Dodge Viper GTS specs

Ha they buggered up the acceleration figures and i don't believe that bike with 135hp can do 0-100mph in 5.6 sec nor the 1/4 mile in 10.4 sec. Another test claimed 10.8 sec which is more realistic...

I mean seriously? That Viper couldn't just do 0-100 in 11 only to do 120 in 13.3. Amirite? An Enzo or a MacF1 would be way slower than that, 100-120 wise.

Of course not it's absolute rubbish but hey it's in a magazine so it must be right lol

The bike's weight-to-power ratio is approximately 3.8 pounds per horsepower, and if you add a driver (200 lbs) it's now 5.3 pounds a horsepower. I think you are correct. The bike is easily in Lamborghini Huracan and Ferrari 458 Speciale territory, but a 3400 lb Huracan did the 1/4 in 10.4 (+200 lb driver = 6 lb/hp), and a 3100 lb 458S (+ 200 lb driver = 5.5 lb/hp) did the 1/4 in 10.7. The two-wheeler bike should fall in-beteeen those figures.

As for the Viper, I have a hard time believing that ANY FR- or FMR-layout car that does 0-100 mph in 11 flat (even with shitty gear ratios and shift times) could do the 1/4 in 12.3, no matter how quick it is to 60.

I have a theory that they tested two Vipers in that magazine. One Viper may have been gear-tuned to reach 60 and 100 in gears 1 and 2, respectively. The other, built for drag racing. The former did 0-60 in 4 flat and 100 in 11 flat (60-100 = technically identical to a Dodge Challenger R/T with the 5.7L engine), with a 13.3 quarter-mile time at 105. It could have been a Euro-spec car with an extra passenger inside. The latter, probably took 8.0-9.0 seconds to reach 100, while getting to 120 in 13.3; that matches quite neatly with the 12.3@115 slip.

Many modified cars pose as "stock" to earn credit especially in American magazines. The 2005 Ford GT that was tested along with the Porsche CGT and Enzo Ferrari was secretly powered by the Hennessey HPE700 version of the same 5.4L motor (claimed stock just so its 11.2@131 result became believable...until debunked by even a few other FGT owners). Other ringers include the Pontiacs and some other muscle cars of the 1960s.

With that being said, they probably sticked with most of the numbers for the Euro-spec, 378bhp version (0-60, 0-100), with only the 1/4-mile and 0-120 belonging to the US model.

Who knows? Maybe a Viper in that test was modified, in the same manner as the "stock" Hennessey GT700 and Pontiac Tempest GTO. They probably slowed down on purpose in order to avoid breaking into the 11s (or even scarier, 10s).

You've gotta remember that 1/4 mile times are very much dependent on launch capability and while the Huracan can run 10.4 on a dragstrip, conditions would have to be perfect to achieve that on the street and that rarely happens so a 10.7-10.8 is more the norm. It appears the tests were conducted on a dragstrip which in the real world ie. the street, doesn't count and therefore the acceleration figures are inflated. What's more there's no way in hell the Viper will do 100-120 mph in 2.3 sec even if it was modified :)

100-120 mph in 2,3 seconds can't be true for sure.
I suppose they just measured 0-100 mph wrong, 11 seconds is slow even for 400 hp roadster, more like 9 seconds.

(115/120)^2×13.3 = 12.2 (very close)
(I will assume the car trapped 115.5 in which the 12.3 time derived from)

This also means 0-100 in 9.2. I am assured they either meant 9.0 or meant to put the 0-110 time as 11.0.

0-110 in 11 seconds seems believable

This is why I trust video proof > posted mag test "numbers." Anyone could write up a fake or typo.

The absolutely maximum speed (reached in 12.3 seconds) approachable for ANY car reaching 100 mph in 11-flat is 112 mph, so 100 mph in 11.0 and 115 mph in 12.3 is the equivalent to 100 mph in 8.8 and 150 mph in 12.2. Just imagine that, the car went 0-100 in 8.8 all the way through a quarter in 12.2 at 150 mph! This would require about 1500 or more hp and some slicks in snowy conditions.

(12.3/11)^1x100 = 112 mph (cater by 1.25 and we get 115 mph)
(12.2/8.8)^1x100 = 139 mph (cater by 1.25 and we get 150 mph)