But it's not just about fun, it's about how forgiving a car is, how versatile the handling is, and whether it makes you feel like a good driver.
I'm trying to make it seem like I don't disagree with you, because I don't think I do, but maybe I'm coming off the wrong way. I know what MT is getting at with the driver's car thing, and that's why they changed the name of it once or twice (it originally started as something different), but I don't completely follow their logic when it comes to ranking.
I like a car that is a bit wild in character, but won't try to kill me. Other sports cars are plenty wild and don't "drive on rails", they just aren't as unrefined as the Viper.
This is just hard to deal with. I'm not really convinced that magazine testers do justice when it comes to statements like this. Not saying that they don't know what they're talking about, but there is a strong tendency to not be terribly objective which makes it hard to really take in information. I've seen phrases like "Best Viper ever" thrown around with
previous gen Vipers and how good it was to drive (though still not totally tame of course), and I think the consensus with the new one was at least as good. Cars tend to be evaluated by comparison and the Viper is ranked below a bunch of other cars in terms of ease of use, but what's not really clear is if the car is really trying to kill you or what that would mean. I think it's hard to get that across in writing when you primarily judge something against a moving target.
The short of it being, while it's safe to say that the Viper isn't as forgiving as some cars I do wonder about how much it really wants to kill you. My first reaction is, not terribly much more than a modern sport car. I think that would go for most Vipers barring the original. Unfortunately the lack of really rigorous objective testing in auto journalism and my lack of subjective experience makes a solid conclusion difficult to come to.
And here's a question: Would you, a Viper fan, take a first gen roadster, first gen GTS, first gen ACR, second gen roadster, second gen coupe, second gen ACR, or third gen coupe? The third generation is the least Viper like of them all, so I don't think it appeals to Viper people as much as the old ones. It's very expensive, yet still very unrefined, so it doesn't appeal to most people as an actual purchase.
2010 Viper ACR above all else that exists now, but a hypothetical current gen ACR would blow that away easily, there just isn't one to evaluate. Remove the ACR and you've left me with the Gen IV (600 hp) coupe and the current non GTS coupe (not that I wouldn't take an original GTS) and I might be telling a lie if I told you which I would take between those two without living with both for a while. They'd both make great track cars for me, which is the bottom line with the car. And that wildness does factor into being a track car when it comes to my preferences. The price doesn't bother me. The non GTS is only marginally more expensive than the SRT-10 was new. It's the GTS that's overpriced, but it seems like that's the only one anyone remembers.
I know it's fast, but it's not a car with much finesse. It has loads of grip and power, but it's hard to find the limits and the power needs to be managed carefully. Chrysler never sold a lot of Vipers because it doesn't appeal to a lot of people, and even fewer who can actually afford to buy one.
It's a niche car for sure, but the current lack of success probably isn't down to just that. They tried to break away from the niche, but didn't do it right. I can certainly tell them what I'd rather have them do, and I think there are some people who would agree me. There is more to it than that though, you touch on part of it, the new car, especially the GTS, doesn't do what it's supposed to and offer a Porsche alternative that feels like a Porsche. I couldn't care about that and really there is a different trim level that comes closer to what I want, but I wonder if there was too much focus on the GTS which muddled the car's image. You've said it's expensive and unrefined. It's only the GTS that I would call pricey. The base car should be unrefined to a degree. The GTS isn't refined enough, but it was Chrysler's poster car. A bad combination.
🤬
You are right though, SRT should go through the car with a fine tooth comb before sending it on to the next review. I am surprised that they don't have at least a small team with truck, parts, spares etc, travelling around with the car to keep it in good shape and keep an eye on the reviewers.
