Stan's Sportscars Perfomance Center - Extreme Roadster

[CWMtrader]

The automobile Dodge Viper was first introduced over fifteen years ago in 1992. Since then the Dodge Viper has changed, improved and faced many obstacles as well. But its popularity has never gone down. Many people still love Dodge Vipers. The new 2006 Viper model has also changed; it has been introduced as a coupe. Many people have been waiting to see what Dodge had up their sleeves, now the wait is over. Read on and see the many changes that have been made to the DodgeViper.

The most apparent change of the Viper would have to be that the model has a double bubble roof. Double bubble roof you say? Yes I'm not kidding; the roof has a unique shape. For those who do not know, double bubble is a material that consists of two outer layers of aluminum foil. This helps reflect radiant energy. But the roof also allows for more space and flexibility. Many other changes that were made to the Viper would be the door glass, integrated rear spoiler, rear quarter panels and a wraparound tail light. Though it still is the same as the older models, it just has a touch more flair to it.

The 2006 Dodge Viper has an 8.3 litre all-aluminium motor that works with ten cylinders. The engine has the power to produce 500 horsepower's and about 525 pounds of torque. It also has a six speed manual transmission. Wow, talk about being packed with a punch. Now there is no more need to convince you about how great this car is.

The new Dodge Viper SRT10 is nothing short of style, luxury, performance and safety. You will feel like a new person once you test drive it. So go and check the 2006 Viper out today and see what all the fuss is about. Once you've driven it, make the decision for yourself. You'll be glad you did.

Direct all inquiries to:

Giuen Holding Ltd. Ledningsgrupp för finansiering av satsningar på tillväxtorienterad industri Goteborgsvagen 1. SE: 434 00 Kungsbacka Tel: [phone] Int. Mobil: [phone] website/blog:

[Dave Plowman (News)]

60 bhp per litre. The same as a '64 Mini Cooper S. Just what you'd expect from a modern truck engine. Proper sports car engines manage over 100 bhp per litre.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well racing car engines possibly. Not many road tuned cars will do it.

[Adrian]

The Natural Philosopher (The Natural Philosopher ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

It's not that unusual.

120bhp per litre is available from your friendly local dealer, without forced induction.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Plenty naturally aspirated ones out there made by BMW, Honda, etc. 'Race' cars will be well above that.

[Huge]

Like the BMW F1 turbo engines which were producing not far short of 1000 bhp/litre by the end. Not that they were good for more than a few laps...

the Viper front, I've sat in this one;

wouldn't let me drive it, though. :o(

[Andy Dingley]

100bhp / litre was the mark of a "tuned" car 25 years ago and it often meant something that had a lumpy idle and didn't deliver until 3000 rpm. These day's it's just hot hatch territory and 120bhp / litre is nothing unusual for a perfectly well behaved road car.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Normally aspirated?

Even my supercharged 4.2 jag was only 380bhp..

ISTR a 3.5 BMW is only 280 bhp. unblown..

Bikes yes, but cars?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Superchargers are a poor method for maximum specific power outputs. Too many losses. They're best for increasing low end torque.

Don't think they make such a beast currently.

Look at 'M' series BMWs for normally aspirated production cars with 100 bhp/litre.

[Adrian]

Dave Plowman (News) ("Dave Plowman (News)" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Or Honda.

The Civic VTi was doing 160bhp from 1.6 litres fifteen years ago. The S2000 has been doing 240bhp from 2.0 litres for nearly a decade. The current Civic Type-R is still "only" doing 198bhp from 2.0 litres.

Bikes are heading towards 200bhp/litre, naturally aspirated.

[Roger]

The message from Andy Dingley contains these words:

I have missed the earlier part of this thread but proper sports cars back in the 60s an early 70s were mostly way below 100 bhp per litre.

The Lotus Elan at 1600cc as introduced in 1962 had a claimed output of

105 bhp and the figures got worse over the years before they got better. The S4 std, s/e, Sprint were 90/93/126 respectively and it has since been alleged in some quarters that at least some of the figures had been either exagerated or resulted from especially tuned engines. The Lotus BRM, essentially the prototype Sprint was supposedly 130 bhp but that didn't have a rev limiter at 6500 rpm while the Sprint reached maximum power right on that rev limit.

Most of the sports cars of the period were much less powerful both in power/weight ratio and specific power output per litre. The Elan Sprint is one of the few cars of the era that can see off todays hot hatches. Geoffs E Type may be another. Things like MGBs are really pedestrian (I had a friend in the 70s who reckoned the MGA was a better car) and Spridgets were a joke sports car from inception. Donald Healey claimed (back in the 40s I think) that sports cars (even then) should have a power to weight ratio of at least 100 bhp per ton. It was debatable with the first of the Austin Healeys, the BN1 100/4 (introduced 1952 IIRC) and none of the Spridgets (Sprite introduced 1958) came anywhere close. Almost any modern shopping trolley will see off a Spridget, at least in a straight line.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

It may have been prettier but not better. The mechanics were basically all the same. Just earlier versions.

The 1275 was faster than a B on the average country road. Not as high a top speed though. Nicer car to drive in most ways.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Indeed.I have a 1500 Triumph engine tuned within an inch of its life, and it wont do more than about 95bhp.

Until VVT came along, and turbos, you could get yer 100bhp per liter, but only at the expense of a cam profile that idled at 3000 RPM, and threw unburnt fuel out of the exhaust while it did so..and probably delivered all its power between 4500 and 6000 RPM,at which point the bearings exploded.

Ive driven plenty of sop called spoirst cars,and no]ne are in that league. Perhaps the most ridiculoous was a Nisaan 200SX. 2liter twin turbo, and 185 bhp.

its rare to see more than 70bhp/liter from any normally aspirated road engine.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Not these days. Variable valve timing has allowed high specific outputs with excellent tractability.

[Roger]

The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

I had a couple of Midgets in the 70s, one between a Lotus Elan and a Fiat X 1-9 if I recall the sequence correctly. I liked Midgets but the Midget was the slowest by some margin and the acceleration was sufficiently poor to make overtaking bloody minded slow drivers hazardous (and I had honed my overtaking skills in a 2A SWB Land Rover).

I have never even ridden in a B so can't comment on their handling (and only the once in an elderly A) but I thought the 0-60 time for the B was considerably better than even the later Midgets.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Then you're talking about the 948cc one - which is slow by modern standards. But never by Land Rover ones. ;-) The 1275 is lively.

The power to weight ratio between a B and 1275 Midget is near identical.

[Roger]

The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

No - 1098cc. One C reg, one D.

According to a Buyers Guide (Classic Cars August 1998) the top speed of the Mk 3 1275 was 95 mph and 0-60 time 14 seconds. A similar guide (CC

11/2002) for the MGB quoted figures for the 1965 Roadster of 106 and 12.9.

The figures above would seem to suggest the B had the edge. I don't have any figures for weight but the Mk3 Midget was 64 bhp at 5800 with 72 ft lb of torque at 3000 while the B was 95 bhp at 5400 with 100 lb ft of torque at 3000.

By way of contrast the Elan Sprint (CC 3/05) was 126bhp at 6500 with 113 ft lb of torque at 5500 and a 0-60 time of 6.7 seconds.

Classic Cars haven't done a report on the S2 Land Rover AFAIK but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 0-60 time was closer to 30 seconds than 20.

[Andy Champ]

Almost any bike.

Or if you want cars - Toyota 3SGE (in the MR2 Mk2 among others), 2 litres, 158BHP from the later UK models, and over 200 if you can get hold of one of the Japan-only BEAMS engines. Though the last does have variable valves etc...

Or the BMW 320, 150BHP/ 2 litres from 1991.

Or IIRC the Cavalier GSI, 156 BHP, 2 litres, and that's back a few years.

If you say normally aspirated, *carburettor* engine, then I'll let you have it.

Andy.

[The Natural Philosopher]

If it would start at all. I had a collegaue who used to have to retard they ignition last thing at night, start it,and then retime it to get it to run smoothly ;-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Thse are pushing 75bhp/liter and are RARE. I did have an astra SRI wahich was quite a lively injected 1.8 liter engine...otherwise it was deeply dull.

None exceeds 100bhp/l;iter. You need to be up around 7-8000 RPM AT LEAST for hose, Bike engines do more than that: Thats how they get those sorts of power levels.

What a current state of the art F1 engine? 900bhp at 18000 RPM? on 3 liters..Given that they are as torquey as can be made, and run on special fuel with SOME air boost from te intakes, and tuned exhausts..at

6K RPM you are stuck with about 1bhp per liter absolute MAX.

It's not the carbs that kill you - twin choke webers will do any power you want: its the valve timing and RPM limit bit. You COULD get about

160bhp out of a race tuned bored out re-headed 1430 mini engine..as long as you didn't want to use it in traffic and didn't mind the 12mpg consumption..or the 3000 mile rebuild..