TA 1 0 or TA 2 0

[ACRucrazy]

1.0. The 2.0 looks like an ACR without the capability. The wing looks too small/narrow on the 2.0. I think ACR is preferable to both but that wasn't the question.

Exactly my thoughts.

[Track Pack]

Although smaller than the ACR wing, I don't think the 2.0 wing is small at all....TA 2.0 wing.jpg

[IndyRon]

Although smaller than the ACR wing, I don't think the 2.0 wing is small at all....TA 2.0 wing.jpg

In that picture it doesn't reflect accurately due to the fact that the wing is in the foreground. Take that same pic from 60 feet back zoomed in and you'll see what I mean. You are seeing image distortion/parallax error when you take a picture of an object that is multiple times larger than the distance the camera is from the object. Below is what it really looks like. It's 5" shy of the outer fenders on both sides.

#aestheticwings


#nofoksgivencuzimabadmofo

[ViperSRT]

How did this turn into another "ACR is the one and only" thread? Next up you will be talking future values. No question the ACR is bigger and badder. But better is in the eye of the beholder, and those interested in a TA have different tastes, and maybe kidneys than the ACR set. That does not mean inferior, no matter how many times it is repeated.

[IndyRon]

How did this turn into another "ACR is the one and only" thread? Next up you will be talking future values. No question the ACR is bigger and badder. But better is in the eye of the beholder, and those interested in a TA have different tastes, and maybe kidneys than the ACR set. That does not mean inferior, no matter how many times it is repeated.

I think posting 1 pic of an ACR wing as comparison to the TA2 wing is hardly an ACR derail. Either way, I don't own a G5 anything. OP asked an opinion and we are each sharing our opinions. You bought a TA2 and you like it...good, thats all that matters. I don't give a $hit about future values, I drive my car and race it. Go talk to the guy with the Captain America ACR-E, he likes to talk about that stuff.

[zee]

The gap widens...I was surprised it was that close for a while

[ACRSNK]

How did this turn into another "ACR is the one and only" thread? Next up you will be talking future values. No question the ACR is bigger and badder. But better is in the eye of the beholder, and those interested in a TA have different tastes, and maybe kidneys than the ACR set. That does not mean inferior, no matter how many times it is repeated.

I don't see this turning into an ACR thread at all. Just people sharing their opinions on TA 1.0's vs. 2.0's. Seems to be staying on topic just fine. Enjoy what you have and don't worry about anyone else's opinion.

[ViperSRT]

Good to hear that it isn't transitioning as I was starting to think. Enough of those threads already. Or a my wing is bigger than your wing. Lest the Suburu WRX and other mega wing people start chiming in.

[Bruce H.]

The gap widens...I was surprised it was that close for a while

Let's suppose for just a moment that it's possible that TA owners are a teeny-weeny bit biased towards the model they already own and love. That would skew the results heavily in favor of the TA 1.0 since that was the only version for TA buyers when the car was introduced and most were sold.

If MY15-17 TA 2.0 buyers had a choice and equal opportunity to purchase either version then they voted first with their wallet which makes them pretty unbiased. So if we were to eliminate votes from all those who own or had owned a 2014 TA I wonder how the preference results would look from those who had or have a choice between the two? Do we have total sales of each version from '15-17 to see actual buyer preferences as opposed to the general membership?

I haven't voted because I prefer the TA 2.0 for its aero advantage on track and the TA 1.0 for it's styling. Since I already owned a '14 TA I made the decision to let my advantage on track be from mad skills

[Voice of Reason]

...If MY15-17 TA 2.0 buyers had a choice and equal opportunity to purchase either version then they voted first with their wallet which makes them pretty unbiased. So if we were to eliminate votes from all those who own or had owned a 2014 TA I wonder how the preference results would look from those who had or have a choice between the two? Do we have total sales of each version from '15-17 to see actual buyer preferences as opposed to the general membership?

I haven't voted because I prefer the TA 2.0 for its aero advantage on track and the TA 1.0 for it's styling. Since I already owned a '14 TA I made the decision to let my advantage on track be from mad skills

I don't think you can look at only MY15-17 sales to see which is more preferred because there was already up to 159 14 TA buyers who would have picked the same even if the 2.0 was available. I'm one of those people and personally if only the 2.0 had come out I would not have traded my 13 for it.

[Bill Pemberton]

These polls are always , fun, but we all know they are far from scientific. The situation that the TA 1.0 came out initially and there were 159 made, plus 10 Anodized Carbon Models ( said to be TAs , but since custom interior, they were actually the first TA 1.0 Option groups ) , along with probably 5-10 other cars that few are aware of done with the TA 1.0 Option Group in 2014, so you have in essence maybe 179 folks that have acquired a TA 1.0 of one sort of another . Put the TA 2.0 out there and very few were made in 2015 because Dodge would not let a Dealer order one unless presold, hence there are not a lot of them initially out there. Surprisingly, and again not really scientific , but we ordered quite a few TA 2.0 Option Groups for folks in 2016 and 2017 , who wanted the wing , but also wanted to customize the car. These cars were all custom ordered and unlike the Advanced Aerodynamic Package ( which looks to the untrained eye like a TA 1.0 set -up ) , you could only get the 2.0 wing if you got the TA Option group -- it was not a separate option like the Aerodynamic Package.

So overall I think the numbers , imho, are quite realistic for an uncontrolled poll, as there are a lot more folks who would likely vote for the 1.0 look, since there are a lot more out there. The cool part is both sides seem to be passionate, and that holds big plusses for both sides. Common sense holds sway for the 1.0 , being the original, along with the set build of cars , as opposed to required sold orders for TA 2.0s.

Positive proof was shown from 2015 on , as sales of TA 1.0s fell also since they had to be presold. Overall ,the passion for these machines , will likely bear fruit for the owners of both models, since in the grand scheme of things they will be rarer than the ACRs and at a lower price point.

Keep up the enthusiasm , regardless of whether you have a TA 1.0, 2.0 or either of the Option Groups, since perception builds value in the automotive world.

[Bruce H.]

I don't think you can look at only MY15-17 sales to see which is more preferred because there was already up to 159 14 TA buyers who would have picked the same even if the 2.0 was available. I'm one of those people and personally if only the 2.0 had come out I would not have traded my 13 for it.

Hmm...good point!

[TA Two Oh]

These polls are always , fun, but we all know they are far from scientific. The situation that the TA 1.0 came out initially and there were 159 made, plus 10 Anodized Carbon Models ( said to be TAs , but since custom interior, they were actually the first TA 1.0 Option groups ) , along with probably 5-10 other cars that few are aware of done with the TA 1.0 Option Group in 2014, so you have in essence maybe 179 folks that have acquired a TA 1.0 of one sort of another . Put the TA 2.0 out there and very few were made in 2015 because Dodge would not let a Dealer order one unless presold, hence there are not a lot of them initially out there. Surprisingly, and again not really scientific , but we ordered quite a few TA 2.0 Option Groups for folks in 2016 and 2017 , who wanted the wing , but also wanted to customize the car. These cars were all custom ordered and unlike the Advanced Aerodynamic Package ( which looks to the untrained eye like a TA 1.0 set -up ) , you could only get the 2.0 wing if you got the TA Option group -- it was not a separate option like the Aerodynamic Package.

So overall I think the numbers , imho, are quite realistic for an uncontrolled poll, as there are a lot more folks who would likely vote for the 1.0 look, since there are a lot more out there. The cool part is both sides seem to be passionate, and that holds big plusses for both sides. Common sense holds sway for the 1.0 , being the original, along with the set build of cars , as opposed to required sold orders for TA 2.0s.

Positive proof was shown from 2015 on , as sales of TA 1.0s fell also since they had to be presold. Overall ,the passion for these machines , will likely bear fruit for the owners of both models, since in the grand scheme of things they will be rarer than the ACRs and at a lower price point.

Keep up the enthusiasm , regardless of whether you have a TA 1.0, 2.0 or either of the Option Groups, since perception builds value in the automotive world.

Nailed it! Well said, Bill

[imagine]

The gap widens...I was surprised it was that close for a while

The plot thickens! 65/35!

[Trainerdave]

I am not a fan of big wings on any car, but I don't take my car road racing , I'm a 1/4 , and highway run guy, my TA for me is the perfect balance of looks, performance and everyday driving for me.

[ViperSRT]

Positive proof was shown from 2015 on , as sales of TA 1.0s fell also since they had to be presold. Overall ,the passion for these machines , will likely bear fruit for the owners of both models, since in the grand scheme of things they will be rarer than the ACRs and at a lower price point.

Not 100% on the lower price point. With options a TA (or other model) can exceed the price of an ACR quite easily. Other than that Bill is spot on as he always is.

[Bill Pemberton]

True, it was a generalized statement and we did have a gentleman do a very custom TA 2.0 Option Group that exceeded 150K. Most of the custom ones we have done , or of course the standard TA 1.0 or TA 2.0 models have been a bunch less , though.

[Cybermig]

I prefer the 2.0.

I had a GTS w/ the 14' 1.0 TA group package and it drove great but being that it was my 1st Viper, I didn't have a point of reference. After getting the 2.0 I prefer how it drives particularly on the track and at high highway speeds. The 2.0 feels more planted (downforce you can feel) and the suspension tune feels more refined at all speeds. I personally like the extra aero bits of the 2.0 over the more modest 1.0 bits. My first time out in the 2.0 at Homestead Motor Speedway, my lap times dropped 5 seconds going from the 1.0 to 2.0 simply because the limits of the 2.0 can be pushed harder due in part to the extra downforce and better turn-in.

[Terminator02]

I prefer the 2.0.

I had a GTS w/ the 14' 1.0 TA group package and it drove great but being that it was my 1st Viper, I didn't have a point of reference. After getting the 2.0 I prefer how it drives particularly on the track and at high highway speeds. The 2.0 feels more planted (downforce you can feel) and the suspension tune feels more refined at all speeds. I personally like the extra aero bits of the 2.0 over the more modest 1.0 bits. My first time out in the 2.0 at Homestead Motor Speedway, my lap times dropped 5 seconds going from the 1.0 to 2.0 simply because the limits of the 2.0 can be pushed harder due in part to the extra downforce and better turn-in.

Not really sure how you notice better highway driving. Unless you had a full TA 1.0 car, your gts didn't come with the refined suspension and different brakes like a TA 1.0. So mentioning how you like the 2.0 to a 1.0 while including brakes, suspension etc is confusing unless you had a true TA but it doesn't appear that way as it's a gts with TA cf which was popular. Both cars have much similarity and you have to be truly pushing the car to a different limit as tires are the same and the only real tangible difference I can assume from a true 1.0 to 2.0 is the wing and 5 seconds the the difference in df doesn't make sense to me but perhaps I'm overlooking something. I'd say it's mostly due to increased confidence, more practice and goiing from gts to TA suspension, tires and brakes.

To the OP. Honestly this type of thread is popular like threads on gun forums 45 vs 9mm as whats the best calibre. Truly impossible to answer because it comes down to preference. Do you want the bigger hole with less rounds or more time and accuracy on target? A crappy shot with a 9mm will lose to an ace 45 every day. People look for gun limitations when it's the owner who will likely never shoot 90% of it's ability. Same with vipers.

1. Any viper is a great and reliable "weapon." Best bang for the buck is probably an SRT with track pack if budget is an issue and therefore is best.

2. Truly analyze how often you track and account for it's costs. If tracking is 1 then definitely go ACRE if possible and if it's out of range a TA 2.0 is likely better than a 1.0 for tracking.

3. If you street cruise with occasional 3-5x yearly tracking and or some 1/4 or 1/2 mile events than a TA 1.0 is probably the best option followed by gts, gtc ect.

4. Styling is subjective but if it's important for you it is hard to objectively argue against the 1.0 cars or optioned cars as the CF just flows beautifully with the lines of the car.

Again OP, any viper is likely more capable than what you will be able to do with it. Just like with my gun examples, an ace in an s2000 or miata will humble a brand new green racer pulling up in an ACRE at a track day. People that truly understand the ACRE either are true track enthusiasts, just want the bragging rights of having the baddest "deagle" with intentions to cars and coffee it and garage it or possibly got the wrong car.

No answer is right or wrong IF you buy the exact car that fits exactly what you want to accomplish.

[ViperSRT]

I won't argue the subjective elements as you said it is hard to objectively argue against the 1.0 (strange following calling them subjective). But I was not aware you could order the TA in any form without the full compliment of aero and suspension/brakes/tires. You could order the advanced aero, which would provide the appearance of a TA 1.0 without the chassis refinements. The same is not true of a 2.0 as the wing cannot be had without the full 2.0 group or package. It is not clear that the 1.0 and 2.0 have all common chassis components and tuning, which if different could provide differing driving characteristics.

[Bruce H.]

2. Truly analyze how often you track and account for it's costs. If tracking is 1 then definitely go ACRE if possible and if it's out of range a TA 2.0 is likely better than a 1.0 for tracking.

I think you're selling the TA a bit short for serious track rats.

I don't imagine there are any ACR-E owners that track as much as I do and drive the car to both local and distant tracks instead of trailering it. The TA straddles that dual duty uniquely well, being comfortable and very, very capable on track. Track days are so simple...pack your helmet, driving shoes, tire gage, lug wrenches, enter destination in Nav and go!!!

[ViperSRT]

Terminator does not understand it is not purely a cost decision. For what some TA owners paid they could have had an ACR, but chose not to. Streetability is an important characteristic. I expect some ACRs to be up for sale after people have had enough time in them to understand how rough 600 and 1200 lb/in springs feel (vs 240/600 in the TA).

[IndyRon]

Whats the difference in downforce between the TA1 and TA2?

[Voice of Reason]

Whats the difference in downforce between the TA1 and TA2?

100 lbs I think.

[ACRSNK]

Terminator does not understand it is not purely a cost decision. For what some TA owners paid they could have had an ACR, but chose not to. Streetability is an important characteristic. I expect some ACRs to be up for sale after people have had enough time in them to understand how rough 600 and 1200 lb/in springs feel (vs 240/600 in the TA).

I doubt it. My Gen V GTS-R feels like a Cadillac compared to my Gen I and Gen II ACR.