Re: The Viper kicks all foreign pieces of shts asses!!!!

Discussion in '2000 Hennessey Viper Venom 800TT' started by Guibo, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. #1 Guibo, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>You're calling me a newbie? Your experience is all in the wrong places. I have car experience, you have magazine experience...Go watch some ametuer races. ...You're just a "magazine racer".

    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Do you know me? What do you know about my experience? Why do you assume I have only "magazine experience"? It's funny how most of these Viper haters ASSUME the characteristics of the people who happen to disagree with them.
    I'm calling you a newbie, not based on your post count, not based on your background. Hell, you could be Hans Freakin' Stuck and it doesn't change the fact that you don't know squat about the Viper's capabilities.
    And I've been to plenty of amatuer races. Check out my earlier post about why I'm not here much on the weekends.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>Just so you know, MT says the new, lighter, more powerful, faster viper *COULD BE* in the 3.9 second range.

    "More power, an easier to modulate clutch, a crisper shifting transmission, and wider tires give the impression this one could be a 3.9 second car."

    You can find that in the last paragraph on page 64 of the June 2002 Vol. 50, NO. 6 issue. Another magazine, I think C&D, said the new viper runs 12.0 in the 1/4 mile. An entirely exceptable number for the improvements to the car.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Just so you know, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE NEW MT SAYS. They could say the new Viper *COULD BE* a 4.2-second car. They could say it's a 4.5-second car. It doesn't freakin' matter, because we're not talking about the NEW VIPER. Seriously, your comment here has absolutely NO BEARING on what the Viper is truly capable of, and has already accomplished. LOL, you've got staring in your face NINE tests of the Viper hitting 60 in 3.9-4.1 seconds (DESPITE your claim that it's only a 4.3/12.5 quarter mile car), and you bring up some vague estimates of a car that isn't even in production yet, let alone instrument tested.
    FWIW, I have an old '96 issue of MT where they "estimated" the then-new GTS would be a 4.4/12.5-second car. Well, we all know what we can do with those estimates.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>When was the last time you drove a car to its limits pulled off the track and wrote in your tuning notes that you think it needs less rear toe-in, or more front camber, or needs whatever?</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    And how is this relevant? I could be a 5-year-old little green martian, and it doesn't change the fact that the Viper is a 3.9-4.1 second car.
    You make the claim. Let's see your notes. Let's see a pic of your camber plates. I'm not saying you're BS'ing, let's just see it.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>Once again, instead of going around on the web and finding a few instances where the viper comes out on top you should go to the next SCCA meet in your town.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    What makes you think I don't?

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>You'll see lots of Super 7s and you'll see them torching things with 3-4 times the hp and 3-4 times the rubber on the road. They still fall.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    And do you know the exact level of skill and training of all of these drivers? Can you post for me the results where the Super 7 comes out on top of the Viper?
    For my part, I'll post some results where the Viper has gone head to head with the Caterham. And won:
    http://www.24h-rennen.de/binaries/2002-1400.pdf
    http://www.24h-rennen.de/live/gesamt_24h.htm
    (Nice showing by the Donkervoort; first Caterham is way down in 92nd place.)
    Check out the results of last year's Virginia City Hillclimb:
    http://www.nsxfiles.com/vc2001.htm
    (BTW, that very same 2nd place Ferrari F40, shod with racing slicks, was recently vanquished in the Open Track Challenge racing series. By a Viper. On street tires.)

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>Oh yeah, I did actually see a viper at this one event, the guy used it to pull his Super 7's trailor. I was dumbfounded...I asked the guy, asked him, to his face, "Why don't you race your viper?" "Its expensive, hard to work on, and slower than my 7." My initial response was something like "huh?". I was about 14 years old at that time. If I realized the 7's superiorty over the viper at such a young age and you haven't...

    1. Maybe I just learn really fast.
    2. Maybe you learn really slow.
    3. Maybe I have more experience than you because you don't get out much.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Or maybe you're just the consummate BS'er. Like I said. Personal recollections do not equal empirical evidence.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>Really, when was the last time you drove a car to its limits. And if you haven't had wrecks doing it you aren't pushing, each wreck you learn a fault and improve. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    LOL, is this coming down to a "I've wrecked more cars than you have. Therefore, the Super 7 is superior to the Viper" argument? That is so sad. And so irrelevant.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>If I wanted to spend the time on it I could find specs for the Cerbera proving my position but...</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    All I ask for is just one test where those stats were met by a production Cerbera. Just one. 9 would be helpful.

    Let me know if you want to talk about Cerbera reliability.

    And I'm not saying the Caterham isn't a capable car. It is, as a time of 7:55 at Nurburgring attests. But that is still some 9 seconds short of the record-setting 996 GT2.
     
  2. #2 EmmArTooGuy, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Here you go.

    http://formen.ign.com/news/11385.html

    If you've read this you see that there is a 360 bhp Cerbera 4.5 and a 420 bhp Cerebera 4.5. The performance numbers you are expecting from a 4.5 are from the 360 bhp car. The 420 bhp car has times of:

    0-60 mph: 3.9 seconds
    0-100 mph: 8.3 "
    0-150 mph: 17.9 "

    No car hits 100 mph in 8.3 seconds just to slow its rate of acceleration and pull a 12.4 in the 1/4 mile. I think 11.X E.T.s are quite acceptable.

    Funny that those times are about what I came up with. What are the times on this site? A viper would beat the 360 bhp version, narrowly, but not the 420 bhp model.

    The problem with discrepencies in times has been solved. And everyone lived happily ever after. The End.<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. Against a Venom, I think not...<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. #4 EmmArTooGuy, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Yeah man, I'm aware of the Cerberas handling characteristics. It innitially understeers into the corner and only comes around when the driver uses the throttle to make it turn. I have no doubt that the viper will outrun the Cerbera on a clean dry track in optimum conditions but the Cerbera would walk away in slick conditions because it is more stable. Oh, and I've never owned a car that I didn't do my own 4-wheel alignment to make it handle the way I prefer. The understeer is a tuning issue, not a design problem like the viper's faults.

    Anyway, I'm saying in a stoplight battle the Cerbera would eat the viper alive.

    Facts are clear:
    http://www.supercars.net/Comp?sourceList=1908&CompList=1908-480

    Oh yeah, and in my computer's inverse accelerometer software, I entered the specs for the viper and (Cerbera) and came up with the following.

    0 mph to:
    30 mph 1.9 sec (1.6)
    40 " 2.4 " (2.1)
    50 " 3.0 " (2.6)
    60 " 4.5 " (3.9)
    70 " 5.4 " (4.8)
    80 " 6.5 " (5.6)
    90 " 8.4 " (7.3)
    100 " 9.8 " (8.4)

    0-100 ft 2.9 sec (2.7)
    0-500 " 7.0 " (6.6)
    0-1320 " 12.7 " @ 112.4 mph (11.9 @ 120.8)

    top speed: 183 mph (188)

    The Viper figures aren't much off from R&T's test results. What would happen if they test the Cerbera?

    Once again, that was 1998 viper gts-r vs (2000 Cerbera 4.5). Maybe a privately owned viper took a privately owned Cerbera. It says nothing about the tuning or maintenance record. I outran a 1999 Trans Am with a 1985 MR2 with intake/exhaust/cams. From this we can assume that the 1999 TA runs the 1/4 mile in about 15.5 seconds (actually about 13.6). Of course there is more to the story, the TA had a clogged fuel filter and 8 fouled plugs. The outcome of a single race proves nothing. I read those posts and they prove nothing. Did you get the tuning specs for both the Viper and Cerbera? Don't spout of about how its 38X bhp or 405 bhp, do you think Mopar parts aren't available outside the US? What was the Cerberas maintenance record? We don't know the condition of the two cars so there is no comparison. The acceleration facts are on this site. Also, an advanced acceleration simulation using 80+ variables concerning the car, driver skill, track/atmospheric conditions says the Cerbera is faster. Simpler programs give similar results but with less credibility. The laws of physics say the Cerbera is faster. Common sense says the Cerbera is faster. The Lord knows the Cerbera is faster.

    Oh, and weren't you complaining about that M360 guy getting the fastest times for the 360 Modena and slowest for the Viper, isn't that what you and Guibo did in the Cerbera forum? It doesn't matter the facts are on this site, no need to hunt some worthless "viper is faster" rationalization. Its not.

    BTW: the viper will still get outrun on the street, strip, or track by a lowly 1.8 liter four-banger...R500 (top model Super 7). More Super 7s are sold per year than vipers sold per year so it is more of a production car than the viper. Learn your facts.
     
  5. Haha, those numbers are pretty funny. Because no production Cerbera 4.5 has ever matched those numbers. Not even close, for the quarter mile. Not even the preproduction Cerberas tested by Autocar and Top Gear got anywhere NEAR that 11.9-second figure. And your top speed estimate is still not faster than the top speeds verified for the Viper.

    If you want to read more about the Cerbera's handling characteristics, just read the article below. It seems to me that understeer was the least of their worries.
    This is not to say that the Cerbera is a bad handling car. It's just tricky and requires an exceptionally skilled driver to harness its abilities.
     
  6. Guibo: I never said it would beat the Caterham, I said Cerbera. I would actually think the Caterham would beat the Viper. The Caterham was designed solely for the track, correct? Plus it weighs only around 1000 pounds, with a higher power/weight ratio.

    Emm: Get out of your computer generated, imaginary world. Things don't always work out they are supposed to. Are you saying you trust your calculator more than the real, documented proof? Like Guibo said, those times aren't even CLOSE to the real times. Get real.

    Fact remains, Viper is faster to 60, 100, 1/4 mile, loses ground to 150, and then catches right back up to top speed, 193 for Viper, 185 for Cerbera. And on the track, the Cerbera is not good. Proven many times, the Viper would pretty much destroy it.<!-- Signature -->
     
  7. #7 Guibo, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>As for my orphan child blah blah blah remark, it reflects the image bone heads like you give this machine. Its a fast car but when you can't accept the fact of something in its price range beating it you make excuses, making the car look bad. If I thought I hurt a Viper's feelings I'd appologize but the car doesn't care. If it hurt your feelings, too bad. Don't be so narrow minded in the future.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Don't be so two-faced in the future. LOL, you contradict yourself, you get spotted for it, and that's the best you can come up with? So sad.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>Its basically like you're talking about your favorite food, which you've never tasted. You're taking another persons word for the taste. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    It's not "basically like" that at all. When have I said the Viper is my favorite car? I've said in many other threads that there are cars I'd rather have, even if they are slower or have more warts.
    Guilty of prejudicial assumptions AGAIN.



    SvSi:
    Not to be anal, but I'd just like to clarify that no production Cerbera has gotten close to those times. The preproduction one tested by Top Gear was close to the 0-150 time, but not 0-60 (off by some .4 seconds). The preproduction one tested by Autocar was off pretty badly in 0-150 mph, and was as "slow" to 60 as the one tested by Top Gear. It was noted that the Cerbera 4.2 was quicker, and certainly so in the in-gear acceleration tests.


    Bearing:
    Your points are well taken, and supported by rolling road (dyno) tests conducted by TVR owners in the UK.

    "...forget all those official numbers for starters. All 4.5's so far on a dyno are between 320 and 350. I haven't seen a dynograph of one with more than 350 - this is corrected to flywheel numbers. 4.2s appear to be around 330 with less variation, though there are a few with quite a bit more."
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=7352&f=6&h=0

    "After trying all of them I came to a personal conclusion that either a 4.2 or 4.5 was fine for me. There wasn't much between them. Performance difference is not noticable."
    "-- it's well known the cerbie 4.5 doesn't do what it says on the tin."
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=2&f=6&t=9244&h=0

    "TVR may well be quoting figures from what is known as an 'optimistic dyno' it all depends on the manufacturer of the Rolling Road with some makes being well known as being 'optimistic' and does not neccesarily indicate sinister doings on TVR's part (It is always best to quote the highest figures though and all manufacturers do it)"
    "The figures I've seen were mainly from AJP8 4.5 engines which are quoted at 420 Bhp. The best was 71 bhp down, the worst 107 bhp down!"
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=2754&f=13&h=0

    "The Cerbera 4.2 was dyno tested at exactly 360 bhp (as claimed) by Autocar. However, this is an unlikely co-incidence and the strong rumour was that the press car was specially prepared and actually had a 4.5litre engine. There have been several people who have driven various of the press cars over the years and have said that they been noticeably quicker than the production ones...."
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=803&f=13&h=0&hw=dyno
     
  8. #8 EmmArTooGuy, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Guibo</i>
    <b>And LOL, you guys are cousins? Why the hell didn't you say so in the first place? Judging by your user names and signatures, you guys sound like clones. Or puppets.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I did say that in the first place and lets think about it. I said I'm traveling, right? I was at my aunt's house last weekend and like normal, the kid was hangin' all around me so he could see what I'm doing. I showed him this site, showed him what people do on here. Showed him my posts. He want'ed to make a screen name so I showed him how. Now imagine yourself at 13, your 20 y.o. cousin, whom you look up to, comes to visit and lets you play with his computer. Does it surprise you then the similarities? I could have said "I have an MR2 that runs in the T/F funny car class and pulls a 4.906 in the 1/4 mile" and he would have jumped someone for calling me on it, despite the fact that its an obvious lie. As for his viper throwing the belts statement, he wasn't there and didn't see it. I'm sure he heard me talk about it and repeated it, as he does with many things, as most kids do. That was in Halecenter and I'm now in Lubbock so he won't be a problem in the future.

    BTW: If, IF, I did create a second account I would have made it something no one would suspect. Based on my clear opposition to GM I'd use something GM in my screen name. Or just make up something non car related. Think about you accusations. Though we disagree, surely you don't think I'm that stupid.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Guibo</i>
    <b>Where does it say there's a 4.5 liter Cerbera with 360 horses in any of your links? You posted a link to a Cerbera Speed 6, which uses a different engine, and certainly isn't 4.5 liters. And that one is just about as slow as a Euro-spec Viper, LOL</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I included the Speed Six for reference. There is also a 4.5 there. What do you think the other link was. I'll post them again.

    Cerbera 4.5:
    http://users.compaqnet.be/carcollection/TVR/Specs/TVRCerbera45.html

    For comparison purposes I'm including the Speed Six:
    http://users.compaqnet.be/carcollection/TVR/Specs/TVRCerberaSpeedSix.html

    The Cerbera 4.5 (top) has power figures that are equal to the Speed Six's (bottom), despite having different engines.

    Also I want to include the disputable factory times. I'm not saying these are the car's true figures, Trust me, this is going somewhere.

    0-60: 3.9
    0-100: 8.1
    0-150: 17.9

    http://www.tvr.co.uk/graphics/cerbera/pages/contents_cerb.html

    "The Cerbera 4.2 remains in production for those customers who prefer a V8 and the Cerbera 4.5 gives a range topping 420 bhp and 380 ft.lbs. of torque. Getting to 60 mph in 3.9 seconds, 100 in 8.1 and 150 in 17.9, the Cerbera 4.5 is one of the fastest road cars in existence. With larger brakes, modified suspension and larger wheels and tyres, the Cerbera 4.5 offers the handling and braking to match its performance, stopping from 100 mph in only 3.8 seconds. The 4.5 Cerbera also includes a Hydratrak speed sensitive differential as standard."

    Now I'd like to point to these numbers which can be supported from another two sites:

    0-60: 3.9
    0-100: 8.3
    0-150: 17.9

    http://formen.ign.com/news/11385.html
    and
    http://www.henley-tvr.com/henley-heritage/old/html/cerbsale.htm

    Its true that the second link is a dealer but the numbers aren't the factory claims and they came from somewhere. Why is the 0-60 time the same? England is on an island surround by water, the test conditions there won't be as varied as the ones in our country. Why is the 0-100 different? A clean, full clutch, lift-throttle shift takes about 0.23 seconds. Maybe they shifted just before 100 mph instead off just after. Why does the 0-150 time remain the same? If the engine's power band is relatively wide you could vary the shift point around 100 mph and still get the same acceleration overall, the 0.2X second shift must occur somewhere. We just don't know.

    The same is true for these times:
    (I'm not poosting the source because you'll believe these numbers anyway)

    0-60: 4.3
    0-100: 8.9
    1/4 mile: 12.4

    I've read that the 4.5 actually has less low-end power than the 4.2 or Speed Six. Maybe these numbers were achieved using a clutch slip at 1000 rpm rather than a drop at whatever the optimum launch rpm is. What if it was done using a clean lift-throttle shift rather than a clutchless full power shift? Maybe this is as fast as the 420 bhp 4.5 will go even though it goes against all logic. Remember that some tests have shown the viper to be slower than this too.

    This is exactly why I like R&T despite the fact that they don't ring every last drop of performance from their cars. They tell the reader how the car is driven. At the bottom of the Road Test Summary in every issue it says "Acceleration numbers are obtained using drop clutch starts and lift throttle shifts."

    This is why I *believe* the Cerbera 4.5 is faster:

    1) non-factory claims:
    0-60: 3.9
    0-100: 8.3
    0-150: 17.9

    2) These numbers aren't far off considering the 4.5 has 29-30% more HP/LB compared to the viper.

    3) An acceleration program that use 80+ user programable variables concerning the condition of the car, driver, road surface, and atmosphere. It corrects the HP for these variables too. (I did manage to get the 11.97 sec 1/4 mile for the viper using a clutchless, full power shift)

    4) In other 2500-2600 lb cars (my full street MR2), a 20 bhp increase results in a 3-4% drop in acceleration times. A 60 bhp increase should give 9-12% drop in acceleration times. If the 350-360 bhp models run 12.4, they need only a 4-5% drop in acceleration times to best a viper.

    Reasons for believing it may be *possible* for the viper to beat the 4.5:

    1) The acceleration times for the 4.5 of:
    0-60: 4.3
    0-100: 8.9
    1/4 mile: 12.4

    Guibo, I'm giving up this arguement now as it is impossible to convince you. In much the same way that you disregarded the words on the Supra page I posted, only to dispute them with another page(s). I believe you will do this indefinitely with anything anyone posts if it doesn't agree with you.

    BTW: Sorry if I offended any Viper fans out there. I'm a passionate person. I'm quick to snap but I'm quick to appologize after I calm down. I feel that my position on this debate is unbias because I'm neither a Chrystler or TVR fan, but rather, Toyota is my favorite.
     
  9. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>Not that I don't like vipers, I do...</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    ROTFLMFAO!!! Is that why you said:
    "So while its obvious to most that the viper couldn't take a TVR at the stoplight, you won't beleive me until you have a viper and I have a Cerbera and smoke you. If we bet our lives on it though you would find yourself being burried in your over-powered orphan child of a minivan."
    Let me guess. That's your way of praising the Viper? If not, will the REAL EmmArTooGuy please stand up?!

     
  10. #10 Guibo, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>Stock for stock a Supra weighs as much as a viper. I think you should take a look at this street legal Supra.

    http://www.suprastore.com/98914titmoto.html

    Pay special attention to the parts of the page that say:
    "no nitrous", "six speed" (autos are faster for drag racing than manuals), "stock differential", "Stock Shortblock (used not new)"</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Ha, that's interesting stuff. BTW, according to this discussion, that Supra was FAR from stock weight (it was 2950 lbs w/driver) and was running on nitrous. And in the final run, it DNF'ed due to something going "pop" during the burnout.

    http://www.supraforums.com/showthread.php?s=0bb56bedf097afc1736892589138fa27&threadid=48410

    http://www.supraforums.com/showthread.php?s=0bb56bedf097afc1736892589138fa27&threadid=49287

    Do Supras come from the factory with Carillo rods? "Stock shortblock" my ass!

    Props to the Supra folk, though. They do know how to make quick Supras. Seems the Supras and Vettes hook up better than most Vipers.
     
  11. Dude, if you want to see times for the Cerbera 4.5, go to the main page of this site and click the link that says "present". Then either click the "T" or scroll down to the T section. After that you can click on the link that says 2000 TVR Cerbera 4.5. You'll notice that these times are faster than the fastest times for a stock viper. If its ok for you to disregard times on the site in which we are posting it is ok, more than ok, for me to shoot down test magazines that I don't support anyway. I have seen no times on this site that I found entirely unbelievable.

    As for my orphan child blah blah blah remark, it reflects the image bone heads like you give this machine. Its a fast car but when you can't accept the fact of something in its price range beating it you make excuses, making the car look bad. If I thought I hurt a Viper's feelings I'd appologize but the car doesn't care. If it hurt your feelings, too bad. Don't be so narrow minded in the future.

    P.S. I don't use camber plates in my tuning, I use a prop protractor. I'm traveling right now and I'll send you my notes when I get home in a few weeks. If you like, I can detail the alignment procedure I use in a future post. I'd rather discuss something technical over shooting you down anyway. <!-- Signature -->
     
  12. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Guibo</i>
    <b>Do you seriously think this website is 100% accurate. Without at doubt? What kind of "fact" is that?
    In a stoplight battle, the proven stats for both of these cars show the Viper coming out ahead at 60 and the quarter mile.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Do you think that any publication is 100% accurate? Without a doubt? Sorry but unless you jam the shifter from one gear to the next it isn't possible for a stock Viper to get under 12.3 in the 1/4 mile. Even on slicks, saying a viper is faster than 12.3 is like saying you can lift a 100 pound crate 5 feet with only 1 ft-lb of work. The BHP and lb-ft numbers for the 427TT are fudged too. Have you ever been a writer for an circulated publication? Almost all writers alter the facts to support their views; it goes against their teachings but it happens. You are either unaware of this or you are a writer youself and know exactly what I'm talking about. You are no different from the people saying a stock f-body can pull 13 flat. Not at the stock weight, its not possible. Not even with slicks and specially geared for drag racing. I've been around too many fast cars to be fooled by the propaganda that fooled you. A guy I know in the town I'm visiting at this time use to fund his own rail dragster with the money from his pharmacy. It was in the '70s and he went to nationals every year, never placed to high but still it was his car and he built it. Even he said no amount of torque and traction could make a 450 bhp viper weighing 3500-3600 lbs run under 12.3. And he is a dodge fan. Keep in mind that I've taken cars that run 16-17 seconds in the 1/4 and made them fully capable of 13s for about 3500-4000 total investment; not to mention they look like well maintained stock cars. And thats just in my spare time working part time and going to school. True 13s isn't too fast but its obvious that I know what I'm doing.

    So while its obvious to most that the viper couldn't take a TVR at the stoplight, you won't beleive me until you have a viper and I have a Cerbera and smoke you. If we bet our lives on it though you would find yourself being burried in your over-powered orphan child of a minivan. <!-- Signature -->
     
  13. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>As for my numbers being off, my program said 0-60 = 3.9 and so did that article and so does this site and that is faster than the viper so my statement about a stop light battle is true. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Your program also said a 4.5 0-60 for the Viper. The Viper's best 0-60 is 3.9. Damn, your calculator is so accurate!

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>Sorry but unless you jam the shifter from one gear to the next it isn't possible for a stock Viper to get under 12.3 in the 1/4 mile</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    They test all the same cars the same. You take off time for the Viper, you must take off time for every other single car tested. Its like adding slicks to one car for acceleration and not doing it for the other. Your statement is absolutely retarded. BTW, the best time for the Viper is 11.9, 12.2 being the absolute norm.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>So while its obvious to most that the viper couldn't take a TVR at the stoplight, you won't beleive me until you have a viper and I have a Cerbera and smoke you.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Its obvious? Because your calculator said so? Seriously, you just disregarded all the information. All the valid, documented proof from magazines say the Viper is faster than the Cerbera all the way through the quarter mile. But you, for some odd reason, disregard that. Face it, the Viper will beat the TVR.

    Just because you dispise of the Viper doesn't mean you must make up false stats to make it appear slower. Only idiots with small intellegence do that.<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. R&T mag on my lap says viper gts-r 1998 0-60 in 4.2, 1998 gts in 4.3.
    MT mag on my lap says acr: 4.1, rt/10: 4.2

    I said nothing about using slicks on one car and not the other. Read more carefully. If my program is close to R&T's times for the Viper it would be close to their times for a Cerbera. And its identical to the times on this site in 0-60, imagine that. I can change the shift times to represent harder driving, both cars will be faster.

    BTW: If you don't like the times on this site you should contact the people who run it and argue with them. Or you could just go post somewhere else.

    The viper isn't all bad. my favorite thing about it is how it gets beat by the Caterham's 1.8 liter R500.
    Buhahahaha!
    Sorry you boneheads make me laugh, its not personal though.<!-- Signature -->
     
  15. The Viper kicks all foreign pieces of shts asses!!!!

    This car is the best. Better than the Bugatti 4/16! In the report it even says 0-60 was achieved in 2.4 seconds. European cars are trash just like the Guks cars! No fukin way can this car be beaten, only by a better Viper. So take that you POS'es!!!
     
  16. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from hathorn01</i>
    <b>This car is the best. Better than the Bugatti 4/16! In the report it even says 0-60 was achieved in 2.4 seconds. European cars are trash just like the Guks cars! No fukin way can this car be beaten, only by a better Viper. So take that you POS'es!!!</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->


    Viper only beats european cars in the ugly and sounds like crap department! crawl in a hole boy
     
  17. I have to agree. Even just in the US there are tuner Supras that can best this car and I'd hate to imagine a tuner TVR or turbocharged Caterham. This car interests me but its by far not the greatest. For $55K I could build my own turbo system for a viper or some other car that eat this alive on a track.<!-- Signature -->
     
  18. I'm not seeing you're euro trash do a better 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile or slolom. So shut your mouth and hope you get luckey next time!<!-- Signature -->
     
  19. Cerbie 4.5 , Tuscan S , and no mention of the Tuscan R against a stock Viper.

    For the 800TT , Cerbera Speed 12.........................

    All this from a single car maker...
     
  20. The Dauer 962LM would shit on this car in everyway and it's stock, not tuned up like this hunk of fiberglass!
     
  21. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from hennesseyms</i>
    <b>Against a Venom, I think not...</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    A Cerbie Speed 12 vs a 800TT , you don't think the cerbera kills it ?

    Come on , be realistic.
     
  22. no<!-- Signature -->
     
  23. Does anyone have proven performance stats on either the Cerbera Speed 12 or Tuscan R? I'm talking about documented numbers for PRODUCTION cars. Thanks.
     
  24. i like 'hennesseyma' guy. hes the man.

    TVR can't beat a venom. think about it.

    VIPER RULES<!-- Signature -->
     
  25. #25 hennesseyms, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016

Share This Page