Geez, I went over this 3 times already, I posted the motor trend article saying the older viper was available with 3300lbs. And that is less than the lightest SRT.
And I posted for
you to show me any (ANY) road test by Motor Trend of a production gen1 RT/10 that weighs 3300 lbs. I also posted a link to MT's test of the RT/10 in which they cite the weight as over 3400 lbs. I also posted the content of that R&T article on the SRT-10 in which they said weight is down 100 lbs to 3380 lbs. If the '92 is 3300 lbs (as you claim), shouldn't the SRT-10 therefore be 3200 lbs?? If you're saying it's the gen2 Viper that weighs 3480 lbs, I'd like you to show me where that is? This is getting old, guy. Either you put up or shut up. Everything I (and others) have shown should tell you the SRT-10 is lighter.
But again, just because a car mag drove an SC430 in 2001 with non run-flat tires, that does NOT prove me wrong.
When a mag (actually more than one, remember) writes in a
preview test of the SC430 that the car comes with runflats only as an option,
AND you provide
nothing to prove that they had them as standard, then ditched them, no wait, then offered them only as options...it does a pretty good job of proving you wrong.
In fact, you have never proved me wrong yet. And everyone has definetly tried, so just start taking what I say as gospel since I have a perfect track record.
Perfect? LOL. Talk about denial. Take a look back where you said the CL65 has a 6.5 liter engine, and when some of us tried to correct you, you tried to assure us that it indeed had a 6.5 liter. When confronted with the evidence (from none other than MB themselves), all you had to say was:
"well then, looks like i'm gonna stop reading Autoweek from now on."
Ermm...maybe you should stop limiting your reading of Autoweek to only one
preview article, and treating it as gospel. Maybe you should read what else is on their site:
"Further, the CL65’s
6.0-liter, intercooled twin-turbo V12 produces a thumping 714 lb-ft of torque between 2000 and 4000 rpm."
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=466
"an even hotter CLS65 AMG, featuring the same
6.0-liter, 600-hp twin-turbo V12 used in the CL65 and SL65 AMG models, will be available as a special-order-only car."
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=100240
"The CL65 AMG is new, with
6.0-liter twin-turbo V12..."
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=100809
Hmm...taking
one early preview and treating it as gospel. With later figures turning out to be NOT what was stated earlier. There's a lesson here. But I don't think you're smart enough to figure it out.
And it's all been downhill from there. You were wrong when you said only the tire manufacturers market runflats as safety or convenience (no answer to the BMW site, I see). For a moment, let's say you're right, and accept that Lexus' real reason for having runflats on the SC430 is for CAFE reasons (despite the fact that their volume sellers, the ones that have the greatest impact on CAFE figures don't have runflats). That still does not get around the FACT that Lexus markets runflats as safety and convenience. Ie., your claim that it's only the
tire mfrs that do this is WRONG.
You were also wrong when you said:
Any manufacturer who switches to a run-flat system on a production car does for one reason only. To SAVE weight."
You
yourself even explained why this is wrong, when it came to the case of the XLR. (Ie, competing with Benz by offering a folding a hardtop that doesn't eliminate usable trunk space is the reason. Saving weight is NOT.
...and on and on.
as for the 'standard' lexus run-flats... Auto Express wrote, 'The ride suffered from super stiff run flat tyres, highlighting the surprising lack of rigidity in the car with the roof down. To address these criticisms Lexus has ditched the run flat system...'
That does nothing to support your claim that the runflats were made an option only after customers complained.
Also, just because something is written in Auto Express does not mean it's applicable to markets outside of the UK. Do you live in the UK or something?
Never mind the fact that CAFE standards neccesitated them anywayz.
Someone else asked may have asked this before, but I think it's a good time to bring it up again (for you to actually answer): Do you work in marketing/PR for Lexus (or any other manufacturer)? Do you work in engineering for Lexus? How do you know that CAFE standards necessitated them?
Answer me this:
Which cars sell more: SC430 or the ES and LS?
But i said its way off of its heritage because of all those things added that I mentioned a few pages before.
But a lot of those things were added because for the Viper to be a sustainable car (even in limited production), it had to meet the demands of the market place: there are people with $80K to burn out there, you know, who would want (gasp!) real side windows, a tight operating top, electric conveniences, and there are still those who might want something more raw and elemental than you could otherwise get today without having to build the thing in your garage. Is it stupid of DC to appeal to both types of people? Only time will tell. More some people, raw and elemental only go so far; the '92 was nice, but maybe it's time to move on. Point still stands: I'm certain that you'd be still be ******** whether the Viper stood still in time, or if it gained all of those attributes that you desire in a nice luxo Euro ride: it can't win either way.
yet porsche accomplished moderization with its turbo with even more extras and without a problem and at only 13% more money versus 60% for the viper.
Like I said, Porsche wouldn't want to price the Turbo into Ferrari or Lambo territory. Plenty of people out there who'd drop a Porsche and go for the Italian exotics in a heartbeat, should the two cost the same.
The point is: the Turbo got fatter (indisputable) and you think it's OK, while the Viper adds features and weighs less, and you don't think that's OK. Does the Turbo really
need AWD? Judging by the GT3 and GT2, the answer appears to be no.
A wet lap is better than no lap!
But that doesn't make it scientific. Why don't I dispel the theory that rubbed two sticks together can create enough friction and heat to start a fire...by doing so in the rain?
And what was wrong with the SLR's 2nd place finish!
It's not representative of how it fares on other tracks. Think about its time over the Carrera GT, its time under the Murcielago, and reconcile that with lap times at the Nurburgring, Hockenheim, and the Autodromo del Levante (in which all three cars were present on the same day).
