2011 Hennessey Venom GT production car

By Karl Peskett | June 15th, 2010

This, folks, is automotive insanity – the 2011 Hennessey Venom GT. A car which weighs just 1220kg and produces around 1030bhp.

The result is a blistering 0-100km/h run of just 2.9 seconds and on to a top speed of 418km/h. Those figures are a little down on Hennessey’s previous estimates for the 1200bhp version, as this seems to be the middle specced option, but they’re still eye-wateringly quick.

Three versions are expected: a 725hp, 1030hp and range topping 1200hp. This, the first car off the production line, is the middle spec, but don’t think it’s any less special.

The secret behind the Venom GT’s big mumbo is the whopping 6.2-litre V8 crammed into the rear of the car. Now that in itself is not all that special, but when you’ve added twin turbochargers and it’s basically a stretched Lotus Elise, you start to realise that you’re going to need a very good stabilty control system, or have the Stig’s supernatural driving talent.

Hennessey has just released these photos of build number one, with some of the beautiful details showing that this is not just another kit car. The carbon fibre work is just exquisite, and the deployable rear spoiler shows just how much of an engineering project this car really is.

Hennessey has previously announced that Australia will be one of its markets, however with around 10 being built each year, it may be a while before we see one down under.

Click here to have a look through the full gallery.

2011 Hennessey Venom GT Specifications

Engine Block Size Position Compression Redline Forced Induction Oiling System Valvetrain Fuel System	Chevrolet LS V8 Aluminum 376 CID (6.2 Liter) Mid Longitudinal 8.8:1 7,200 rpm Twin Ball Bearing Turbochargers Dry Sump OHV, 2 Valves per Cylinder Sequential Multi-Port Electronic Fuel Injection
Power Horsepower Torque Specific Output BHP / Weight Boost Fuel	1,030 bhp @ 6,500 rpm (933 rear wheel hp) 972 lb-ft @ 4,200 rpm (874 rear wheel lb-ft) 166 bhp / Liter 767.23 hp per ton (2.61 lbs / hp) 16 psi (1.1 bar) 93 octane
Transmission Type Gear Ratios Final Drive	Ricardo 6-Speed Manual 2.61:1, 1.71:1, 1.23:1, 0.94:1, 0.77:1; 0.63:1 3.36:1
Speed by Gear Redline 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th	7,200 rpm 68 mph 104 145 190 232 260 (6,600 rpm)
Performance 0 – 100 km/h 0 – 200 km/h 0 – 300 km/h	2.9 sec 7.0 sec 14.9 sec
Aerodynamics Drag Coefficient Downforce	0.36 (rear wing down); 0.43 (wing raised) 1,492 lbs @ 150 mph
Brakes Calipers Rotors	Brembo 6-piston (all 4 corners) 15.0 x 1.34 in Carbon Ceramic (all 4 corners)
Suspension Type Ride Height	KW Variant 3 Adjustable Coilover (all 4 corners) Adjustable by 2.4 inches (60 mm)
Dimensions Length Width Wheelbase Track – Front Track – Rear	15.27 ft (4,655 mm) 6.43 ft (1,960 mm) 110.24 in (2,800 mm) 63.46 in (1,612 mm) 63.15 in (1,604 mm)
Weight & Measurements Curb Weight Dry Weight F/R Balance Fuel Capacity	2,685 lbs (1,220 kilo) 2,524 lbs (1,147 kilo) 37/63 (empty); 44/56 (with driver & passenger) 18.5 gal (70 liter)
Wheels & Tires Tire – Front Tire – Rear Wheel – Front Wheel – Rear	235/30/20 Michelin PS2 335/30/20 Michelin PS2 8.5 x 20 in 12.5 x 20 in

Mitch

Suggestion – how bout some sort of gallery or something that makes it easier to look at multiple images

Gavin

I agree Mitch… I miss the old ‘Lightbox’ style gallery C.A. used so often.

davie

on paper – simply awesome.

Can’t wait to see it in action
http://thethrillofdriving.blogspot.com MaK

Awesome car

Pitty they used an ancient engine that belongs in a museum

OHV, 2 valves per cylinder

David

MaK, Surely the power output alone proves OHV engines can compete with OHC engines – then consider the fact that OHV engines are typically lighter, more compact and have a lower centre-of-gravity than comparable OHC engines. Enough said.

http://thethrillofdriving.blogspot.com MaK

David

Power output is not the be all and end all of engineering.

OHV is an outdated system that is being replaced by much more efficient engines that rev harder and have higher kw/litre.

Perhaps for Hennessey this was a cost effective way of producing big power with little cost? To simply purchase an already prepared engine from Chevorlet instead of developing a top-notch in house one?

Hung Low

Mak, you do not have a clue about engines or engineering do you?
Yes the valve train design may be ancient but the internal short engine parts i.e pistons, rods, crank may be made from *higher tech* materials such as titanium, the tolerances may be tighter, the overall efficiency of the engine speaks for its self, more power at lower rpm = less wear and tear, flatter power and torque curves and better B.M.E.P (brake mean effective pressure) per litre which is the proper measurement of hp/litre!
Taking Davids point on board on packaging, you can see why they persisted with this engine!

http://thethrillofdriving.blogspot.com MaK

Hung Low

Not sure if I can educate a person who’s name compensates for his manhood but here goes nothing…

A supercar is not meant to have a flat power/torque curve.

It’s meant to have a challenging power band that engages the driver to pick the right gear for the right corner.

Wear and tear? Mate – this engine is not going into a taxi. If you want to talk about wear and tear. Why did they bolt on 2 turbo chargers? Your point is both pointless and useless. (and you claim to know a bit about engineering)

Maybe you should get your head out of the sand and open your eyes to the future direction of the automotive world.

Anybody can make a big engine with lots of power.

But it takes finese and real engineering talent to produce a world class engine.

Maybe you should look at the effort gone into the 458 Italia’s engine before making ignorant comments:

9000rpm
4.5L Naturally Aspirated
425Kw
540Nm
TomJ

Mak, i cant seem to reply to your comment below. But the torque rating on that 458 italia is laughable.
TomJ

And when someone says “maybe you should see the effort gone into the engine” i find it very difficult to take anything they say seriously. Go play with the other children, let the car enthusiasts talk.
Hung Low

Mak- “A supercar is not meant to have a flat power/torque curve”.

What can I say? You have made an idiot of yourself again!
Bugatti must have got it all wrong with the Veyron, Porsche messed up with the GT3, Nissan with the GTr, almost all supercars (including Ferrari) have increased the displacement of their engines…..shall I go on?…..What were they thinking engineering their respective power plants to have a higher average torque figure or flat torque curve?

“it’s meant to have a challenging power band that engages the driver to pick the right gear for the right corner.”

Right, maybe in a carpark with a Honda V-tech!! On a super car-no, it should be tractable in every gear!

As for wear and tear, I will bet my left one that the lifespan of a lower revving engine eg. AMG 6.3 vs the 458′s will be greater due to the durability of the AMG unit in all conditions!

I can accept and applaud the engineering that has gone into the Ferrari engine, but the reasons they have gone the high revving N/a route is because of the distinctive sound, the high revving characteristic of Ferrari engines etc, this does not automatically give them the free pass of having the most engineering talent!
Also for further education, adding turbochargers do not make a motor automatically less durable or add to wear and tear depending on state of tune. If that was the case, no production passenger car engine or truck, plane engines would use them!

So Mak your clearly out of your depth here, stick to your Ferrari wall posters.

rex

If you look beyond cams and valves, you will notice a far more important stat. Weight and Dimentions. On paper this motor may seem a little low tech, but the reason Hennessy (and many other specialist manufactuers) have used it is it can produce giant, usable power and will fit in a compact chassis. By your reasoning, overcam motors also belong in a museum, as they too are very old and if Hennessy were truly serious about making a supercar they would be using pnematic or desmo (scratch that, over 50 years old) valve heads.
I for one enjoy the fact that cars such as these exsist at all and couldn’t care if they were powered by a goblin on a treadmill as long as the performance is there.
Well done Hennessey.

Andrew

How come in the story it says 1200 HP, but in the specs it says 1030Hp/933HP at the wheels?

Family Guy

The article is a bit misleading.

I think there are 3 models, a 725 (in the protype), 1030 and 1200 bhp. The first one off the line looks like it’s the middle option, which explains the lower than expected 0-100 time.

http://www.caradvice.com.au Karl Peskett

Hi guys.

Family Guy, you are most correct.

I’ve amended the article. Thanks for the pickup.

KP

TomJ

Still seems expensive too me, its an amazing looking car, but most of that credit can be given to lotus, and they are asking a million USD.

A million. For whats essentially a stretched Exige.

http://thethrillofdriving.blogspot.com MaK

In response to your comments above

0-100 in 3.4sec laughable? Your living in a dream world TomJ

How is 540Nm laughable for a car that only weights 1380kg?

You\’re definately not an enthusiast.

You are a misguided individual.

TomJ

Oh you OHC elitists, you make me laugh.

David

Pushrods = faster than Veyron. LOL!

A thoroughly bitter pill for the technophiles to choke on.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1435885244 Yani Hendriawan

why is everything in hp and lb ft. makes me feel like a yank. i’m not a yank
Dave

Looks great. It is light weight euro meets US muscle. Muscle wins.
http://thethrillofdriving.blogspot.com MaK

Hung Low

It seems you have confused yourself.

I believe the word you are looking for is Linear.

Porsche have Linear torque/power curves. Which makes the power delivery progressive.

And FYI – it is VTEC, not V-TECH you dimwit.

In regards to your mindblowing comment that lower reving engines last longer than higher reving engines – I’m sure any kindergarten student could have figured out that one.

- You are clearly an engineering mastermind.

And the grand finale from you in regards to Ferrari:

“the reasons they have gone the high revving N/a route is because of the distinctive sound”

– Hung Low (2010)

What can I say?

Of course they have mate. That’s the only reason. For the sound.

Stick to your V8 SS posters mate. And read up on the latest in OHV technology while the rest of the world move on.

David

MaK, Accept the fact that there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Hung Low

Mak- The Honda ricer!

A linear curve can be engineered into engines of practically any capacity mainly in atmo form pending on camshaft duration and head flow characteristics. It is the steady and progressive climb of a torque curve that usually accommodates a linear power curve that is dependent on how high rpm peak power occurs.

A flat torque curve is not the same, it relies on inherent torque from either ‘inertia’ or swept volume that larger capacity engines give. A smaller engine gets around this from the use of forced induction, which essentially increases swept volume! Look at the BMW twin turbo engines, literally a flat torque peak from little above idle across almost the whole rpm range, now that is efficiency!

As for the now ‘obvious’ wear and tear debate, if a engine could produce more power, more torque that is useable, better economy and last longer all from a lower peak rpm wider powerband. I would call that an engineering marvel instead!

Why can’t you just appreciate the raw facts? If a pushrod engine originating in design from passenger cars can produce twice the power of your purpose built 458 guido machine, and the same power as a purpose built and engineered quad turbo- multi valve – 16 cylinder powerplant of similar capacity fitted in the Veron. It is a bloody impressive feat! To call it low tech is bordering on moronic which is ideally yourself!

You are so blinkered to a point you should enter yourself at the trots and play the role of the horse!

Hung Low

“A supercar is not meant to have a flat power/torque curve”.

What can I say? You have made an idiot of yourself again!
Bugatti must have got it all wrong with the Veyron, Porsche messed up with the GT3, Nissan with the GTr, almost all supercars (including Ferrari) have increased the displacement of their engines…..shall I go on?…..What were they thinking engineering their respective power plants to have a higher average torque figure or flat torque curve?

“it’s meant to have a challenging power band that engages the driver to pick the right gear for the right corner.”

Right, maybe in a carpark with a Honda V-tech!! On a super car-no, it should be tractable in every gear!

As for wear and tear, I will bet my left one that the lifespan of a lower revving engine eg. AMG 6.3 vs the 458’s will be greater due to the durability of the AMG unit in all conditions!

I can accept and applaud the engineering that has gone into the Ferrari engine, but the reasons they have gone the high revving N/a route is because of the distinctive sound, the high revving characteristic of Ferrari engines etc, this does not automatically give them the free pass of having the most engineering talent!
Also for further education, adding turbochargers do not make a motor automatically less durable or add to wear and tear depending on state of tune. If that was the case, no production passenger car engine or truck, plane engines would use them!

So Mak your clearly out of your depth here, stick to your Ferrari wall posters and your talent in the detection of analogies pertaining toward male genitalia!
http://www.engine-kits.com engine kits

If you are looking for super car then but obviously need super engine. Why not simply made your own small engine kit with our help?
Shak

Simple fact is Pushrod actuated valves still perform when asked to. They may be outdated but seem to work very nicely in all their applications. If the power is there and added lightness is also for the taking why would Hennessey spend millions making a new engine themselves. Besides dont you just love the sound of one of these engines.