0-100-0

snake dreams

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 11, 2002
Posts
82
Reaction score
0
Location
Littlestown, PA
Know what's funny? Look at all the cars carying 6 digit prices UNDER the SRT. I see the GTS and RT/10 aren't doing too shabby either. Does the aerodynamics of the GTS account for the difference over the RT, or is it the fact that the RT tested was a first gen?
 

Paul Hawker

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 1, 2000
Posts
4,660
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego, Calif, USA
RT/10 had not only less hp and torque, but poorer aerodynamics, in addition to a less sofisticated suspension. The GTS had 50 more HP, better drag coefficient, and marginally better braking.
SRT has still more HP and Torque, but the biggest difference is the brakes. You can just stand on them, with the ABS. No need to modulate braking. SRT brakes so fast, you can feel the hairs coming out of your nose!
 

GR8_ASP

Enthusiast
Joined
May 28, 1998
Posts
5,637
Reaction score
1
When comparing the Gen I's with later GTS don't forget about tires as well. The original tires were plain awful when not heated up well.

If this is from the source I think it is then the magazine tested the cars such that the timimng for when to start braking was ultra important. I believe that the SRT got up to 103 mph before starting to brake. Without that delay and the somewhat lengthy transition time it would have bested the 911 turbo.

Check the archives as this was discussed at length when it was first announced.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
153,247
Posts
1,682,342
Members
17,742
Latest member
Mpcc
Top