Another Viper blew its engine at the track yesterday

[ForTehNguyen]

I don't think they have been "bulletproof" but they most certainly never drank oil the way some Gen V's do. I've had two Gen 2's and two Gen 4's and maybe checked the oil every 500-1000 miles...why bother they never burned any. So guys used to that were probably expecting the same lever of consumption in the new improved Gen 5's. Boom.

any new car should have its oil checked often while breaking in until a trend can be established. My 2015 mustang burned oil before 10k miles then suddenly none after that. G5s burned a lot more than most new cars leading to more frequent total engine failures, but not checking oil on any new car is reckless. If there is any problem on a new engine you want to be warned about it instead of waiting for a total failure then having to fight to get it warrantied and prove it wasnt your fault.

[Bill Pemberton]

Very difficult to ascertain, as this issue seems to come up with almost all makes. I know folks who are using a quart every 1000 miles and the Manufacturer is telling them that is completely normal ( not FCA) and the Service Writers tell me they see more of this than in the past ( again think of a respected fuel/engine cleaner , BG Products , and their actual advertisement). I know , for instance that my wife's Jeep used a quart of oil at first in a relatively short time, but now at 40K she doesn't use a drop. I do not advocate any of the Manufacturer's break in procedures of changing the oil the first time at 3000 or so miles , but suggest to my customers to do it the first time at 500-1000 miles. Two reasons for this , and one is simply for them to be checking the oil early on and second is to flush the system - today's motors are so tight on tolerances. Not going to get into the technical analysis, that is not my forte, but am going by what various Engineers have suggested to me over the last 25+ years -- no, they were not all FCA engineers and that is part of my belief , as this is from a variety of Engineers with numerous Manufacturers.

[swexlin]

Bill, good post, as always. Let's not forget though, that some of these were due to manufacturing errors, as evidenced by the R28 recall. So a combo of both issues, for some of the failures.

"I know folks who are using a quart every 1000 miles and the Manufacturer is telling them that is completely normal ( not FCA)"

Bill, respectfully, it has been posted here (someone may even have posted a bulletin?) that FCA does indeed consider 1 qt/1000 miles normal for these cars. I'll have to do a search. That's about what my car uses. (I'm halfway down the "safe" zone in about that mileage).
And I really don't drive the car that hard (Hell, I hardly drive it all anymore...another story....).

[Bill Pemberton]

Swexlin , sorry I am not saying that FCA did not also say the same thing I was just referencing one our other Dealerships commenting on this to their customers. Frankly it seems to be industry wide and I should have been more specific as my intention was to point out another brand was telling their customers this.

No argument that there was not some manufacturing errors ( R28 ) as I mentioned the 1-2% concern and the move toward transparency. I kind of wish they had used the decades old response of taking care of the motors quietly and that would have bypassed the hysteria that ensued. Sometimes knowing everything causes us to become hypochondriacs in life , and keeping things a bit quieter actually worked better at times. Sure it is not right , but human nature being what it is the number of engine concerns has not seemed any higher at all than in the past -- though it is posted about 20 times more today.

My 98 gulped oil and then around 5-6k it just stopped -- except when on the track, but then it used much less. My 2000 was the same , though it stopped at a higher mileage level. Never went to a Viper Days Event without 2 quarts of oil , minimum.

[TrackAire]

Dipsticks are tearing this forum apart.........

[Bill Pemberton]

In the words of fellow Nebraska, Larry the Cable Guy, " I don't care who you are, that's funny!!!"

[ViperSRT]

Wasted effort.

[Tamvette]

How did my c5 Corvette have this elusive feature?

I also simply cannot read my 2013 oil dipstick, I do change it regularly as a precaution and have the oil psi displayed most of the time. However I do think oil psi could be misleading as I don't know when the psi actually drops with oil amount decreasing.

Except that when restarted on a grade a low oil level alert will be shown. For those who regularly park on a hill it would mean a buy-back from the OEM due to near constant low oil level messages. Features like this have to be capable for all reasonably possible situations. A 90% solution is a 10% buy-back/warranty. That is why the algorithms are complex for simple applications. For the Viper it would not be reasonable with today's technology. My opinion as an ex OEM engine chief engineer.

[ViperSRT]

Wasted effort.

[efnfast]

Except that when restarted on a grade a low oil level alert will be shown. For those who regularly park on a hill it would mean a buy-back from the OEM due to near constant low oil level messages. Features like this have to be capable for all reasonably possible situations. A 90% solution is a 10% buy-back/warranty. That is why the algorithms are complex for simple applications. For the Viper it would not be reasonable with today's technology. My opinion as an ex OEM engine chief engineer.

Uh huh, that's why C5's have it and it works fine

Engineers

[ViperSRT]

Wasted effort.

[Tamvette]

My c5 vette is long gone. I understand it could be more challenging but I am sure you don't mean it is not possible to devise some method to at least warn in obvious scenarios.

Look at the oil pans and figure it out for yourself. As stated if there is a sump it can be done. The Viper has effectively the entire oil pan as the sump in order to allow the engine to sit lower in the vehicle. The Viper engine also has 25% more cylinders (read engine length) than the vette.

[ky13]

I think all of you complainers should go buy the vette and be happy. Final word.

I don't think you're looking at this objectively though and just getting upset that people are relaying options. It could be done (sump or not), but they chose not to implement such a sensor/circuit.

[ViperJon]

I understand it could be more challenging but I am sure you don't mean it is not possible to devise some method to at least warn in obvious scenarios.

Of course they could. Two sensors could take an average. Or check it by volume or by weight.
Who's more knowledgeable than a retired out of touch engineer who takes a forum discussion personally?

[ViperSRT]

ViperJon I do not know you nor care to ever know you. I do realize all of the complainers here are non members, and have demonstrated they cannot pay/afford $100 but seemingly know what it would take to engineer and produce a feature that none of them have ever done themselves. But better to start name calling and making irrational proposals.

[ky13]

ViperJon I do not know you nor care to ever know you. I do realize all of the complainers here are non members, and have demonstrated they cannot pay/afford $100 but seemingly know what it would take to engineer and produce a feature that none of them have ever done themselves. But better to start name calling and making irrational proposals.

Wow. Does that rain cloud follow you perpetually? I gave an example of a common sensor that implements exactly the averaging/smoothing that would be necessary to give an oil level reading. It's really not as difficult as you're making it out to be. The denigration of non-members is superfluous. Please refrain from such actions if you want to have a rational discussion.

[ForTehNguyen]

no car should need a real time monitoring of oil levels, inferring it changes often enough to require constant monitoring. More claptrap. The only fluid that needs real time monitoring is the fuel level.

[ViperSRT]

Wow. Does that rain cloud follow you perpetually? I gave an example of a common sensor that implements exactly the averaging/smoothing that would be necessary to give an oil level reading. It's really not as difficult as you're making it out to be. The denigration of non-members is superfluous. Please refrain from such actions if you want to have a rational discussion.

Then do it yourself. Easy, right. Then you can market it without concern about warranty and the like. And on to the volume and weight sensors that ViperJon proposed (which if reading was a strong point you would have understood were the irrational proposals indicated followed by the name calling). Rational, yes???

[ky13]

Then do it yourself. Easy, right. Then you can market it without concern about warranty and the like. And on to the volume and weight sensors that ViperJon proposed (which if reading was a strong point you would have understood were the irrational proposals indicated followed by the name calling). Rational, yes???

Do what? Create the aforementioned sensor? It's already been done (ie. modern fuel level/float sensors use smoothing to ensure the gauge is not bouncing around). Again, as I stated in my initial response, this is all hypothetical. The Viper didn't include such a sensor. I have no issue with comprehension; your post included an entire group, not just a single person. Name calling should cease if you want to be taken seriously.

[AZTVR]

This is really a silly argument to have about what FCA coulda/shoulda done 8-9 years ago on a car that barely was approved to be built. FCA engineers are as good as those in any other car company and could have come up with a technical solution. Could they have done it within the cost and schedule parameters set out for them. I very much doubt it.

I liked a phrase that one of my Program managers used to use: "There comes a time when we must shoot the engineers and ship the product." There are so many factors in a decision like what is being discussed that it makes no sense to guess what the reasons were and whether we would have made the same decision.

[ViperJon]

no car should need a real time monitoring of oil levels, inferring it changes often enough to require constant monitoring. More claptrap. The only fluid that needs real time monitoring is the fuel level.

No one said that. We were discussing having a sensor to indicate an extreme low oil level that could cause the motor to seize. Yikes what are you reading.

[ViperJon]

ViperJon I do not know you nor care to ever know you. I do realize all of the complainers here are non members, and have demonstrated they cannot pay/afford $100 but seemingly know what it would take to engineer and produce a feature that none of them have ever done themselves. But better to start name calling and making irrational proposals.

Would you like to compare who has owned and bought more BRAND NEW VIPERS? That's what I call supporting the Viper brand, not belonging to a club for $100.00.
Let me know we can compare resumes.

[SuperBird4404BBL]

Kelly's Hero's, Donald Sutherland. Negative waves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyh-JpWdGmQ

[ViperSRT]

It has been reported that 2 Qts low is all that is required to cause engine failure if high G turning, accelerating or braking occurs. The safe zone on later Gen5 was only 1 Qt. Real time is not required, but reasonable accuracy is. Dynamic measurement would be incredibly difficult as the oil surface looks like the ocean during a hurricane (and yes I have viewed crankcases via video and windowed oil pans during operation), with the prevailing surface moving up and down based on oil temperature, oil foaming (dynamic based on aging), engine speed and of course engine tilt.

[ACRSNK]

Dipsticks are tearing this forum apart.........

Hahahaha....I was watching Dukes of Hazzard with my daughter the other day and she asked me why that police officer kept calling everyone a dipstick. Lol.