my favorite supercar is definitely the SLR.
Looks great, sounds even better... and it´s a Merc
Looks great, sounds even better... and it´s a Merc
Volvo with RWD of course, beats anything anyday in styling, performance and daily usage 
What do you mean it does not classify as a supercar?
What do you mean it does not classify as a supercar?
Koenigsegg CCX. 806hp, 2600lbs (curb weight). From the few tests I've read, it's one of the few supercars that manages to handle it's power to weight ratio well, doesn't scare the driver ever time the throttle is pushed, so mere mortals can actually drive it hard, and it holds the current official lap record at Top Gear (although a Caterham CSR 260 unofficially beat it). Plus, the car just sounds awesome.
exactly my point just coz youve got 806hp, doesent make it quick any high performance car can be a supercar including the viper! just because it cant keep up with a slr or saleen s7, does not man its not a supercar, Supercar= speed, handling, looks, and price!
Viper
really
doesn't
have
the
looks.
Honda NSX has always been classed as a Super Car, i guess it ticks all the boxes other then speed.
I'd have to go with Zonda aswell, that sound just gives me chills.
Look these are main reasons why i think viper isn't a super car:
The price is not high enough.
Its front engined(allthough it dosen't have to be mid engined to be a super car, but if it was it would be one).
It dosen't look like a super car what so ever(usally supercars are low and long, or have a unique thing to it the viper hasn't got anything really).
But ill admit the speed is easily enough to be one.
Compare it to say an NSX.
The NSX does have the price.
Its mid engined thats another big plus.
and its styling is very Supercar like(low and long) and handling is another big plus too.
The speed is not at the Supercar level though, but overall i say it gets over the line.
The price is not high enough.
Its front engined(allthough it dosen't have to be mid engined to be a super car, but if it was it would be one).
It dosen't look like a super car what so ever(usally supercars are low and long, or have a unique thing to it the viper hasn't got anything really).
But ill admit the speed is easily enough to be one.
Compare it to say an NSX.
The NSX does have the price.
Its mid engined thats another big plus.
and its styling is very Supercar like(low and long) and handling is another big plus too.
The speed is not at the Supercar level though, but overall i say it gets over the line.
price isnt high enough??? would you like a viper cheap? and i am talking about a 1998 dodge viper gts not the new ones!lol and mid engine???u serious? lol http://www.puresupercars.com/car_list/
which AFAIK was proven later (and admitted by the guys responsible for the video) was really a fast forwarded movie...
Edit
I don't think you read his post before you answered...
he is saying the viper is CHEAP and Front engined but it doesn't have to be mid engined or rear engined....
plus that list of yours includes
Subaru Impreza WRX (oh great a less then 300 bhp awd family saloon)
Vauxhall VXR220 (Vauxhall cannot be a supercar because of the name for starters...)
Porsche Cayman (which is even slower then the 911 Carrera which is a luxury sportscar)
Jaguar XKR and convertible (This is definetly a sportscar, not fast, not too expensive, you can drive one daily...reasonable even)
Bentley Arnage T (a big comfortable, not made for performance limousine, why the "R" version is not in the list then? too powerful?)
Mercedes-Benz CLK 63 AMG Cabriolet (it's a powerful, sporty convertable, not a supercar)
Mercedes-Benz CLS 63 AMG (same as above)
the problem is - YOU CAN'T DRIVE A SUPERCAR DAILY, it's too hard to live with
That's why a lot of reviewers classed the McLaren as an 'Ultracar' or 'Hypercar' because as a technical excercise nothing until then had been so single-minded in it's concept and design.
Character was sligtly absent though so I'd agree that the F40 was one of the greatest true supercars. I'd rather have a McLaren, but the Ferrari sounds great and is totally mad in terms of no creature comforts and outlandish styling.
As for the Viper, I'd consider the original Viper had the concept of a Supercar nailed, it's outrageous torque alone made it unique. It seemed like a bunch of designers thinking "If we get a lightweight body and a half-decent chassis and put this huge truck engine in, it just might work".
I'm still unsure if the original viper quite made it as a supercar. The engine was up to the job but as a package I think it falls short. It simply isn't an indulgence, it's a sports car with a super engine. So, no. 
Viper is a muscle car, those musclecars are really powerful cars that lack some handling and other characteristics of good track car, but are still really nice to hear and they might be pretty quick on straight line (if there is no big bumps)
Maybe there is better definition in supercars.net or somewhere in wiki, which cars can be seen as a supercar.
However my Volvo beats Viper any day, in running costs but I'm sure that race is pretty even
Your one deluded sick puppy
Many people tell you that?
Where is everyone coming up that the Viper cannot handle? Then or now? Where is your proof because the numbers sure don't show that, the oposite actually.
I don't know how tight that track is. Because a Caterham is light (1350 lbs), it can use the same 13 inch wheels and racing slicks used on Formula Fords, Mazdas, and Vee's, giving it about 1.4g's of cornering force. The stock Koenigsegg CCX gets just under 1.1g's of cornering force, so the CSR 260 would do well on a autocross type course, I didn't think it would do well on a larger race track. It's high coefficient of drag (.7) limits it's top speed to 155mph, while a Corvette Z06, which has a bit less power to weight (505hp, 3150lbs), even with a 175lb driver and stuff, has a top speed of 198mph and on most race tracks, would be faster (again except for near autocross like tracks, such as "streets of willow springs" versus the big track.
Just like a Harley Davidson motorcycle, the NSX is over priced and underpowered, orignally 275hp, later bumped to 290hp. Even though it's light at 2800lbs, it's no match for the later Vipers 510hp, 3400lbs, or the 2008 Viper, 600hp, 3400lbs. The Viper produces similar lap times to the Corvette Z06 and the Ford GT, all of which are descent and puts them mid-pack of all the supercars.
Porsche Carerra GT 621 hp, 3043 lbs is the next step up from these cars.
The Pagani Zonda F, with 602hp, 2700lbs would be next.
My previously posted favorite, the Koenigsegg CCX, 806hp, 2600lbs, is probably the quickest of the supercars on a race track. All of the higher powered cars are relatively heavy beasts.
It is capable of good g-forces but I believe problem is that one can't really use those capabilities, that is impression I have got from track tests and such.
Oh yes and door seals start melting if you boot it too much, that would help to get it to supercar class for sure
Booting means flooring, right?
Go check the FIA GT1 site, As of a few months ago it was still number 1 on the all time wins and championships for GT1. The reason why it gets stated the way it does in car mags and shows is that is what people think, which is not the case, just a mentality that people have of american cars. It just isn't true. Slalom numbers will give you how well the car can transition which will give you a good figure for racing. For the Viper your over 75MPH nearing 80 for a 700' slalom. Another thing is that the car does require a bit more finesse because of the additional torque. Nobody wants to hear that an American car can actually handle.
GT1 car and Viper I can buy here by small sum of 180 000 euros are hardly much common in handling.
New Corvette is very good handling car and I think they did say from Viper that it was first american car that actually handles a bit, but it has some problems indeed with torque/engine and gearbox is not very sporty or that is also what I did read.
240 Volvo has been very successful competing in group-a, still I don't fancy racing on track with standard 240 Volvo, it is bit too jellyish so to say
I like looks of old Viper and I don't feel it is bad car, however I don't think it is supercar or very good car for track days, Z06 is so much better choice today
For me the main issue with Viper is the looks, it just doesn't look exciting at all. Supercars are the cars you see in posters and desktop backrounds, they need to have the looks to them stand out in a crowd and make you wish you would someday own one yourself.
Ferrari FXX looks very ugly, I prefer Viper over that one, even it means worse performance and not even supercar status. Viper has good old school looks and that is what I find very good.
Well there is a Supercar Calender up here at work and the Viper is July's car. Right after the Ferreri 430 and before the Konegggzzkkke. It's all down to preference concerning Supercar status.
However saying that the vette has better handling than the Viper isn't accurate at all. The Viper comes with a tube chassis that is boxed in. The corvette comes with a unibody chassis. I had a chat with Dave the Crewchief for Cindy Lux that runs the GT Vipers in the States. Dave said that they orginally tried running the Vette but when they started pushing the car their whole setup went sloppy. This was because of the unibody and they switched to the Viper and since then have domintated the National GT races.
Here is a comparision from Edmunds of the 2008 Viper and Z06.
http://www.edmunds.com/insidel ... Comparos/articleId=122700
I'm sure Top Gear's laptimes are not best to compare cars, but they show something, I'm pretty sure of
13
Chevrolet Corvette Z06
1.22.4
39
Dodge Viper SRT-10
1.28.5
13
Chevrolet Corvette Z06
1.22.4
39
Dodge Viper SRT-10
1.28.5
The new Corvette C6RS looks like it could be a supercar. Evev faster than the Z06 and almost the same as the ALMS car.
Supercars
(67 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG