SRT-10 in Sport Auto Supertest

[Guibo]

Very mediocre (to put it nicely) lap time and cornering speeds. Compare with old Viper GTS (with only 411 PS):

You must be registered for see images

The new Viper is noticeably faster on the fastest sections, but staggeringly far off the pace in the slower sections. Can any of our German/Austrian/Swiss members who have the issue shed some light on why this is?

 

[GR8_ASP]

Poor driving. Only answer I can conclude. Having had both on a track there is no way the SRT would be slower in the corners unless the driver was over braking.

 

[SnakeEye]

Poor driving. Only answer I can conclude. Having had both on a track there is no way the SRT would be slower in the corners unless the driver was over braking.

Surely there's no reason the SRT-10 shouldn't have dipped under 8 minutes period. I also would conclude that poor driving likely resulted in the rather lack luster time. That is all.

 

[allanlambo]

I believe Horst Van Sauma (Sp) tested it, who is the same driver who tests all their cars.

 

[Snakester]

Yep, bad driving.
Just the improved brakes should have made a huge improvement, let alone the additional power.
But the "Ring" is always a terrible place to judge American performance cars because the conditions vary so much between tests (weather, temp, track conditions, stock/modded, and driver skill).

The only cars that do well there are ones where hundreds of track runs are made (like Porsche 911s), so the numbers are averaged. With one or two pre-production tests done on cars like the SRT-10 Viper, it's clearly a bad sample, and not worthy of proper comparison.

Sport Auto's acceleration is telling of how poorly the car performed. They recorded a 0-200KPH (124MPH) time of 14 seconds flat, compared to Motor Trend's 11.8@ 124MPH 1/4 mile time!

 

[dennis]

Well, anyone who's got that issue will notice they printed my letter...

And used another car for the test, then the photos showed. (Silver one)

The tester is the same guy that tests every car in that supertest.

Snakester, while I agree on saying american cars have a bad stand in germany, just leaving EVERYTHING on poor driving is ridicolous. Especially after you can't understand a word.

First of all it isn't only the problem of the magazines. For some reason, compared to other countrys germany gets the worst SRT's out there from DC. Talking about wrongly adjusted suspensions, HP numbers that are up to 10-15 % off, gearboxes that fly out of the car after 5000 km's... And so on.

Second, german magazines don't do powershifting.

The de-/acceleration numbers aren't performed on a special prepped track/surface but on the 'Döttinger Höhe' part of the 'Ring that is almost like an ordinary road.

And afterall, we're comparing track times. Say what you want, but a convertible will NEVER be as fast as a comparable coupé on the 'Ring.

A fast lap on the Nürburgring needs a fast, flowing driving style. Simply better brakes and more horsepower do actually nothing good.
Comments about the car were about like this :
Not 100% translated but nothing changed...

"Especially in the entrance of corners, in the moment between braking and again accelerating while steering into the corner, the Dodge is getting very instable."

Time killer on the track.

"Unlike the closed GTS coupé, the SRT has to live with the problems of it's construction. The chassis shakes shortly, but distinct on bigger bumps."

The Ring is 1 big bump.

"The amazingly hard setup is also a reason for the shaky overall impression of the car. On track parts with bad surfaces, the Viper even lost contact with the road!"

"The bad setup makes the car go 'out of the springs' at very hard braking."


And don't forget another thing, the SRT was 1 second faster on the Hockenheim track then the GTS.
This is a nice expample on how making a good setup worse, FOR THE RING.

Hockenheim is a very flat track, braking is very important.

Actually, everythings makes sense, and "bad driving" is a poor excuse for what the car is able to perform on worlds most difficult race track, with a driver inside, that holds the RECORD for the track...

 

[Snakester]

OK then it could be middling driving, with someone unexperienced with the handling of the Viper, combined with being a crappy test car (preproduction?).

But the acceleration and braking numbers are still piss poor. And that's compared with non-powershifting acceleration, and braking that's uniformly tested (many souces) as better than both the Enzo and Porsche CGT with $$$ ceramic brake systems.

 

[allanlambo]

Yes, but in that case Snakester, you cannot attribute the drivers Viper inexeperience to a poor lap time, as the driver is just as inexperienced behind the wheel of every other car he tests. Not like they gave him the CGT as a daily driver, and then said, hey now lets see your lap time.

Also Snakester, braking performance based on 1 stopping test is one thing, braking over a repeated period is another, especially over the speeds attained on the ring. You are clearly misled if you think the Viper can outstop an Enzo or CGT.

 

[Guibo]

This is pretty bizarre:

SRT-10 / VW Golf 4Motion:

Aremberg: 94 / 92
Metzgesfeld: 147 / 171
Bergwerk: 95 / 90
Kesselchen: 220 / 212
Klostertal 1: 147 / 153
Klostertal 2: 82 / 84

Overall: 8:13 / 9:09

You must be registered for see images attach

^ >

You must be registered for see images

???

 

[Snakester]

Not so Allan. You can bet that the CGT has been driven at the Ring in one form or another dozens of times, and it's quite likely that this driver had driven a CGT many times there as well. The majority of the cars running the fastest times at the Ring are Porsche 911s, and that's no accident seeing that they are probably tested there 10 times (100 times?) more than foreign (to Germany) cars.

And the German driver is going to have very little trouble adapting say from a regular 911 to a GT2 as they are essentially the same car that he has always been racing at that track. And the CGT is all in the same family as well in it's power delivery, brakes, and general balance.
Plus familiarity and confidence also figure in with a 911 driver feeling comfortable running a CGT around their track as opposed to the new-to-them Viper, which is an entirely different design, with a totally different feel than a 911 or CGT.

Also even if you have only seen one test on the SRT-10's brakes, doesn't mean that there haven't been many braking tests done (like a half dozen) with similar results, including high speed stops from 150MPH, and regular track testing has shown this as well.

Put another way, there have not been any professional tests done with production Vipers that showed any less than outstanding braking, which tells far more than one single bad Ring test does.

Plus anyone reading here can attest to the many stories of SRT-10 drivers who have tracked their Vipers with dramatic results. Not to mention the Comp Coupes that have been successful in road racing events that push the brakes hard repeatedly in competition.

 

[allanlambo]

Snakester, lets get real here. Driving a Cgt and a 911 are 2 completely animals. SOrt of like saying a guy driving a Neon Srt can quickly adapt to a Viper. Not happening. As for the CGT being tested on the ring previously, it has, but by other drivers such Walter Rohl. I mean, he set a 7.43 in a Pagani Zonda, how many of those do you think theyve tested, or the Murcielago, Gallardo etc. The driver is used to testing completely different cars.

Just because the Viper didnt fair well on a particlular day doesnt mean its time to make excuses. Who cares. A Diablo SV recorded an 8.09 on the ring, nothing spectacular from a pre-abs version. They are all great cars, some shine better on different days than others.

 

[Snakester]

But that's exactly my point. Ring tests vary wildly, and the Viper is one of those cars that is so rarely tested that the variables are too great to make valid comparisons.

What is unfortunate is that some people live and breathe based on Ring performance numbers, just as some do about HP/L capability. I'd certainly agree that it's missing the greater value of the car, but once those numbers of that particular Ring test start circulating the internet, the resulting conclusions get ugly, and widespread.

Personally it doesn't affect my driving experience one tiny bit, but DC should have taken the time as Chevy did with the C6 and Caddy CTS-V to do some serious track testing with the Viper at the Ring to get truly competitive numbers that better represent the Viper's real performance, as it could only help sales in Europe and here.

 

[Guibo]

I don't really have a problem with the lap time, although it's about 10 seconds off what I would have expected (only because the SRT-10 has to make some sacrifices in aerodynamics, rigidity, and those damn runflats!). No, the really mind-boggling thing is that in some of those corners, the SRT-10 is worse than some sedans. What the...?

Allan, do you really think the VW Golf 4Motion would be that close to the Viper in so many corners, beating it outright in 2 corners (one of which is by double digit kmh's)?


Regarding brakes...
Looking at the braking zones, it does appear the Viper does only moderately well in the first 2 out of 3 braking zones, below the modern supercars. But in the final braking zone, it does exceptionally well. Here they are, in the order they are taken on the track (in m/s^2):

Aremberg / Klostertal 2 / Schwalbenschwanz
SRT-10: 8.3 / 9.4 / 10.2
CGT: 9.4 / 9.8 / 9.5
SLR: 9.5 / 10.1 / 9.7
Zonda: 9.3 / 10.4 / 9.1
360CS: 8.4 / 10.4 / 8.9

Curiously, it apears the Viper's brakes got better in the final measured braking zone, while for all of these other cars, their best was in the 2nd zone.

 

[dennis]

But Snakester, that's exactly the point. You don't know what happens over here. DC gives a flying [******] about europe/germany. How long do you think did it take for us to get INFORMATIONS about the recall?

I agree, the Ring time doesn't mean much. BUT, the opinions of the driver and his experiences do. Like I said, the car was better in Hockenheim. Most race-tracks especially in the states are quite similar to that track. While there's nothing comparable ALL over the world to the 'Ring.
So, just see what he says about the behavior of the car. The silver SRT that was used for the test was NOT a preproduction Viper. Where do you think would DC germany get one?? It was a normal Viper, not even a special test car.

And just to state everything clear, the time of the GTS is just stunning. Back when the 411 Hp european version of the Viper was tested, the GTS crushed cars like the 993 Porsche turbo (8:12). The tester Horst von Saurma was actually astonished about the car, and wished it had better brakes, so it would be "The perfect race-car".

 

[sachin]

thats what I do not understand. How the 411hp Euro version of the GTS was faster than the SRT, it truly boggles the mind. A better handling, braking, more powerful model of a vehicle is actually slower.

 

[ViperGTS]

Have you ever driven a SRT-10?

Something MUST be wrong with
* the SRT-10 (hp, brakes, ...) as tested OR
* the driver OR
* the weather conditions OR
* etc.

There is NO way that the SRT-10 is slower than the GTS (411 hp).

 

[dennis]

Have you ever been on the Ring?
The SRT was faster in Hockenheim. A car that has more horsepower, and better brakes isn't necessarily better on the northern loop, though. I would agree that there could've been something wrong about the car (Hp numbers...), BUT I don't think the SRT would get FAR beneath 8 mins anyway. If it even could beneath 8 minutes.

And don't underestimate the Convertible/Coupé disadvantage. Especially on the Nürburgring.

sachin, better handling is a strange thing, especially with the mentioned problems on the 'Ring lap. A car that lifts up in the back while braking like the SRT does in the test, and I heard same things in other mags also (with different cars) will never be fast on the Ring. No matter how much Hp it has. An overall harder suspension makes a car better on most tracks (Hockenheim) but is a disadvantage on the 'Ring.

 

[GR8_ASP]

Okay, I have to ask. Why all the bs about convertible versus hardtop? Would an F1 car fare poorly just because it has no roof? of course not (unless the problem is the driver is afraid to get his/her hair ruffled).

Now can you get a little more specific like torsional rigidity then I think some answers can be created. Like is the SRT-10 torsional rigidity more or less than the GTS (I think it is more!). How much do you think the plastic roof adds to the rigidity anyway?

So again, using some engineering terms or something tenable, tell me why to never under estimate the convertible/coupe disadvantage.

 

[allanlambo]

Does any of this realy make any difference? These lap times are what Ferrari guys rely on. Its all they have, because in the real world their cars get pummeled. Unfortunately, their road cars get pummeled here alos, they rely on their F1 stats now.

To many variables to take into consideration, different cars take to different tracks differently, weather conditions etc.

 

[Vic]

The Ring needs a car with low unsprung weight, soft fast shock compression to soak up bumps, and stiff slow speed compression to keep it level on long sweepers. Narrower tires, (providing they aren't carrying too much weight for their contact patch), may help the car steer more precisely. Having a car with wider tires tends to make it follow the grooves and bumps of a bad road. Then there is the sidewalls, compound, and a myriad of other features that figure in.

So in a way, the Ring could be a test of how well a car is set up to drive fast on bad roads? I could see a VW Golf doing better in certain situations, like tight bumpy corners. Kinda like a lion chasing a rabbit, where that little bunny zigs back and forth, but the lion doesn't change direction that easily, since its bigger and heavier, but the little light rabbit richochets around with ease. (Until they get out in the open, then the lion has a rabbit sandwich for lunch!) A comical example of how a little light car may do better at times over certain surfaces, than a long-legged Viper.

If a car with the right combination of factors does well on the Ring, does that make it a superlative of automotive excellence, that we could use a yardstick for judging how well that same car can drive fast on various road sufaces, such as Hockenheim? (Rhetorical)

The Ring is just the Ring, and what makes a car do well there is not neccessarily a litmus test of how a car performs on everyday road surfaces. Unless you live in Detroit?

The only time I drove an SRT was at the last VCA Western Zone Rendevous. The surface was very flat and smooth, with no bumps. I couldn't really put any serious effort into driving the car hard, because this autocross track was laid out so poorly, with just a few ambiguous cones placed here and there, and no one knew exactly where to turn. But the few times I did lean on it, I found it to turn in very crisply, and brake phenomenally. I have never felt such brakes before in my life. Being iron rotors, I would have to guess they would eventually fade more than carbon/ceramic brakes would, which is another measure of braking capability, other than 60-0 stopping distance. (Don't know, just sayin)

 

[SnakeBitten]

To me this is much ado about nothing....I hope that cars like Porsche, and other cars tuned on the Ring would dominate the lap times....The SRT wasnt tuned for it obviously so you cant expect stellar numbers from suspension tuning done thousands of miles away....Now if it was tuned for the Ring and did that 8.13 then Id be worried.....

That same SRT10 would give the Ring killer, Porsche GT2, a run for its money on any track stateside....I remember a test where Hurley Haywood drove both Viper GTS and Porsche GT2...He said the biggest difference was brakes...The Porsche beat the Viper by 3 seconds...Most of that time advantage came under braking...He was braking few hundred feet sooner in the Viper than in the Porsche on every hard turn....Do the math....Now with the SRT10 resolving the brake issue and even adding some power and more secure handling Im sure in Haywoods hands the two would be close. Just maybe not on the Ring ...

 

[Guibo]

I could see a VW Golf doing better in certain situations, like tight bumpy corners. Kinda like a lion chasing a rabbit, where that little bunny zigs back and forth, but the lion doesn't change direction that easily, since its bigger and heavier, but the little light rabbit richochets around with ease. (Until they get out in the open, then the lion has a rabbit sandwich for lunch!) A comical example of how a little light car may do better at times over certain surfaces, than a long-legged Viper.

Hmm...That does make a lot of sense. However,

SRT-10 / VW Golf 4Motion / Viper GTS:

Aremberg: 94 / 92 / 98
Metzgesfeld: 147 / 171 / 184
Bergwerk: 95 / 90 / 113
Kesselchen: 220 / 212 / 212
Klostertal 1: 147 / 153 / 179
Klostertal 2: 82 / 84 / 98

Wouldn't a lot of that also apply to the GTS? Wondering how much stiffer SRT-10 shocks/springs are compared to the GTS...

 

[onerareviper]

Who cares? We know what happens on the US tracks in real-life grassroots racing. I could give an 'F' if it turned 10:00 minute times on the 'Ring....

Logically, no C6 (non-Z06) Vette is going to turn a better lap time (on any track) than a SRT-10 (equal drivers). If you didn't know, I think the Vette turned a 7:56. Even the Vette guys will admit this.... The Viper corners harder, brakes harder, and accelerated faster. You figure it out.....

 

[dennis]

Okay, I have to ask. Why all the bs about convertible versus hardtop? Would an F1 car fare poorly just because it has no roof? of course not (unless the problem is the driver is afraid to get his/her hair ruffled).

Now can you get a little more specific like torsional rigidity then I think some answers can be created. Like is the SRT-10 torsional rigidity more or less than the GTS (I think it is more!). How much do you think the plastic roof adds to the rigidity anyway?

So again, using some engineering terms or something tenable, tell me why to never under estimate the convertible/coupe disadvantage.

Bringing an F1 into the discussion is pretty far off topic. Talking about an F1 car we have a full carbon-fibre monocoque, very tight and stiff. A roof on such a car wouldn't do much, since the area above the drivers head is very small. But no doubt, and F1 car WOULD do better with a roof.
But the rules prohibit any constructions like this.

However, have you ever seen a Porsche turbo convertible in a hard track test? I haven't. Ever seen a GT3 or GT2 convertible? There's a reason.
I actually thought I don't have to go deeper into detail, as the quotes of the testdriver are pretty obvious about the behavior of car on rougher surfaces.

"Unlike the closed GTS coupé, the SRT has to live with the problems of it's construction. The chassis shakes shortly, but distinct on bigger bumps."

Remember, this is not what DC tells you with their math computers, this is what the tester felt on the ring actually after driving it.


But this is just one part. Again look what he said about the suspension. Of course the car might be faster on flat courses (see Hockenheim, it is). But there are completely different rules on the 'Ring.

 

[GR8_ASP]

Dennis, you keep on and on about the damn roof. Tell me that your stupid little VW has higher torsional rigidity with its roof than the SRT without a roof. Come on and quote some numbers. I do not want to hear opinions but facts. Torsional, lateral and longitudinal rigidity are all measureable factors.

I have 6500 miles on my SRT on Detroit roads. If you want opinions about cowl shake and other stiffness virtues I could provide some "first hand" impressions and comparisons to other first hand impressions of the GTS and others. To me (my opinion now) the poor bumpy road driveability is much less a function of chassis stiffness and much more a factor of high unsprung weight and very stiff tire sidewalls.

In general I am okay with this as I prefer a car set up to go fast on smooth track surfaces rather than on cobblestone. We do not race on cobblestone or similar road surfaces here. Smooth asphalt is the rule.

 

[LIRacer]

Mods: Let's stick to car discssion, we appreciate your assistance.

 

[Viper Specialty]

The SRT-10 is 33% STIFFER than the GTS! GET OFF THAT TOPIC, PLEASE.

There is NO shake in the body of an SRT- have you ever driven one? Obviously not if you agree with that magazines statement... or even believe it for a second. Trust me, I live in Buffalo, NY. If there is something I know about driving over- it is BUMPS! When the top is up on an SRT- you cannot even tell it is a convertible. Simply, it does not shake, squeek, rattle, groan, leak- ANYTHING. Not the kind of attributes you find in a car with a "shaky body".

 

[ViperGTS]

LOL

Only Dennis can tell us the truth...but, does he own a Viper?

 

[dennis]

Dennis, you keep on and on about the damn roof. Tell me that your stupid little VW has higher torsional rigidity with its roof than the SRT without a roof. Come on and quote some numbers. I do not want to hear opinions but facts. Torsional, lateral and longitudinal rigidity are all measureable factors.

I have 6500 miles on my SRT on Detroit roads. If you want opinions about cowl shake and other stiffness virtues I could provide some "first hand" impressions and comparisons to other first hand impressions of the GTS and others. To me (my opinion now) the poor bumpy road driveability is much less a function of chassis stiffness and much more a factor of high unsprung weight and very stiff tire sidewalls.

In general I am okay with this as I prefer a car set up to go fast on smooth track surfaces rather than on cobblestone. We do not race on cobblestone or similar road surfaces here. Smooth asphalt is the rule.

I never said I agree on the statements of the magazine.
So calm down. The fact is, that's a statement made by the driver. He never mentioned anything like that when he tested the GTS.
No, I have never driven the SRT on a racetrack, and you most likely haven't driven the SRT in tight corners on the Detroit roads with 100 + mp/h. So of course I can't tell where the problem was. I can give you the authors e-Mail if you want to bash someone. I just translated that text, and 'tried' to give explanations why. That doesn't mean I agree on them or experienced the same. There aren't any numbers given. And like I said, that's not what DC tells you with a math computer, but that's what happened on the road. If you want to believe him. Nobody forces you.

You're still comparing the Golf with the Viper. Point is, the Golf without the roof would be slower then the one with roof.

The differences between the cornering speeds of Golf and Viper may have different reasons. He mentioned a lot of things on the Viper.
So, let's think about a wrongly adjusted suspension on the car, + a (maybe while the car was shipped) damaged frame + some other things... Everything put together MIGHT have caused those numbers.

Like you said torsional, lateral and longitudinal rigidity can be measured, but there aren't given any numbers. And there aren't given opinions, but still the author mentioned a shaking chassis. ...? Don't ask me why.

Walter Röhlr (ex-Rallye Worldchampion, Porsche testdriver) was once talking about the importance of a roof on touring-race-cars. (No open wheel-single seater with carbon monocoque)
Testing the first concept of the Carrera GT he said "I won't take that car serious as long as it doesn't have a roof.".
He explained it that way; imagine the roof being an additional support for all axes of the car. Not only the flat surface above your head, but the whole construction above the chassis supports the cars rigidity in all given ways.

Kinda like this in this example (It doesn't matter how you see the pictures. This works for both front and side-view).

You must be registered for see images

So having 2 comparable cars (RT/10 and GTS, or SRT/10 and and SRT coupé) you could definately say the car WITH roof has advantages.

Someone prove me wrong if you have different informations.

 

[Guibo]

Whoa guys, this is getting out of hand. Let's not shoot the messenger here, as Dennis is only relaying to us what the magazine says.

Thanks for the translation, Dennis.


On the issue of chassis rigidity, it does make sense that a closed coupe should be more rigid than an open-top roadster. But then again, I thought the Viper's steel tubular frame provides most of the load-bearing structure. Then again, I've seen pics of people lying on top of Vipers and have seen a guy sitting on the fender of his. Seemed strong enough.
And those cornering speeds of the Z8 (also an open-topped roadster which has runflats too) in comparison to the SRT-10 are rather peculiar: the BMW is consistenly quicker through most corners, and nearly 30 kmh faster in some.