Chrysler's Crushing Vipers

Jack Baruth
by Jack Baruth

In what is shaping up to be a public-relations disaster for Chrysler, the company has decided to crush as many as ninety-three first-generation and pre-production Vipers. Worst of all, they’re forcing a community college in Puget Sound to crush prototype despite the fact that the school is still using it to train students. The question is: why?



It’s fairly common for pre-production cars to “escape” manufacturer custody. They can wind up doing anything from racing in a spec NASA series to serving as training tools for high school and college auto-shop programs. It would appear that a fairly large number of first-generation Vipers — ninety-three, at least — made it out of the building.

And then… well, rumor (as reported by various blogs) says that a couple of these Vipers were crashed on public roads, costing Chrysler millions of dollars in fines and settlements. Early Vipers can be challenging to drive enthusiastically, although they’re no worse than any other, um, ten-cylinder car with no traction control and a hood the length of the USS Hornet‘s flight deck. The “loan agreements” under which the Vipers were given to their current custodians give Chrysler the right to demand their destruction, and the rumor is that Chrysler is giving those destruction orders in order to prevent further liability hassles.

Not so, claims Chrysler:

About 10 years ago, Chrysler Group donated a number of Dodge Viper vehicles to various trade schools for educational purposes. As part of the donation process, it is routine, standard procedure — and stipulated in our agreements — that whenever vehicles are donated to institutions for education purposes that they are to be destroyed when they are no longer needed for their intended educational purposes.

With advancements in automotive technology over the past decade, it is unlikely that these vehicles offer any educational value to students.

Also, Chrysler Group has no record of any legal proceedings involving Dodge Viper vehicles donated to educational institutions being involved in accidents and product liability lawsuits.

To recap, the Vipers in question have no significant historical value, have not been involved in any accidents and serve no educational purpose – which is what they were designed to do at first.

Hmm.

It would be easy to pick the blog entry apart, and the enthusiast community is doing just that. The only thing I’ll say here is this: The notion that ninety-three early Vipers, taken together, have no significant historical value — well, that’s ridiculous. Imagine if ninety-three pre-production ’53 Vettes were to become available. Hell, imagine if ninety-three pre-production ’83 Vettes were to become available. These cars have value to someone. At the very least, they should be released into a race series or some sort of historical collection. A “Viper Ranch” with all of them bleaching under the desert sun would be better for future generations than this decision.

Chrysler’s done a lot to earn the respect and admiration of “car guys” over the last few decades. From the Shelby Charger to the old Viper ACR, the company’s tried hard to give us the most speed for the least money. But this cowardly crushing of Chrysler’s own history is a dark day in that history. It won’t be forgotten.

Jack Baruth
Jack Baruth

More by Jack Baruth

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 81 comments
  • Davew833 Davew833 on Mar 07, 2014

    When I worked for the local Utah Infiniti dealer in 1992, the community college in town had a first-generation Q45 test mule donated (or loaned) to them under similar conditions. We borrowed it back and converted it to a race car to run at the Bonneville Salt Flats. Modifications included a full roll cage, fire extinguisher, nitrous injection, low rolling-resistance racing wheels and tires, and lots of obnoxious sponsor decals. Unfortunately, the engine was so tired from whatever flogging Nissan had used it for that it blew on the first pass at Bonneville. We then became responsible to find another engine for it before returning it to the community college. Its racing career a failure, I always wondered what ended up happening to it.

  • Tklockau Tklockau on Mar 08, 2014

    This really ticks me off, ever since I heard about it from my brother last week. Since Fiat now owns Chrysler, couldn't those schools have said "screw you, Old Chrysler went bankrupt and is dead and gone, we're keeping them!" I'm sure it's not that simple, but this was a really dumb move on Mopar's part.

  • SCE to AUX Range only matters if you need more of it - just like towing capacity in trucks.I have a short-range EV and still manage to put 1000 miles/month on it, because the car is perfectly suited to my use case.There is no such thing as one-size-fits all with vehicles.
  • Doug brockman There will be many many people living in apartments without dedicated charging facilities in future who will need personal vehicles to get to work and school and for whom mass transit will be an annoying inconvenience
  • Jeff Self driving cars are not ready for prime time.
  • Lichtronamo Watch as the non-us based automakers shift more production to Mexico in the future.
  • 28-Cars-Later " Electrek recently dug around in Tesla’s online parts catalog and found that the windshield costs a whopping $1,900 to replace.To be fair, that’s around what a Mercedes S-Class or Rivian windshield costs, but the Tesla’s glass is unique because of its shape. It’s also worth noting that most insurance plans have glass replacement options that can make the repair a low- or zero-cost issue. "Now I understand why my insurance is so high despite no claims for years and about 7,500 annual miles between three cars.
Next