The first gen Dodge Viper wasn't actually that dangerous, it was just driven by people that shouldn't have been driving it. amirite?

4th, if you're patient.

by Used-Percentage7788 7 months ago

As not a car person: elaborate?

by Anonymous 7 months ago

First gen dodge vipers (intentionally) did not stability or traction control. Those two systems, at a very ELI5 level, help keep the driver in control of the car in situations where the the driver inputs would otherwise cause the car to skid/oversteer etc. the way those systems work is varied and largely unimportant here. Couple that with a monstrous amount of torque and you have a vehicle that is very difficult to control for the average person. You're essentially driving a very fast, very powerful car and the training wheels are all the way off

by Ok_Swimming_5292 7 months ago

I think it also had a solid rear axle too. What an engineering mistake that was lmao

by Beneficial-Stay 7 months ago

It actually had an independent rear suspension, although it does seem like the kind of car you would expect to have a live axle

by Upstairs-Wrap7323 7 months ago

Now, in the ‘60s, there were only two other cars made in America that had positraction, and independent rear suspension, and enough power to make these marks. One was the Corvette, which could never be confused with the Buick Skylark. The other had the same body length, height, width, weight, wheel base, and wheel track as the ‘64 Skylark, and that was the 1963 Pontiac Tempest!

by rudolph84 7 months ago

I would LOVE to hear THIS!!!

by Dear-Truth2122 7 months ago

Truck engine. Truck suspension. Dodge Neon interior.

by GlobalRefuse8567 7 months ago

So it's not dangerous because it's unsafe, it's dangerous because the drivers didn't understand how unsafe it was?

by bayleebreitenbe 7 months ago

lol, this is how I read it.

by Amelylehner 7 months ago

You think the average person in 1995 was driving with 150 to 220 hp? I'm not in the US and I know you guys put massive engines in stuff but pretty much every other country would be way lower

by Anonymous 7 months ago

Due to fuel economy mandates engine power has stagnated since the 90s and fuel economy has gone way up. So I wouldn't be shocked if 1-200 would be pretty good ballpark for HP in the 95s without looking it up. I'd guess more like 120 though.

by Anonymous 7 months ago

Tell me you're not a car guy without telling me lol

by Kind-Progress 7 months ago

I was off by about a decade :P.

by Anonymous 7 months ago

Ooh you're right I had my years wrong. Late 2000s is where the stagnation happened not 90s.

by Anonymous 7 months ago

2010 Camry Horsepower: 169 to 268 hp 2010 Mustang Horsepower: 210 to 315 hp No, for real. There has been no stagnation whatsoever. Power has continuously crept up in the last few decades, at least in the US. Heavy regulation in some European countries means that things are different over there. Maybe you were talking about Europe?

by Anonymous 7 months ago

Yeah, I think because of a greater number of safety devices, crumple zones, electronics, and general bloat cars have gotten bigger and heavier, ergo requiring more power to fill the same "role" as before. They are not necessarily faster around corners, but more powerful.

by Ill-Crab-6362 7 months ago

Hmm no clue now lol. It's a stat I remember seeing when I finished college and started at an auto company around 2017. Guess it's outdated now :) . It would have been US market.

by Anonymous 7 months ago

I got my first car around then, it was a '68 Cadillac with a 472 cubic inch engine and got about 9 miles per gallon. I still remember that the gas tank was about 27 gallons. It was pretty fast in a straight line. My friends and I would take it out on the freeway late at night and floor it and watch the gas gauge drop by about a quarter tank in less than a minute.

by Anonymous 7 months ago

It's amazing how much fuel economy has improved. I have a bus with a 6.7 litre Cummings engine that's more efficient than that

by Anonymous 7 months ago

I was in insurance back then and our company made four exceptions to cover Vipers for good clients. Within a year three of them were totaled in one-car accidents.

by Anonymous 7 months ago

Simply put, it has zero aero and all the grip is in the very wide tires. So if you're driving at the limit you can't really react to grip changes. If you're turning a corner at the limit in let's say a Miata, it's grip grip slip slip slip slip. But in a Viper it's gripgripgripgrip NOTHING. Kind of paints a picture when as soon as they put a huge wing on the back it becomes a seriously good race car.

by Anonymous 7 months ago

This is actually a fairly common complaint. My SIL's mom had one and she's a very social woman, and she'd be showing up to events (with her husband who'd drive so she could walk the carpet) and she showed us scars from burn marks.

by Amelylehner 7 months ago

I agree with this. People witj too little knowledge of how to handle their cars in non optimal conditions are a constant. I had friends at a get away last year who couldn't get their cars up a semi steep hill because they had no concept of gears, torque, pedal or skid control. I drive a small car (with a nicer engine TBF) and made it just fine.

by Anonymous 7 months ago

I don't know enough to dispute anything but you look to have done your research so I have no option but to agree

by AccomplishedList 7 months ago

You average driver isn't prepared to handle that kind of unrestrained power. People don't understand what it's like to drive a V8 or V10 front engine rear wheel drive sports car with over 400ftlbs of torque...until they do. I once got the chance to get behind the wheel of a 2013 Shelby GT500 Mustang with nearly 700hp, I didn't think to much going into the experience because I had driven Mustangs, Camaros and Challengers with their respective V8 engines before and I am a naturally confident driver who can learn different cars personalities pretty quickly with just about any vehicle and that's the only car to this day that put a bit of fear in me when I laid into it. I've never had the chance to drive a Viper but I'm sure it was a similar experience, particularly those first gen's with no stability control or anything like that.

by Anonymous 7 months ago

Old video game racer: always hated it.

by Sheaprice 7 months ago

However, you aren't accounting for net vs gross HP. 450hp in 1969 was NOT 450 hp in 1995, more like 350 (maybe). Dyno tests of a factory 450 HP Chevy motor usually came to around 300 whp. Gearing was also a lot better on the Viper. Most 60s muscle cars had a 3 speed slushbox (or even a 2 speed) or maybe a 4 speed, and a lot had terrible rear gearing.

by Anonymous 7 months ago

What does 17" summer tires do on a Taurus that's not SHO? While the viper didn't have some safety features in no way should it be compared to a 60s muscle car that didn't have power steering. if we all could make something and then move 30 years into the future, will that change the product? Cars of th 60s were just as or more affordable as a '95 viper. The cost is prohibited by the market. The vehicles of the 60s didn't have the safety features of the 90s. I do agree that the Viper was too much for the average driver of the 90s.

by Square_Possession 7 months ago

Wasn't a Ford Mustang like $20k back then? Easily the cheaper option for a dumb kid wanting a fast car.

by Ill-Crab-6362 7 months ago

Damn lmao, I guess I got conditioned by the faster ones they started making in the late 90s with over 300.

by Ill-Crab-6362 7 months ago

Those who believe something is dangerous simply can't handle it

by Anonymous 7 months ago

This is the most incorrect thing I've read all day lol

by Kind-Progress 7 months ago

That thing has far more nannies than the dodge viper that it's not even comparable

by Myles73 7 months ago

That whole car is just one big nannie.

by Anonymous 7 months ago