Nothing personal, but did you get this comment from the chapter in the Corvette manual on "how to criticize the Vipers when you have nothing to show"? You guys need to let it go, and realize that the Viper was never developed to compete with Corvettes (and vice versa). I suppose that you think similarly of the Prowler, 300M and the PT Cruiser? If nothing else respect the Viper for what it is, which is very different from the current Corvettes.
(giggle)
"Nothing personal?"
Ok.
However, I must offer this observation: so often on I'net forums, I read those words when
people mean exactly the opposite. They get "personal" when they have a weak argument or don't like being disagreed with, but say "nothing" personal presumably to somehow lessen the impact or release themselves from some unknown guilt. This is not directed at you personally, but is simply a general observation about I'net forum "society."
The Viper concept was created to promote Chrysler as a manufacturer capable of putting a world-class performance sports car on the road and to make the point that Corvette is not the only American sports car. In those senses, the Viper was intended to compete *directly* with Corvette and was reasonably successful in achieving that goal. The product development of that concept, the results of which we see in the Dodge Viper, is certainly different than the Corvette in some ways but similar in others.
As for the Prowler, 300M, and the PT, well---I don't much care for the Prowler and the PT, but there are people who do and that's fine. I appreciate the process by which Chrysler responded to what it believed were markets for vehicles such as those. I'll add, however, that neither are proving to be products/concepts with sustained high demand. Not many Prowlers were sold and it appears the Chrysler may have overestimated demand for the PT. As for the 300M? Now there's a product with some longevity. If it had a little better performance and quality, it'd be a homerun.
He's also the man responsible for Chrysler's success and re-entry into racing (from Le Mans to NASCAR).
I'll buy the part about road racing. Lutz certainly placed the right bets, there. As for NASCAR? Chrysler needs to perform better before I and many others will agree it has succeeded. I'm not saying it won't, but I am saying it's not there, yet. So far, Ray Evernham has shown he's bitten off more than he can chew.
FYI, Bob Lutz is one of the most widely respected car people in the entire automotive industry.
I love it when people say "for your information".
I'd say Bob Lutz *is* the most respected car guy in the industry today but at Chrysler he was only one of several with their guiding hand on the Viper project.
If I were you I would bite my tongue when talking about GM's tattered history of mediocre cars, and their fresh line up of cars like the Aztec, the stunning new Avalanche and the Suburban (which has not has a significant engineering change in 20 years).
Ok.
Let me get this straight: you meant nothing personal, I needed to be informed and now I need to bite my tongue.
(ouch)
B, b, butt...(hard to talk with my tongue hurting) you are the one bringing up the issue. Of course you are zeroing in on some of GM's biggest recent failures, the butt-ugly Aztec and it's near-as-ugly but more overweight cousin, the Avalanche. But the statement that the Suburban hasn't had a significant engineering change in 20-years clearly demonstrates your ignorance. What's platform that's lacked progressive engineering under an, admittedly, leading-edge exterior? Try Chrysler's full-sized trucks---including the "new" one.
No doubt, GM's made mistakes in the last generation and that has cost its once dominating market-share. The other side of that coin is Chrysler, which as you point out, was virtually destroyed by Eaton's sale of it to the Germans. American consumers buying Chryslers get cars that look great---stunning, even---but, with the exception of the Viper, are mediocre performers, have quality that sucks and a dealer network that has a hard time providing good service. Heck, for a time, after Chrysler's financial arm ran out of money this summer, those dealers couldn't even provide dealer financing to sell the cars---that would subsequently break-down and provide their service departments with work.
I have a friend who owns a PT. He loves the look and ambience presented by the car, but he hates the quality. Among other problems, shortly after he bought it, the engine computer failed such that the car had to be flat-bedded to the dealer for warranty repair. There it sat there for weeks with the parts people telling my friend Chrysler had no replacement computers available--anywhere. Finally, because of his complaints, the dealer found a wrecked PT in a salvage yard (lucky find, I'd say considering the product's newness) and pirated its computer to put in this guy's sidelined car. Amazing.
I talk to Viper owners at shows, occasionally. Some have told me they love the car's mystique, style and performance but they are irritated at it's poor ergonomics and abysmal quality. One Viper owner I met, who is also a pretty knowledgeable DIY service tech., gave me a walk around of the car and pointed out a number of components used by Chrysler on low-end models that were adapted to use in the Viper...a K-car switch, here; a Neon component there, etc. He also told me there are quality issues with the V10s in those cars. I've heard from others who've worked on the engines that Chrysler doesn't have very good block machining processes. It uses different thickness main bearing shells in the same engine to compensate for poorly finished main saddles. Sheesh. If that happened at GM Powertrain, the engineers responsible would be looking for work---at Chrysler.
The Viper, like the 300M and other Chrysler exterior-design standouts, cuts a stunningly attractive and seductive profile. It's reasonably light, the newer units handle extremely well and it's got an extraordinary amount of power but, its chassis construction methods are only a few steps beyond those for a kit car, it's got awful quality, it's uncomfortable, until recently it lacked ABS, it's engines are inconsistent in quality and performance--some Chrysler alum. V10s run hard others need a lot of tuner help and blueprinting (ie: finish the job Chrysler couldn't)-- to get them to run well.
So now we come back to one of the core issues here---does the Viper compete against the Corvette?
Sure it does, not directly on all fronts, but it does compete in concept and mystique, two of the key attributes that make great cars. Anyone who says it does not is really just making up an excuse that diverts attention from the fact that the only places the Viper has convincing advantages over Corvette is in its brute horsepower and slutty, whips-and-chains look. After that, Corvette has better quality, better ergonomics, a more efficient powertrain, better value and is built in greater numbers.
Oh yeah---Corvette's been around for almost half a century. The Viper? Not even ten years.