I AM ABOUT TO THROW UP.

toddt · Oct 11, 2002

I just read the Automobile Magazine head-to-head SRT vs. Z06.

In it they make the following claims:

SRT trap speed: 120
Z06 trap speed: 114

0-60 srt: 4.1?
0-60 zog: 4.6 (or thereabouts, I don't remember)

Brakes on SRT: BETTER
Handling on SRT: Sticks better.

And these fine author/drivers then go on to say that
they couldn't beat the Z06 on the track.

I guess next they are going to tell us that though the zog out accelerates, outbrakes, and outhandles the Cobra, the cobra edges the zog on the track.

yeah, right.

time for them to take a long hard look at their driving abilities.

What an embarassment.

Ultimately, they blamed it all on gear ratios, damning themselves even further--they don't know how to shift!

jwwiii · Oct 11, 2002

Toddt;

I feel the collective pain of the Viper brother/sisterhood as we read these bittersweet reviews. Yes, it is faster in every department! The SRT has only lost by .o2 sec in the road test from C/D (or road and track?). I think we have an answer to this situation.

The Vette has the "electronic nanny" or handling computer that corrects for driver error. WE don't have that on our SRT's! Collectively, I believe, it is a feature that most Viper owners don't want. Isn't that correct?

In other words, the Viper is faster when there is a highly skilled driver with experience driving an SRT. I believe two of the major car mags said just that 'ultimately the Viper will reward a skilled driver more".

So, maybe, like with the ABS breaks, Viper will possibly have to have some sort of "performance mode" to be competitive? As so many here have said, driving school is the best thing for getting the best out of the Viper.

The SRT's got what it takes. "We don't need no stinking co-pilot!". Now, let's all ask for D/C to fix the nasty HEAT problem every mag has complained about. I like the Viper crude, but I don't need any family getting scorched; do you?

Just my opinion folks,

Jim

monnieh · Oct 11, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jwwiii:
Toddt;
The Vette has the "electronic nanny" or handling computer that corrects for driver error. WE don't have that on our SRT's! Collectively, I believe, it is a feature that most Viper owners don't want. Isn't that correct?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would KILL for active handling on my Viper. HUD is cool but has no place on a Viper. However, to me, active handling is pure saftey. You can always turn it off!

Tom and Vipers · Oct 11, 2002

I wonder what the Corvette does if you simply drive into a corner too fast?

monnieh · Oct 11, 2002

Um, saves your ****, maybe?

monnieh · Oct 11, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by toddt:

time for them to take a long hard look at their driving abilities.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your bang on here. I thought the absolute best driving article was when they sent there cars AND their own drivers for the cars. Unfortuntially the Viper was a no show due to technical problems.

jamie furman · Oct 12, 2002

No they all showed up in the supertuner shootout in motor trend and they brought stock cars, 911tt, acr and zo6.The viper had a little edge in acceleration but that was about it the Z06 is a good car and your just fooling yourself if you think it isn't. At a recent viper vette shootout I took my Z06 instead of my viper an 03 with 200 miles and ran a 12.20 at 115 and some change in 103 degree weather. The vipers at the event were only running 12.0's and 12.1's, the stock ones anyways, and Jason Heffner and several maryland vipers were at the event as participants and a witness.

Mike H · Oct 12, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom and Vipers:
I wonder what the Corvette does if you simply drive into a corner too fast?

Usually on the road course they spin out......thats usually trying to catch up to me.....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuck 98 RT/10 · Oct 12, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by monnieh:
I would KILL for active handling on my Viper.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Booooo Hisssss. The Viper is a "drivers car". Leave AH for the Vette girls.

TacDoc · Oct 12, 2002

Here is a good example of the active handling. My first HSDE was Mid Ohio with Viper Days this year, took the GTS. Best lap after 2 days was around 1:51. My back straight speeds were around 125 with braking for turn 7 at the end of the concrete wall and having an entry speed around 70mph. Fast forward 6 months and 5 HSDE later I take the Z06 to Mid Ohio, my third visit this year. I felt comfortable with the line, and was lapping mid 1:45's in a stock Z06. I had traction off, Active handling on. I exited the keyhole, nailed the mid point apex of the back sraight and registered 134mph before braking 1 car length past the concrete wall. I entered turn 7 too fast, around 85. As the car turned in it began serious understeer. In an effort to turn the car I lifted slightly to bring the back around but the reaction was very fast. The car began to oversteer, and before I could attempt throttle the active handling engaged and the car straightened out. I went on throttle and continued. This all happened in less than a second. I do not know if I could have recovered the oversteer on my own. With an expert driver the AH might be a nuisance, for the other 99% of us it could be useful until we graduate to that 1%.

monnieh · Oct 13, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jamie furman:
No they all showed up in the supertuner shootout in motor trend and they brought stock cars, 911tt, acr and zo6.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I know the one your describing but the Viper driver was not the factory driver. I am talking about the article where the Yellow Z06 BEAT the TT Porsche, and the Viper was a no-show.

I have nothing but respect for Z06's. Would love to own one, but the simple fact is the Viper is the King of the Hill, period, and that's why I own one instead of a Z06.

Vreracing · Oct 13, 2002

About computer assisted driving.

I had a 3000VR-4. It basically drove like a video game.

You pointed it, applied brakes, and accelerated. The computer on the car did the rest. It had a pretty torquey engine and wide tires so it had all the right ingredients.

Sounds great. Well, I thought it was a little boring.

If I was really going to be racing my car, I would appreciate the assistance. It would then give me a chance to concentrate on the race. Since I'm not, I love the challenge of driving a Viper. It was never meant to be an easy car to drive.

Russ Oasis · Oct 14, 2002

Anti-lock brakes are one thing. In everyday driving they may save your *** . Traction control is good only on the track. When you're on the track, an experienced driver can drive faster without active handling. That's the difference between Vipers and Vettes. Snakes are race cars built for those who can handle them. Vettes are built for the general population that can't, I say, keep em basic and close to crude.

EuG · Oct 14, 2002

FYI: Active handling can be turned off at any time and most of the time tests done by all the mags are performed with AH/TC – OFF.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Leave AH for the Vette girls.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Snakes are race cars built for those who can handle them. Vettes are built for the general population that can't,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really hope you’re never in the situation when you wished you had AH…. post fact

I wonder if most of the people “screaming” – “drivers car”, “we can handle it” actually drive your cars ******* a regular basic or are you just repeating each others BS lines w/o knowing much about it first hand (kinda like some Vette guys repeat each other that Vipers don’t handle at all)

You must be registered for see images

I bet some of you do, but something tells me majority drive like a grandma most of the time looking out the window counting how many people stopped and looked in your direction

You must be registered for see images

You guys are such snobs it’s unbelievable

I believe a real car enthusiast would never show such amazing amount of disrespect towards another great car which is not THAT much different from Viper btw….
Apologies to the few

open minded members here….

Tom and Vipers · Oct 14, 2002

I wonder what the production numbers for the Corvette are?

Obviously, the higher numbers allow for a lower cost.

If you think of all the techno gizmos in the Corvette, there had to be so much more engineering work to develop them repective to Viper. Yet the Corvette is cheaper!

One would think that the effort to produce 1 Viper would be less than that to produce 1 Corvette.

The Viper is basically an elaborate kit car. The Corvette is much more "manufactured" and hence should be much more expensive to build just one.

So with the initial cost to produce a Viper lower than Corvette, why does the Viper end up costing so much?

Is GM losing money with Corvette? I've heard that DC is!

I just don't get it.

Where's the beef?

Bwright · Oct 15, 2002

Tom,

You already touched on one of the key reasons for the Corvette’s relatively low cost. As the old Russian adage goes, quantity has a quality all its own. In 2001 Corvette production was 35,627 units (15,681 coupes, 14,173 convertibles and 5,773 Z06s). With sales like this the Corvette turns a considerable annual profit. For the C4 this annual figure stood at approximately $100mm. The C5’s expected profit margin profile was determined as 25,000 units on average for seven years. Clearly the goal has been well exceeded. This kind of profit enables the Corvette to stand on its own two feet within GM. To the extent that it needs to seek additional financing its sales help justify opening the taps.

The Vette is indeed possessed of quite a bit of technology. However, the reason this does not substantially increase the cost of the car is that so much of the Vette’s technology is shared within GM that cost is quickly amortized. Some examples are the hydroforming technology which gives the C5 its industry benchmark .23Hz rigidity rating and leaves C5s rattle free years into their ownership. This technology is used to form the frames of many of GM’s bestselling trucks thereby reducing its cost in the C5. Much of the C5’s electronics, such as its radio, AC/climate control, traction/stability systems and unfortunately named Digital Information Center can be found on legions of GM cars and trucks in one form or another. Its engine is in other GM vehicles. The Corvette’s 4-speed automatic can be found in Ferrari’s 456GTA. Underneath its skin the C5 shares many bolts, screws, fasteners, et al which contribute to its low cost. During its development an internal GM organization called the Vehicle Launch Center was specifically tasked with reducing the C5’s unit cost through extensive parts sharing.

The advent of the Cadillac XLR, which will share parts even more directly with the upcoming C6, will enable the Corvette to bring even more technology, performance and otherwise, to market at even better value points.

For its part the highly bespoke Viper remains as Dodge’s loss leader.

This cannot continue and the SRT/10 has taken a number of much needed steps to rectify the situation. A few things are key here:

1. Unit cost to build and repair the Viper had to be reduced. The clamshell hood, while certainly impressive looking, was hideously expensive to fabricate and repair. The Insurance Industry noted that despite its low production volume the Viper remained the industry loss leader as measured by both the frequency and cost of its collisions. This is not something to be proud of and over time may have led to the Viper’s demise as more insurance companies refused to insure the car. The C4 had the same problem and noted the insurance pressure in the hood redesign for the C5.

2. Unit sales figures must improve significantly beyond the current ~1,500 per year. Even Ferrari sells more than 4,000 vehicles per year. Dodge needs to build and sell approximately 3,000 units per year to ensure the car’s future. Even at that volume the Viper will still be rarer than a Ferrari, a company whose sales volume makes it incapable of standing without Fiat’s assistance. With sales of 3,000 units the Viper will be better able to stand on its own within Dodge and, far more importantly, the Daimler organization.

The SRT/10 has addressed the concerns of many potential buyers in the adoption of a better sealing full convertible top which has the added benefit of being truer to the spirit of the car’s inspiration. It has added overall weight reducing run-flat tires which enhance safety and cargo volume. Aerodynamics have improved and build quality appears to be better. The interior has a well received makeover highlighted by spectacular new seats. More still needs to be done.

To this end it is in the Viper’s interest to make use of the latest in advanced electronics in the form of traction and stability controls. It is strange that so many Viper owners appear adamant in their opposition to any such devices. As earlier noted the Viper has an unenviable collision record. While I am certain there are many Viper drivers possessed of considerable driving skill it is apparent that a considerable number are not. Traction/stability systems will not make the Viper any less of a car and if a driver does not want to use these systems all he or she has to do is turn them off. Given the presence of traction control in Formula 1 and the credit given to these systems by so many esteemed F1 drivers it is difficult to understand the opposition to such systems in a less sophisticated road car. Given the extent to which advanced electronic ABS has expanded the performance envelope of both the current GTS and upcoming SRT/10 this opposition is even more difficult to comprehend. With the pressing need to expand Viper sales, opposition to this sort of technology is a conceit Viper owners can ill afford.

3. This last point may be difficult to believe but the Viper is actually underpriced. If one compares the Viper GTS/SRT/10's price to that of their price/performance competitors this becomes clear. Non-competitive cars like the Lotus Esprit and Acura NSX cost $84K - $88K. While neither of these cars can claim to be sales successes their prices indicate what the market for these cars will bear. The Porsche 911 Turbo goes for a minimum of $115K and can be defeated by a Viper. No current production Ferrari can defeat a Viper in a straight line. A 550 Maranello lost to a GTS in a one-mile race in a recent Motor Trend test. Ferrari wants approximately $250K for this car and charges a minimum of ~$150K for a car, the 360 Modena, that will be brutalized by a Viper. It is unlikely that the $223K Aston Martin Vanquish can defeat a Viper and it remains to be seen if even Lamborghini’s weighty $300K Murcielago can fend off a Viper in a straight line.

Given this I do not see how Dodge can offer the SRT/10 at $83,795. Nor do I understand why Dodge sold the Rt/10 and GTS cars for base prices of $75K and $76K respectively in 2002. Both these prices seem to be short $5K - $10K given the car's racing heritage and the cars it has been proven to defeat.

In any event, the sellout status of the 2003 SRT/10 and the way deposits are piling up for the 2004 car bode well for the future of the Viper name.

Hope this helps

Tom and Vipers · Oct 15, 2002

I'd like to know more about the 2004 deposits. That is a real indicator.

Yes, the technology sharing of the Corvette definitely has an effect on cost.

The real question is, "What if the SRT was priced less than or equal to the Corvette?"

Would the Viper outsell the Corvette?

One of the most basic curves is to establish where maximum ROI is achieved with regard to price/volume.

I would think that if Viper cost as much as Corvette, the increased sales would produce enough revenue to show a profit.

If the cost of a current Viper to DC is $40k to build and $40k for development, if you could increase sales 4x, the development portion would be $10k.

Further, increasing the volume 4x would allow additional savings due to a larger production run.

Further, if GM can showcase techologies in Corvette, why in the world can't DC?

The biggest thing I noticed about driving the SRT was that it is basically the same car as the GEN 2.

The C5 is completely different - a giant step from the C4.

=================================

I read an article about the Nissan Mid-4 they were thinking of producing. Executives said they hadn't decided if this was going to be sold as a $16k or $35k car.

Parts is parts.

==================================

Another bizarre example in price/volume.

A friend of mine saw the deal prices for the line of Pioneer receivers. These sold for $100-$1000 depending on the model.

The funny thing was they all cost the dealer $50.

Think about it.

You invest $50 in a cheap receiver and make $50 each week.

You invest $50 in the top of the line and make $950 each quarter.

Same profit structure for each market, lowend and highend.

Very interesting.

Tom

Joseph Houss · Oct 15, 2002

But the problem is, Conner Avenue is setup for hand assembly (yippee!), and the Viper was engineered with that in mind. NOT mass production. Therefore, unless the entire Viper was re-engineered with automation in mind, the likelihood of "knockin out" 10-12K Vipers a year would be nil. Secondly, the vendors were selected with existing volume in mind, so now you'd have to either manufacture the parts yourself, or find new vendors...

it goes on and on like this.

A great discussion, but one that could surely use PVO, a Dodge Marketing Person, and a Dodge beancounter as well.

GTS Dean · Oct 15, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bwright:

The Vette is indeed possessed of quite a bit of technology. However, the reason this does not substantially increase the cost of the car is that so much of the Vette’s technology is shared within GM that cost is quickly amortized. During its development an internal GM organization called the Vehicle Launch Center was specifically tasked with reducing the C5’s unit cost through extensive parts sharing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Viper has a lot of technology too. It has a computer to manage the engine and now it has one to manage the brakes. It shares a lot of parts with the Dodge Dakota. I can troubleshoot it, take it apart, then put it back together by myself in the garage. This is bad?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
For its part the highly bespoke Viper remains as Dodge’s loss leader.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob Lutz was never worried about that. I think that's what really miffs most of the other manufacturers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

This cannot continue and the SRT/10 has taken a number of much needed steps to rectify the situation. A few things are key here:

1. Unit cost to build and repair the Viper had to be reduced. The clamshell hood, while certainly impressive looking, was hideously expensive to fabricate and repair. The C4 had the same problem and noted the insurance pressure in the hood redesign for the C5.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't had problems getting mine insured and I drive it "rather robustly" shall we say?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

2. Unit sales figures must improve significantly beyond the current ~1,500 per year. ...With sales of 3,000 units the Viper will be better able to stand on its own within Dodge and, far more importantly, the Daimler organization.

The SRT/10 has addressed the concerns of many potential buyers in the adoption of a better sealing full convertible top which has the added benefit of being truer to the spirit of the car’s inspiration.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They built around 3000 Vipers in '94 and the quality went to hell. 1500 is a comfortable number for annual production. Driving my '93 in the rain through Houston's freeways holding the windshield header down with both hands and steering with my knee is a cherished memory. (Like that run-on sentence?)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

To this end it is in the Viper’s interest to make use of the latest in advanced electronics in the form of traction and stability controls. It is strange that so many Viper owners appear adamant in their opposition to any such devices.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember this?: "which has the added benefit of being truer to the spirit of the car’s inspiration." You said it, yet you just can't understand it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
As earlier noted the Viper has an unenviable collision record. While I am certain there are many Viper drivers possessed of considerable driving skill it is apparent that a considerable number are not. Traction/stability systems will not make the Viper any less of a car and if a driver does not want to use these systems all he or she has to do is turn them off. Given the presence of traction control in Formula 1 and the credit given to these systems by so many esteemed F1 drivers it is difficult to understand the opposition to such systems in a less sophisticated road car.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Unenviable collision records" are more of a personal problem. I don't believe that fatalistic driving stupidity should be one of the traits that is allowed to survive in the human gene pool.

Do you know of any F1 drivers who own a Viper? I don't either. Who cares what they think about traction control?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Given the extent to which advanced electronic ABS has expanded the performance envelope of both the current GTS and upcoming SRT/10 this opposition is even more difficult to comprehend. With the pressing need to expand Viper sales, opposition to this sort of technology is a conceit Viper owners can ill afford.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree, but my opinion doesn't carry much weight. To me, a flatspotted tire means I need to practice threshold braking more. Answer me this: Since the right front tire is the one that always locks up first, why did they not put the battery (and fuel filler) in the right place on a clean-sheet design? They could have saved the cost and complexity of an ABS system. What's wrong with reasonably designed component Polar Moments with only the driver's mass included?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

3. This last point may be difficult to believe but the Viper is actually underpriced. If one compares the Viper GTS/SRT/10's price to that of their price/performance competitors this becomes clear. Non-competitive cars like the Lotus Esprit and Acura NSX cost $84K - $88K. While neither of these cars can claim to be sales successes their prices indicate what the market for these cars will bear. The Porsche 911 Turbo goes for a minimum of $115K and can be defeated by a Viper. No current production Ferrari can defeat a Viper in a straight line. A 550 Maranello lost to a GTS in a one-mile race in a recent Motor Trend test. Ferrari wants approximately $250K for this car and charges a minimum of ~$150K for a car, the 360 Modena, that will be brutalized by a Viper. It is unlikely that the $223K Aston Martin Vanquish can defeat a Viper and it remains to be seen if even Lamborghini’s weighty $300K Murcielago can fend off a Viper in a straight line.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

GAWD! Ain't it WONDERFUL???????

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Given this I do not see how Dodge can offer the SRT/10 at $83,795. Nor do I understand why Dodge sold the Rt/10 and GTS cars for base prices of $75K and $76K respectively in 2002. Both these prices seem to be short $5K - $10K given the car's racing heritage and the cars it has been proven to defeat.

In any event, the sellout status of the 2003 SRT/10 and the way deposits are piling up for the 2004 car bode well for the future of the Viper name.

Hope this helps

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see how they can get off charging more for the SRT than the current models if it costs less to build and maintain. And now, the design has lost it's STUNNING visual appeal. The Viper is an ASTOUNDING performance value, by any and all measures. Why screw it up? After all - "It's just a Dodge..."

Just a guess here, but you're British, aren't you? What gave you away? "bespoke" I've read that word countless times in Racecar Engineering.

Bwright · Oct 17, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
The Viper has a lot of technology too. It has a computer to manage the engine and now it has one to manage the brakes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An engine management computer and an ABS computer is hardly a "lot of technology." This level of sophistication is common to the lowliest of econoboxes and can be found on virtually every production car offered for sale in the USA.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
It shares a lot of parts with the Dodge Dakota.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?

The limited budget, Lutz's original plan to turn a bunch of truck parts into a sports car, and the actual use of some existing parts such as switchgear, have led to the Viper's early reputation as a parts-bin special. But that's more folklore than truth, according to Helbig. Maybe even wishful thinking, given the tight budget.

"There was some parts sharing but not a hell of a lot," he said. Let's face it, we didn't have a lot of sports car parts lying around on the shelves at Chrysler Corporation in 1989. We might have used a parking brake mechanism. I think we shared a rear brake caliper. We shared the pickup truck wheel assembly, which is how we got six studs in the first place."

The above was taken from the book Dodge Viper by Daniel F. Carney.

One picture in Carney's book depicts an early Viper being assembled. The following is text from the caption for the picture:

Notice the stamped steel suspension arms. The Dakota truck parts were quickly deemed unsuitable for the production Viper

Maybe Helbig is mistaken. Perhaps you could be more specific in your assessment of "lots of parts" to the Dakota in question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Bob Lutz was never worried about that. I think that's what really miffs most of the other manufacturers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should really be more careful when attributing sentiments like that to other people. This is especially true given the inaccuracy of your statement. Lutz was extremely cognizant of the cost and in any event the go/no go decision was not his to make. It was Lee Iaccoca's. Pay attention:

But of course Lutz, Gale and Castaing couldn't make the decision to build a Viper production car alone. They needed the money to do it, and Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca held the checkbook. It was a skinny one in 1989, so they knew it would be difficult to convince any auto chief in his right mind to spend big money to build a radical sports car.

"The company was not doing very well," said Castaing. "Seventy million dollars was a lot to invest. A lot of people in finance and others were questioning whether our people were able to do a car like that. So we had to get the car blessed by Lee Iacocca, but he was a little bit uneasy about it. He had tried to do a similar project with DeTomaso three years earlier with the TC by Maserati, which turned out to be a huge fiasco. And we were coming with a project he had not initiated himself. It was touchy"

Fortunately, Viper "four-father" Shelby was one of Iacocca's buddies from their Mustang days together at Ford.

"This is where Carroll Shelby really delivered," said Lutz. "Shelby and Iacocca were good friends. Iacocca trusted Shelby. One of the great advantages of bringing Shelby into it was that he would be a stronger voice with Iacocca than those of us inside the company would be."

So Lutz scheduled a meeting with Shelby and Iacocca. Said Lutz, "He basically sold Lee on it, told him, 'This is a great deal, you've got to do this, the car's going to be great.'"

Shelby's recollection of the meeting, typically, is colorful. "I said, 'I'll go talk to Iacocca," because he had been turning us down for a long time," said Shelby. He had turned me down on a sports car before Lutz got there. So we *********** him that we could do it for about $20 million. He OK'd it, but I had to meet with him and tell him we were on budget - until we got enough money in it he couldn't back out. That's what happened."

The daunting mission of the Viper Team was to produce an exciting car, with little budget and little development time. Said Francois Castaing, "We wanted the team to be very fast, very unbureaucratic, very effective to make sure the car would be produced on time to cut corners on the paperwork and bureaucracy that are sometimes part of a big company.

"We were looking at keeping the price below $50,000, which was very low for a powerful car like that, so we had to be very disciplined about the content of the car."

Your assertion is therefore clearly not supported by the available facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I haven't had problems getting mine insured and I drive it "rather robustly" shall we say?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The illogic of the implicit extrapolation in this thought (if me then surely all) as regards the pressure on the Viper development team is such that a response is not merited.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
They built around 3000 Vipers in '94 and the quality went to hell. 1500 is a comfortable number for annual production.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I ran this statement by a senior DaimlerChrysler PR representative who could not imagine what basis in fact you used to make that assertion. The representative noted that Viper build volume is such that traditional statistical quality measurement by companies such as JD Power is not done. Both he and I are quite curious as to the exact nature of the quantitative statistical source you used to implicate 3,000 units of production relative to the approximately 11,000 other units produced in the Viper's history. I have every confidence

that you did not base this assertion on anecdotal evidence and we both look forward to reviewing your evidence.

Bob Lutz suggests that the year with the worst build quality was actually the one when its production was lowest. The first year, 1992.

It is a great question in my mind, now knowing all the problems we would encounter in the launch, if we had selected the plastic technology that we did. We just had an incredibly tough time getting cars out.

"The Viper I've got at home is number two," Lutz continued," and that one was massaged and massaged and massaged until hell wouldn't have it, but it's still got a lot of flaws in the plastic. It is starting to develop sink marks in the hood and everything."

The sensational early visceral Vipers were a work in progress. Team Viper heard the criticisms of the 1992 RT/10 and bit their tongues.

Again, the above is from Dodge Viper by Daniel F. Carney

But really. What does Lutz know about the Viper next to you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Remember this?: "which has the added benefit of being truer to the spirit of the car’s inspiration." You said it, yet you just can't understand it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You cut that quote from the section where I referenced the convertible top and then applied it out of context to the use of electronics in the car. Interesting. The original quote in proper context said: "The adoption of a better sealing full convertible top which has the added benefit of being truer to the spirit of the car’s inspiration." This was a reference to the SRT/10's new style as a full convertible with roll hoops. This style is inherent to the Cobra which inspired the Viper down to its very name. Therefore I understand perfectly what I said.

However, since you raised the issue of the place of electronics in the Viper:

It isn't like we're ruining the image of the car. This car is still a back-to-basics car; but 'basics' in today's world includes ABS. If you want to play, you better be there. That's how we rationalized that."

Again, from Dodge Viper by Daniel Carney. Helbig was commenting on the use of ABS in the Viper. Traction control is part of the basics and, like ABS, will soon make its way into the Viper.

Helbig likes to tell a story of how Lutz pulled him aside and instructed him that he would be forgiven a lot of things with the Viper. However, he would never be forgiven for making it underperform its peer group. With this in mind it is clear that to the extent that electronics can expand the Viper's performance envelope their inclusion is in keeping with the spirit of the car's mission as outlined by one of its key creators.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Do you know of any F1 drivers who own a Viper?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ex-CART driver Bryan Herta is now a member of the Minardi Formula 1 Team. He is also the proud owner of a red 1995 Viper.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Who cares what they think about traction control?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed

After all , why would you want the opinion of a professional race car driver in the design of a high-performance road car. Kind of makes you wonder why Dodge enlisted the help of Formula 1 great Phil Hill in developing the car. I mean, really. What were they thinking? What could Phil, or any champion Formula 1 driver for that matter, possibly know about pertinent go fast technology compared to someone like yourself?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I don't see how they can get off charging more for the SRT than the current models
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy. The financial profile of the typical Viper owner is such that an additional $5K will not hurt them. Viper owners are usually fairly well off. Even at an additional $5K the Viper will remain one of the best performance car bargains extant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
After all - "It's just a Dodge..."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny. That was the opinion of a lot of people when they heard the projected price of the Viper in 1992. Yet Dodge sold every one of them from that day to this. Today's price is well into the $70K range too. I have it on good authority from a reputable dealer that some SRT/10s have been pre-sold for $100K and that gouging at $8K above sticker is not unusual for the SRT/10.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Just a guess here, but you're British, aren't you? What gave you away? "bespoke" I've read that word countless times in Racecar Engineering.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me see if I understand this. My original post contained 1,103 words. You used ONE word as the basis for your extrapolation to my nationality?! The CIA can rest easy. Nyet (hope I didn't confuse you there). I visited England once in my life 15 years ago but am an American.

Bwright · Oct 17, 2002

Tom,

As regards the 2004 deposits I checked with two volume Viper dealers and was told by one that 15% of their projected 2004 allotment was already spoken for. The other dealer was at approximately 4%.

A final point as regards technology/parts sharing for the RT/10 and GTS. What further compounds the problem of ROI is that so little of the two Viper models parts are shared with not only other DC vehicles but internally with each other. Relative to the RT/10 that spawnwed it, when the GTS was created Dodge went with a new hood, windshield surround, rear quarter panels, rear fascia, and more. Inside, only the shifter knob, upper door bezels, asnd ahstray are carryover. Virtually every square inch of the GTS' body and interior is new or modified, with only items such as head and taillights, foglamps, and a few instruments making the transition undisturbed.

Motor Trend, May 1996.

If the SRT/10 was priced at or equal to the Vette? Excellent question. I had not thought of that. I think it would certainly make clear how much performance as oppposed to exclusivity really means to current owners. Demand for the Viper would skyrocket but without expanded production capacity on Dodge's part you would end up right back at the original price as demand ran into the unfavorably sloped supply curve. If supply could be brought up through the addition of a new assembly plant then I believe each Viper produced would have an adverse effect on Corvette sales. It would not kill the Corvette as many of that car's buyers are simply loyal to the car and would not consider anything else. But it would hurt it. Great question.

When you say the SRT appears to be the same as the Gen II what exactly do you mean? All the information I have read is that the SRT is significantly different from the RT in parts design and assembly. Are you talking about general feel? I would really appreciate as detailed and specific a comparison as you could give. Thanks in advance.

DC does showcase a lot of technolgy in the same way GM does with the Vette. They just do in on other cars besides the Viper. You usually see advanced technology on the Mercedes SL cars. It is unlikely you will see truly advanced technology on the Viper as it billed itself as "yestertech" and now, somewhat to its detriment, is locked into living up to that.

I cannot believe the markups your friend saw for those Pioneer receivers. That level of greed is disturbing. Was this at a major electronics chain?

Birvini · Oct 17, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chuck 98 RT/10:
Booooo Hisssss. The Viper is a "drivers car". Leave AH for the Vette girls.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Learn how to drive your car, forget about the computer help.

monnieh · Oct 17, 2002

OK, your going to tell me that if A/H was an available option on a Viper you would NOT get it?

Wasn't there a time when seat belts were for "girls" and only an option? I am sure the gene pool is much stronger now that most of those Darwinian award winners who chose not to get the seat belts didn't get the chance to pass on their short bus kind of intelligence.

History will repeat itself.

Me? I'll take the A/H please.

GTS Dean · Oct 18, 2002

OK, so I've tried posting this about 4 times - so I'll break it in half and see if it works...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bwright:

An engine management computer and an ABS computer is hardly a "lot of technology." This level of sophistication is common to the lowliest of econoboxes and can be found on virtually every production car offered for sale in the USA.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BWright:

You are taking everything I said MUCH MUCH too seriously. Most of it was my personal opinion, with a modest undertone of sarcasm.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------

GTS Dean · Oct 18, 2002

Part 2:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------

Bwright · Oct 19, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
You are taking everything I said MUCH MUCH too seriously. Most of it was my personal opinion, with a modest undertone of sarcasm.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very well. I will try to keep that in mind in the future.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I was present for Bob's dinner speech in the pavillion behind Meadowbrook Hall at VOI #1. Quoting loosely from memory: "The Dodge Viper doesn't even register a "blip" anywhere on the corporate radar screen at Chrysler. But the pride and spirit this car generates throughout the corporation can't be measured or bought for any amount of money."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True enough. It is tough, if not impossible, to assign a dollar value to that kind of rolling inspiration. However, it is a long way from that to saying Lutz did not care about the cost. He had to as it was not his decision. Even Castaing acknowledged that they had to observe strict cost discipline. You have to really careful in how you phrase something you are attributing to someone else. But again, yes. That kind of inspiration does defy standard cost assessments.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
You really meant to type "fore-father" didn't you? Sure, I knew you did.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very funny.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
From my very good buddy Jay Herbert's IVR link:

Year'94 Total Units 3083 U.S. Units 2394 Canadian Units 246 Foreign Units 443 First VINRV100001 Last VIN RV103087
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Telling me production numbers does nothing to assess relative yearly assembly quality. On this point I will be completely serious for a moment. Your original post stated with considerable confidence the relative quality of a given year. You tied that assertion to the volume of cars produced. If you have some data on comparative annual quality both I and my friend at DC would really like to see it. If you do not then tell me it was simply your opinion and lets move on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I guess we'd just have to sit down together over some beers sometime and compare notes. Then we'll go out into the garage and see who can take one apart and put it back together right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll be buying the first round as I don't drink. I will hold my own on Viper knowledge though. The third round will be on me as I hold no illusions about winning the critical disassembly/reassembly runoff.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I've met Bob a few times and I like him. One of the best recent quotes I've heard from him was relative to the Corvette C5 successor. Somebody here quoted a C6 platform stud-duck that said 'Bob, this is the new C6!' Bob said: 'No it isn't.'
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There has been rampant speculation on the role played by product czar Bob Lutz in the development of the car. One scenario has Lutz walking into the studio and being told, "This is the new Corvette," to which he reportedly responded, "No, it isn't." This urban legend has the car undergoing an almost total reskin. Hill downplays such suggestions and says the exterior shape is fairly consistent with the early proposals for the car. An area where Lutz is having an impact is the interior, which is said to be undergoing some redesign and changes in materials.

Road & Track, August 2002 (An inside look at the next Corvette).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I think that minimalism and performance are the guiding premises for the whole car. It should not matter what context they are used. If you get away from them, you've lost the soul of the car.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Minimalism and performance are indeed parts of the guiding premises for the whole car. However, you have the order wrong. The latter is the mission priority and the former is not to compromise it. As designer Tom Gale put it perfectly:

In the beginning it was really back to basics. We had to continue to discipline ourselves not to let it get too far. Because we probably couldn't have delivered on the expectation and we might have compromised the very things that made it, in retrospect, so important. Performance was certainly the number one attribute we wouldn't compromise.

Dodge Viper by Daniel F. Carney.

The question for the lesser of the two parameters is how much minimalism. Next is what are you willing to add in the name of performance? There are the questions. For the former I note the documented example of the Viper ACR. It was offered as the performance version of the Viper and had AC removed to lighten the car. Nearly every ACR had the air-conditioning re-added as an option. There is only so much minimalism that people are apparently willing to endure. There has to be a reasonable median. No, the car does not require power dual reclining cupholders but since its initial introduction it has gained a few well received comfort and convenience items. Viper owners did not riot in the streets and the car continues to be a performance icon. Refinement will not kill the car. Refinement can and should be combined with performance. As Lutz once said it reference to the matter on the Viper, "There's no sense asking a customer to give up slickness and refinement just because he has terrific performance. For roughly $70,000, he should get it all." (Dodge Viper, Daniel F. Carney). I could not agree with Lutz any more.

I also agree with Helbig that the standard for "basics" has changed and what may seem like excess technology is both common and common sense.

As regards performance, I say that if it makes the Viper a better performance car in some respect or the other then by all means include it. Before he left Lutz made it clear to Helbig that performance came first above anything. I look at the example of the new Ferrari Enzo. Here is a car that incorporates computer controlled active damping, an electronically managed F1 style transmission, active aerodynamics and traction control to devastating effect. The Viper may nor require all of these technologies but if any one can significantly improve its performance how is its inclusion bad?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I wish Brian the best of luck - and I'm being completely sincere. But one test does not a Formula 1 driver make. Al Unser Jr. tested with Williams in the "active" days and he's not an F1 driver.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point taken. I wish Brian the best too. I think he will do well. I left word for him to see how the testing went and what his outlook is for the Minardi Team. All indications are that things went quite well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Speak for yourself, bud.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough. I'll have to recheck my facts on the average salary of a Viper owner. Last time I checked I thought it was pretty impressive. I don't think my purchasing power is that unusual in a country such as this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
My good sir,...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aha! Who's the Brit now! Guards!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
If my dealer tries to sell me MY black SRT at $8k above sticker, we're headed to court. They had a "Sold Order" '01 Bumblebee ACR that the buyer backed out of and they floorplanned it for over a year and a half. A $90k sticker car went for $71k. The market is saturated and there isn't any more dot-com money floating around.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True enough. But the fact remains SRTs are being sold for those prices. I have seen an almost identical situation to the one you described unfold at a dealer near my house. The dealer has a lovely new Dark Blue GTS/ACR which he cannot seem to give away. I took a look at the car then decided against it because I was sold on the newfound power and refinement of the SRT/10. That forlorn Blue ACR has been sitting for nearly a year now. Sad. The dealer offered me max trade in for my Vette plus at least $10K off sticker if I would take it. No thanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
You certainly don't "get" the Viper, do you?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grrrrr! And we were doing so well. It's comments like that that herald the ugliness. I think I "get" the Viper completely. Its first priority is performance. I have heard Lutz say it and I have heard Helbig say it. I agree with them completely. All else is secondary The problem is that if someone does not "get" the Viper as you define it then you refuse to even acknowledge that they may have a point.

I AM ABOUT TO THROW UP.

Enthusiast

Viper Owner

Viper Owner

Enthusiast

Viper Owner

Viper Owner

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

Viper Owner

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

Former VCA National President

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

Viper Owner

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page