![]() 09/06/2016 at 20:57 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
If I become a multi-billionaire, I’d like to perform this unholy swap because it would be excellent. What could go wrong with more power and less weight? Good idea of best idea?
![]() 09/06/2016 at 21:00 |
|
I approve
![]() 09/06/2016 at 21:11 |
|
Right? I love the new ACR but it needs more of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX2L-k…
![]() 09/06/2016 at 21:18 |
|
You wouldn’t gain much
![]() 09/06/2016 at 21:26 |
|
Well you’d lose 200 lb ft of torque during the swap
![]() 09/06/2016 at 21:51 |
|
Seriously? I didn't think the vipers engine had that much torque.
![]() 09/06/2016 at 22:11 |
|
To be honest I think the next Viper, as an American supercar icon, needs a smaller and higher-revving V10.
![]() 09/06/2016 at 23:13 |
|
Uhm..... Why would you think that
![]() 09/06/2016 at 23:14 |
|
Or a 10.08 liter v12
![]() 09/06/2016 at 23:42 |
|
Ferrari 2.4 l V-8 or 1.6 V-6
![]() 09/07/2016 at 07:58 |
|
Oh yeah. F1 engines are high HP but not really a powerhouse of torque. They were probably making in the 4-500 range where the Viper makes 650 as I recall.
![]() 09/07/2016 at 08:45 |
|
Huh, guess I never thought about that. I wonder what the lap times of the original vs the swap would be. Maybe the original would be better on a shorter, curvier track like Monaco but the F1 engine would be better at a power track like Monza.
![]() 09/07/2016 at 10:23 |
|
You’d need the right transmission and gearing to keep the engine in its high rpm powerband. Torque lets you be lazy because it means you have power even at lower rpms
![]() 09/07/2016 at 12:32 |
|
So you can run out of consumable parts? Then there is the part about the engine itself built to only last a short time!
![]() 09/08/2016 at 13:07 |
|
Great idea! And I want to have exclusive coverage on the build.