Talk:Dodge Viper/Archive 1

Vandalism
Billdork has vandalized this page. Someone with experience on this page should either revert it or edit it out. --71.113.171.48 23:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

GT car or not?
I really do not feel that the Viper is a GT car. It is so lacking in amenities to make it not suitably "grand" to be a GT. It may be heavy but it sure is powerful. The fact that it does so well on the track makes me definitely lean toward sports car for this one. Thoughts? --SFoskett 18:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'm sure it won't be popular with the "sports cars must be lightweight" crowd, though. &mdash;Morven 20:28, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree as well, that's what I think adss to its charm a bit (im discussing the pre-2003 models). The lack of amenities coupled with the lack of driving aids (traction control, ABS) in my mind makes it more of a purist sports car, and adds to the driver-car connection. 23:58 Jun 6, 2005


 * How about we compromise and call it a "performance car" or "muscle car"?  Personally, I think "muscle car" is a more accurate description of what it is.   --JonGwynne 19:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know...it's a little new to be called a "muscle car". I like "performance car", though.

Chrysler dedicated the viper as an "indirect descendent" of the cobra. Check the Mustang Milestone magazine "Celebrating 40 years of Shelby" edition where they explain more about shelby involvement in the project.

Could 0-60 times for the Viper be added? Jodamn 22:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Generations of the Viper
I'm not sure about the 1st and 2nd generation designation in this article. The First generation viper includes all the models up to the year before the current generation was introduced. There were no significant chassis, engine and styling changes to the car to call the 1996 model a 2nd generation. It was only an update with minor changes and the introduction of the much anticipated coupe version. Any thoughts on this? Also, I want to point out that the picture in the RT/10 currently refferred to as a 1st gen is actually a GTS model which was not out until 1996. --Cirilobeto 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the above. The first-gen Viper received a reworking, nothing more. --328cia 07:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I own the book 'Dodge Viper' by Daniel F. Carney who quotes Peter Brock, who worked with Team Viper, saying "They literally redid the car...". It is revealed that about 90% of the GTS was changed compared to the RT/10. NineKnuckles (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not buying it
Something doesn't make sense in the "Hennessey Venom" section. They state that the Hennessey vehicle is the speed champ in the 1-mile run because it made "25.6 sec. @ 210.2 mph and the DHL Lola Champ car had run a best of 24.23 sec. @ 203.3 mph". Then they say that "The Hennessey Venom Twin Turbo also posted the quickest 0-200 mph in the test laying down a time of 21.3 sec. a compared to the DHL Champ car's time fo 22.0 sec." So the Lola was QUICKER to the 1-mile marker (24.23 sec vs. 25.6 sec) despite being SLOWER to 200 (22.0 vs. 21.3 seconds) and having a LOWER top speed (203.3 vs. 210.2 mph)?

Not buying it. Someone's got happy clocks. Let's get real folks! -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middlenamefrank (talk • contribs) 17 September 2006


 * It's called aerodynamics. The Champ car has the ability to accelerate much quicker than the Venom from the start.  However there's a point in which the Venom's better aerodinamics take part in the high speed acceleration and starts gaining on the Champ car.  That explains why the Venom is able to get a higher top speed.  Given a very very very long straight road, the Champ car would be ahead of the Venom by the mile mark, however at that point, even though the Champ car is ahead, the Venom is already going faster, and eventually will pass the Champ car.  --Cirilobeto 05:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand aerodynamics. I agree that the Lola is probably set up to accelerate harder (better in a race), whereas the Hennessey is set up for better top speed (better bragging numbers). That's why I'm reluctant to believe the Hennessey was quicker to 200. I just don't believe that the car that takes longer to get to 200, and has a lower top speed, gets to the mile marker first. I suspect the 0-to-200 numbers are wrong....I strongly suspect the Lola accelerates harder and gets to 200 first, and to the mile marker first, after which it is overtaken by the Hennessey.


 * Also, I didn't erase anybody's opinion, someone else did that. And now that I know how to sign my signature I always do that too. Middlenamefrank 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not necessary that a car that covers a given distance in less time than another car will also get to a given speed quicker. As I said before, aerodynamics take a big role in high speed acceleration.  Think of it this way: two cars that weight the same start accelerating.  One has 500 hp and is geared to top at 120 mph.  The other has 300 hp and is geared to reach 150 mph.  The car with 500 hp will accelerate much faster and will be ahead of the 300 hp car for quite a while and reach the top speed of 120 mph.  At that point the 300 hp car will still be accelerating and will eventually reach 120 mph, but will still be behind the 500 hp car.  However, once it continues accelerating past 120 mph, it will slowly start gaining on the 500 hp car, until there's a point at which both will have covered the same distance, but the 300 hp will be going faster than the other.  I don't know if you get the picture, but the fact is that it is very possible for the situation to happen.  Check the acceleration curves from the magazine and you will see how the Lola's acceleration drops significantly compared to the Venom's.
 * By the way, I know you didn't erase it, that's why I removed that comment. --Cirilobeto 07:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the LOLA turbo charged? I don't know alot about that car, but i figure if its not then thats the reason why the Viper would get to the 200 mph marker faster, having a set of big turbos would definetly give it an advantage a high speed. The Lola being a much lighter car would accelerate faster against the lag on the big turbos, however once the turbos hit big boost the viper would accelerate like a fighter jet. Also the Viper being heavier would give it better stability a higher speeds, more downforce, with the boost and the aerodinamics on the Viper would have it accelerating alot faster pass the 120-130 mark, when the turbos are making max boost —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.49.5 (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Engine use by other specialist manufacturers
I see that the Bristol Fighter has a Viper engine. Is the engine supplied to any other specialist manufacturers? Countersubject 14:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ram SRT-10 and Tomahawk as Viper "variants"
Is it really necessary to mention the Ram SRT-10 on the Dodge Viper page as a variant? Granted they both have the same 8.3L V10 engine, but an engine alone doesn't constitute a "variant", especially when they're both different vehicles as a sports car and a truck. That's like saying the Neon SRT-4 is a variant of the Viper SRT-10 because they share guages and seats.

Same goes for the Tomahawk. It's got a Viper engine, but it's still a bike.

I'll suggest either one of two things here: Delete the Ram SRT-10 and Tomahawk sub-sections off the Viper page, or re-organize them to something that doesn't directly link them as a Viper like labeling them as a "variant" would. Maybe create a section that mentions other vehicles that use the Viper's engine?

Just trying to bring awareness.


 * Agree completly. If anything, there could be a mention of these two vehicles as having the Viper's engine, but that is all.  They are by no means "variants" of the Viper.  Somebody can make a section describing the Viper's V10 engine's specifications and at that section say that the RAM SRT10 and Tomahawk share this engine.  I will remove these two sub-sections. --Cirilobeto 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Breaking News!
2008 VIPER GETS 600HP! http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061228/FREE/61228001/1057/PROMOBLOG01

top speed 255?
Under the third generation performance specs it gives: "Performance: (2003-2006), top speed: 255 mph, (2008)(estimates only), quarter mile: 9.3 sec. @ 255 mph, top speed: 200+ mph." I find that somewhat hard to believe, that the Viper can reach 255mph on a 1/4 mile, much less that it can do it at all. http://www.dodge.com/viper/performance.html says that the viper has a top speed of 190+. Someone should look into this as I am not familiar with the Dodge Viper. Nitrous231 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your correct, the Viper won't do anything of the sort. I'm sure Road & Track, Motortrend, or Car & Driver are likely to have more accurate times (as it is, the current information is laughable. Very few cars in the world can reach 255mph at all, certainly not a stock Viper. The 1000hp Hennessey Venom might, but not in a quarter mile, not even in a full mile. Probably more than 2 miles actually). Anyways, would the auto mags be valid references? Or at least their websites? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.198.163 (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

According to some information (from a reliable source) at the Allpar Forums, both the 2008 Coupe and Roadster are capable of over 200mph, and the Roadster was clocked at 197mph WITH THE TOP DOWN! I am not sure what numbers Dodge will ultimately claim, but clearly the new snake must be capable of at least 200. Still no word on 0-60 or 1/4 mile times yet. the_paccagnellan 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Vipers have almost always been able to hit 200. Dodge, when they showed off the 08 Viper, still just upped the quarter mile a fraction, ditto 0-60, and kept the 190+ top speed. The new viper its been estimated 215 some rather eager others place it at 220-225... generally i think 210 is attainable, 215 likely, 220 a stretch. After all, it only has 5.63 pounds per horse. The Walkin Dude 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear this up in case it becomes an issue again, Dodge claims a top speed of 202 mph for the coupe. Anything beyond that probably isn't attainable. The Viper is powerful, but it has a .39 drag coefficient and horribly wide 5th (the gear in which it reaches max speed) and 6th gears. This is not a car for top speed runs. Futhermore, Motortrend tested it at high speed against 3 other cars, the Z06, 911 GT3, and LP640. The Viper achieved a speed 20 mph lower than it's claimed to speed (the is because the track was too short) while the other cars were all 18 mph short, which means the Viper's speed could be slightly exaggerated. Exorcet (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Still problems here: The Hennesy Viper Turbo 1000 ( 0.25M$ ) is "claimed to have a top speed of 255". There are only two cars that I know of that can hit over 250, The Verion, ( 1.6M$ ) and the SSC Aero ( 0.6M$ ), the Ferrari Enzo ( 1.0M$ ) can only go 225Mph. Also keep in mind that only a few fighter jets can go that fast. I herby call that statistic, not factual, unverifiable. ( there is a video of someone driving a viper to 221, but the shift times in the video are very slow. To go faster than 200Mph, you need electronic shifting, and something on the order of less that 1/10 sec between gears. ( 100Ms, the SCC Aero claims 80ms. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.0.29 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You replied to a post that was almost a year old, I don't think there is much left here to discuss. I haven't heard of a "Verion", perhaps you meant "Veyron"?  The Hennessey has more power than the Veyron, so it would not be a stretch for it to have a similar top speed.  Even if it can't reach that speed, the statement is still correct since it says it is a "claimed" speed (though reading the article again the current wording is "estimated"; this should be sourced).  All modern fighter jets should easily break 250 mph, so you're wrong but I don't see what point you were trying to make anyway.  How does shift speeds affect top speed?  That just doesn't make any sense.  swa  q  15:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammar Corrections
Found a "sentence" that was actually 4 or 5 strung together with commas. replaced and re-worded as necessary. This article could still benefit from citation of certain sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lincolnsigma (talk • contribs) 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

ACR Edition?
The ACR edition should be included in this article, possibly tied to the GTS-R section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lincolnsigma (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Smelliest Production Car?
"The Dodge Viper is the most smelliest production car made by Dodge". Is that an overlooked grammatical error or an insinuation?

Ashok | Talk 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Supercar?
I believe that the statement that the Dodge Viper is a "supercar" is opinion rather than fact. Some makes and models are generally agreed to be supercars (such as an Enzo Ferrari or a Laborghini Gallardo), but I don't feel like a Dodge Viper quite measures up to those in comparison. The statement should at least be sourced, if not removed completely.

Trixen 16:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Various magazine tests (Motortrend, Car and Driver, Road and Track) have shown that the Viper is as fast around a track as most competition from "undisputed" supercars, so you can't say it's not based on performance. The aforementioned Gallardo isn't much faster than the older 500 hp Viper if at all. The Enzo is faster, but that is in a league beyond the Gallardo and Viper in terms of performance targets. Exorcet 14:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Both the Gallardo and Viper is neither a supercar, no matter how much the automotive press abuse the term when using it to describing new exotic cars, before I say I'm about to enter into this same tedious argument about supercars, as there is with the Nissan GT-R page I suggest you read the supercar article, so therefore the safe bet is to call it a sportscar. The bottom line is, look at cars like the Bugatti Veyron, McLaren F1 and the Ferrari Enzo and now say to yourself if the Viper is the Supercar, for me absolutely not. Willirennen 17:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your reasoning, those cars mentioned were designed to be of a higher level of performance. But I still think that the Gallardo and Viper should be considered supercars, but at a different level. It seems that you have a more strict definition of the term than I do. The difference between the Viper and those cars, from a performance stand point, is really only acceleration and top speed. In everything else, the Viper is in the same class, and I feel that that should at least be recognized as being above sports car performance, which to me brings to mind cars like the Corvette C6 base model, Audi R8, Porsche Cayman, etc. The 600 hp version isn't far behind the Enzo, and the ACR is pretty much a race car, but it's untested as of yet so I won't talk much on it. Basically my point is that the Viper (and Gallardo) is much more capable than most cars labled sports car, and that supercar isn't a narrow term. By your reasoning, I could knock the Enzo off because of the Caparo T1, Koenigsegg CCX, Zonda F, S7 Twin Turbo and other examples. The Veryon is more of a super GT, since it's performance is really only top class in a straight line. The F1 was one of the fastest of it's time, but modern cars are probably faster on most tracks despite the weight difference. Exorcet 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

centrally located engine,that's all I'm going to say.Without that you can remove the "super" from the car and add sports. --Technosphere83 (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing Road and Track
Can someone please find an online copy of the Road and Track magazine where all of these acceleration numbers are coming from? It would help add substance to the article and make it more rigorous for GA inspection later on. I'll try my hardest for now, but I can't make any promises. Zhugs546, _-Z-_ 05:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Update
I found a posting on a blog confirming the performance figures for the first generation (though it appears that someone copied and pasted the entire blog post to make the performance section on THIS article). However, this by no means is proof that Road and Track actually posted these numbers. This is just a temporary citation in order to make the article a little better in terms of verifiable substance. The article still has a long way to go to become b-class._-Z-_ 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture References
Should we mention this is the car Angelina Jolie is driving in the new Trailer for the movie Wanted? (08 model) See: http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/wanted/trailer4/wanted_large.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.237.252 (talk) 21:23, March 20, 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is a necessary addition. See Trivia Sections. By the way, please sign your posts with four "~" and start new sections at the bottom of a talk page.  swa  q  21:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Weight Compared to Ferraris
1488kg is not necessarily 'very light in comparison to modern Ferraris' - an F430 is 1450kg, the Scuderia 1350kg. How about a direct comparison to a particular car (for example the 1690kg 599) or a contemporary Ferrari? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.22.245 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed that part of the sentence. We don't need to do a comparison.  swa  q  17:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its good to leave out the judgement, but not the comparison, or the statistic. Bhp/Lb is a significant measure of cars that go faster than 200Mph.
 * An Enzo (Farrari) weighs 3009Lbs/1366kg. ( Its a light Farrari ),
 * A Testarosa 512 M weighs 3651Lbs/1656kg. ( a somewhat heavier Farrari ) --99.185.0.29 (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's spelled "Ferrari" not "Farrari". I will agree that power to weight ratio is a good measure of a car, but I don't feel it is important to include in the encyclopedia article.  Power to weight is very simple for a reader to derive, so unless a car is particularly notable for it there isn't much reason to mention it.  Wikipedia is not a car comparison site.  swa  q  15:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)