Are 2000's really the fastest?

[agentf1]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

All I know is steel grey is the sickest paint that the Viper came in from the factory period and all others ****.

And that my Viper is better then your Viper, yes that means anyone's Viper.

Forged vs Cast, lumpy cam vs smooth, ABS blah blah blah.

This sounds like a elementry recess school fight, my dad is better then your dad,,,

Can't we all just get along hahah,,,, what's next US dot Vipers are better then Cdn Vipers.

SuperSaik, I have to agree with you on the Steel Gray, it is an awesome color and the one that got me hooked on Vipers. I also like Graphite and Sapphire and of course, any car looks good in black. Now if I could just find a low mile example of one of those colors with stripes to put in my garage I would be a happy camper.

I knew the whole forged vs no forged and abs issue was a pretty passionate issue with Viper owners but had no idea just how big of an issue it was. Post were already editted before I read them but if this needed to be done, people must have pretty strong opinions.

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Now that's a shame Randy won't be able to see Inferno's post. It was really going to get good.

Its ok, I laughed my ass off at it. And im sure many others did too. Quite frankly Randy probably saw it, and didnt want to respond as Inferno would have torn him apart.

But to summarize, Inferno and I believe that randy is wrong (way wrong) and that 2000 is actually the worst year of the Gen 2's as its deficient in both the motor and the Brakes. But Denial is a *****, and well Randy sadly is in denial. But I am not calling him a *****. Just wanted to be clear about that.

Score:
Inferno 1
Randy -1

 

[agentf1]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Now that's a shame Randy won't be able to see Inferno's post. It was really going to get good.

Its ok, I laughed my ass off at it. And im sure many others did too. Quite frankly Randy probably saw it, and didnt want to respond as Inferno would have torn him apart.

But to summarize, Inferno and I believe that randy is wrong (way wrong) and that 2000 is actually the worst year of the Gen 2's as its deficient in both the motor and the Brakes. But Denial is a *****, and well Randy sadly is in denial. But I am not calling him a *****. Just wanted to be clear about that.

Score:
Inferno 1
Randy -1

Gottcha. I am staying out of this one but that is pretty much what I have always heard. That being said I would be happy to find a nice 2000 right about now.

 

[luc]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

It's human nature to believe that our personal choice/opinion (as which Viper year) is the best/smartest.

Yes, the 2000 has neither ABS nor forged pistons and will not be the best choice for someone planning to modify the engine or for a driver that have such poor driving/braking skills that the help of a nanny computer is required.

The braking "issue" with non-ABS cars has never been a lack of braking but instead, too much of it ( locking the fronts)and that is mostly due to "operator mistake" that can be soLved by some driver education/training.

Do the average Joe Driver need ABS? sure, as well than traction control and a bunch of other computer nannies.

Do a skilled driver need ABS? not way, part of the pleasure (and challenge) of driving has to do with mastering the skills required to drive a car well with no computer between you and the road.

As for the 2000 being the ONLY year without either forged pistons or ABS, in my book,that only make it more collectible (spel?) 20 years down the road .

Why do you thing that World Challenge banned ABS for 2007?

Luc 00GTS Black/Stripes and NO computer nanny

 

[Casey]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

To answer your question. NO, 2000s are NOT the fastest when stock.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

EDITED BY STAFF:

I seem to be quoting this alot lately, but one more time for the crowd....

From the Current Posting Policies:

2. Personal assaults, or ... comments derogatory to any ... individual will be subject to deletion.

3. Posts attacking other posters rather than disagreeing with the post will be subject to deletion.

Please keep it civil, there is no need for name calling or insults in a discussion like this.

Who the hell is Kocbean anyway....a new mod on a mission?

 

[Randy]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Now that's a shame Randy won't be able to see Inferno's post. It was really going to get good.

I really doubt I missed anything.

 

[Randy]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Its ok, I laughed my ass off at it. And im sure many others did too. Quite frankly Randy probably saw it, and didnt want to respond as Inferno would have torn him apart.

I doubt it. Well, perhaps you would have thought so, but I've yet to see any valid evidence for you, Rogue, or Jeff to label any Viper year as you have. But, you are, of course, free to feel as if you have.

But to summarize, Inferno and I believe that randy is wrong (way wrong) and that 2000 is actually the worst year of the Gen 2's as its deficient in both the motor and the Brakes.

Despite evidence to the contrary, of course. I missed the brakes debate, though - was that in Jeff's deleted post? You're now saying that y2k brakes are somehow inferior to the pre-2000? (Strange, they are identical to pre-2000). Well, that is at least on the same level of accuracy/validity/relevance as these other opinions.

Inferno 1
Randy -1

More likely 0 on both - other than the missed name calling (which probably had more debate value than those I've seen), you definitely didn't make me feel you had any valid points, and I clearly didn't make you realize how irrelevant your argument was. I must assume Jeff's argument was full of name-calling or equal null arguments and that it was devoid of useful information.

But, if it makes you feel better to call someone else's Viper somehow worse than yours for such lame and irrelevant reasons, well, then, I guess the assumed name calling was more honest, at least. I do wonder at the motives - is this how you react to anyone that simply disagrees with you?

 

[IEATVETS]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

So let me get this straight. Jon says that the year 2000 Vipers are the worst because they have neither forged pistons and no ABS. I certainly am not buying his lame argument. Gen2's 96-99 have forged pistons but no ABS. Hmmm! And Gen2 01-02 and all of Gen3's have ABS and cast pistons. Hmmm! Seems as though we are all driving junk according to Jon.

 

[Randy]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Yes, the 2000 has neither ABS nor forged pistons and will not be the best choice for someone planning to modify the engine or for a driver that have such poor driving/braking skills that the help of a nanny computer is required.
[...]
Do a skilled driver need ABS? not way, part of the pleasure (and challenge) of driving has to do with mastering the skills required to drive a car well with no computer between you and the road.

As for the 2000 being the ONLY year without either forged pistons or ABS, in my book,that only make it more collectible (spel?) 20 years down the road .

Nicely said.

 

[Randy]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

So let me get this straight. Jon says that the year 2000 Vipers are the worst because they have neither forged pistons and no ABS. I certainly am not buying his lame argument. Gen2's 96-99 have forged pistons but no ABS. Hmmm! And Gen2 01-02 and all of Gen3's have ABS and cast pistons. Hmmm! Seems as though we are all driving junk according to Jon.

Pretty much. Not just Jon, though...

 

[SuperSaiks]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

I doubt very much that any one Gen 2 Viper year is faster then another, it all depends on the driver. And in regards to dyno's every dyno is different.

Factors contributing to different outputs results, the engine itself, shifting, rear end, weather conditions/humidity etc etc, the actual dyno itself/software etc.

I've been told from multiple people that the later year Gen 2's had stronger frames, tighter suspensions and overall were more solid cars then the early Gen 2's.

 

[PDCjonny]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Wow. Imagine how many followups if he HAD read it.

 

[Randy]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Wow. Imagine how many followups if he HAD read it.

Just catching up - I've not been the focus of so many postings since the old Usenet days 15 to 20 years ago. I do find it interesting that the name-calling and questionable logic seems to stay the same after so many years, though.

 

[kcobean]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

EDITED BY STAFF:

I seem to be quoting this alot lately, but one more time for the crowd....

From the Current Posting Policies:

2. Personal assaults, or ... comments derogatory to any ... individual will be subject to deletion.

3. Posts attacking other posters rather than disagreeing with the post will be subject to deletion.

Please keep it civil, there is no need for name calling or insults in a discussion like this.

Who the hell is Kocbean anyway....a new mod on a mission?

Yep, I'm a new mod. On a mission? Nope, just enforcing the sites policies as tasked. Perhaps you'd like to review them Inferno, they're available here:

http://www4.forum.viperclub.org/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=246224&an=0&page=0#Post246224

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

So let me get this straight. Jon says that the year 2000 Vipers are the worst because they have neither forged pistons and no ABS. I certainly am not buying his lame argument. Gen2's 96-99 have forged pistons but no ABS. Hmmm! And Gen2 01-02 and all of Gen3's have ABS and cast pistons. Hmmm! Seems as though we are all driving junk according to Jon.

Just catching up myself, yet wont bother writing 6 posts trying to defend the very year that I have that others not just "Jon" thinks is the least desirable year.

I guess Randy's approach to dealing with differences is just to keep reiterating the same junk, and then trying to do a "straw man", which is to change my argument into something different in an attempt to break it down. Please find the post where I said 2000 brakes were worse then pre 2000 brakes, never said it. But I guess that made you feel better to try to change my argument to that then accept the truth, and that is 2001 and later brakes are better, that’s it, simple.

Next Forged motors are more capable at handling adverse conditions, period.

2000 has neither forged pistons (all prior years did), nor ABS (all later years did).

I guess you guys want treat people who don’t know any better like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them sheet. Fact is 2000 is debatably the worst year viper, and its been debated about more then any other year as being such. But I guess those who have disagreed with you guys are all wrong too. Best part of it all, are you guys have those 2000's and those of us who didn’t like their deficiency’s picked other years, so it looks like everyone is happy!! I guess except those in denial.

Randy can respond 20 times again, saying the same thing over and over again, but it wont change a thing, and hopefully wont convince anyone that hyper eutectic pistons and NON ABS is what everyone should want in their car.

Sorry if 2000's are argued about so much (not by just me) in many older posts, I think that its safe to say, a lot more people think its the least desirable year then of any of the gen 2's.

But to each his own, buy what you want. I know I do.

Jon

 

[Randy]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Fact is 2000 is debatably the worst year viper,

The problem is that it is not a *fact*, which is a "fact" you can't seem to comprehend. Now, if you were to qualify it with the phrase, "if you want to supercharge or add NOS" to the car, you might have a viewpoint that has some basis in fact. Without that qualification, the *opposite* is true, as the 2000 is indeed an improvement over the 1999 and previous years. And, you can continue to claim the same baseless claims to the contrary you want, and it won't prove it any more than your numerous previous posts have done.

Actually a more accurate comment is that the 2000 Viper is a distinct improvement over the 1999 and earlier Vipers, especially if you plan to leave it stock. I would completely agree that earlier years would be a better platform to modify/hop-up.

Randy can respond 20 times again, saying the same thing over and over again, but it wont change a thing

Right back atcha, Jon. "20 times again"? Perhaps you need to work on your counting skills. HOWEVER, that could explain your opinion concerning the issues about relative merits about Vipers.

 

[SuperSaiks]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Guys

I've been a Viper fan since I was 12 when they came out. I finally bought a 2000 steel grey/cognac RT/10. I was well aware of the whole forged pistons, lumpy cam and abs etc.

In the end I picked the Viper I wanted steel grey being the sickest color with the cognac interior being much classier, and rarier then the black interior and probably the nicest contrast available on a Viper.

I didn't care about the ABS issue because 8 out of the 10 years of production didn't have ABS nor was ABS part of the Viper's philosophy when they first designed and produced the car. Plus I am not gonna be tracking my Viper or driving it in the rain/wet either. I live in Ottawa,Canada and during the winter the ABS in my Jeep has only been used maybe a couple of times during each winter season. I doubt very much that I will ever lock up the brakes on my Viper on dry pavement. Plus alot of REAL drivers don't like ABS

In regards to the forged pistons and lumpy cam I don't care because I don't plan on modding my Viper I want to keep it original and hold its future value, plus I always preferred a car that idled smooth as oppose to a car that always seems to want to stall. I don't ever want to see my pistons or cam.

In regards to market value of 2000's in comparison to other years its third on the list from top exceptions being B/W, GTS-R, 99 ACR's. It doesn't hurt the value of the car. I've been studying the market for years, so don't tell me otherwise.

In the end a Viper is a Viper, buy the Viper you want, I wanted a 99 or newer. They only offered seven colors in

1.Red I don't like,
2.Black is pain in the ass to maintain and hides the lines of the Viper and 3.Silver has been on every car sinse 95 it was the hottest color on cars throughout the 90's and I was getting sick of seeing it.
4.Saphire don't like, same reasons as black and in the end its not black
5.Yellow is nasty...can you see me now
7.Graphite doesn't do anything whatsoever for me, I saw one in the showroom and thought the color did the Viper a injustice.

I thought Steel Grey was an amazing color, it was metalic, it has metalic flakes, a blue tint, a titanum look, changes hue thoughout the day,evening,night. And it was only offered in one year making it rare so to speak. And making my buying decision narrowed down to a 2000.

In the end what I am trying to say is that I chose the model I wanted GTS VS RT then I picked the color I liked and took it from there.

Buy the Viper you want and don't worry about what people write on a website.

 

[PatentLaw]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

In regards to market value of 2000's in comparison to other years its third on the list from top exceptions being B/W, GTS-R, 99 ACR's. It doesn't hurt the value of the car. I've been studying the market for years, so don't tell me otherwise.

???

 

[SuperSaiks]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

PatentLaw whats wrong do you need me to explain further???

On average the following years bring the most money,
2002
2001
2000
99
And so forth, except 96/97 B/W, 98 GTS-R, 99 ACR's being exceptions. Just check the online listings and take the averages. Use the following sources autotrader.com, cars.com, ebaymotors.com (buy it now prices, this site thought the prices seem to be high on this site, and the alley.

 

[PatentLaw]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

I think that it is true (in general terms) for Gen II cars on a year by year basis so I am not going to challenge you on it. I just think some clarification of your point may help for others.

In my estimation, the main feature that people care about (wrongfully so, I might add), is mileage. 2002's generally have less mileage than 2001's, etc. Less mileage means higher value.

Classic cars, however, turn that on its head. Jaguar XKE's, for instance, have certain years that are considered the "prime" years. Even though there are newer cars out there, the "prime" years bring a bonus for the owner. For Vipers, if the mileages are equal then I don't know if any study has been done on a value comparison. I have nothing against 2000's and think that they are great cars.

 

[STUGOTS]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Due to the well known and documented millennium bug in our computers starting in 2000, of course, 1999 was the fastest.

In particular Silver/Blue 1999.

yup thats what I heard

 

[Kevin ACR]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Jon seems like quite the opinionated chap, and to compound it further, one that enjoys conflict.

Why would a Viper owner feel compelled to belittle the pride and joy of fellow car club members?

Jon says:

"Ok thats it, said my peace, others can chime in, not going to ******* match with anyone on this topic, my real world experiences showed what I have stated. Good luck with whatever viper folks chose"

promises, promises, he then comes back and says things like:

"actually the worst year of the Gen 2's as its deficient in both the motor and the Brakes."

Guess Jon can say whatever he wants, hell he's certainly not here to make friends.

I enjoy seeing Bill Pemberton provide a good friendly read (someone I consider an "expert opinion) then Jon comes back and takes exception and notes "Ok spam away, personally buying 3 vipers all new hopefully speaks volumes to how much I love these snakes, but I know the good, bad and ugly about them too."

Wow, you bought 3 brand new! Note to self, add Jon to list of trusted advisors!

 

[DAMN YANKEE]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

2000 GTS
Steel Grey, No Stripe
No ABS
Roe Supercharger
RR
VEC3
Special Extra Brittle Cast Pistons Package (VEC3 set to limit RPMS to 1,850)

You must be registered for see images

 

[IEATVETS]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Jon seems like quite the opinionated chap, and to compound it further, one that enjoys conflict.

Why would a Viper owner feel compelled to belittle the pride and joy of fellow car club members?

Jon says:

"Ok thats it, said my peace, others can chime in, not going to ******* match with anyone on this topic, my real world experiences showed what I have stated. Good luck with whatever viper folks chose"

promises, promises, he then comes back and says things like:

"actually the worst year of the Gen 2's as its deficient in both the motor and the Brakes."

Guess Jon can say whatever he wants, hell he's certainly not here to make friends.

I enjoy seeing Bill Pemberton provide a good friendly read (someone I consider an "expert opinion) then Jon comes back and takes exception and notes "Ok spam away, personally buying 3 vipers all new hopefully speaks volumes to how much I love these snakes, but I know the good, bad and ugly about them too."

Wow, you bought 3 brand new! Note to self, add Jon to list of trusted advisors!

I thought the same thing. He is always right and if you disagree with him, it will never end. It is nice when somebody from the same club as you talks trash about the very car that they own as well! What a putz.
To this day, I still remember the line that somebody had posted when Jon moved from NC to Chicago. He said, "Our gain is your loss."

 

[luc]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Jon:

Beside being pretty rude to you fellow Viper owners that happen to have a 2000, your argument to classify the 2000 as the least desirable year is flawed right from the beginning since you only use as the basis for your argument,the non forged and non ABS nature of the 2000 compared to previous/later years.

If the only differences between the 2000 and previous/later years were those 2 subjects, your arguments will, even if debatable, have the merit of being based on facts and not on your opinion only.

The truth is, that compared to some of the previous years, the 2000 has:

More horsepower
more torque
lighter/better exhaust
Stronger frame ( heard about recall #998?)
Power mirrors
Nicer interior ( silver accent, door pull, etc)
Switchable passenger air bag
Etc

Do that meean that with my 2000, I'm looking down as the owners of a 95 Viper or a 98 Viper and telling them that they have the worst year because they have less horsepower and/or not a as nice interior ?

Do I look down as the owner of a 2002 ACR because he must be a quite bad and stupid driver to ,(a) need ABS to be able to drive a Viper, and (b) spent a lot of money on a suspention ( shocks) system that is too harsh on the street and worth crap on a track?

Of course not, because not only are they all great cars but, I don't have the need to boost my ego by putting down others fellow Viper'owners cars.

Luc 00GTS

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

lol. All 2000 owners. I dont really see others who are unbias agreeing with you guys, but thats fine. The reason I kept posting is that Randy just thinks if he gets the last word in, that THAT somehow makes him right, and it doesnt. (I'm sure someone will argue I'm using the same tactic, but I just wanted to make sure that people didnt think I was being silent becuase he was right, anything but). We all have our opinions, I know others agree but prefer not to debate it (others did, but got erased because they were a little more emotional in their response then they should have), and thats ok. Now everyone knows mine, not really sure I care if folks agree or not. I chose not to buy a 2000 back when I first started searching for Vipers, and you guys chose to buy them. We have different interests and opinions in which Viper is best for us. Such is life. But if you guys want to fault me for coming in here and posting my opinion when the title of the post itself insights one to respond with an opinion, then your really missing out on the point of a forum. We wont always agree, we probably all have opinions, and I for one freely share mine, and dont mind if it ruffles a few feathers in the process, because in the end, information and various perspectives makes Viper family what it is.

I promise NEVER to be silent, so If you want promises, thats one you can count on from me.

Jon

 

[PDCjonny]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

Please detail what it is about a 2000 Viper motor that generates more horsepower and torque than previous years, other than Randy's opinion. I would like to hear some actual facts that back up that statement.

 

[luc]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

"I dont really see others who are unbias agreeing with you guys"

That's funny, almost all defending the 2000 have a 2000 and all attacking it have another year.

Talk about being unbiased.

Truth is, as owner we are all, to various degree, biased and, the only post that is the closest from being unbias, since he don't own a specific year but rather sell Vipers, is the one from BP and he certainly don't share your opinion.

You see Jon, as the saying go, opinion are like A%&*)^e, everybody has one and, you don't argue a position with opinions but rather with facts and all the facts, not a selected few.

Luc. Biased owner of the worst Viper Ye

 

[luc]

Re: Are 2000\'s really the fastest?

"Please detail what it is about a 2000 Viper motor that generates more horsepower and torque than previous years, other than Randy's opinion. I would like to hear some actual facts that back up that statement."


92 to 95 Vipers

HP 400
TQ 465

96 RT

HP 415
TQ 488