Re: '03 Viper vs. '03 GT40

Discussion in '2002 Ford GT40 Concept' started by TAWS7, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Hey does anyone find it sort of sad that the Viper has only(!) 500 hp? I mean, it's got an 8.3 litre engine! The McLaren had about a 6 litre engine w/ about 627 bhp. Why doesn't dodge actually put DOHC on this car? 5 valves/cylinder would be nice like they've got in Ferraris. Even if it cost more than $10000 USD more, or even $20000, they should still do it. Granted, they probably wouldn't get McLaren hp/litre, but supposing they did, this car would have about 850 horsepower - without using turbos or a supercharger! If they came anywhere near that number, little would get in the way of this car.
     
  2. ummm sorry but i didn't get any thing that just said
     
  3. yeah, uh, you know how much the f1 costs, right? and $20,000 is a lot of money, many people spend only that amount on a car. besides, what's wrong with 500hp?
    oh, wait, i thought we were supposed to be talking about the gt40. it's pretty expensive, if i had the money i don't know if i'd buy a gt40 or both a vette and a viper, maybe an m3 and an m5, my point is it's a little expensive, especially for a ford.
     
  4. what do you mean by "especially for a Ford"? are you trying to say that even though it has 500hp it souldn't be 120k? that's the 30k less then a Ferrari 360. but because it's a Ferrari no one sayes "oh i think that's a little to much"
     
  5. I know how much the McLaren costs. Mucho dollahs. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with 500bhp (I'll take it anyday!). I'll generalize my point: if you can get 500bhp from an engine without using dohc or turbos or a supercharger, why doesn't someone put enough effort into building an engine as big as the viper's that was maxed out (like Hennessy, but taken to the next level)? Sure, it wouldn't be particularly light, but the gain in power/weight ratio would be incredible. Most likely, an engine that powerful would be able to top the hp of the Veyron engine. Does this make any sense, or would it just cost too much? Would it not be reliable? Bad fuel economy?
     
  6. they have equal power but gt40 will way less and plus better hanling....ford can do with 5.4l what dodge does with 8.3l...hmmm think about that one
     
  7. Do you really think that Dodge could only manage 500 horsepower out of an 8.3 litre engine? What is wrong with you? Honestly. If that is the case then how come Dodge managed 215 horsepower out of a 2.4 litre Inline 4?

    Dodge made the engine big for a reason. Reliability, and for massive torque everywhere in the revband. I doubt the GT-40 will be producing 400 ft/lbs of torque at 1700 rpm like the Viper. Do you know how insane that is? Of course you don't.

    How do you know the GT-40 will weigh less? How do you know it will have better handling? Don't make such ignorant comments.
     
  8. Ford has a target wieght of 3000lbs. and about the handling i'm not going to say anything because we don't know! but i do know that with the supercharger it will have a good off the line start
     
  9. that is a good point, but almost all of the questions you asked are the reasons why they don't put a lot of effort into the engine. the more technology they use, the more they have to pay for research, working models, and all of the extra work time that isn't necessary in making simpler engines. all of this cost ends up coming out of the consumers' pockets. also, the more complex the engine, the less reliable, take, for example, bmw. they have generally excellent automobiles, but if you follow car news closely, you will realize that they recall their cars often for potentially dangerous flaws in their engines. ford has enough problems with quality control as it is, the last thing they need is someone's brand-new gt40 blowing up because they f*cked up the engine. as for bad fuel economy, it's doubtful that it would get worse with a high-technology engine. smaller hi-tech engines came about because of the bad fuel economy of the large, lo-tech engines in the 70's. superchargers usually don't help fuel economy, so i'd guess that the gt40 probably has worse fuel economy than a ferrari.
    that's not exactly what i meant, i'll try to clarify:
    first off, even ford fans must admit that fords do have a lot of quality problems. even my family has had problems with fords; my mom bought a brand new 99 windstar and within one year there were problems with the braking systems and with the speakers, and the power steering failed several times at random. again, this was a brand new car.
    also, i don't think that there is enough work in the car to constitute a $120,000+ list price (it will, of course, be more with dealer mark-ups). they put about as much work into it as a viper engine, then they slapped a supercharger onto it. no offense to vipers or anything, they are one of my favorite cars, but they use big displacement to make big horsepower at a (relatively) small price. ford probably didn't even do that, hence the supercharger. for that, i would say a reasonable price for a car like this would be $100,000 tops.
     
  10. i am sorry all you quys are going for putting a price on a car is by the engine, that makes no sense. I am sure and most people will tell you that GT40 is going to be one of the most techno advanced cars out there, don't believe me go find out for your self, and second have you seen who are working on this car, haven't i already made a thread about it. the engine might not be the best but everything else will be.
     
  11. This question is not as hard as it would seem. The GT40 is as powerful, and lighter than the 03 viper. It is also mid engined, which is the best layout for handling. Keeping in mind that Ford handed Ferrari their ass in the 60's using the car that was vastly improved to provide us with this beutiful new ride. Combine that with the fact that the current viper cant keep up with the Z06 on the track (it handles like a beast, all the weight's in the front), and I project the GT40 way out ahead of the viper!
     
  12. actually, it is more complex than you would have us believe. first, the gt40 is as powerful as the viper, but acceleration is also dependent on torque, which is more abundant in the viper. second, ford did hand ferrari their ass in the 60's, that i won't dispute, but since then, ferrari has been constantly making better cars, learning from their own mistakes, and getting better all the time at making supercars. ford, on the other hand, knows relatively little in this department. third, when given similar-level professional drivers, the current viper easily keeps up with and surpasses the z06 on the track. lastly, as for engine placement/weight distribution, the viper does have a front-engine and the gt40 a mid-engine, but engine placement only helps if it neutralizes the weight distribution. the weight distribution of the viper is 49/51 (f/r), so i would say that a front engine was a good choice, and, contrary to your statement, not all of the weight is in front, actually, more is in the rear. it only handles like a beast if the driver doesn't know how to properly drive the car. as for which car would win a race, i hate to say it but i'd give a slight advantage to the gt40 due to weight, but it should be faster for $40,000-50,000 more (i still think that's too much for this car). we'll just have to wait and see.

    this is unrelated to anything i've said above, but i just wanted to say in all honesty that it's nice to find that there are some people on this site who will actually have an intelligent conversation about cars. i'm sick of reading posts like "my civic can beat the shit out of this!" and "this car sux my ass." anyway, thanks.
     
  13. two things i don't agree that much with the comment above, first is the viper having better torque, this engine is supercharged so if it is tuned right(most likly is since ford nows one or two things about supercharger) it will have as much or better torque at bottom end and during the rev range. second your point ford being new to this field of supercars, i used to agree with you until i found out it is ford racing groups and tuners building this car not. shelby, salleen, SVT and others so i think they know what they are doing.
    again i have no clue which is better.
     
  14. What it really comes down to is the weight of both of the cars and their final drive ratios, or more specifically all of thier gear ratios. They both have the exact same amount of horsepower and torque, so what really matters is how much of that power is used when and at what ratio the speed of the enging is being put to the rear wheels, and how much weight the cars have to pull at any given time. If you ask me, I think the GT40 will win simply because the Viper's engine is about 50% Larger, not to mention the fact that the GT40's enging block is pure aluminum, that never hurts.

    Of course, as always, we will never truly know until the test has been done. But, for now, I am going to put my money on the GT40.



    Oh, just as a personal side note, I tend to think that a car that can get about 92 horsepower per liter deserves to kick the pants off of a car that only gets about 65 horsepower liter, no matter what. Ford really did a good job with this car, and that's coming from a person who doesn't think highly of the American car industry.
     
  15. You could buy a Z06 for less than half that price. And it's only a little bit slower.
     
  16. Who's the idiot who said the Viper can't beat the Z06 on the track? Where have you been? Are you blind? Can you not read? Plus, the 2003 Viper has 50 more horsepower, better handling, VASTLY improved braking, and better aerodynamics. The Z06 is long gone.

    Redliner RSR: Why do you think the higher Hp/L car should automatically win? You are familiar with the benefits of large displacement engines aren't you? Lets see if the GT-40 produces 400 ft/lbs of torque BELOW 2000 rpm.

    DANVM: The Z06 is long gone. It can't even compete with the GT-40 and Viper. Even the old Viper mopped the floor with the Z06. BTW, is the Z06 in this comparison? Didn't think so.
     
  17. Going from 0-60 has more to it than just power. you also have to factor in the traction loss with more power.
     
  18. #93 Mantronix, Sep 25, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  19. The GT40 makes the same horsepower and torque, weighs a considerable amount less, and is mid engined. If you think the Viper is going to beat it in any way you're in denial.
     
  20. I likes teh vipers cause they are crappy cars taht peoples thinks are good. The gt40 rox0rs though.
    Yeah basically there won't be much comparison, the Viper, as in all comparisons, loses in basically anything other than straight line acceleration. Plus, c'mon, its Chrysler, everyone rational knows Chrysler sucks, and there is no way you can truly back up the argument that a Viper stacks up to a Ferrari. If you were ever given the choice between a Viper and a 360 or a 575, with no price attached, would anyone really choose a viper? I'd choose a toyota Matrix though.
    and Nimbokwezer sucks cause his car is faster than mine, jerkface
     
  21. MarioWRC, you are a complete moron. "lemons"??? Jesus H. Christ, its le Mans. How retarded are you? They didn't name the world's most famous endurance race after a #$%#ing fruit. HOLY MOTHER OF .............. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Then you go on to argue that the viper would win in a top speed contest because it has a spoiler??? SPOILERS CREATE DRAG, THUS LOWERING TOP SPEED.
     
  22. some people need spoilers though, like my rippin toyota matrix. You have to have downforce to put down such numbers like my awesome 115 rw hp. Not just any rubber can grip the surface when you have that much power. WIthout a spoiler, I wouldn't dare go more than 195 mph or I would spin all over the place
     
  23. Vipers are crappy cars? Tell me, what makes it crappy. Is it the huge horsepower it develops? Gobs of torque everywhere in the revband? Insane g forces? Great slalom speed? Affordable price? Excellent reliability? Supercar status?

    Loses in anything other than straight line acceleration? LOL! Is that why the 550 Maranello and 360 Modena both LOSE on the track to the Viper? Is that why Car and Driver editor claimed that the Viper "corners like its on rails"? The only problem was braking because of the lack of ABS, but the Viper has had ABS for over 2 years now.

     
  24. what the hell did i say to deserve that, the reason for the spoiler comment idiot is it keeps the car down, and if you put in the right angle it won't do that much in your speed (f1 for example).
    second if you are talking about the gt40 being the famous endurance racer you must realise that the damn car was 4 inches lower that makes more of a differnce than a god damn spoiler in the back for top speed and back lift.
    if you went off on me for those reasons you are the moron, if there are other reasons then tell me in a better way or i would respond just the way you did.
     
  25. Here is what you said, and I quote, "in top speed probably the viper, thanx to that big ass spoiler in the back and the body work in the front."

    That, combined with you referring to "Le Mans" (a well known endurance race) as "lemons" (a well known fruit), is what caused me to go off on you.

    Now you respond by saying that the spoiler "helps keep the car down", which has absolutely nothing to do with your previous quote. I'm well aware of how spoilers work. The more you adjust it to give you downforce, the more drag it creates.

    To sum up: You said the Viper would have a higher top speed because of its spoiler. This is not only wrong, but the EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH.

    Then you mention spoilers in F1, saying that if you put them at the correct angle it wont have much of an effect on their top speed. WRONG AGAIN. The spoilers are adjusted differently for every track the F1 cars race on. If the track includes lots of long straights, the spoiler is adjusted to be flatter, so the cars can attain higher speeds on the straights. If the track is "slow", with short straights and many turns, the spoiler is set to a steeper angle, so it can adhere to the ground better on turns. Spoilers create a CRAPLOAD of drag, and the only reason F1 uses them is because they aren't allowed to use ground effects. Look at the ferrari enzo. Why do you think they didn't put a bigass spoiler on it? Thats right, because it uses ground effects to create downforce instead of some crappy giant spoiler (ala F1) that would ruin its top speed abilities.
     

Share This Page