Viper Is Dying! Oh NO!

[cargirl1990]

aahhh man... my awful thread is alive again.

[wwgkd]

The #1 seller for Chrysler is the Dodge Ram 1500, followed by the Dodge Ram Heavy Duty.

That would have been my guess given the dominance of the F150 world wide, but I wasn't sure.

[G35COUPE]

Dodge and Chrysler just have power and zero handling.

[pimento]

Dodge and Chrysler just have power and zero handling.

Actually, by all reports the Viper ACR is a demon on a racetrack..

[CdocZ]

Dodge and Chrysler just have power and zero handling.

Very important, clearly, given Chrysler/Dodge's main market

[wwgkd]

Actually, by all reports the Viper ACR is a demon on a racetrack..

This. The Neon SRT-4 was pretty good for the segment, but then they went to the caliber and that went down the drain. For what it is the 300C/Charger isn't bad either.

[Wouter Melissen]

Aside from being their best sellers for years. I see your point, but chrysler isn't fiat and I don't think people would want to buy small effecient chryslers. Here we associate everything with a brand and no one would buy a small effecient car from a brand they associate with big stuff, regardless of the quality of the vehicle.

The problem is that Americans still seem to think that a twin-turbo 3+ litre V6 is a small engine.

[wwgkd]

The problem is that Americans still seem to think that a twin-turbo 3+ litre V6 is a small engine.

Anything under 6 liter isn't worth mentioning.

Is a problem, although one that's changing, but you can't tell me that other cultures don't have their annoying habits when it comes to cars.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Anything under 6 liter isn't worth mentioning.

Is a problem, although one that's changing, but you can't tell me that other cultures don't have their annoying habits when it comes to cars.

but they don't complain when petrol is expensive (but still freaking cheap if compared world wide) and drive a 7.0 liter truck

[Wouter Melissen]

Anything under 6 liter isn't worth mentioning.

Is a problem, although one that's changing, but you can't tell me that other cultures don't have their annoying habits when it comes to cars.

Ford seems to be on the right path with cars like this: 2009 Ford Taurus SHO - Images, Specifications and Information

[G35COUPE]

Ford seems to be on the right path with cars like this: 2009 Ford Taurus SHO - Images, Specifications and Information

SHO has a weight issue (nearly 4000 pounds) to be hauled by all of its 365 horses. And, it seems it uses a dual supercharger system to produce all that power in its V-6. I guess they designed it to be a luxury car first before a performance ride.

Correction: should be "dual turbochargers".

[G35COUPE]

Actually, by all reports the Viper ACR is a demon on a racetrack..

I agree completely. The problem I have with the Viper is that my mind does not seem to find any meaningful association with it, to Chrysler. So, for some reason, I never count it as a Chrysler, eventhough that will remain an illusion in my mind. I don't know how Chrysler got the Viper right in the handling department, and then ingeniously evoked handling failures on everything else they sell. I flogged a Dodge R/T that has at least 50 - 60 horsepower more than my car, on a track. It was not even close to begin with. He dashed away--three car lenghts ahead of me, feeling great and thinking we were on a drag strip, without knowing he would eventually be floogged severely, and without mercy. He was appropriately humbled by my most trusted G-35 Coupe, by the time we were done with the 2 miles, 8 extreme twists and turns of our track.

So, with the Viper illusorily gone from my mind, as I would want it to be, I just twiddle my finger, occassionally scratch my sorry ass, whistle a depressing lullaby while biting my dirty finger nails, and painfully wait for the day Chrysler will deliver real legs and arms for the rest of their vehicles in the handling department.

From what i have heard, which cannot be verified at this time, stock Dodge R/T and SRT-8 suspensions can potentially break in a turn, and cause the driver to loose control of the car. This is just hearsay.

[Wouter Melissen]

SHO has a weight issue (nearly 4000 pounds) to be hauled by all of its 365 horses. And, it seems it uses a dual supercharger system to produce all that power in its V-6. I guess they designed it to be a luxury car first before a performance ride.

It has a direct injection, twin-turbo engine, which is achingly efficient. It's a four-door sedan, why does it need to be a performance ride?

[G35COUPE]

It has a direct injection, twin-turbo engine, which is achingly efficient. It's a four-door sedan, why does it need to be a performance ride?

Thanks for the correction. Its a twin turbo and not a twin supercharger as I had earlier commented. These are my concerns:

1. Why use a twin turbo for a sedan when a naturally aspirated engine would do?

2. How many of those who buy the SHO would be willing to fork over the money to replace the turbos, if and when they go bad, as they surely will?

3. What happened to just keeping the performance down to about 300 horses (+ or - 10 horses), if performance was not a consideration of theirs, only for the sake of improving the cars gas mileage??

4. Do you really think owners of this car will drive it like a normal sedan, knowing its power possibilities or do you think they will be tempted to push the car to its limits, on occassions??

While direct injection fuel delivery technology may be fuel efficient, reducing the weight of the car would have achieved the same end, even without a direct injection system. A comparable car for this Ford SHO is the 2009 Infiniti G37 Sedan (Journey). It is naturally aspirated and produces 328 horses, without direct injection, since it is a few hundred pounds (approx 300 pounds) lighter than the Ford SHO. The difference in price between both is about $4,000. And, if you throw in a dual after market cold air intake on the Infiniti Sedan ($400), you get a good 340 horses with better gas mileage, all Naturally Aspirated (NA), and still have $3,600 to spare.

Because of the Inifinit's reduced weight, it will probably perform equally or outperform the Ford SHO depending on the environmental conditions, eventhough it will do so with after market intakes, while producing at least 20 horses less than the Ford SHO, while still having the advantage of less stuff breaking, since it is NA, and not a twin turbo charged system. The only edge the Ford SHO has on the Infinite G37 Sedan (Journey), is the insane amount of torque it has over the G37 Inifiniti Sedan (270 lb/ft for Infiniti versus over 340 lb/ft for Ford SHO---forced induction may be responsible for this additional levels of torque). Period. Sometimes, the technology of weight reduction is as complex and as interesting as the technology of fuel delivery mechanisms. And don't forget, american auto designers beleive that power is everything, unlike their japanese counterparts who think a lighter car is a better performing car, even with less horsepower.

Some auto manufacturers choose to ignore weight and focus on fuel delivery systems to produce more power, and others do so vice versa. I am one of those of the school of thought that targeted weight reduction in a car's design, is a more fruitful approach than focusing on advanced fuel delivery systems.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Thanks for the correction. Its a twin turbo and not a twin supercharger as I had earlier commented. These are my concerns:

1. Why use a twin turbo for a sedan when a naturally aspirated engine would do?

Exactly because a turbocharged engine is more efficient than a naturally aspirated one, better mileage, less pollution, and if you are in the mood for that, better performance too 8given those two previous parameeters as equal)

2. How many of those who buy the SHO would be willing to fork over the money to replace the turbos, if and when they go bad, as they surely will?

There is no reason for them to go bad. Here in EU more than half the cars are turbocharged (diesels), apart from a few cases (early x30d from BMW, some 2.5 V6 150 bhp from VAG, both about 10 years ago) everything is fine.
There is plenty of other stuff that will go wrong before of them, and those are a problem for naturally aspirated cars as well.

3. What happened to just keeping the performance down to about 300 horses (+ or - 10 horses), if performance was not a consideration of theirs, only for the sake of improving the cars gas mileage??

As you said, the car is quite heavy, and people are always demanding for more. If you want people to consider your car, it has to be appealing, unfortunately.
They needed a sporty variant, so a more powerful one than the others, but at the same time it had to be smooth and "green". Here you go.

4. Do you really think owners of this car will drive it like a normal sedan, knowing its power possibilities or do you think they will be tempted to push the car to its limits, on occassions??

Just everynow and then, it's a Ford, not an M car.
I push my mom's Fiat Stilo to the limits as well, but it isn't sporty even by a billion miles away.

While direct injection fuel delivery technology may be fuel efficient, reducing the weight of the car would have achieved the same end, even without a direct injection system. A comparable car for this Ford SHO is the 2009 Infiniti G37 Sedan (Journey). It is naturally aspirated and produces 328 horses, without direct injection, since it is a few hundred pounds (approx 300 pounds) lighter than the Ford SHO. The difference in price between both is about $4,000. And, if you throw in a dual after market cold air intake on the Infiniti Sedan ($400), you get a good 340 horses with better gas mileage, all Naturally Aspirated (NA), and still have $3,600 to spare.

Because of the Inifinit's reduced weight, it will probably perform equally or outperform the Ford SHO depending on the environmental conditions, eventhough it will do so with after market intakes, while producing at least 20 horses less than the Ford SHO, while still having the advantage of less stuff breaking, since it is NA, and not a twin turbo charged system. The only edge the Ford SHO has on the Infinite G37 Sedan (Journey), is the insane amount of torque it has over the G37 Inifiniti Sedan (270 lb/ft for Infiniti versus over 340 lb/ft for Ford SHO---forced induction may be responsible for this additional levels of torque). Period. Sometimes, the technology of weight reduction is as complex and as interesting as the technology of fuel delivery mechanisms.

Weight has anything to do with power, and just because Infiniti (Nissan, or Renault for what that I care) did a better job with a simpler engine, it doesn't mean Ford would have been as good as them.
Renault did a 1,2 direct injection turbocharged petrol engine, but it isn't a greener or more frugal engine than the just updated 1,4 liter period petrol engine from Fiat, in the real world driving.
Still, Renault needed that stuff to achieve the same result.

Some auto manufacturers choose to ignore weight and focus on fuel delivery systems to produce more power, and others do so vice versa. I am one of those of the school of thought that targeted weight reduction in a car's design, is a more fruitful approach than focusing on advanced fuel delivery systems.

The Infiniti may be lighter, but the Taurus is 15 inches longer (that's quite a lot if we have to consider how much 15 inches of a car weight).
Actually, I didn't find the real curb weight for the Taurus SHO.
Also, the G is "older", and as you know, for a bunch of reasons not to be discussed here, cars tend to be heavier and heavier as days go by.