Gen 5 Dodge Viper

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Oh ok, so it went from a Concept-to-Production to now, it was a race car from the start. Well, it's not correct either way, so not an issue.

Nope.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/dodge-viper-competition-coupe-instrumented-test

1: The GTS/R did not "actually race as is" in the form of the Competition Coupe; it was a purpose built from the SRT-10 Roadster.
2: This article came out in 2004. The car went on sale last year. That would make it a 2003 debut. Funny how every other review also lists it as a 2003MY.

Here's something else that disproves your clams.

http://www.drivesrt.com/racing/heritage/viper-competition-coupe/

For a concept that raced as is (in your words), Dodge sure does seem to think of it more of an inspiration than a direct to production race car.

That generation viper didn't debut until 2003. I don't understand your point.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Amazing!

 

[McLaren]

That generation viper didn't debut until 2003. I don't understand your point.

Perhaps you should read what I was replying to, then.

Also the concept car debuted in 2000, the competition coupe launched at Laguna in 2001. That's not 4 year's. It was the SRT 10 coupe that was revealed 4 years later in 2005.

If the 3rd Generation didn't debut til' 2003 & the Competition Coupe is basically a SRT-10 Roadster built for racing (according to both links), how does tomaz come to the conclusion the CC was launched in 2001 before then?

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

How about that, and I always thought the Competition coupe was based on the GTS-R concept. I mean, they do still look a lot alike. Well, at least to me.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Perhaps you should read what I was replying to, then.

If the 3rd Generation didn't debut til' 2003 & the Competition Coupe is basically a SRT-10 Roadster built for racing (according to both links), how does tomaz come to the conclusion the CC was launched in 2001 before then?

You initially refuted this:

"The GTS/R was the Styling Direction for the Gen 3/4 Viper. Just as the 1992/3 GTS Coupe Concept was the Styling Direction (though a very subtle change) for the 1996 GTS Viper"

I don't understand why. It's a mostly true statement.

 

[catamount39]

I want one, I want one...no I want two.

*Cookie to whoever knows where that quote is from.

 

[Tornado]

You initially refuted this:

"The GTS/R was the Styling Direction for the Gen 3/4 Viper. Just as the 1992/3 GTS Coupe Concept was the Styling Direction (though a very subtle change) for the 1996 GTS Viper"

I don't understand why. It's a mostly true statement.

For that matter, it's also pretty misleading to say that the Competition Coupe was only "inspired by" the GTS/R concept to refute the argument since it looks pretty much identical even though the SRT-10 and SRT-10 Coupe didn't:

The GTS/R changed dramatically, hardly anything to call a "styling direction", seeing as half the entire car was scrapped when the SRT-10 came out.

Ironically, the rear fenders did actually stay remotely close by keeping that pronounced hip in the body line.

But, dem tail lights. They definitely stayed the same. That rear spoiler & closed cockpit stayed as well.

By this logic the SRT-10 ACR was a completely different styling direction than the SRT-10 roadster:

I get that you're trying to argue against psntomaz's typical fanboyism, but it ceased to be a fruitful endeavor when you started arguing against completely valid points, like how the GTS/R previewed the design of the 2nd generation Viper, just because he was the one saying them.

 

[McLaren]

Inspired was Dodge's wording, not mine. Completely different from the claim that the GTSR Concept "raced as is" in the CC.

How far down the line was the ACR from the Roadster? 6 years. What was the ACR? A track built Coupe that still looks a lot closer to the original Roadster than the R Concept ever will. I'll let you throw in your 2 cents and call it.

 

[Tornado]

Inspired was Dodge's wording, not mine.

And you used it to try to disprove his point that the GTS/R was eventually realized as the Competition Coupe. It should go without saying that the handbuilt concept car wasn't used to make the mass produced racing car sold three years later. It should also go without saying that the car so deliberately styled after the concept car that they changed things changed for the production car back to what the concept was probably means they were trying to purposely link the two cars.




And it was first announced as a production vehicle, and shown off, in 2001; though done so as a 2003 model.

How far down the line was the ACR from the Roadster? 6 years. What was the ACR?

So? The SRT-10 Coupe was only 2 years away, and all the ACR was, when looked at from behind, was an SRT-10 coupe with a spoiler. The only reason I posted the ACR instead of the regular SRT-10 was because you specifically mentioned not putting a spoiler on the car as being something amounting to massive stylistic change.

A track built Coupe that still looks a lot closer to the original Roadster than the R Concept ever will.

Aside from the fenders on the GTS/R being flared maybe two inches more, where are these dramatic differences? Even the wheels on the original car aped those from the concept.






Again, here's what you consider dramatic stylistic changes between the SRT-10 Roadster and GTS/R:

the decision to go with a convertible & no spoiler for starters is more than 10%.

But, dem tail lights.

Though, to be honest, the entire rear design on the GTS/R was different as opposed to just the tailights.







The major stylistic changes between the SRT-10 ACR and the SRT-10 roadster were:

The addition of a spoiler, the addition of an enclosed coupe body, and a completely different rear end (including dem taillights).





So I'll ask again: If the GTS/R was divorced stylistically from the resulting SRT-10 enough that the can be said to have "changed dramatically", why is the eventual production road car SRT-10 Coupe not put under the same light?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The 2000 GTSR concept design was the inspiration for the 2003 SRT10 Viper. The end.

 

[McLaren]

My argument revolved around what made it from the Concept to the Roadster. You've decided to go a step further by bringing in everything 2005-onward. But, that's what you do. Bring in irrelevant discussion.

Perhaps you shouldn't have deleted the last sentence in my post. You'd have saved your breath.

The 2000 GTSR concept design was the inspiration for the 2003 SRT10 Viper. The end.

Which again, is different from this:

seriously what Viper concept havent been sent to production?

Inspiration is not the same as making it to production.

As you say, the end.

 

[Tornado]

Shame you deleted the end of my post to save your breath.

Shame you only posted to get the last word in rather than actually respond to anything. Really makes it clear you were just after who was saying things rather than what was actually being said.

Which again, is different from this:

Not really, no. The GTS/R design pretty blatantly went into production as the Competition Coupe, which was first announced and shown off the following year; and almost all of its styling elements were carried over into the SRT-10 roadster with the exception of ones that were changed again when Dodge actually made a coupe version.

What's next? The 1989 RT/10 concept didn't go into production in 1992 because of its changes?

 

[McLaren]

Shame you only posted to get the last word in rather than actually respond to anything.

You ended your post with a question; you wanted a response when you already had one before you even hit reply.

I'll let you throw in your 2 cents and call it.

 

[Tornado]

My argument revolved around what made it from the Concept to the Roadster

Your argument revolved around semantic clarifications that never really refuted what you were arguing against in the first place; particularly when you pretty blatantly ran away from the claims you were making earlier when someone you couldn't beat up as effectively started questioning you.


Being the ultra cool guy and washing your hands of the conversation when the argument turns against you doesn't mean you were right.

You've decided to go a step further by bringing in everything 2005-onward. But, that's what you do. Bring in irrelevant discussion.

How convenient that asking you to defend the logic you used when applied to a similar situation is irrelevant.

 

[Exorcet]

That is a serious wing, and it looks like they've got some venting going on over the front wheels to help balance the car. It looks like the 1500 lbf downforce target that was mentioned a while back may be hit. That leaves weight and drag as the unknowns. The diffuser looks pretty much the same to me, which is a bit of a let down. It could be made more effective with unseen underbody changes though.

 

[RACECAR]

Tis a concept though so plenty of time for them to perfect it.

 

[Chikane_GTR]

Looks better than I expected, didn't find a rear shot though sadly, would love to look at the rear and the spoiler.

Edit: found it

http://blog.caranddriver.com/caustic-acrostic-bad-ass-dodge-acr-viper-concept-debuts/

Is this the new ACR? Was hoping for something more radical

 

[sems4arsenal]

Is this the new ACR? Was hoping for something more radical

A concept of the ACR, looks typical ACR Radical to me.

 

[psntomaz]

You initially refuted this:

"The GTS/R was the Styling Direction for the Gen 3/4 Viper. Just as the 1992/3 GTS Coupe Concept was the Styling Direction (though a very subtle change) for the 1996 GTS Viper"

I don't understand why. It's a mostly true statement.

Your argument revolved around semantic clarifications that never really refuted what you were arguing against in the first place; particularly when you pretty blatantly ran away from the claims you were making earlier when someone you couldn't beat up as effectively started questioning you.


Being the ultra cool guy and washing your hands of the conversation when the argument turns against you doesn't mean you were right.





How convenient that asking you to defend the logic you used when applied to a similar situation is irrelevant.

I know im late but just wanna give a big THANK YOU...

 

[Keef]

But, dem tail lights. They definitely stayed the same.

You'll be interested to know that, when viewed directly from the rear, the tail lights of the GTS/R and SRT10 roadster have exactly the same shape. Two dimensionally, the shape is the same but when that shape is applied to the bodywork it results in a different three dimensional object.

The SRT10 ACR's tail lights were actually carryovers from the GTS. They are the same part number.

 

[RACECAR]

So, viper news...

 

[Organ-Donor]

Finally a cracked tuned & modded vs stock. Car is a beast.

 

[Slash]

Finally a cracked tuned & modded vs stock. Car is a beast.

I'd been waiting for this. That thing is an absolute monster.

 

[Keef]

I mean, it's an 8.4 liter engine. The amount of air that thing wants to move is retarded. It's the largest capacity engine on the market today and therefore has the largest airflow capacity and therefore has the highest power potential. Of any engine on the market. That's serious business. Look at the increased acceleration gained from an intake, exhaust and tune. You ever seen a Honda do that? You know how much power it takes to make acceleration gains that drastic? That car probably gained over 100 horses to the wheels just from basic airflow bolt-ons and a few hours of dyno tuning. I mean, it's already well known that a C6 6.2 would gain 30+ horses at the wheels just from a K&N air intake which basically amounts to a filter and smoother pipe on that car.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Also helps that the guy driving the orange car is a human DSG.

 

[Chikane_GTR]

Old thread i know guys just had to post this.

The slowest viper in the world
http://s1278.photobucket.com/user/ramplayer1/media/2014-11-22-19-01-44-CHN01_zpshj5srykz.mp4.html

lol at the smart car

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Why did you have to post that?

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Yeah, why? It's just a video of a guy driving at a slow pace speed in his Viper.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Want your own 1 of 1 Viper GTC? Now's your chance.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/08/2015-dodge-viper-gtc-1-of-1-free-customs/

Now, you might be asking what's so special and exclusive about a trim level? Well, in the Viper GTC's case, it gives owners access to a catalog of 8,000 shades of paint for the exterior, 24,000 "hand-painted" custom stripe patterns, 10 different wheel options, 16 interior trims and no fewer than six aerodynamic packages. That results in 25 million different configurations for the 645-horsepower snake. Most shockingly, the customization choices come at no additional cost on the GTC model. And it's only the start.

Ordering a GTC will enroll customers in a unique VIP program called Viper Concierge, which according to Dodge, "offers an exclusive point of contact throughout the custom Viper build process." In other words, buyers will be given the means to stay right on top of their car's production, through the 140-to-160-hour painting process, which itself will be fully documented with pictures and through a mobile-friendly website, to the actual construction of their GTC.

The Concierge process will start with the ordering stage, which will include Dodge sending customers a paint chip showing the owner's custom choosing, which they can confirm or refuse. Shortly thereafter, Dodge will send buyers a 1:18-scale "speed-form" replica in their chosen custom colors, once again to confirm or deny the build. Once the buyer's color and option selection is locked-in, that car becomes a one-of-one Viper for that year – no other buyer will be permitted to build a Viper to the same specifications.

 

[RACECAR]

Bah gawd

8,000 shades of paint? Most people can hardly remember more then ten.