Mustang Cobra VS. Integra Type R
Scott
Just a quick Question, which would you rather buy, Ford Mustang Cobra, or
Acura Integra Type R and why. They both cost around 25,000. Just wanted
some different oppinions of cars that go about performance in two different
ways.
--
Scott
William M. Roberts
NEITHER, the Type-R is overpriced and not worth it. Like that one guy
explained here a couple days a ago, for less money and time one can build
a GS-R to be quicker, faster, and prettier than the Type-R. (Not saying
I wouldn't take one, the Type-R is gorgeous!) For the Cobra, I'm not a
Ford fan, I just wouldn't by a car that has a prancing horse on the front
of it. Maybe I'll put the horse on the back of my Honda for the Cobra
owner to enjoy as I pass him! CALM DOWN, I'm just joking, I can't beat a
Cobra! Only GT's . Flame away!>
Robert
Scott wrote:
>
> Just a quick Question, which would you rather buy, Ford Mustang Cobra, or
> Acura Integra Type R and why. They both cost around 25,000. Just wanted
> some different oppinions of cars that go about performance in two different
> ways.
> --
> Scott
Uh, I smell a troll.
Dave
Nah, I'd rather a Benz 500SL with a 429Boss and a blower!
Dave
Scott wrote in message <01bc4118$a4108d60$3be1...@srw.erinet.com>...
David Lyons
Robert wrote:
>
> Scott wrote:
> >
> > Just a quick Question, which would you rather buy, Ford Mustang Cobra, or
> > Acura Integra Type R and why. They both cost around 25,000. Just wanted
> > some different oppinions of cars that go about performance in two different
> > ways.
> > --
> > Scott
>
It's a different type of troll. This one is is subtle. His post isn't
designed to get our blood pressure up. If we respond, and if he's a
real troll, he'll try to counter by querying we would chose the Cobra
over the Honda. And he'll point out the Honda's strong points and the
Cobra's weak points.
I'll take the bait but leave the hook:
I'll take the Cobra.
1. Way more potential. Hot rodders already have pumped up street
versions running 9s.
2. Rear wheel drive.
3. Fuel mileage. The Integra's probably better. But the upper 20s mpg
of the Cobra is good enough for me.
4. Handling. Integra might be better. Who cares? If I want handling,
I'd rather pay more money to upgrade a Cobra. No big deal to me.
5. Reliability. Either will go over 200000 miles with a little common
sense.
6. Interior room. Integra probably wins here. But I have *other*
vehicles to haul my family around in.
7. Which one would you rather tow a boat with?
8. Nobody brags about beating an Integra. Anybody that beats a Mustang
brags about it.
--
David A. Lyons
Lupine
In article <01bc4118$a4108d60$3be1...@srw.erinet.com>, "Scott"
<s...@erinetnospam.com> wrote:
> Just a quick Question, which would you rather buy, Ford Mustang Cobra, or
> Acura Integra Type R and why. They both cost around 25,000. Just wanted
> some different oppinions of cars that go about performance in two different
> ways.
I'ld assume that the buyer of the Cobra is looking for 1/4 times. In which
case, the Ram-Air firebird, or the Chevy SS is the better deal for a new
car; or a 88 Mustang LX 5.0 with a Superchargr, or a Grand National for a
used car.
The one buying the Type-R is probably looking more for a street/road
racing car, and not 1/4 times.
Jamey Johnston
> > Just a quick Question, which would you rather buy, Ford Mustang Cobra,
or
> > Acura Integra Type R and why. They both cost around 25,000. Just
wanted
> > some different oppinions of cars that go about performance in two
different
> > ways.
They are cars that don't compare really well at all. I bought a Cobra for
it's modification potential and interior/exterior appearance (not for the
cup holder). I want a screaming 1/4 miler that feels good to drive and has
a good sound system. The integra is really a different class of vehicle
altogether, and doesn't deliver the same performance for the money. It
has a smoother ride (I have a buddy who owns one, I think it's a 15th
anniversary model?) but it's too small inside for my taste. I think of it
as an economy luxury car as opposed to a pony car.
> I'ld assume that the buyer of the Cobra is looking for 1/4 times. In
which
> case, the Ram-Air firebird, or the Chevy SS is the better deal for a new
> car;
Unless you are considering upgade potential. Stock, you're right.
> or a 88 Mustang LX 5.0 with a Superchargr, or a Grand National for a
> used car.
> The one buying the Type-R is probably looking more for a street/road
> racing car, and not 1/4 times.
Or they're a rice boy. *I just got my Integra-R, and I've got my fart
muffler and 10" exhaust tip, stickers all over the back window, I'm ready
to go stomp a few Cobras, Corvettes, and Vipers down at the track this
weekend* :-)
狂人
In <01bc4118$a4108d60$3be1...@srw.erinet.com>, on 04/03/98
>Just a quick Question, which would you rather buy, Ford Mustang Cobra, or
>Acura Integra Type R and why. They both cost around 25,000. Just wanted
>some different oppinions of cars that go about performance in two different
>ways.
Mustangs!!!
#1. More power.
#2. Easier to get engine and suspension upgrades at much lower cost. #3.
V-8.
#4. Convertable is available.
#5. RWD.
#6. Too many reason to list... :)
--
===Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICE News Beta Tester. Bovine Team===
======Warped Key Crucher, And OS/2 ISP CD Project Member. TBA #3======
US Mirror http://www.cybermail.net/~davidwei
Taiwanese Mirror http://www.taconet.com.tw/~davidwei
光碟月刊 OS/2 技術編輯 Internet Pioneer CD-ROM Monthly, OS/2 Editor
Java 1.1.4 - MR/2 ICE REG#:10510 - OS/2 T-Warp Connect 4.0
ICQ# = 8943567 (Still Experimenting with ICQ for Java :) )
Ken
> Just a quick Question, which would you rather buy, Ford
> Mustang Cobra, or Acura Integra Type R and why. They both
> cost around 25,000. Just wanted some different oppinions of
> cars that go about performance in two different ways.
Ugh !
Was it really necessary to cross post this question to the
Honda and Mustang newsgroup ? If so, you're either new to
these groups or you're a troll.
Let me give you the answer to your question :
rec.autos.makers.honda -> Integra Type R
rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang -> Mustang Cobra
Next time, try posting it solely to the 'rec.autos.driving'
newsgroup. You'll get a non-biased opinion that way.
Ken.
men...@coloradomtn.edu
>NEITHER, the Type-R is overpriced and not worth it. Like that one guy
>explained here a couple days a ago, for less money and time one can build
>a GS-R to be quicker, faster, and prettier than the Type-R. (Not saying
>I wouldn't take one, the Type-R is gorgeous!) For the Cobra, I'm not a
>Ford fan, I just wouldn't by a car that has a prancing horse on the front
>of it.
You mean you would rather buy a Honda, than a Ferrari if you had the
choice. :)
GRMdavid
Instead of a Cobra, what about a new Camaro Z28 for $25,000? More low-end
torque that either. Sure it's got some squeeks and rattles, but there is
something about a healthy V8. New Z28 also makes like 300hp stock. It's kinda a
guilty pleasure car.
Nothing against Hondas, of course.
David S. Wallens, managing ed, Grassroots Motorsports
www.grmotorsports.com (ask me for a free sample)
'88 CRX Si supercharged
Spoiler
On 3 Apr 1998 21:46:22 GMT, grmd...@aol.com (GRMdavid) wrote:
>Instead of a Cobra, what about a new Camaro Z28 for $25,000? More low-end
>torque that either. Sure it's got some squeeks and rattles, but there is
>something about a healthy V8. New Z28 also makes like 300hp stock. It's kinda a
>guilty pleasure car.
>
>Nothing against Hondas, of course.
Yeah....squeek, rattles, and a busted tranny on delivery. Keep the Z.
Ordered one, was worried about reliability, and got nailed.
Completely turned me off to the car. Now I'll probably end up with a
lighter more balanced car performance wise.... most likely a Prelude.
Merlin
Scott,
Why don't you go and test drive the two cars and see what you
like better. Everyone is going to have their own opinion about which car
they feel is better including myself. I personally would get the Mustang
for raw power. If you like refinement, better handling, fuel economy,
resale value, and reliability, get the Integra. Personally I won't spend
all that extra money for a Type R AND still be missing the AC and sun
roof. Now just to remind you, the Integra is built for smaller people
unlike the Mustang which seems to have more space for people. But in
terms of capacity to carry items, the Integra would be a better choice. I
also noticed that the Mustangs wiggle side to side whenever you hit a
bump. Integras seem to have a problem with their tires being thos crappy
Michellins. Another problem with almost all Hondas/Acuras is that they
are front wheel drive. Great for tracks but crappy for drags. So you
decide but I still say nothing beats a test drive. You should be able to
hit a car rental company that rents out mustangs. Haven't found an
Integra rental before though.
Scott (s...@erinetnospam.com) wrote:
: Just a quick Question, which would you rather buy, Ford Mustang Cobra, or
: Acura Integra Type R and why. They both cost around 25,000. Just wanted
: some different oppinions of cars that go about performance in two different
: ways.
: --
: Scott
Henri Helanto
"狂人" <nos...@canadawired.com> writes:
>#2. Easier to get engine and suspension upgrades at much lower cost.
<...>
At least it is true than it's MUCH easier to improve the handling
of a Mustang than a Type-R. The starting point is so much lower
than making improvements is very easy.
-Henri
--
# Henri Helanto ; he...@muncca.fi ; hhel...@cc.hut.fi #
# Nissan Skyline GT-R ; '71 Corvette LS-6 ; GMC Typhoon ; etc...#
CAUTION: Before engaging mouth make sure that the brain is in gear.
Paul Patten
Ken wrote in message <352557...@bottom.of.text>...
>> Just a quick Question, which would you rather buy, Ford
>> Mustang Cobra, or Acura Integra Type R and why. They both
>> cost around 25,000. Just wanted some different oppinions of
>> cars that go about performance in two different ways.
>
>Ugh !
>
>Was it really necessary to cross post this question to the
>Honda and Mustang newsgroup ? If so, you're either new to
>these groups or you're a troll.
What's a troll?
Bill Stanton
On 3 Apr 1998 16:54:44 GMT, "Scott" <s...@erinetnospam.com> wrote:
> Just a quick Question, which would you rather buy, Ford Mustang Cobra, or
> Acura Integra Type R and why. They both cost around 25,000. Just wanted
> some different oppinions of cars that go about performance in two different
> ways.
Fairly straightforward way to look at it. Place emphasis on which
traits are more important:
Handling: Integra probably has an edge in 'flingy'-ness, but the
Mustang's grip is formidable. I don't like really powerful FWD cars'
tendency to hunt when launched or accelerated hard, not sure if that's
an issue on the Acura. Overall, I'd say the Integra is probably more
nimble and more of a 'driver's car' in that regard. The Mustang would
probably be more comfortable on long drives.
Reliability: Although my two 5.0 Mustangs were bulletproof, I'd have
to assume the Integra would have better overall long-term reliability.
That probably includes quality of components and fit & finish as well.
Speed: The obvious edge here goes to the Cobra. Plain and simple, the
305hp car will be a fair amount faster.
Styling: I love the Mustang interior but was never a huge fan of the
SN95 body style, but I like the Integra's exterior even less. Never
cared for the pinpoint headlamps and narrow-yet-angular looks. Some
will probably look at the Type-R styling cues, but ultimately comes
across as yet another Asian Race Club Special. The Mustang appeals to
a more diverse crowd and will probably get more attention. Both cars
really need a freshening. Also, I don't know if you can get a Type-R
in other than white, but that would be a concern for me. The Cobra's
laser red and mystic black are stunning.
Price/Availability: The Mustang probably wins this one, because you
can get a Cobra almost anywhere and paying under sticker isn't by any
means impossible. The Type-R is still so limited in production that it
may be very difficult to get a good deal.
In the end, I suspect the Type-R will be the more collectible of the
two, sort of like a Datsun 510 SSS.
John Haley
Paul Patten wrote:
> >Ugh !
> >
> >Was it really necessary to cross post this question to the
> >Honda and Mustang newsgroup ? If so, you're either new to
> >these groups or you're a troll.
>
> What's a troll?
A troll is someone who purposely posts inflamatory messages to a
newsgroup, or just generally says something that will get a lot of
responses... like "SUV's are the greatest, I'll crunch your little
car!!"... then sits back, writes down the email addresses of everyone
that replies, and sells them to a direct mail marketer for a few cents a
piece... ie: trolling for email addresses. A troll is also a message
of this type, it's not confined to a person.
--
John Haley
http://people.unt.edu/~jth0008/index.htm
--
jth...@unt.edu
jha...@freenet.tlh.fl.us
ICQ UIN: 4747167 / Gen5 Registry: #W06939
狂人
In <3525552c...@news-2.csn.net>, on 04/03/98
Sound's like it... I'll take both Ferrari 512M Testarosa (sp?) AND Ford
SuperStallion... and go out to feed on other supercars... :) Both have horse
on the front, one have horse on the back as well... both have wicked engine
and suspension...
Robert
Paul Patten wrote:
> What's a troll?
This information gathered from
http://threnos-media.com/prune/trollfaq.html#section1.1
"The term "troll" has several meanings on usenet. You have the Real
Life[tm] meanings as given to us by Ms. Webster:
troll (trol)
v. 1.To fish for by running a baited line behind a slowly moving boat
n 1. A creature of Scandinavian folklore variously portrayed as a dwarf
or giant living in caves or under bridges.
And then there's the usenet meanings - which are actually rather similar
to those above. In the case of the verb, the definition is close - with
one small twist; _you_ are the thing that someone is trying to catch -
and catch you they will if you aren't wary. For bait, the troll will
often take the form of a derogatory post - one that is designed to
incite as much reaction as possible. For each person who responds, the
poster will consider that person "caught". The troll is considered to
have been a complete success if it disrupts the normal traffic on a
newsgroup. In extreme cases, trolls are posted by groups of people and
crossposted to unrelated newsgroups in an attempt to destroy those
groups by flooding them with flames and off-topic ranting. Then, there
is the noun, which again is nearly dead on, but this type of troll has
an e-mail account, a global
bridge to hide under, and a fishing pole to match - beware, for the
hills are full
of 'em.
1.2 How can I spot a troll?
Most trolls take the form of blanket statements designed solely to
generate as many irate responses as possible."
Look how many newsgroup this subject is cross posted in. Look at the
title. Obviously a troll.
Don't be suckered into the subject. I "smelled" troll bait when it was
first posted.
I am only responding to your question as it was relevant to the posting!
Robert
P. J. Remner
In a previous article, s...@erinetnospam.com (Scott) says:
>Just a quick Question, which would you rather buy, Ford Mustang Cobra, or
>Acura Integra Type R and why. They both cost around 25,000. Just wanted
>some different oppinions of cars that go about performance in two different
>ways.
Let's see, the Cobra makes torque all over the tach, while the
Integra Type R makes torque only above 5000. Scratch for Acura.
The Cobra enjoys a decent aftermarket and has a better engine than
the base GT. The Type R has no aftermarket because it basically has
a highly 'rodded GSR engine, and nobody wants to touch it.
Scratch two for Acura.
The Acura is ugly. Three.
The Integra is smaller and handles better, while the Mustang, although
it's a small car, it still kinda big for me, and it lacks a useable
trunk. Scratch for Ford.
The Acura is a rare car and parts are expensive. The Cobra's
various bits have all been in production since 1992-1994. Scratch
four for Acura.
Did I mention the profound lack of torque in a Type R?
All in all, I'll take the Type R, sell it for a real high price to
some collector, and then buy a well-maintained late Mark VII (Fox
chassis) and apply a lot of Mustang suspension bits, and also maybe
a small twin-turbo setup, maybe only 600-650hp or so.
--
P. J. Remner
In a previous article, mh...@burrito.engr.ucdavis.edu (Merlin) says:
>Scott,
> Why don't you go and test drive the two cars and see what you
>like better. Everyone is going to have their own opinion about which car
>they feel is better including myself. I personally would get the Mustang
>for raw power. If you like refinement, better handling, fuel economy,
>resale value, and reliability, get the Integra. Personally I won't spend
>all that extra money for a Type R AND still be missing the AC and sun
>roof.
Oh! Scratch two for Ford. The Cobra mandates all sorts of BS items
like power mirrors, A/C, stereo, I think power locks and seats...
I'll ask a coworker of mine who has a mildly built '89 (?) GT
convertible running low 12's, a '98 GT, and his dad has a '95 Cobra
and a '68 Shelby. I was born into the *wrong* family...
--
White Tornado Jr.
>The one buying the Type-R is probably looking more for a street/road
>racing car, and not 1/4 times.
Type-R road racing car?
Cha!
Steve Sheldon
"Paul Patten" <sap...@ibm.net> writes:
>Ken wrote in message <352557...@bottom.of.text>...
>>> Just a quick Question, which would you rather buy, Ford
>>> Mustang Cobra, or Acura Integra Type R and why. They both
>>> cost around 25,000. Just wanted some different oppinions of
>>> cars that go about performance in two different ways.
>>
>>Ugh !
>>
>>Was it really necessary to cross post this question to the
>>Honda and Mustang newsgroup ? If so, you're either new to
>>these groups or you're a troll.
>What's a troll?
Big ugly creatures that live under bridges and eat billy goats.
r...@essex.navy.mil
For the Cobra, I'm not a
> Ford fan, I just wouldn't by a car that has a prancing horse on the front
> owner to enjoy as I pass him! CALM DOWN, I'm just joking, I can't beat a
> Cobra! Only GT's . Flame away!>
>
>
for the front of your Cobra.
But what's wrong with the Prancing horse, It's a Mustang Cobra, not a
Shelby Cobra. Who else has a prancing horse, Ferrari I believe, and if you had
the money wouldn't you buy one of those?
GrnCobra
97 Mustang Cobra, with a Prancing Horse gracing the grill
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
David Lyons
Ken wrote:
>
> Ugh !
>
> Was it really necessary to cross post this question to the
> Honda and Mustang newsgroup ? If so, you're either new to
> these groups or you're a troll.
>
>
> rec.autos.makers.honda -> Integra Type R
> rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang -> Mustang Cobra
>
> Next time, try posting it solely to the 'rec.autos.driving'
> newsgroup. You'll get a non-biased opinion that way.
>
> Ken.
Try using the "Followup To:" header so replies will only come to your
newsgroup.
--
David A. Lyons
Steven Fisher
White Tornado Jr. wrote in message <3527bd8d....@NEWS3.IBM.NET>...
>>The one buying the Type-R is probably looking more for a street/road
>>racing car, and not 1/4 times.
>
>Type-R road racing car?
Or to collect dust as a collectors item, judging from how rare they are. :)
White Tornado Jr.
>>Type-R road racing car?
>
>
>Or to collect dust as a collectors item, judging from how rare they are. :)
A sports/performance car MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST have driven rear
wheels. Otherwise it's an econo car, performance wannabe. None of
the Hondas, NONE are performance cars save for the NSX.
Lupine
In article <352c2235....@NEWS3.IBM.NET>, TheWhit...@yahoo.com
(White Tornado Jr. ) wrote:
> >>Type-R road racing car?
> >
> >
> >Or to collect dust as a collectors item, judging from how rare they are. :)
>
> A sports/performance car MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST have driven rear
> wheels. Otherwise it's an econo car, performance wannabe.
Then why does it handle better than the RWD "sports cars" of detroid?
White Tornado Jr.
>> A sports/performance car MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST have driven rear
>> wheels. Otherwise it's an econo car, performance wannabe.
>
>Then why does it handle better than the RWD "sports cars" of detroid?
Which sports car of "detroid?" You mean the Corvette? The Type-R
handles better than the Corvette.
Ah Cha!
I don't think so.
Next thing you are going to tell me is that it's faster too.
The Type-R is a bucket.
A slow bucket.
Gary Wolfe
(Note that I removed the crossposting...)
If I can go around corners fast and accelerate fast, then I'll call it
performance. "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a
duck."
TheWhit...@yahoo.com (White Tornado Jr. ) wrote:
[...]
>A sports/performance car MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST have driven rear
>wheels. Otherwise it's an econo car, performance wannabe. None of
>the Hondas, NONE are performance cars save for the NSX.
--
Gary Wolfe
t...@ix.netcom.com
Scott
White Tornado Jr. <TheWhit...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<352d96b0....@NEWS3.IBM.NET>...
> >> A sports/performance car MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST have driven rear
> >> wheels. Otherwise it's an econo car, performance wannabe.
> >
> >Then why does it handle better than the RWD "sports cars" of detroid?
>
> Which sports car of "detroid?" You mean the Corvette? The Type-R
> handles better than the Corvette.
>
> Ah Cha!
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Next thing you are going to tell me is that it's faster too.
>
> The Type-R is a bucket.
>
> A slow bucket.
>
actually, I would be willing to bet a Type R would handle better than a c5.
the c5 is a little too soft to be considered a race car like car. Not to
mention its sheer bulk. But I hear otherwise for the type R. Race car like
feel. Of course the c5 could pull away from the R on the straights in its
fuel economy 6th gear, but we are talking handling here! =] Quick
question, given you took two laps in your GSX and then the RX7, which do
you think would turn better times around a road course?
Kyoung Joo Kim
In article <352c2235....@NEWS3.IBM.NET>,
TheWhit...@yahoo.com (White Tornado Jr. ) wrote:
>>>Type-R road racing car?
>>
>>
>>Or to collect dust as a collectors item, judging from how rare they are.
:)
>
>A sports/performance car MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST have driven rear
>wheels. Otherwise it's an econo car, performance wannabe. None of
>the Hondas, NONE are performance cars save for the NSX.
>
>
If all FWD cars are performance wannabe econo cars, what about all the 13
sec, 12 sec, 11sec, and hell, even the 10sec hondas? Are they all wannabe's
too? And, a lot of those quick hondas are daily street driven. They might
not be street legal, but neither are the 11sec dsm's. Also, the FWD hondas
seem to do pretty well on the road race courses.
Scott
Kyoung Joo Kim <wbxk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<6gklel$f...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>...
> In article <352c2235....@NEWS3.IBM.NET>,
> TheWhit...@yahoo.com (White Tornado Jr. ) wrote:
>
> >>>Type-R road racing car?
> >>
> >>
> >>Or to collect dust as a collectors item, judging from how rare they
are.
> :)
> >
> >A sports/performance car MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST have driven rear
> >wheels. Otherwise it's an econo car, performance wannabe. None of
> >the Hondas, NONE are performance cars save for the NSX.
> >
Compared to the GSX? The clipse is one of the worst handling sporty cars
to ever put on a pair of shocks that I've ever driven. Total slop. The
only car that I can think of that is worse that I've driven is a 86 Trans
Am.
Steve Sheldon
Lupine@localhost.. (Lupine) writes:
>In article <352c2235....@NEWS3.IBM.NET>, TheWhit...@yahoo.com
>(White Tornado Jr. ) wrote:
>> >>Type-R road racing car?
>> >
>> >
>> >Or to collect dust as a collectors item, judging from how rare they are. :)
>>
>> A sports/performance car MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST have driven rear
>> wheels. Otherwise it's an econo car, performance wannabe.
>Then why does it handle better than the RWD "sports cars" of detroid?
Technically the Mustang is not a "sports car". It is a "muscle car".
The Corvette is probably the only "sports car" from Detroit. The Viper
sort of, but it's more of a big "muscle car."
Mike Kohlbrenner
Steve Sheldon wrote:
>
> The Corvette is probably the only "sports car" from Detroit. The Viper
> sort of, but it's more of a big "muscle car."
You obviously have little knowledge of the underpinnings of the Viper.
Sportscar handling all the way...
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
<kohlbren (-a t-) an dot hp dot com> sorry!
lo...@my.sig
In article <352E54...@My.Mailbox>,
Mike Kohlbrenner <No.Ju...@My.Mailbox> wrote:
>Steve Sheldon wrote:
>> The Corvette is probably the only "sports car" from Detroit. The Viper
>> sort of, but it's more of a big "muscle car."
>
>You obviously have little knowledge of the underpinnings of the Viper.
>Sportscar handling all the way...
>--
>Mike Kohlbrenner
Yeah, after reading this month's Motor Trend's comparison of the Viper,
Vette, 911, M roadster, Lotus, Ferrari, DB7, and Panoz roadster (did I
leave any out? sorry I forgot all the model names) I have a new respect
for the Viper, which almost "won" just every test they conducted on
these cars. It was 2nd place on the road course--with M+S tires on the
front (the testers were given a car with the wrong tires). So that means
it still beat almost all of the other sports cars, and supposedly would
have walked all over them with the right tires. Unfortunately it was
also the only car to break during the tests, unless I missed something in
the article, which is why they had the car with the wrong tires (the
original blew a water pump gasket).
Oh well, I could maybe someday afford a Vette, and that's all from the
above list, but hey, I'd be happy with it. :)
--
Dennis Brown -- Carrboro, NC brownde @ cs.unc.edu
See my boring cars page at http://ns2.apmtech.com/dbrown/personal/carstuff
狂人
In <352E54...@My.Mailbox>, on 04/10/98
>Steve Sheldon wrote:
>>
>> The Corvette is probably the only "sports car" from Detroit. The Viper
>> sort of, but it's more of a big "muscle car."
>You obviously have little knowledge of the underpinnings of the Viper.
>Sportscar handling all the way...
But it is *crude* for anything costing that much...
P. J. Remner
In a previous article, nos...@canadawired.com (狂人) says:
>In <352E54...@My.Mailbox>, on 04/10/98
> at 01:19 PM, Mike Kohlbrenner <No.Ju...@My.Mailbox> said:
>
>>You obviously have little knowledge of the underpinnings of the Viper.
>>Sportscar handling all the way...
>
>But it is *crude* for anything costing that much...
>
>--
Wrong perspective.
It is *cheap* for anything that fast and slinky...
--
Scott
lo...@my.sig wrote in article <6glpvu$35u$1...@tbone.cs.unc.edu>...
> In article <352E54...@My.Mailbox>,
> Mike Kohlbrenner <No.Ju...@My.Mailbox> wrote:
> >Steve Sheldon wrote:
> >> The Corvette is probably the only "sports car" from Detroit. The
Viper
> >> sort of, but it's more of a big "muscle car."
> >
> >You obviously have little knowledge of the underpinnings of the Viper.
> >Sportscar handling all the way...
> >--
> >Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> Yeah, after reading this month's Motor Trend's comparison of the Viper,
> Vette, 911, M roadster, Lotus, Ferrari, DB7, and Panoz roadster (did I
> leave any out? sorry I forgot all the model names) I have a new respect
> for the Viper, which almost "won" just every test they conducted on
> these cars. It was 2nd place on the road course--with M+S tires on the
> front (the testers were given a car with the wrong tires). So that means
> it still beat almost all of the other sports cars, and supposedly would
> have walked all over them with the right tires. Unfortunately it was
> also the only car to break during the tests, unless I missed something in
> the article, which is why they had the car with the wrong tires (the
> original blew a water pump gasket).
>
> Oh well, I could maybe someday afford a Vette, and that's all from the
> above list, but hey, I'd be happy with it. :)
>
I would rather have a vette any day. From what I hear of the owners of the
GTS it is just a huge piece of "everything that is wrong with american
cars". The vette would be much nicer to live with year round, but the
viper would be fun for a romp one day. If the heat that eminates from that
engine or that oh so rough ride doesn't get to you. (i've never driven a
GTS, but have ridden in a RT/10.) If I had the money I would get a NSX
over a Viper without hesitation. Not to mention the NSX usually beats the
GTS around the track.
NoOne
Never driven a RT/10, but have driven a GTS.
From what I understand the difference is night and
day, the GTS road better than my Neon, and my Z28.
It was close to the C5, but not as refined. And the heat,
yes, I did find myself driving around in 70 degree
weather with the windows down, and the air conditioning
on.
But, we drive on roads, not on tracks, and if your looking
to street race or screw around, then the GTS is where its at.
I'd love a NSX also, but the roads around here are for shit(Michigan),
so any type of handing, what my Z28 has, or IRS sucks when your
bounces through pot holes and broken roads.
I bet those Viper owners who do the "Everything wrong with America"
probably won't care for the NSX either. They are both I guess
what you could call extreme for their classes, the NSX is a
track car and not really the most comfortable daily driver, and for
a 'street rod' the Viper is the same. Most of them probably thought it
was just a faster Vette, which it is far from.
But it does offer the best seat of your pants ride, I spent 17 straight
hours in one(August 27th, 1997). I picked it up at about 7am
and parked it about midnite, taking an hour for dinner of course.
The ride was great, power of course was never lacking, easier
to launch than my Z28, hooked up faster even under full throttle,
and the brakes...well, they worked, but EVERYONE knew you were
stopping. Did a 'panic' stop to see what would happen, left a cloud
of smoke 40 feet long.
Only gripe...60K and no lumbar support??? Of course, that was until
around 11pm when I finally found the pump under the seat.
This summer I hope to get one for a weekend or 5, just don't know
if I could go back to my Z28.
--
Eric - '98 Black Z28 M6
Please remove the * and .GOV to reply
by E-Mail.
Scott wrote in message <01bd6573$4b437b40$39e1...@srw.erinet.com>...
Unknown
>>I would rather have a vette any day. From what I hear of the owners of the
>>GTS it is just a huge piece of "everything that is wrong with american
>>cars".
performance first and everything else is secondary, if the GTS owners
you know think like this then why do they own it?
>>The vette would be much nicer to live with year round, but the
>>viper would be fun for a romp one day. If the heat that eminates from that
>>engine or that oh so rough ride doesn't get to you. (i've never driven a
>>GTS, but have ridden in a RT/10.)
compared to the first generation RT/10 the GTS is down right civilized
>> If I had the money I would get a NSX
>>over a Viper without hesitation. Not to mention the NSX usually beats the
>>GTS around the track.
where is your proof to back this up? in last years motortrend shootout
(may '97) there was an NSX present and it lost to the viper by over 2
seconds around the track....visit this page for a little more proof of
what vipers are capable of:
http://www.viperclub.org/regions/illinois/97ferari.htm
狂人
In <35324837...@enews.newsguy.com>, on 04/12/98
>>> If I had the money I would get a NSX
>>>over a Viper without hesitation. Not to mention the NSX usually beats the
>>>GTS around the track.
>where is your proof to back this up? in last years motortrend shootout (may
>'97) there was an NSX present and it lost to the viper by over 2 seconds
>around the track....visit this page for a little more proof of what vipers
>are capable of:
>http://www.viperclub.org/regions/illinois/97ferari.htm
Not to mention the el cheapo modified Mustang Cobra (well, that was an all
modified shootout in MT) beat a modified NSX in several areas, while tie or
is very close to NSX...
White Tornado Jr.
> Quick
>question, given you took two laps in your GSX and then the RX7, which do
>you think would turn better times around a road course?
It wouldn't even be close. The Talon can't hold the RX-7's jock strap
in the handling department, braking department, etc.
The Talon might win if it were a tight course in the rain, but on dry
pavement, it would be all RX-7.
Steven Fisher
White Tornado Jr. wrote in message <352c2235....@NEWS3.IBM.NET>...
>>>Type-R road racing car?
>>
>>Or to collect dust as a collectors item, judging from how rare they are.
:)
>
>A sports/performance car MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST have driven rear
>the Hondas, NONE are performance cars save for the NSX.
I hate it when I agree with you. *sigh*
Mike
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, ¨g¤H wrote:
> In <35324837...@enews.newsguy.com>, on 04/12/98
> at 05:00 AM, (Matt) said:
>
> >>> If I had the money I would get a NSX
> >>>over a Viper without hesitation. Not to mention the NSX usually beats the
> >>>GTS around the track.
> >where is your proof to back this up? in last years motortrend shootout (may
> >'97) there was an NSX present and it lost to the viper by over 2 seconds
> >around the track....visit this page for a little more proof of what vipers
> >are capable of:
> >http://www.viperclub.org/regions/illinois/97ferari.htm
>
> Not to mention the el cheapo modified Mustang Cobra (well, that was an all
> modified shootout in MT) beat a modified NSX in several areas, while tie or
> is very close to NSX...
if you are talking about the march '96 edition of MT, then i don't think
the comparison between the 2 in some of the tests are all that reasonable
and justified. the NSX had minor engine enhancements, the cobra had a
supercharger bolted on! let's give the NSX a supercharger! if you are
talking about the performance potential of the NSX around a race track,
i'd put my money on the NSX and not the cobra (and even a GTS for that
matter), *snap!* just like that.
mike
Scott
Matt wrote in article <35324837...@enews.newsguy.com>...
> >>I would rather have a vette any day. From what I hear of the owners of
the
> >>GTS it is just a huge piece of "everything that is wrong with american
> >>cars".
> i don't understand this, the viper was made for people who want
> performance first and everything else is secondary, if the GTS owners
> you know think like this then why do they own it?
>
A majority of GTS owners (or viper owners for that matter) buy these cars
for the image and nothing more. The local dodge dealer owner lives right
behind us and he owns a viper. He also NEVER sees over 2,000 RPMS. (i've
tailed him a few times). When was the last time you have even seen a viper
chirp the tires let alone give it some much needed WOT.
jasonvp@@m1ndspr1ng.nospam.com
In rec.autos.driving Scott <s...@erinetnospam.com> wrote:
: tailed him a few times). When was the last time you have even seen a viper
: chirp the tires let alone give it some much needed WOT.
Why.. it was just the other day, when I was at the track. I saw three
of them in fact. One of them (a GTS) passed me several times in the straights
of the course.
I suspect that the number of poseurs(sp?) that own Vipers are
relatively small compared with other cars. The vehicles offer little in the
way of comfort and refinement; they're just all out fun cars to drive (or so
I've been told.)
I'd go so far as to say the person that lives right behind you probably
doesn't want the car getting out of hand. They're incredibly easy to lose.
Doing so on a public road would be a disaster (see: Kelsey Grammer) Also,
have you checked the gas mileage on one of those things? :-) Even further,
are you sure the guy with the Viper actually *owns* it? Or does his
dealership?
jas
--
Jason Van Patten | subtlety (n) |
jasonvp@@m1ndspr1ng.NOSPAM.com | The art of choosing the lighter |
| sledgehammer. |
Any opinions expressed here are actually yours, you just don't know it. Yet.
To reply to me: jasonvp at mindspring dot com
NoOne
Actually, I got excellent gas mileage on
the one I drove, avg. close to 17mpg,
you have to remember, at 60mph, its just
idling in 6th gear.
The older RT/10's are very easy to lose,
and GTS isn't too bad, but it lets you
know very well when you've reached
*your* limit, I'm sure the car has limits
that I never saw, but I knew when I had reached
mine.
And, just to add fuel to fire, all this about
NSX, Miata, etc...etc...well, how
about a orderable GTS-R, 250 grand
and won every class it was in this year.
--
Eric - '98 Black Z28 M6
Please remove the * and .GOV to reply
by E-Mail.
jasonvp@@m1ndspr1ng.NOSPAM.com wrote in message
<6gtoci$b...@spamz.news.aol.com>...
狂人
In <01bd670d$55628e40$60e1...@srw.erinet.com>, on 04/13/98
>A majority of GTS owners (or viper owners for that matter) buy these cars
>for the image and nothing more. The local dodge dealer owner lives right
>behind us and he owns a viper. He also NEVER sees over 2,000 RPMS. (i've
>tailed him a few times). When was the last time you have even seen a viper
>chirp the tires let alone give it some much needed WOT.
I've seen my own share of Vipers around here in Vancouver area... they are
being driven slowly... and I DO mean slowly... :)
Randy Davis
In article <01bd670d$55628e40$60e1...@srw.erinet.com>, Scott (s...@erinetnospam.com) wrote:
|A majority of GTS owners (or viper owners for that matter) buy these cars
|for the image and nothing more.
Really. Based this on a real study, did you?
|The local dodge dealer owner lives right
|behind us and he owns a viper. He also NEVER sees over 2,000 RPMS. (i've
|tailed him a few times).
Perhaps he feels no urge to show off for you?, or doesn't want stories
of him thrashing a demo?
|When was the last time you have even seen a viper
|chirp the tires let alone give it some much needed WOT.
This morning, actually.
Randy
Randy Davis
In article <01bd6573$4b437b40$39e1...@srw.erinet.com>, Scott (s...@erinetnospam.com) wrote:
|I would rather have a vette any day. From what I hear of the owners of the
|GTS it is just a huge piece of "everything that is wrong with american
|cars".
OK, exactly HOW many owner's of GTS Vipers do you know? I know about
twenty different owners of them (local club), and not one of them has
every said *anything* similar to what you relate second-hand above.
I have some doubts that you know ANY GTS owners, to be honest.
|The vette would be much nicer to live with year round, but the
|viper would be fun for a romp one day.
Well, that is only speculation on your part. A Viper is a fine everyday
car, unless you get paranoid about where you park it.
|If the heat that eminates from that
|engine or that oh so rough ride doesn't get to you. (i've never driven a
|GTS, but have ridden in a RT/10.)
No unusual heat emanates from the engine that I've ever felt, and I've
put about 7,000 miles on an RT/10. For that matter, the ride on the RT/10
is smoother than the ride on, say, an RX-7, which I found fairly impressive.
|If I had the money I would get a NSX
|over a Viper without hesitation.
Hmmm, and pay $30,000 more (at a minumum), also. Of course, I know of
at least three prior NSX owners that bought Vipers and like the Viper more.
Perhaps unusual, but it happens.
|Not to mention the NSX usually beats the
|GTS around the track.
In what race have you observed that to happen? Given equal drivers,
the Viper beats the NSX. I've seen a number of GTS's beat NSX's, but no
NSX's beat a Viper yet (despite some pretty bad Viper drivers).
Don't get me wrong, you DO get something extra when you pay an extra $30
to 40k for the NSX. The Viper IS more of a personal effort to drive well,
especially on a track, and the NSX pretty much drives itself. The NSX has
a lot more creature comforts, etc. However, I don't think you get $30 to $40k
value with the NSX, but thats a subjective opinion.
Randy
Randy Davis
In article <mwuY.16$yt1.5...@reader1.cleveland.iagnet.net>, NoOne (*conn...@advdata.net.gov) wrote:
|Actually, I got excellent gas mileage on
|the one I drove, avg. close to 17mpg,
|you have to remember, at 60mph, its just
|idling in 6th gear.
I averaged 22.6 mpg in a 1995 RT/10 during a 4500 mile Christmas trip.
During my normal commute traffic, the mileage drops to about the same as
my RX-7 convertable; between 11 and 14 mpg in stop-and-go traffic.
|The older RT/10's are very easy to lose,
|and GTS isn't too bad, but it lets you
|know very well when you've reached
|*your* limit, I'm sure the car has limits
|that I never saw, but I knew when I had reached
|mine.
Correct - the updated suspension in the 1996 models is an improvement
over the previous models, and got rid of the excessive oversteer (who
needs oversteer on a car you can *throttle* steer?). Also, the use of
Michelin Pilots as of 1996 instead of the Michelin XGTs of the previous
models is supposedly a night and day difference, based on the opinions of
those that have put Pilots on their RT/10s.
Randy
Randy Davis
In article <NXrX.15$N8.2...@ptah.visi.com>, Steve Sheldon (she...@visi.com) wrote:
| The Corvette is probably the only "sports car" from Detroit. The Viper
|sort of, but it's more of a big "muscle car."
Eh, try again. Take a look at the handling numbers; slalom, skid pad, etc
for each, etc. The Viper is possibly the only "sports" car put out by
Detroit, with the vette a distant second.
I agree that the Viper also qualifies as a muscle car; the two categories
are not necessarily separate in my mind. Handling is an attribute I and
perhaps many people associate with a "sports car", and includes small and
otherwise NOT powerful cars like MGBs, etc. A muscle car merely has lots
of power, and the term muscle also seems associated with cubic inches, whether
that is unfair or not is a different discussion.
I would surmise that a muscle car without great handling ability can't be
a "sports car".
Randy
Randy Davis
In article <352e71d4$20$qnivqjrv$mr2...@news.canadawired.com>, 狂人 (nos...@canadawired.com) wrote:
|>You obviously have little knowledge of the underpinnings of the Viper.
|>Sportscar handling all the way...
|
You've got it backwards. Its *cheap* to be able to beat the performance
(handling, acceleration, etc, etc) of all the other vehicles its faster than,
of which *all* cost more, some as much as double and triple.
Randy
Ben Lanson
What if it needs to stop?
Ben
狂人
In <6gtuqh$gej$2...@void.agames.com>, on 04/13/98
>In article <352e71d4$20$qnivqjrv$mr2...@news.canadawired.com>, 狂人
>(nos...@canadawired.com) wrote: |>You obviously have little knowledge of
>the underpinnings of the Viper. |>Sportscar handling all the way...
>|
>|But it is *crude* for anything costing that much...
> You've got it backwards. Its *cheap* to be able to beat the performance
>(handling, acceleration, etc, etc) of all the other vehicles its faster
>than, of which *all* cost more, some as much as double and triple.
Not quite... Viper is more or less a (big) engine with a wrapping tossed
around it... :) Much like the earlier GTO... For something costing the price
range of Viper, I'd expect a better engine, especially when everything is
crude, if the engine comes with 500 to 550HP, DOHC... instead of the 400 to
420 with pushrod... I might think a little highly of it... Face it, the cost
of a large pushrod engine and the stuff on the Viper just isn't quite worth
the sticker price...
But then again, they are building so few of it that they are driving the
price up themselves...
Randy Davis
In article <01bd6573$4b437b40$39e1...@srw.erinet.com>, Scott (s...@erinetnospam.com) wrote:
|I would rather have a vette any day. From what I hear of the owners of the
|GTS it is just a huge piece of "everything that is wrong with american
|cars".
OK, how many Viper GTS owners do you know, and exactly why did they buy
the thing if it is so bad? Of the twenty or so GTS owners I know, they all
feel it is about the best thing to come out of Detroit in many MANY years.
|The vette would be much nicer to live with year round, but the
|viper would be fun for a romp one day.
So, although you've never driven one, you feel qualified to make this
conclusion? The GTS and the pre-1996 RT/10 are two VERY different cars,
and share very few parts (no body parts, nor engine, nor suspension).
I have about six friends that have one of each, a 1996 GTS and a 1993, 1994,
or 1995 RT/10. They drive the GTS as their everyday car, and the RT/10 on
convertable days. (Well, one of them hasn't driven the RT/10 but about
maybe 200 miles since buying the coupe two years ago, but won't sell the
RT for some reason).
|If the heat that eminates from that
|engine or that oh so rough ride doesn't get to you. (i've never driven a
|GTS, but have ridden in a RT/10.) If I had the money I would get a NSX
|over a Viper without hesitation.
If you had the money for the Viper, you wouldn't necessarily have the
money for the NSX, which costs quite a bit more than the Viper. Of the
people I personally know that have driven both cars AND have the money for
either, it actually seems to go about 50/50 each way. The NSX *DOES* have
some nice aspects to it that is missing from the Viper, but raw performance
isn't one of them.
|Not to mention the NSX usually beats the GTS around the track.
Actually, you have that backwards. Its rare that a stock NSX beats a
stock GTS around the track, and pretty much doesn't happen unless the
Viper driver is really bad or infamiliar with the car. At least, this
is my experience from watching a number of local track sessions as well
as reading the test reports that you should have read. Yes, the Viper
does take a bit of familiarity with to drive well, and by all accounts
is harder to drive than the NSX. That is what you buy for your $30-40k
more and isn't to be disreguarded, but at least represent it accurately.
Randy Davis
(to email, replace nospam with randy)
Mike Chiang
Scott <s...@erinetnospam.com> wrote in article
<01bd6573$4b437b40$39e1...@srw.erinet.com>...
> If I had the money I would get a NSX
> over a Viper without hesitation. Not to mention the NSX usually beats
the
> GTS around the track.
Really? Umm... I love the NSX too, but... what track are you talking
about? Even the 3.2/6-sp NSX is way down on acceleration across the board
vs. the GTS. It is a similar story in the grip and top speed department.
Look at the quarter mile and 0-100 times... and the slalom speeds. The
Viper *spanks* the NSX. I don't know about the 100-150 or top gear
acceleration times, but I'm pretty sure it's the same story there, too.
Sure the NSX has more usable speed, but I don't see a how good NSX driver
can out lap a good GTS driver on a road course with bone stock cars.
Luckily, we don't all live on race tracks. I'll take my NSX in Metallic
Silver, please.
Mike Chiang
'92 BMW 325is --->(soon) '98 BMW M3
Scott
Randy Davis <nos...@agames.com> wrote in article
<6gtvr1$i25$2...@void.agames.com>...
> In article <01bd670d$55628e40$60e1...@srw.erinet.com>, Scott
(s...@erinetnospam.com) wrote:
> |A majority of GTS owners (or viper owners for that matter) buy these
cars
> |for the image and nothing more.
>
> Really. Based this on a real study, did you?
yea, I based my mater thesis on why people in high-profile sports cars
drive so damn slow.
> |The local dodge dealer owner lives right
> |behind us and he owns a viper. He also NEVER sees over 2,000 RPMS.
(i've
> |tailed him a few times).
>
> Perhaps he feels no urge to show off for you?, or doesn't want stories
> of him thrashing a demo?
no, he wants to be seen in it. If you aren't going to drive it hard, while
drive it at all?
> |When was the last time you have even seen a viper
> |chirp the tires let alone give it some much needed WOT.
>
> This morning, actually.
coo
Scott
Randy Davis <nos...@agames.com> wrote in article
<6gue3d$3mm$1...@void.agames.com>...
> In article <01bd6573$4b437b40$39e1...@srw.erinet.com>, Scott
(s...@erinetnospam.com) wrote:
> |I would rather have a vette any day. From what I hear of the owners of
the
> |GTS it is just a huge piece of "everything that is wrong with american
> |cars".
>
> OK, how many Viper GTS owners do you know, and exactly why did they buy
> the thing if it is so bad? Of the twenty or so GTS owners I know, they
all
> feel it is about the best thing to come out of Detroit in many MANY
years.
know? none, talked to? 1 owner, and 2 that have driven. Best thing out of
detroit? Not saying much.
> |The vette would be much nicer to live with year round, but the
> |viper would be fun for a romp one day.
>
> So, although you've never driven one, you feel qualified to make this
> conclusion? The GTS and the pre-1996 RT/10 are two VERY different cars,
> and share very few parts (no body parts, nor engine, nor suspension).
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that the GTS would be a pain in
the ass to live with year round. Drive that thing in the snow? What if
it's raining out and you sneeze while going around a corner? Put put put
through a cicago traffic jam in mid july with 90 deg heat and high humidity
while that heat pump that pulls double duty as an engine fries you? I've
never driven a Toyota Corolla, but I think that it may be easy to live with
year round. But then again, I've never driven it.
> I have about six friends that have one of each, a 1996 GTS and a 1993,
1994,
> or 1995 RT/10. They drive the GTS as their everyday car, and the RT/10
on
> convertable days. (Well, one of them hasn't driven the RT/10 but about
> maybe 200 miles since buying the coupe two years ago, but won't sell the
> RT for some reason).
nice clique
> |If the heat that eminates from that
> |engine or that oh so rough ride doesn't get to you. (i've never driven a
> |GTS, but have ridden in a RT/10.) If I had the money I would get a NSX
> |over a Viper without hesitation.
>
> If you had the money for the Viper, you wouldn't necessarily have the
> money for the NSX, which costs quite a bit more than the Viper. Of the
> people I personally know that have driven both cars AND have the money
for
> either, it actually seems to go about 50/50 each way. The NSX *DOES*
have
> some nice aspects to it that is missing from the Viper, but raw
performance
> isn't one of them.
> |Not to mention the NSX usually beats the GTS around the track.
>
> Actually, you have that backwards. Its rare that a stock NSX beats a
GTS
maybe I do, I'm just stating what I saw in a mag.
Scott
> Luckily, we don't all live on race tracks. I'll take my NSX in Metallic
> Silver, please.
hehe, pulp fiction like?
Chuck Tomlinson
"狂人" <nos...@canadawired.com> wrote:
>
>Not quite... Viper is more or less a (big) engine with a wrapping tossed
>around it... :) Much like the earlier GTO... For something costing the price
>range of Viper, I'd expect a better engine, especially when everything is
>crude, if the engine comes with 500 to 550HP, DOHC... instead of the 400 to
>420 with pushrod... I might think a little highly of it... Face it, the cost
>of a large pushrod engine and the stuff on the Viper just isn't quite worth
>the sticker price...
Somehow, I suspect that even if the Viper had 1,000 hp, you'd still
expect a better engine...
Crude or not, how many unmodified production street cars of *any*
era can beat a Viper GTS around a road course? How much do those
cars cost? How many of them are still being manufactured? How many
of those cars were "refined"?
--
Chuck Tomlinson
RSB STi
I must agree that Type-R handles surprisingly well for a front wheel drive
car..
but I believe it would handle even better with a rear wheel drive....The
fact
that it weighs less is irrelevant here....Try make the Type-R weigh the
same
with the Vette WITH a Fwd.....and you will see how cheap those suspension
parts are...
And yeah, I dont think type-R handles better than Vette cuz it is never
driven
that fast----->of course it handles better most of the time cuz most of the
time
it isnt really that fast!
> White Tornado Jr. <TheWhit...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> <352d96b0....@NEWS3.IBM.NET>...
> > >> A sports/performance car MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST have driven rear
> > >> wheels. Otherwise it's an econo car, performance wannabe.
> > >
> > >Then why does it handle better than the RWD "sports cars" of detroid?
> >
> > Which sports car of "detroid?" You mean the Corvette? The Type-R
> > handles better than the Corvette.
> >
Mika Elmeranta
Scott <s...@erinetnospam.com> wrote:
: > Luckily, we don't all live on race tracks. I'll take my NSX in Metallic
: > Silver, please.
: hehe, pulp fiction like?
They still/again make it in silver? I though Tarantino had to get an old one
specifically for PF because he's an NSX fan...
;p
--
.signature has been summarily executed for TREASON.
Happyhappyjoyjoyhappyhappyjoyjoy. NI!
Mika Elmeranta - mik...@netti.fi - www.netti.fi/~mikelm
Schtoo
I'll chuck in a little observation here. This past weekend there was a
GT production race, held on what is a oft preclaimed 'horsepower'
track. In this race were a couple Porsches, an F355, a Maserati
Ghibli, and various other production cars. The race results were
Porsche, Porsche, Ferrari, Maserati, Viper GTS. The ONLY reason the
viper was this high up in the standings was because qualifying was for
a few short laps, and it nabbed pole, allowing it to get away down the
straight (Which doubles for a top notch dragstrip). Through the
infield the Porsche/f355 were all over it like a bad smell. It wasn't
until the vipers brakes called it a day, that the other cars went
past. What does this mean? Viper is good for a straight line, not much
else, The maserati was front wheel drive, and has four seats. Not
exactly a sports car. I would say that the Viper is not anything
vaguely close to a sports car, just a quick car, relying on HP's to do
it's dirty work. Oh yes, another fun fact, in this same class a nasty
little Mister Bishi will be another one to do the Viper over. With a
little sorting of the chassis, and the capability of 12.9 @106mph as
per stock, I have little doubt the Viper will succumb to yet another
"lesser" car blowing it into the weeds. Have a nice day in your
fantasy land Viper owners........
Bill Bechtold
Randy Davis wrote:
> Eh, try again. Take a look at the handling numbers; slalom,
> skid pad, etc
> for each, etc. The Viper is possibly the only "sports" car put
> out by
> Detroit, with the vette a distant second.
Come on. Sure the Viper handles ok, but it is not due to fine
engineering, but w-i-d-e tires. Put 335 tires on a Taurus (flared
fenders) and all of a sudden, the Taurus will "handle" well. The
Viper is a brutal car in every way. Brutal acceleration, handling
by brute force, etc...
> I agree that the Viper also qualifies as a muscle car; the two
> categories
> are not necessarily separate in my mind.
The Viper car is a Muscle car with some sports car aspects. It has
sub-par brakes, and lacks handling refinement, IMHO. Would I still
want one? Of course! But I like muscle cars for what they are.
> Handling is an attribute I and
> perhaps many people associate with a "sports car", and includes
> small and
> otherwise NOT powerful cars like MGBs, etc. A muscle car merely
> has lots
> of power, and the term muscle also seems associated with cubic
> inches, whether
> that is unfair or not is a different discussion.
Muscle cars are big cars with big engines (and usually under
braked.) The Viper fits the mold, IMHO.
> I would surmise that a muscle car without great handling ability
> can't be
> a "sports car".
I sure don't consider a '69 Roadrunner 426 a sports car...but I
still want one.
--
Bill Bechtold My Toys:
Operations Manager '89 BMW M3- Street Modified
SmartCamber Products '86 Porsche 951- Club Racer
(800) 383-0808 '67 Firebird 400- Show Car/Bone Stock
http://www.smartcamber.com/
Ty Klein
In article <6guo23$5...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, toml...@ix.netcom.com
(Chuck Tomlinson) wrote:
> "狂人" <nos...@canadawired.com> wrote:
> >
> >Not quite... Viper is more or less a (big) engine with a wrapping tossed
> >around it... :) Much like the earlier GTO... For something costing the price
> >range of Viper, I'd expect a better engine, especially when everything is
> >crude, if the engine comes with 500 to 550HP, DOHC... instead of the 400 to
> >420 with pushrod... I might think a little highly of it... Face it, the cost
> >of a large pushrod engine and the stuff on the Viper just isn't quite worth
> >the sticker price...
>
> Somehow, I suspect that even if the Viper had 1,000 hp, you'd still
> expect a better engine...
>
> Crude or not, how many unmodified production street cars of *any*
> era can beat a Viper GTS around a road course? How much do those
> cars cost? How many of them are still being manufactured? How many
> of those cars were "refined"?
Chuck,do they have to be available in the U.S.?
> --
> Chuck Tomlinson
--
Ty Klein
Chuck Tomlinson
Mren...@earthlink.cut.here.com (Ty Klein) wrote:
>(Chuck Tomlinson) wrote:
>
>> Crude or not, how many unmodified production street cars of *any*
>> era can beat a Viper GTS around a road course? How much do those
>> cars cost? How many of them are still being manufactured? How many
>> of those cars were "refined"?
>
> Chuck,do they have to be available in the U.S.?
No, although as far as potential ownership is concerned, cars that
aren't available in the US are of little practical interest to me.
Even in the case of non-US cars, I can't think of many that are
faster than the Viper. I guess the Skyline GT-R would be on the
list, and (from the little I've read about it) the TVR Cerbera.
Nevertheless, I think it's a stretch to declare that the Viper is
not worth ~US$70k when (crude as it may be) its faster competition
is generally just as brutal and/or FAR more expensive.
Look at the Ferrari F40 and F50, for instance. Not exactly the laps
of luxury, and expensive as all hell. But they have lots of cams
and valves, so they must be worth the money!
--
Chuck Tomlinson
Greg Nickliss
Enough @ the track, lets talk common sense:
Viper: 8.0L only reaching 400+ horses: that SUCKS!
typical american engineering: (rely on size and not SCIENCE).
Integra GS-R, Prelude, NSX: small engines w/ high output (almost
100hp/liter or more): that is innovation and
true racing practicality (minimize weight,
maximize output).
**imagine what Honda could do w/ a viper engine = 1000hp VTEC
*Just a thought,... and slight venting on the over-rated Viper.
-greg
jasonvp@@m1ndspr1ng.nospam.com
In rec.autos.driving Greg Nickliss <nick...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
: Enough @ the track, lets talk common sense:
If you insist.
: Viper: 8.0L only reaching 400+ horses: that SUCKS!
: typical american engineering: (rely on size and not SCIENCE).
Your point? 8 liters, 450 ponies, and earth moving torque. What
else, for $66,000 (before taxes) can you buy that moves like that? A bike.
: Integra GS-R, Prelude, NSX: small engines w/ high output (almost
: 100hp/liter or more): that is innovation and
: true racing practicality (minimize weight,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wait. Didn't you say you wanted to get off the track?
: maximize output).
: **imagine what Honda could do w/ a viper engine = 1000hp VTEC
And where on EARTH would Honda put an 8.0Liter DOHC engine? What tank
do you think they'd be able to shoehorn that monster into? Certainly no car
that I know of.
: *Just a thought,... and slight venting on the over-rated Viper.
Over-rated in your opinion. It seems to hold its own on a track
though. But wait, you didn't want to be "@ the track." I'm sorry. So where
else does the little wind-up engine do you any better?
Randy Davis
In article <01bd6757$0c98d440$14e1...@srw.erinet.com>, Scott (s...@erinetnospam.com) wrote:
|It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that the GTS would be a pain in
|the ass to live with year round. Drive that thing in the snow?
Ah. My mistake. I live where it doesn't snow, and forgot for a second
that this could be what you were referring to. Granted, a GTS isn't a good
snow car. However, nor would I consider an NSX, a Ferrari, etc, as any
better in the snow.
During my Christmas trip, I made a special effort to avoid snow in New
Mexico when I drove back to Texas/Oklahoma. No, I didn't really want to
find out how well it did in the snow, either. :-)
| What if
|it's raining out and you sneeze while going around a corner?
You get snot on your shirt? Raining isn't a problem - I've put at least
2000 miles on a Viper in the rain, and it really isn't that big of an issue
to not get stupid while driving in the rain.
| Put put put
|through a cicago traffic jam in mid july with 90 deg heat and high humidity
|while that heat pump that pulls double duty as an engine fries you?
Whole group of Viper owners was in Florida for a meet last year, 90 degrees,
95% humidity, and they did fine.
| I've
|never driven a Toyota Corolla, but I think that it may be easy to live with
|year round. But then again, I've never driven it.
Well, you are still speculating. Don't take the contradictions of
actual experience too hard.
|>Actually, you have that backwards. Its rare that a stock NSX beats a GTS
|maybe I do, I'm just stating what I saw in a mag.
Really. Any idea which one it was? Just curious as to the circumstances,
since its counter to my experience.
Mike Kohlbrenner
Greg Nickliss wrote:
>
> Enough @ the track, lets talk common sense:
>
> typical american engineering: (rely on size and not SCIENCE).
>
> 100hp/liter or more): that is innovation and
> true racing practicality (minimize weight,
You have the "typical american..." part wrong. Big American pushrod
engines are not about lack of technology. They are about lack of
COST.
Bang for the buck, you can't beat them.
> **imagine what Honda could do w/ a viper engine = 1000hp VTEC
Imagine what Chrysler could do with a Viper engine if they didn't
have cost constraints -- probably be right up there with Honda's
capabilities, considering that Honda doesn't have any background
in large displacement engines.
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
<kohlbren (-a t-) an dot hp dot com> sorry!
Randy Davis
In article <spAtfLG00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Greg Nickliss (nick...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
|Enough @ the track, lets talk common sense:
|
|Viper: 8.0L only reaching 400+ horses: that SUCKS!
| typical american engineering: (rely on size and not SCIENCE).
Uh, just to pick nits, but all the 1996 and later Vipers are putting
out 450 hp and 490 ft-lb of torque, without any modifications. Minor
mods can bring the horsepower up to 500 plus, and the brakes can be
brought up to par for less than $200 for better brake pads, and still
cost tens of thousands less than its competition. No, perhaps not ideal
to you, but still interesting, you must admit.
Perhaps that still "sucks" to you, and thats fine. However, try driving
one sometime with an open mind and see if you don't enjoy it DESPITE its
faults. No, its not perfect. But it sure is fun, and actually fun enough
to be worth its pricetag, IMHO...
NoOne
This explained why you still use OS2.
Hey, get a clue dude, you are truly clueless
here, the Viper is tuned DOWN to
that 450hp for driveability and warranty.
Get yourself a GTS-R, 700+ HP.
But, thats dumbed down too huh,
There is no substitute for cubic inches,
period, yes NOS helps, but you run
NOS for longer than 1 minute and see
what happens.
BTW, what race track do you take to work,
me, I have to take a lowly freeway myself,
need a real good handling car to tackle those
4 degree 3 mile long hairpin turns.
--
Eric - '98 Black Z28 M6
Please remove the * and .GOV to reply
by E-Mail.
NoOne
Someone mentioned the F40 before. To me, the
Viper is the F40 for current times. I saw an
F40 at International Car Sport in Farmington
Hills a few years back...want to talk about
CRUDE!
I could have put it together better myself, but
shit I'd drive out in a second with it. It had to
be the cheapest thing I've seen in years, I've
seen better wiring fencing holding in chickens than
what they had on the front fascia. Yet the Viper,
which performs better and at 1/4 the cost is the
bad car.
But, no one here calls it a crude piece of engineering
that spends alot of time in the shop, which I'm sure
it would if people actually drove them.
Its faster than any other production car out there in
the US, handles very well, looks fantastic and does
it with a FU attitude, and thats just the way it should be.
We're forgetting the other aspect for 62K, not the numbers
the rest of you are quoting for price, top speed, 192mph,
now, when your NSX is dying for breath anywhere near this
speed, you'll want the extra cubes.
I have a unique perspective on this car, I've driven them
and been in them on a test track with a professional driver
clocking 160 on an oval. I do not own one, but will assuming
Dodge is still building it when the time comes.
--
Eric - '98 Black Z28 M6
Please remove the * and .GOV to reply
by E-Mail.
Bill Bechtold wrote in message <35337BDF...@smartcamber.com>...
Ty Klein
In article <6h0404$7...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, toml...@ix.netcom.com
(Chuck Tomlinson) wrote:
> Mren...@earthlink.cut.here.com (Ty Klein) wrote:
> >(Chuck Tomlinson) wrote:
> >
> >> Crude or not, how many unmodified production street cars of *any*
> >> era can beat a Viper GTS around a road course? How much do those
> >> cars cost? How many of them are still being manufactured? How many
> >> of those cars were "refined"?
> >
> > Chuck,do they have to be available in the U.S.?
>
> No, although as far as potential ownership is concerned, cars that
> aren't available in the US are of little practical interest to me.
>
> Even in the case of non-US cars, I can't think of many that are
> faster than the Viper. I guess the Skyline GT-R would be on the
> list, and (from the little I've read about it) the TVR Cerbera.
Those are the two that I was going to bring up. Some of the racing
homolagation cars might also fit,though I haven't seen actual tests of
them.
>
> Nevertheless, I think it's a stretch to declare that the Viper is
> not worth ~US$70k when (crude as it may be) its faster competition
> is generally just as brutal and/or FAR more expensive.
Yep!
Unknown
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:46:43 GMT, toml...@ix.netcom.com (Chuck
Tomlinson) wrote:
>Mren...@earthlink.cut.here.com (Ty Klein) wrote:
>>(Chuck Tomlinson) wrote:
>>
>>> Crude or not, how many unmodified production street cars of *any*
>>> era can beat a Viper GTS around a road course? How much do those
>>> cars cost? How many of them are still being manufactured? How many
>>> of those cars were "refined"?
>>
>> Chuck,do they have to be available in the U.S.?
>
>No, although as far as potential ownership is concerned, cars that
>aren't available in the US are of little practical interest to me.
>
>Even in the case of non-US cars, I can't think of many that are
>faster than the Viper. I guess the Skyline GT-R would be on the
>list, and (from the little I've read about it) the TVR Cerbera.
>
>Nevertheless, I think it's a stretch to declare that the Viper is
>not worth ~US$70k when (crude as it may be) its faster competition
>is generally just as brutal and/or FAR more expensive.
not to mention the fact that parts for these european exotics can take
up to a couple months to get and the cost is unreal, while viper parts
can be had from your local dodge dealership
Ron Napolitano
>Viper: 8.0L only reaching 400+ horses: that SUCKS!
> typical american engineering: (rely on size and not SCIENCE).
>
>Integra GS-R, Prelude, NSX: small engines w/ high output (almost
> 100hp/liter or more): that is innovation and
> true racing practicality (minimize weight,
> maximize output).
> **imagine what Honda could do w/ a viper engine = 1000hp VTEC
>
>*Just a thought,... and slight venting on the over-rated Viper.
NSX - T VIPER GTS
Engine V - 6 V - 10
Horsepower 290 450
0-60 5.0 4.4
1/4 Mile 13.5 12.8
Top Speed 168 185
Braking from 60 123 ft 158ft !!
Skidpad (g) .89 .97
Slalom 63.0 63.5
Fuel Mileage 20.0 14.0
I don't care WHAT the Viper's numbers show..
Handling isn't made primarily by bigger tires, and if that's all
a V10 can do against a V6, I'd hate to see what would happen if Honda
brought out the NSX with a V8.. It would be untouchable...
Henri Helanto
nos...@agames.com (Randy Davis) writes:
> Eh, try again. Take a look at the handling numbers; slalom, skid pad, etc
>for each, etc. The Viper is possibly the only "sports" car put out by
>Detroit, with the vette a distant second.
Eh... I was wondering when the first 'numbers' man would jump in.
Thanks for playing, clues for sale at the next desk.
> I would surmise that a muscle car without great handling ability can't be
>a "sports car".
Definitely. The point is that numbers are not the be-all end-all
measurements of 'handling', even though in some cases they can
give you an idea of what one can expect.
-Henri
--
# Henri Helanto ; he...@muncca.fi ; hhel...@cc.hut.fi #
# Nissan Skyline GT-R ; '71 Corvette LS-6 ; GMC Typhoon ; etc...#
CAUTION: Before engaging mouth make sure that the brain is in gear.
Scott
>
> Its faster than any other production car out there in
> the US, handles very well, looks fantastic and does
> it with a FU attitude, and thats just the way it should be.
Except the 911 TurboS, Lambo Diablo, Ferrari F50, Macleren F1(can be
imported), and those damn sportbikes. But they don't make the TurboS
anymore (wait till next year!) , when was the last (or first) that anyone
has ever seen a ferrari F50 on the road, sportbikes aren't cars, and you
can probably count the number of macs over here on one hand. So that
leaves the Lambo Diablo as the only car you can purchase that could beat a
viper GTS. (just tested in Road and Track beating the viper in accel
times.) And I've only seen one on the road, throughout my entire lifetime
(actually just happened a month ago; kind of a special moment when one sees
his first diablo=]).
BrianC302
I would have to say that the Honda NSX (Acura). Well I am not sure how much it
costs for sure but I know it is around $85,000 to 90,000.
0-60 5.8 auto, 4.8 stick
1/4th 14.3 at 99.3 Auto 13.3 at 106.7 stick
skidpad: .89-.94
slalom: 68.4 to 69.5
60-0: 111
Viper:
Price: about $70,000
0-60: 4.0-5.0
1/4th: 12.2-13.2 at 113 to 119
skidpad: .94-1.01 WOW
slalom: 66.7 to 73.6
60-0: 117
Ferrari F355: $130,000
0-60: 4.6
1/4th: 13.0 at 110
skid: 1.01
slalom: 72.1
60-0: 114
Lotos S4 $70,000
0-60: 4.4
1/4th: 12.8 at 1112
skid: .90
slalom: 68.1
60-0: 125
Porsche 911 Turbo $ 100,000
0-60 3.7
1/4th: 12.3 at 114
skid: 1.00
slalom:69.6
60-0: 102
Vett: $40,000
0-60: 4.8
1/4th: 13.2 at 109
skid: .94
slalom: 66.2 ouch
60-0: 111
Now what does this tell us? The NSX is overpriced, slow, not all that good
looking, and a total waste of money. You can get a lot more car for the moeny.
What more can you say?
Brian
Randy Davis
In article <heku.89...@snafu.muncca.fi>, Henri Helanto (he...@snafu.muncca.fi) wrote:
|nos...@agames.com (Randy Davis) writes:
|> Eh, try again. Take a look at the handling numbers; slalom, skid pad, etc
|>for each, etc. The Viper is possibly the only "sports" car put out by
|>Detroit, with the vette a distant second.
|
| Eh... I was wondering when the first 'numbers' man would jump in.
| Thanks for playing, clues for sale at the next desk.
At the *next* desk, eh? Obviously, since you evidently aren't any more
clued in... I was referencing the numbers, since that seems to be the
sum reference material the people here are using as a metric. You'd think
they'd at least be able to keep the numbers straight. Now, *my* actual
comparison is based on observation at a track.
|> I would surmise that a muscle car without great handling ability can't be
|>a "sports car".
|
| Definitely. The point is that numbers are not the be-all end-all
| measurements of 'handling', even though in some cases they can
| give you an idea of what one can expect.
Oh, I agree. The "numbers" I'm really referencing are the placings and
number of "lappings" by the Viper owners I know at track days against cars
in the same class. One day included two NSX's, the latest model Ferrari,
two C5 Vettes, etc. The only mods on the Viper in question were better tires
and brake pads - nothing else (not even a 5-point harness).
Admittedly, the level of driver experience is an uncontrolled and
significant variable, and the Viper driver is damn good. Yet, in at least
one case, for him to LAP an NSX on Laguna Seca (2.6 mile course) in less
than, I believe, 10 laps indicates *something*, at least to me.
Randy Davis
DoD #0013
(to mail, replace nospam with randy)
"But, this one goes to *eleven*!" - Nigel Tufnel, _Spinal Tap_ (paraphrased)
Mike
in a recent track test conducted by Car magazine (UK), the NSX was faster
than the the viper GTS around the circuit and was only 0.16 seconds slower
than the 485hp ferrari 550 maranello. the skyline GT-R vspec was almost a
second slower the the NSX. the NSX got the 3rd fastest time and was ranked
2nd in the comparison.
an NSX with a v8?!? ...mmm... *drool* ... but i'd love a v12 :)
mike
BrianC302
>
> NSX - T VIPER GTS
>Engine V - 6 V - 10
>Horsepower 290 450
>1/4 Mile 13.5 11.9
>Top Speed 168 192
>Braking from 60 123 ft 117ft !!
>Skidpad (g) .89 1.01
>Slalom 63.0 73.6
>Fuel Mileage 20.0 14.0
Now, there are some real times out of a real Magazine!
>
>
r morella
>Now what does this tell us? The NSX is overpriced, slow, not all that good
>looking, and a total waste of money. You can get a lot more car for the moeny.
So don't buy one, fartbreath. Save the $11K a year you earn working
at WalMart and buy a rusted out piece of shit Mustang like the one you
already got.
Marc
>>Not quite... Viper is more or less a (big) engine with a wrapping tossed
>>around it... :) Much like the earlier GTO... For something costing the price
>>range of Viper, I'd expect a better engine, especially when everything is
>>crude, if the engine comes with 500 to 550HP, DOHC... instead of the 400 to
>>420 with pushrod... I might think a little highly of it... Face it, the cost
>>of a large pushrod engine and the stuff on the Viper just isn't quite worth
>>the sticker price...
>Somehow, I suspect that even if the Viper had 1,000 hp, you'd still
>expect a better engine...
You missed the key phrase. He'd be happy with DOHC. We all know that
DOHC is much better than pushrod for making power, and that all
pushrod cars are inherently inferior. I'd rather have a Ford Aspire
with DOHC than some pushrod piece of crap like the Viper or Corvette
anyway.
Marc
For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@ticnet.com
NoOption5L
>Enough @ the track, lets talk common sense:
>
>Viper: 8.0L only reaching 400+ horses: that SUCKS!
I'm quite sure the Mopar boys could push considerable more out of the V10, but
would the Mopar boy's lawyers allow it?
> typical american engineering: (rely on size and not SCIENCE).
The Viper is going after the guys who grew up on 426s, 440s, 428s, and 454 ect.
I don't think they would be happy with a 500 HP 4 cylinder with a power adder.
>Integra GS-R, Prelude, NSX: small engines w/ high output (almost
> 100hp/liter or more): that is innovation and
> true racing practicality (minimize weight,
> maximize output).
> **imagine what Honda could do w/ a viper engine = 1000hp VTEC
Yes, a scary thought is a 4 valve 488 CI V8 VTEC motor.
>*Just a thought,... and slight venting on the over-rated Viper.
>
>-greg
>
>
Patrick
Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
Honda Power
You know what's scary is that Honda engineered 290hp with a normally aspirated car.
Now, people go on about how good the 300ZX with 300hp (twin turbo) and the Supra
with 320hp (twin turbo) are. What would the NSX be pushing with twin turbos? 400?
More? The bottom line is that the NSX is a piece of TRUE engineering, not just
making a V10 or 5.7litre.
Honda Power
BrianC302 wrote:
> >
> > NSX - T VIPER GTS
> >Engine V - 6 V - 10
> >Horsepower 290 450
> >0-60 5.0 4.1
> >1/4 Mile 13.5 11.9
> >Top Speed 168 192
> >Braking from 60 123 ft 117ft !!
> >Skidpad (g) .89 1.01
> >Slalom 63.0 73.6
> >Fuel Mileage 20.0 14.0
>
Sophistication Lots None
Schtoo
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 01:40:47 GMT, nap...@ils.com (Ron Napolitano)
wrote:
>
> NSX - T VIPER GTS
>Engine V - 6 V - 10
>Horsepower 290 450
>0-60 5.0 4.4
>1/4 Mile 13.5 12.8
>Top Speed 168 185
>Braking from 60 123 ft 158ft !!
>Skidpad (g) .89 .97
>Slalom 63.0 63.5
>Fuel Mileage 20.0 14.0
>
>I don't care WHAT the Viper's numbers show..
>Handling isn't made primarily by bigger tires, and if that's all
>a V10 can do against a V6, I'd hate to see what would happen if Honda
>brought out the NSX with a V8.. It would be untouchable...
>
I have read/heard the next one is a 4 litre V8, all the v-tec and
everything. Can you say 500hp??? Besides, give a twin turbo NSX a bash
if you have the means, I don't car what you do to a viper, it isn't
even on the same planet as a souped up NSX.
Schtoo
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:43:11 GMT, "NoOne" <*conn...@advdata.net.gov>
wrote:
>This explained why you still use OS2.
>
>Hey, get a clue dude, you are truly clueless
>here, the Viper is tuned DOWN to
>that 450hp for driveability and warranty.
>
Ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black? Guess who designed the
V10 for the viper? Lamborghini, and they designed it intitially to
have 40 valves, four cams, and somewhere near 600hp. Chrysler thought
that seeing as the American public were to purchase this car A: it
must be cheaper and B: it is too much power for the average driver to
handle. After that Lamborghini lost it's interest a little, and never
got the chance in the end to work out the chassis and whatever. I can
go out and buy a 355ci V8 @350hp and get the 3 year warranty for it
too. I guess that says something, But I am not going to point out
what.
>Get yourself a GTS-R, 700+ HP.
>But, thats dumbed down too huh,
No that's what it should have, but the brakes and chassis are not able
to cope with that readily. Double the brake capacity and are halfway
there.
>There is no substitute for cubic inches,
>period,
Oh yes there is, 3 litres, 700+hp. Ever heard of turbocharging, or
supercharging for that matter. You stay atmo, while I get more making
the engine do what it can by getting air shived down it's throat, I
will win every time. And I will give you 5 litres head start if you
want.
yes NOS helps, but you run
>NOS for longer than 1 minute and see
>what happens.
>
>BTW, what race track do you take to work,
>me, I have to take a lowly freeway myself,
>need a real good handling car to tackle those
>4 degree 3 mile long hairpin turns.
So I guess you have never really driven a car for fun huh? There is no
substitute for going down the gears, heeling and toeing all the way,
hard brakes, a flick one way, then the next, and back on the power.
Doesn't get boring, not even after 3 hours doing it flat out. Just
pure adrenaline.
>--
>Eric - '98 Black Z28 M6
Is this a cheap attempt at an M3???
Chuck Tomlinson
>> Handling isn't made primarily by bigger tires, and if that's all
>> a V10 can do against a V6, I'd hate to see what would happen if Honda
>> brought out the NSX with a V8.. It would be untouchable...
>
>than the the viper GTS around the circuit and was only 0.16 seconds slower
>than the 485hp ferrari 550 maranello. the skyline GT-R vspec was almost a
>second slower the the NSX. the NSX got the 3rd fastest time and was ranked
>2nd in the comparison.
In a recent test conducted by Car and Driver magazine (US), the
Viper GTS was faster than the NSX by 4.7 seconds per 80 sec lap.
That's in the 9/97 issue. In the 7/97 issue of C&D, the Viper GTS
again spanked the NSX, this time by 3.6 seconds per 75 sec lap.
That's not even close, despite the NSX's advantage in braking (and
no doubt, in handling). The Viper GTS has grip and acceleration
galore. The fact that those attributes come from giant tires and
engine displacement is not relevant on the track IMHO.
OTOH, a chassis that inspires driver confidence can make up for a
*large* performance deficiency on the street. The NSX's superb
braking and handling could bring it closer to the Viper on the
street, although it is difficult to find a public road in the US
that is twisty enough to keep the Viper from using its acceleration
advantage (which, sorry to say VTEC fans, actually is important).
--
Chuck Tomlinson
Chuck Tomlinson
notf...@all.com (Schtoo) wrote:
>>
>Ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black? Guess who designed the
>V10 for the viper? Lamborghini, and they designed it intitially to
>have 40 valves, four cams, and somewhere near 600hp.
Maybe Lamborghini designed *a* DOHC V10 for Chrysler, but I strongly
doubt that the current Viper engine has *any* Lamborghini influence
whatsoever. I could be wrong...
>>There is no substitute for cubic inches,
>>period,
>
>Oh yes there is, 3 litres, 700+hp. Ever heard of turbocharging, or
>supercharging for that matter. You stay atmo, while I get more making
>the engine do what it can by getting air shived down it's throat, I
>will win every time. And I will give you 5 litres head start if you
>want.
I agree that forced induction is very much a substitute for cubic
inches, but some folks seem to forget that large engines can be
supercharged too. There are any number of ways to build a *tame*
street engine with 800-900 horsepower, using a giant (8+ litre)
engine and a centrifugal blower (exhaust- or crank-driven).
>So I guess you have never really driven a car for fun huh? There is no
>substitute for going down the gears, heeling and toeing all the way,
>hard brakes, a flick one way, then the next, and back on the power.
>Doesn't get boring, not even after 3 hours doing it flat out. Just
>pure adrenaline.
I agree completely. But I must ask: do you think a plain ol' 450 hp
Viper GTS would be fun on a twisty road?
--
Chuck Tomlinson
Greg Nickliss
Mike wrote:
>Imagine what Chrysler could do with a Viper engine if they didn't
>have cost constraints -- probably be right up there with Honda's
>capabilities, considering that Honda doesn't have any background
>in large displacement engines.
Thanks for making my point Mike! Honda has never had to make a larger
engine because they can make powerful small ones.
LOL!
-greg
Greg Nickliss
>And where on EARTH would Honda put an 8.0Liter DOHC engine? What tank
>do you think they'd be able to shoehorn that monster into? Certainly
no >car that I know of.
My point exactly! Why the hell waist your time w/ a truck engine when
Honda could make one half the size w/ more horses? Viper proves the
U.S. can revert to making muscle cars again to over-shadow lack of
technology; whoop-dee fricken doo!
-greg
jasonvp@@m1ndspr1ng.nospam.com
In rec.autos.driving Greg Nickliss <nick...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
: My point exactly! Why the hell waist your time w/ a truck engine when
: Honda could make one half the size w/ more horses? Viper proves the
: U.S. can revert to making muscle cars again to over-shadow lack of
: technology; whoop-dee fricken doo!
Ahhh the wonders of .edu land. You're at a decent school; you'll
hopefully learn, as all Engineers do, that the simpler, more direct solution
to a problem is typically the "better" one. While an 8.0L engine is certainly
gargantuan, it's very *simple* in design. Large.
Let me ask you this, as I (and a few others) have in the past: Why
spend gobs of money on high technology? What benefit or benefits does it
have? Where does it get you, when you're all said and done?
To think that we, as Americans, *can't* make technological whiz-bang
engines is just pure ignorance. We don't *want* to because there's really no
inherent advantage in it. If anything, there's a large number of
*disadvantages* to it; cost being the main factor.
As Chuck T. so sarcastically pointed out: "But they [F40s and F50s]
have lots of cams and valves, so they must be worth the money!" The attitude
he's poking fun at is exactly the attitude you're taking up.
jas
--
Jason Van Patten | subtlety (n) |
jasonvp@@m1ndspr1ng.NOSPAM.com | The art of choosing the lighter |
| sledgehammer. |
Any opinions expressed here are actually yours, you just don't know it. Yet.
To reply to me: jasonvp at mindspring dot com
Jamey Johnston
> >Ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black? Guess who designed the
> >V10 for the viper? Lamborghini, and they designed it intitially to
> >have 40 valves, four cams, and somewhere near 600hp.
> Maybe Lamborghini designed *a* DOHC V10 for Chrysler, but I strongly
> doubt that the current Viper engine has *any* Lamborghini influence
> whatsoever. I could be wrong...
The current Viper engine was *not* designed, nor was it modeled after,
anything even similar to anything Lamborghini has ever designed. It is a
pushrod motor based on Dodge's V8 they use in their pickups, designed by
engineers at Dodge.
> I agree that forced induction is very much a substitute for cubic
> inches, but some folks seem to forget that large engines can be
> supercharged too. There are any number of ways to build a *tame*
> street engine with 800-900 horsepower, using a giant (8+ litre)
> engine and a centrifugal blower (exhaust- or crank-driven).
That's what I've been saying all along!!! Thank you Chuck!
charles copeland
In article <3532bd3b....@NR1.toronto.istar.net>,
>>
>> 100hp/liter or more): that is innovation and
>> true racing practicality (minimize weight,
>> maximize output).
>> **imagine what Honda could do w/ a viper engine = 1000hp VTEC
>>
>
>
>Engine V - 6 V - 10
>Horsepower 290 450
>0-60 5.0 4.4
>1/4 Mile 13.5 12.8
>Top Speed 168 185
>Braking from 60 123 ft 158ft !!
>Skidpad (g) .89 .97
>Slalom 63.0 63.5
>Fuel Mileage 20.0 14.0
>
>Handling isn't made primarily by bigger tires, and if that's all
>a V10 can do against a V6, I'd hate to see what would happen if Honda
>brought out the NSX with a V8.. It would be untouchable...
You left out some key info.
Weight - NSX is all aluminum, even A-frame on wheels, very rare & $$$
Torque - Viper has double the torque. Torque is the smile factor.
Also ability to make vehicle go faster.
NSX - practically nill since its maxed out.
VIPER - 11's are easy to break into with easy mods.
Mike Kohlbrenner
Randy Davis wrote:
> ...
> Admittedly, the level of driver experience is an uncontrolled and
> significant variable, and the Viper driver is damn good.
You should have stopped here...
> Yet, in at least
> one case, for him to LAP an NSX on Laguna Seca (2.6 mile course) in less
> than, I believe, 10 laps indicates *something*, at least to me.
What does it indicate? What does it indicate that I lapped a RUF 911
Turbo at NHIS in my 108 HP Honda Civic in as many laps?
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
<kohlbren (-a t-) an dot hp dot com> sorry!
charles copeland
In article <0pB_l5u00...@andrew.cmu.edu>,
Honda never has made a large engine because Japanese law practically
prevents it. 3.8 liter is largest they make because extremely
high Japanese tax penalities are imposed for larger size.