assume that the C6 gets 20% worse gas mileage than the NSX, that would mean 14mpg city, 19mpg highway: That would still mean that the larger displacement LS2 is more efficient, since it makes 40% more power for only 20% more fuel.And I highly doubt the C6's engine uses less fuel than the M3's and NSX's. The EPA figures are about the same, but the testing doesnt require the use of the C6's 2nd and 3rd gear.
Give me a 9L 500hp engine any day of the week. Reasons:but you tell me, would you prefer a 6L or 7L 500hp engine, or a 9L 500hp engine to a 5L? and why?
Clarkson on the SRT-10:
"You could compare the new Viper with any Porsche, Ferrari, BMW or Mercedes. You could even compare it with the new Corvette, and it would lose badly. As a driving tool it is just as wayward and just as hopeless as its predecessor.
If it were available with right-hand drive I’d love to have one. It would set me out as someone who won’t conform to the English norm, someone who can forget who you are and not give a damn. It is the concept of hedonism made real. "
I agree, I would love to have one too, though it would be for the fifth spot in my garage(when I become rich).
Horsepower/Liter
110.9 BMW M3 , 333hp , 3.2 6cyl , NA
97.0 TVR T350 , 350hp , 3.6 6cyl , NA
92.8 Porsche 997 , 355hp , 3.8 6cyl , NA
91.2 Acura NSX , 290hp , 3.2 6cyl , NA
67.8 Corvette C6 , 400hp , 6.0 8cyl , NA
60.2 Dodge SRT10 , 500hp , 8.3 10cyl , NA
This is what I been trying to say before. The C6 just makes paltry power for its huge engine. And at almost twice the size of the NSX, it really is huge. And it doesnt need to be.
I blame this on GM's yester-tech approach of keeping ancient designs in use just to save themselves money.
I dont know more than GM engineers, and I dont deny that a well designed pushrod engine is a match for any overhead cam design in terms of performance. But I also know that pushrods and single cams are ancient technology since they have been almost completely phased out by the rest of the world. And even chrysler and ford are in the process of switching over(including their trucks). But GM's been very, very slow.Err...what's the problem here? Besides the fact that it might irk some who think they know better than GM powertrain engineers, how "behind the times" GM/Dodge are despite the fact that DOHC's have been around since ~1913.
You must be talking about the new DOHC Hemi that's spreading through Chrysler's lineup like wildfire.And even chrysler and ford are in the process of switching over(including their trucks). But GM's been very, very slow.
Then you have some serious insecurity issues. Sorry, you're on your own with that.But if it was my $45k to be spent on a newly designed 2005, I would want it to be cutting edge. Something high revving, mutiple cams, lots of valves with VVT to make me feel like Schumacher. I wouldnt feel comfortable writing out a check for a brand new car with leaf springs and 2 valve heads.
I'm only vaguely familiar with NASCAR. Maybe you should've used a more appropriate analogy. Like maybe John Heinricy, Ron Fellows, Johnny O'Connell, Peter Zakowski, David Donohue, Justin Bell, Tommy Archer, Olivier Beretta, David Donohue, etc. You know, people who have driven supposedly outdated dinosaurs to victories at Le Mans, Sebring, Daytona, ALMS, 24 Hrs of Nurburgring, etc over their much more "advanced" competitors.But you seem to like it alot, so you should really buy one. Plus you'd feel like Tony Stewart. To each his own. Just dont over-rev it, or you'll knock an exhaust valve off.
Yes but why have they been almost completely phased out? There has to be a reason. BTW, OHC engines are much older than OHV... the Ford Model A and T were external camshaft designs, as were the engines of the late 1800s. The OHV concept was tried in 1919 by Chevy, but the concept was too advanced for it to work well. The first reliable OHV V8 was introduced by Oldsmobile in 1949, Ford and Chevy followed in 1954 and 1955 respectively. OHV engines were used in luxury cars and heavy duty trucks in the 1920s and 30s, but didn't find their way into mass produced passenger cars until later. OHC is the "ancient" technology, not OHV.But I also know that pushrods and single cams are ancient technology since they have been almost completely phased out by the rest of the world.
I dont know more than GM engineers, and I dont deny that a well designed pushrod engine is a match for any overhead cam design in terms of performance. But I also know that pushrods and single cams are ancient technology since they have been almost completely phased out by the rest of the world. And even chrysler and ford are in the process of switching over(including their trucks). But GM's been very, very slow.Err...what's the problem here? Besides the fact that it might irk some who think they know better than GM powertrain engineers, how "behind the times" GM/Dodge are despite the fact that DOHC's have been around since ~1913.
But if it was my $45k to be spent on a newly designed 2005, I would want it to be cutting edge. Something high revving, mutiple cams, lots of valves with VVT to make me feel like Schumacher. I wouldnt feel comfortable writing out a check for a brand new car with leaf springs and 2 valve heads.
But you seem to like it alot, so you should really buy one. Plus you'd feel like Tony Stewart. To each his own. Just dont over-rev it, or you'll knock an exhaust valve off.