Viper vs. 911 GT3

Two great cars, which is better? Which would you rather have? Porsche vs. Dodge? Dodge Viper SRT-10 vs. Porsche 911 GT3?

2004 Dodge Viper SRT-10
8.3L 10-Cylinder
500HP@5600RPM
525TQ@4200RPM
6-Speed manual
RWD
3410Lbs
$82,000

2004 Porsche 911 GT3
3.6L 6-Cylinder
380HP@7400RPM
284TQ@5000RPM
6-Speed Manual
RWD
3040Lbs
$99,800

Porshe any day, the can actually handle, only thing the dodge can do is go straight. Only Americans would ever buy a Viper over a GT3

The 996 GT3 is more my style. There's no denying the Viper's outright power and speed, though.

Viper is a much faster car and possibly better handling car.

Vipers have proven they can race as well(I'm talking about relatively streetable Vipers)...

the viper is a great car, but i think the gt3 is a better car. the gt3 is a track car for the road. can't beat that.

I just wonder why it takes 8.28L of V10 power to get 500hp... Oh well, um, I'll pick whichever one is worth more, so I can sell it and get myself something I really like, haha. :iceslolan

I just wonder why it takes 8.28L of V10 power to get 500hp... Oh well, um, I'll pick whichever one is worth more, so I can sell it and get myself something I really like, haha. :iceslolan

Because it was the easiest(ie: cheapest) way to get a reliable 500hp naturally aspirated.

I've seen it done n/a with as little as 6L of displacement, and some were V8...

It's no fun going the easy way out! :iceslolan

j/k there's really no reason not to go the easy way, but I think it would have been to their advantage to save a little weight in the engine, since every pound does count. :)

Mmm lets see....

Porky vs Agile

Ill go with the agile high craftsmanship, wonderfully engineered engine.

Yah, I agree, it'll probably be worth more money on the market... But then again, the Viper is also in demand... Hm, I'm torn! :iceslolan

Mmm lets see....

Porky vs Agile

Ill go with the agile high craftsmanship, wonderfully engineered engine.

Well I don't know about you, but the Viper I know happends to be one of the best handling cars in the world, and has proven this on many race tracks not only in the USA but around the world. Now I'm not saying it's a better handler than the GT3, because both cars handle like Jewels, but what you call "porky" is an awesome combination of styling, acceleration, handling, and braking. Weight isn't always the determining factor of how a car handles, two other heavier but considered some of the best handling cars out there is the Supra and Skyline, both weigh over 3400Lbs. Now don't get me wrong, the GT3 is lighter than the Viper, but it's by no means a lightweight, a Lotus Elise owner could just as easily call the GT3 porky.

the viper is a good handling car, don't take that away from it.
the gt3 is better, though.

500hp from 8.3 liters means reliable.
that's what that means.

I honestly couldn't say which car would be funner to drive. On one hand you have the GT3. A superior layout accompanied with a very involving driving experience (among the highest), followed by the high reving high output flat 6 masterpiece. This car would just be ridiculously pleasing to say the least. Then we step into the SRT-10. Words to describe this car would be neck breaking acceleration accompanied by heart stomping braking. 500hp from 8.3Liters can only mean one thing, no need to downshift, simply stomp on the peddle. :evillol: . I'm sure everybody has some type of soft spot for torque, and the Viper doesn't lack the least at any rpm.

Whether which car handles better may not tell the whole truth when you put them head to head on a track. IMO the GT3 will have a negligible edge in outhandling the SRT-10, but would that advantage be enough to beat it on a road coarse? I would favor the SRT-10 in outpacing the GT3. The GT3 is just lacks the power against the SRT-10.

How about the GT2......

extra 80HP over the gt3, and i like the wing on the gt2 better

How about the GT2......

extra 80HP over the gt3, and i like the wing on the gt2 better

Yeah but the GT2 cost almost $100,000 more than the Viper, huge difference in price.

hmm...
consider that the gt3 is one of the BEST handling cars in the world, and for an all around car, i'd take the gt3.

i'd drive it daily. couldn't do that with a viper.
i like both, and i know the viper can handle, but you can't really argue with a gt3 in the handling department. hands down, it's a better all around car

hmm...
consider that the gt3 is one of the BEST handling cars in the world, and for an all around car, i'd take the gt3.

i'd drive it daily. couldn't do that with a viper.
i like both, and i know the viper can handle, but you can't really argue with a gt3 in the handling department. hands down, it's a better all around car

Actually, I don't think many owners would have either car as DD. Both cars have not been praised for their road liveability.

Hands down, it is not an alround better car. The SRT-10 is a better braker and accelerator. As it should be with 500bhp/3350lbs and one of the most mammoth braking systems backed up by huge tires ever seen on a road car. As the GT3 should also be a better handler. Less 350lbs, hard top, and a rollcage vs. a convertible....

the srt10 brakes better?
any documentation on that?
if i had to have one of these two as a driver, it'd be the porsche. that's my point, i guess

Viper, with emotions overwhelmingly influential.

the srt10 brakes better?
any documentation on that?
if i had to have one of these two as a driver, it'd be the porsche. that's my point, i guess

Motortrend Test:
http://www.motortrend.com/motor/features/scenes/112_0306_spdtest_60_0_z.jpg

http://www.motortrend.com/motor/roadtests/coupe/112_0306_spdtest_100_0_z.jpg
(Put up the best numbers in the entire test)

R&T Test:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=663&page_number=5&preview=
(Put up the best numbers in the entire test)

Actually, I don't think many owners would have either car as DD. Both cars have not been praised for their road liveability.

Hands down, it is not an alround better car. The SRT-10 is a better braker and accelerator. As it should be with 500bhp/3350lbs and one of the most mammoth braking systems backed up by huge tires ever seen on a road car. As the GT3 should also be a better handler. Less 350lbs, hard top, and a rollcage vs. a convertible....


very well put Mr Payne. On a track the edge in handling should go to the GT3 for the aforementioned reasons. The viper coupe should be more of a match when it comes out.

Also saying that the srt10 cannot handle is right down ignorant. The link posted by Mr payne proves that beyond a doubt. Unless you want to put into disscussion Justin Bell's credentials.

And to say that the srt10 is porky is even worse. It weighs only 3300 Lbs as much as an evo, despite the fact that is has a mamooth engine and is a convertible. That weight is a great engineering feat, especially without the use of ultra expensive fabrication(read CF tub). So if a viper is porky at 3300 LBS what is an DB9 at 3900 LBS?

Anyway bottom line, for sheer kicks and grins I would take the viper due to its insane powerband and the fact that its a convertible. For track work the GT3 should be a better choice, at least till the viper coupe comes out and see how that measures.

thanks, i didn't doubt, i just wasn't sure...

i'm well aware of the handling capacity of the viper, and i'm supportive of it...

but for ME only, i want the gt3...

given the choice between the two for ONE day, though, i'd take the viper...

if i have to explain why... ;)

While the SRT-10 is great handling car, has great looks, and is a great all around performer I would still have to go with the GT3. I am just not a fan of convertibles. I hate them, with a passion. However, when the Viper coupe comes out you can bet I would take that over the GT3.

i choose the viper becusae i keep on reading from everywhere that the GT3's rear end steps out too much as soon as you let off the gas. you always have to try to catch it by giving more throttle, which leads to under steer, then as soon as you let off, the car's rear snaps out again. doesn't sound like a very fast and effective cornering machine to me if you have to constantly adjust the attitude of hte car.

doesn't sound like it, but then why is there a complete racing series dedicated to the gt3?
hmm...
b/c it's a great handling car?
mebbe...

Porky is a correct term i believe.

Porky as in greater displacement torque.
As in more weight.
As in looks.
As in front (BIG) engine rear wheel drive.

doesn't sound like it, but then why is there a complete racing series dedicated to the gt3?
hmm...
b/c it's a great handling car?
mebbe...

There is a complete racing series for Vipers as well......so I'm not quite sure what your point is.

doesn't sound like it, but then why is there a complete racing series dedicated to the gt3?
hmm...
b/c it's a great handling car?
mebbe...

just read a issue of automobile and it had this big comparison of all the newest cars and to my surprise the GT3 lapped about 1.5 seconds faster then viper. i guess you can still make it go fast despite its oversteer biased handling.

just read a issue of automobile and it had this big comparison of all the newest cars and to my surprise the GT3 lapped about 1.5 seconds faster then viper. i guess you can still make it go fast despite its oversteer biased handling.

I read the same article. I was perplexed as well...

just read a issue of automobile and it had this big comparison of all the newest cars and to my surprise the GT3 lapped about 1.5 seconds faster then viper. i guess you can still make it go fast despite its oversteer biased handling.

Wow. No kidding. I need to get my hands on that issue. I guess I was underestimating the capabilities of the GT3 when driven right. My uncle does own a vintage 911 Porsche and he does admit that it is the most (by far) dangerous car he's ever driven. Sounds like fun :smile: . I could only imagine what it would be like to be behind the wheel of the GT3.

underestimating the gt3's handling?
it's considered the BEST handling porsche out of the factory, better than the gt2/turbo cars.

and it's considered better than most exotics on the road by most everyone that drives it.
why would it be surprising that it's better than the viper?

i think you'd really have to consider some things here:
the gt3 has rear biased setup.
the viper doesn't, with 550ft/lbs. of tq? ;)
a rear biased setup (as opposed to an understeer setup) is preferable.
the car may actually be VERY neutral, unless in the hands of an amatuer (or someone not as experienced in porsches, due to their late polar moment of inertia, so they rotate later, but harder)

a porsche (on a track, or hard driving ) is a very different vehicle to drive than other cars, but VERY rewarding to drive, as the magazine article you're looking at noted.
is that the article with the noble, evo, neon srt4, etc?

if so, they really talked highly of the srt4 as well, meaning that its NOT just a straight line car...

surprise...

The GT3 is an incredible machine, capable of living with competitors with far superior bhp/ton. The old one ('99) lapped the 'ring in 7.56 which was a record at the time and you can be sure the new one would shave a couple of seconds off that. It's a challenging car to master (isnt that the point of a sports car?), but suggesting that it isnt a very fast or effective cornering machine is unfounded. Its ability to get the power down early out of corners is well-known. As well as being a great track car, you can use it as a daily driver (i know two people who do) though it's obviously not ideal. The one criticism of the mk2 GT3 is that turn-in is more understeery than in the mk1 GT3, which is taken care of in the GT3 RS.

thank you...

underestimating the gt3's handling?
it's considered the BEST handling porsche out of the factory, better than the gt2/turbo cars.

and it's considered better than most exotics on the road by most everyone that drives it.
why would it be surprising that it's better than the viper?



Well for one the GT3 lacks a lot of power against the SRT-10 and doesn't make up for it in weight. We all know the new Viper also handles very good, so I don't understand why it wouldn't be feasible to argue both ways. I just didn't think it would be able to outlap the new Viper a second and a half. Thats a lot of time ahead. I've been to busy to get a chance to read that issue, but eventually i'll get to it. Then again the SRT-10 is still only a convertible. I guess we'll find out the true potential when the Coupe version comes out.

strange that the gt3 still manages to be quicker on a track then...
power isn't everything...
you don't think it could outlap the viper by 1.5 seconds...
except that 3+ members read it.
myself included...

it's not feasible to argue both ways b/c the gt3 IS one of THE BEST handling cars in the world, bar none.
the viper doesn't quite make the list. it's up there, but not in comparison to other cars on the list.

i have also read that article. yeah, the vipre is a good handling car, but it is just the gt3 is a much better handling car. i think what flylwsi said about the weight biased is perfect. it is best to have the engine in the back for a track setup.

strange that the gt3 still manages to be quicker on a track then...
power isn't everything...
you don't think it could outlap the viper by 1.5 seconds...
except that 3+ members read it.
myself included...

it's not feasible to argue both ways b/c the gt3 IS one of THE BEST handling cars in the world, bar none.
the viper doesn't quite make the list. it's up there, but not in comparison to other cars on the list.

I'm not saying that it never happend, I was just surprised that it came out as far ahead as it did. I've already admitted to underestimating the car, what else do you wish for me to say? I honestly don't know how your interpreting what I say the way you are cause I thought I was speaking plain english; I guess not. You just sound like your being the critic as you usually are...

does this surprise you that i'm a critic?
don't take it so harshly...
i'm sure that you're aware that it's a part of how i am...
reason for being so cynical and critical:
i've got all day to read these magazines, etc. and do the research (we get them at work, and it's part of my job to keep on top of this stuff)...
so i have tons of this info available...
and i don't have the same "domestics(or imports, or euro) are better" attitude that alot of people do... (not saying you do, but i'm sure you're aware that people do)

this is why i can defend a corvette zo6 over a skyline, and an evo over an f body, and an f body over a gto, and a gt3 over a viper...
and then i could find a thread where i'd defend a viper over something...

i'm just not biased like that... ;)

I just didn't think it would be able to outlap the new Viper a second and a half.
Im not an expert on the new Viper but i do know the GT3 is blisteringly quick on a track. Check out this thread (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=148949) i've stickied in the Car Videos forum. It has links to clips of lots of nice cars, including one of a GT3 vs a GT3 Cup. The driver is very impressed by the GT3, read my last post there if youre interested.

The GT3 is one of the quickest cars aroung TG's test track, and the fastest car around Bedford Autodrome West Circuit (evo magazine). Actually, it's second fastest, with the Radical SR3 top, but seeing as that's practically a Le Mans car, it doesnt fall under my definition of road car. Anyway, here are the top 10 lap times around Bedford Autodrome, as tested by evo.
Lap times
1. Radical SR3 1.16.45 (*wet)
2. 911 GT3 1.19.40
3. M3 CSL 1.19.95
4. Impreza Sti Spec-C 1.20.30
5. EVO VIII FQ-300 1.21.90
6. TVR T350C 1.22.65
7. EVO VIII 1.22.85
8. 911 Carrera 1.23.20
9. Vauxhall VX220 Turbo 1.23.55
10. Clio V6 255 1.24.15
11. Ferrari 575 (Fiorano) 1.24.55

I was gonna put just the top ten but it's funny to see a Renault ahead of a Ferrari :p

500hp from 8.3 liters means reliable.
that's what that means.

A low hp-per-liter figure isn't automatcially synonymous with reliability. I don't know much about the Viper's reputation for reliability, but 500hp from an 8.3-liter means it's making 60.2 hp per liter. In contrast, the F20C from the S2000 makes twice as much hp per liter (240 hp from a 2.0-liter means 120 hp per liter) and is bulletproof as far as reliability is concerned. Of course, for most prospective Viper owners, reliability is probably not a primary concern. That said, I'd take the GT3.

A low hp-per-liter figure isn't automatcially synonymous with reliability. I don't know much about the Viper's reputation for reliability, but 500hp from an 8.3-liter means it's making 60.2 hp per liter. In contrast, the F20C from the S2000 makes twice as much hp per liter (240 hp from a 2.0-liter means 120 hp per liter) and is bulletproof as far as reliability is concerned. Of course, for most prospective Viper owners, reliability is probably not a primary concern. That said, I'd take the GT3.

The point is this, for any specific engine, revving higher will make it less reliable.

:iceslolan
thank you

The point is this, for any specific engine, revving higher will make it less reliable.

You know this as a fact? There are plenty of examples of cars that rev high and are considered not just reliable, but very reliable. Such as what was already pointed out the S2000, and also many of Honda's who use V-tec or V-tech what ever it's called are considered reliable. Another engine comes from Toyota and is used on it's Celicas and Matrix, they have so far proven to be very reliable, reliable enough to used on the Lotus Elise. Many Ferrari and Porsche cars use this and not many question their reliability. It all has to do with quality of build, perhaps that is why the list price for 98 Viper is $40,000 and only a 95-96 NSX is at that price.

The point is this, for any specific engine, revving higher will make it less reliable.

I diagree; reliability is not determined by the rev-limit. If an engine is factory-built to rev high, it's not going to be any less reliable than a factory-built torque monster. Cars like the S2000 and the 99-00 Civic Si soar into the 8's and 9's daily and virtually never have problems. Reliability comes into question when the redline is raised beyond factory specs for the sake of performance. Like 3000ways said, reliability corresponds more directly with the overall quality of construction, both of the engine and the chassis.

my notation on the viper being reliable with that power/displacement had nothing to do with revs.

the more hp/L you start packing, the less reliable a motor becomes. that's just a fact of life.

there's no issues with the viper's construction, and they're reliable.

the price tag issue for used vipers...
there are FAR MORE vipers in the country than there are NSX's.
supply/demand. less NSX's means you can get more for them. therefore...
a used viper is less expensive b/c they made more.

my notation on the viper being reliable with that power/displacement had nothing to do with revs.

the more hp/L you start packing, the less reliable a motor becomes. that's just a fact of life.

there's no issues with the viper's construction, and they're reliable.

the price tag issue for used vipers...
there are FAR MORE vipers in the country than there are NSX's.
supply/demand. less NSX's means you can get more for them. therefore...
a used viper is less expensive b/c they made more.

The response I just gave wasn't in reference to your statement about power/displacement; I was responding to Mr. Payne's argument that high revs=poor reliability.

The idea that more hp/L means poor reliabilty is not a "fact of life." When is comes to performance tuning and people are trying to force 500 hp out of two liters with 20 lbs of boost or ridiculous bore/stroke figures, then yes, that rule applies. There are plenty of engines out there, however, that have high hp/liter numbers and yet define reliability. Integra Type R: 108.5 hp/L. Ferrari F355: 107.5. Civic Type R: 115.6. And, of course, the S2000: 120 hp/L. All low-displacement, naturally aspirated, and reliable (not to mention high-revving). The fact that most of them are Hondas is simply a testament to quality engineering.

I never said the Viper is unreliable or poorly-constructed. I didn't comment on its reliability becuase I don't know much about it.

I agree with the idea that the high price-tag of NSX's has a lot to do with their rarity. Don't get me wrong; the NSX is a great car, but it's way overpriced, considering the performance you get in relation to other similarly-priced cars.

i know you weren't replying to mine, i was replying to the same that you were...

once you start making more than 1hp/cubic inch, you start losing the longevity of a motor...

that's a pretty common "fact" (" " b/c it's not always true) as far as horsepower goes...

I diagree; reliability is not determined by the rev-limit. If an engine is factory-built to rev high, it's not going to be any less reliable than a factory-built torque monster. Cars like the S2000 and the 99-00 Civic Si soar into the 8's and 9's daily and virtually never have problems. Reliability comes into question when the redline is raised beyond factory specs for the sake of performance. Like 3000ways said, reliability corresponds more directly with the overall quality of construction, both of the engine and the chassis.


For any specific engine, revving higher will make it less reliable. This is a very basic concept. If one has an S2K and shifts at 9K on every gear shift, it will be less reliable than an S2K that shifts at 7K on every gear shift. There is simply more wear and tear as higher inertial loads are carried by the pistons/rods/crank, etc. I'm not comparing two different engines. I'm comparing a single engine with two different rev limits. The one with the lower rev limit will almost surely be more reliable than the higher rev limit. If not within 100K miles, then within 200K, or 300K, or 400K......but YES, it still will be more reliable. This is simply physics.

For any specific engine, revving higher will make it less reliable. This is a very basic concept. If one has an S2K and shifts at 9K on every gear shift, it will be less reliable than an S2K that shifts at 7K on every gear shift. There is simply more wear and tear as higher inertial loads are carried by the pistons/rods/crank, etc. I'm not comparing two different engines. I'm comparing a single engine with two different rev limits. The one with the lower rev limit will almost surely be more reliable than the higher rev limit. If not within 100k miles, then within 200K, or 300K, or 400K......but YES, it still will be more reliable. This is simply physics.

Ok, I understand what you're saying. I misread your previous statement as "an engine with a high rev-limit is going to be less reliable than an engine with a low rev-limit." I agree, however, that for any single hypothetical engine, constantly shifting near redline is going to put more wear on the engine than shifting at lower rpms.

I agree, however, that for any single hypothetical engine, constantly shifting near redline is going to put more wear on the engine than shifting at lower rpms.

Well said, your 100% correct.