2000 DODGE VIPER — Problems, Recalls & Safety Data
N/A
Safety Rating
9
Owner Complaints
4
Recalls
1
Service Bulletin
0
Investigations
Overview of the 2000 DODGE VIPER
The 2000 DODGE VIPER has received a total of 9 safety complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). There have been 4 recall campaigns affecting this vehicle, covering issues with SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC, STEERING:RACK AND PINION:RACK, SEAT BELTS:FRONT:ANCHORAGE. 1 technical service bulletin have been issued by Chrysler (FCA US, LLC) for this model year. The most commonly reported problems involve the Engine And Engine Cooling (1 complaint), Seat Belts (1 complaint), and Service Brakes Hydraulic (1 complaint).
Recalls for the 2000 DODGE VIPER
NHTSA has recorded 4 recalls for the 2000 DODGE VIPER, potentially affecting up to 1,226,861 vehicles.
Recall 06E022000 — SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC
| 7,440 vehicles affected
Defect: CERTAIN AFTERMARKET BRAKE HYDRAULIC MASTER CYLINDERS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT BRAKE CYLINDERS FOR CERTAIN FORD, DAIMLERCHRYSLER, AND JEEP PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE BRAKE CYLINDERS WERE SOLD UNDER THE BRAND NAMES OF NAPA, RAYBESTOS, AIMCO, AC DELCO, CARQUEST, BENDIX, AND WAGNER. ONLY PRODUCTS THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM JULY 27, 2005 THROUGH JANUARY 17, 2006 (DATE CODES 0529 THROUGH 0602) ARE SUBJECT TO THIS...
Consequence: LOSS OF BRAKE FLUID CAN LEAD TO A DECREASE IN BRAKE LINE PRESSURE AND AN INCREASE IN STOPPING DISTANCE, WHICH CAN RESULT IN A VEHICLE CRASH.
Remedy: AFFINIA (BRAKE PARTS, INC.) WILL REPLACE THE SUBJECT BRAKE HYDRAULIC MASTER CYLINDERS FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON MARCH 20, 2006. OWNERS CAN CONTACT AFFINA GROUP CUSTOMER SERVICE AT 1-800-323-0354.
View full details →Recall 01V313000 — STEERING:RACK AND PINION:RACK
| 7,050 vehicles affected
Defect: VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USED EXTENSIVELY IN TRACK TYPE RACING EVENTS AND SUBJECTED TO AGGRESSIVE DRIVING CONDITIONS COULD EXPERIENCECRACKING OF THE STEERING RACK MOUNTING BRACKETS.
Consequence: THE CRACKS COULD EVENTUALLY LEAD TO SEPARATION OF THE STEERING RACK FROM THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE. SEPARATION OF THE STEERING RACK COULD RESULT IN UNEXPECTED STEERING LOOSENESS AND LAG.
Remedy: ALL AFFECTED VEHICLES WILL HAVE A FIELD REPAIR KIT INSTALLED, CONSISTING OF LOWER FRAME RAIL REINFORCEMENT GUSSETS AND A REINFORCEMENT BRACKET. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN MAY 20, 2002. OWNERS WHO DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE INFORMATION WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD...
View full details →Recall 01V120000 — SEAT BELTS:FRONT:ANCHORAGE
| 615 vehicles affected
Defect: VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH RACING OPTION (ACR OR GT2). THE 5-POINT RACING SEAT BELT HARNESS, WHICH IS OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT ON THE VIPER MAY NOT MEET THE VOLUNTARY LOAD SPECIFICATIONS SET FORTH BY THE FIA (FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L'AUTOMOBILE).
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THE HARNESS MAY NOT PROPERLY RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT, INCREASING THE RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY.
Remedy: THE 5-POINT RACING HARNESS WILL BE REPLACED. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN FEBRUARY 25, 2002. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD...
View full details →Recall 00V366000 — CHILD SEAT
| 1,211,756 vehicles affected
Defect: VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES, PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 225, "CHILD RESTRAINT ANCHORAGE SYSTEMS." SOME OF THE OWNER'S MANUALS FOR THESE VEHICLES ARE MISSING INSTRUCTIONS THAT PROVIDE A STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURE, INCLUDING DIAGRAMS, FOR PROPERLY ATTACHING A CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM'S TETHER STRAP TO THE TETHER ANCHORAGE.
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THE CHILD SEAT MAY NOT BE PROPERLY ATTACHED INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY TO THE CHILD.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH AN ADDENDUM TO THE OWNER'S MANUALS.
View full details →Owner Complaints for the 2000 DODGE VIPER
9 complaints have been filed with NHTSA for the 2000 DODGE VIPER. Below is a breakdown by vehicle component.
| Component | Complaints | Crashes | Fires | Injuries | Deaths |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engine And Engine Cooling | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Seat Belts | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Service Brakes Hydraulic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Structure | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Structurebodyroof And Pillars | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Suspension | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unknown Or Other | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Visibilitypower Window Devices And Controls | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Visibilitywindshield | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Most Recent Complaints
COPY OF REQUEST SENT TO ISO INTERNATIONAL; I HAVE SOME SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUES INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FRAME SUPPORTING A DODGE VIPER. I HAVE CONTACTED THE REGISTRAR UL LABORATORIES, INCLUDING TODAY, ON 2 OCCASIONS REGARDING THIS PRODUCT. THE FIRST REQUEST FOR INFORMATION WAS IGNORED. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT TELL ME WE LIVE IN A SELF REGULATING COUNTRY AND ARE UNWILLING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE. THE DEALER INFORMS ME THE MANUFACTURER CONTENDS THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER SAYS THEY ARE HAPPY TO REPAIR ANY WARRANTY ISSUES HOWEVER THEY CAN SEE NO ISSUE. WHAT I HAVE OBSERVED IS VISUALLY THE WELDING ON THE FRAME AT HAND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED WELDING STANDARDS. X-RAY TESTING OF THE FRAME REVEALS 7 OF THE 11 WELDS TESTED HAVE GROSS PEROSITY MEANING THE WELDS ARE NOT DONE PROPERLY THE FRAME SUPPORTS THE LOWER CONTROL ARMS WHICH HOLD THE WHEELS ON THE CAR. AS WELL AS THE MOTOR MOUNTS WHICH SUPPORT A 10 CYLINDER ENGINE. THE DOORS DO NOT OPERATE PROPERLY WHEN PARKED ON AN INCLINE AND A HARDTOP ROOF WEIGHING CLOSE TO 100 POUNDS FLEW OFF THE CAR ON THE HIGHWAY, A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER IT WAS INSTALLED BY THE DEALER. I HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR CONCERN. HOW AM I, WITHIN YOUR SYSTEM, ABLE TO HAVE AN INVESTIGATION COMPLETED WHEN THE REGISTRAR WHO WAS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INITIAL TESTING WON'T EVEN RESPOND TO MY INQUIRIES? I DON'T BELIEVE A COMPANY RECEIVING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR FROM A MANUFACTURER FOR TESTING ITS PRODUCTS, CAN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AN UNBIASED OPINION, WITH OBVIOUS REASONS TO BE BIASED. I ALSO REITERATE HOW CAN A COMPANY WHO IS DISJOINTED FROM THE END USERS BY A DEALER NETWORK, A NETWORK THAT HAS NO REASON TO CONFORM TO ISO STANDARDS, CLAIM TO BE ISO COMPLIANT. I SIMPLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT PROCEDURES ARE IN PLACE AT CHRYSLER FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION. WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THEIR PRODUCTS.
COPY OF REQUEST SENT TO ISO INTERNATIONAL; I HAVE SOME SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUES INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FRAME SUPPORTING A DODGE VIPER. I HAVE CONTACTED THE REGISTRAR UL LABORATORIES, INCLUDING TODAY, ON 2 OCCASIONS REGARDING THIS PRODUCT. THE FIRST REQUEST FOR INFORMATION WAS IGNORED. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT TELL ME WE LIVE IN A SELF REGULATING COUNTRY AND ARE UNWILLING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE. THE DEALER INFORMS ME THE MANUFACTURER CONTENDS THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER SAYS THEY ARE HAPPY TO REPAIR ANY WARRANTY ISSUES HOWEVER THEY CAN SEE NO ISSUE. WHAT I HAVE OBSERVED IS VISUALLY THE WELDING ON THE FRAME AT HAND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED WELDING STANDARDS. X-RAY TESTING OF THE FRAME REVEALS 7 OF THE 11 WELDS TESTED HAVE GROSS PEROSITY MEANING THE WELDS ARE NOT DONE PROPERLY THE FRAME SUPPORTS THE LOWER CONTROL ARMS WHICH HOLD THE WHEELS ON THE CAR. AS WELL AS THE MOTOR MOUNTS WHICH SUPPORT A 10 CYLINDER ENGINE. THE DOORS DO NOT OPERATE PROPERLY WHEN PARKED ON AN INCLINE AND A HARDTOP ROOF WEIGHING CLOSE TO 100 POUNDS FLEW OFF THE CAR ON THE HIGHWAY, A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER IT WAS INSTALLED BY THE DEALER. I HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR CONCERN. HOW AM I, WITHIN YOUR SYSTEM, ABLE TO HAVE AN INVESTIGATION COMPLETED WHEN THE REGISTRAR WHO WAS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INITIAL TESTING WON'T EVEN RESPOND TO MY INQUIRIES? I DON'T BELIEVE A COMPANY RECEIVING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR FROM A MANUFACTURER FOR TESTING ITS PRODUCTS, CAN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AN UNBIASED OPINION, WITH OBVIOUS REASONS TO BE BIASED. I ALSO REITERATE HOW CAN A COMPANY WHO IS DISJOINTED FROM THE END USERS BY A DEALER NETWORK, A NETWORK THAT HAS NO REASON TO CONFORM TO ISO STANDARDS, CLAIM TO BE ISO COMPLIANT. I SIMPLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT PROCEDURES ARE IN PLACE AT CHRYSLER FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION. WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THEIR PRODUCTS.
COPY OF REQUEST SENT TO ISO INTERNATIONAL; I HAVE SOME SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUES INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FRAME SUPPORTING A DODGE VIPER. I HAVE CONTACTED THE REGISTRAR UL LABORATORIES, INCLUDING TODAY, ON 2 OCCASIONS REGARDING THIS PRODUCT. THE FIRST REQUEST FOR INFORMATION WAS IGNORED. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT TELL ME WE LIVE IN A SELF REGULATING COUNTRY AND ARE UNWILLING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE. THE DEALER INFORMS ME THE MANUFACTURER CONTENDS THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER SAYS THEY ARE HAPPY TO REPAIR ANY WARRANTY ISSUES HOWEVER THEY CAN SEE NO ISSUE. WHAT I HAVE OBSERVED IS VISUALLY THE WELDING ON THE FRAME AT HAND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED WELDING STANDARDS. X-RAY TESTING OF THE FRAME REVEALS 7 OF THE 11 WELDS TESTED HAVE GROSS PEROSITY MEANING THE WELDS ARE NOT DONE PROPERLY THE FRAME SUPPORTS THE LOWER CONTROL ARMS WHICH HOLD THE WHEELS ON THE CAR. AS WELL AS THE MOTOR MOUNTS WHICH SUPPORT A 10 CYLINDER ENGINE. THE DOORS DO NOT OPERATE PROPERLY WHEN PARKED ON AN INCLINE AND A HARDTOP ROOF WEIGHING CLOSE TO 100 POUNDS FLEW OFF THE CAR ON THE HIGHWAY, A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER IT WAS INSTALLED BY THE DEALER. I HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR CONCERN. HOW AM I, WITHIN YOUR SYSTEM, ABLE TO HAVE AN INVESTIGATION COMPLETED WHEN THE REGISTRAR WHO WAS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INITIAL TESTING WON'T EVEN RESPOND TO MY INQUIRIES? I DON'T BELIEVE A COMPANY RECEIVING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR FROM A MANUFACTURER FOR TESTING ITS PRODUCTS, CAN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AN UNBIASED OPINION, WITH OBVIOUS REASONS TO BE BIASED. I ALSO REITERATE HOW CAN A COMPANY WHO IS DISJOINTED FROM THE END USERS BY A DEALER NETWORK, A NETWORK THAT HAS NO REASON TO CONFORM TO ISO STANDARDS, CLAIM TO BE ISO COMPLIANT. I SIMPLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT PROCEDURES ARE IN PLACE AT CHRYSLER FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION. WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THEIR PRODUCTS.
COPY OF REQUEST SENT TO ISO INTERNATIONAL; I HAVE SOME SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUES INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FRAME SUPPORTING A DODGE VIPER. I HAVE CONTACTED THE REGISTRAR UL LABORATORIES, INCLUDING TODAY, ON 2 OCCASIONS REGARDING THIS PRODUCT. THE FIRST REQUEST FOR INFORMATION WAS IGNORED. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT TELL ME WE LIVE IN A SELF REGULATING COUNTRY AND ARE UNWILLING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE. THE DEALER INFORMS ME THE MANUFACTURER CONTENDS THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER SAYS THEY ARE HAPPY TO REPAIR ANY WARRANTY ISSUES HOWEVER THEY CAN SEE NO ISSUE. WHAT I HAVE OBSERVED IS VISUALLY THE WELDING ON THE FRAME AT HAND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED WELDING STANDARDS. X-RAY TESTING OF THE FRAME REVEALS 7 OF THE 11 WELDS TESTED HAVE GROSS PEROSITY MEANING THE WELDS ARE NOT DONE PROPERLY THE FRAME SUPPORTS THE LOWER CONTROL ARMS WHICH HOLD THE WHEELS ON THE CAR. AS WELL AS THE MOTOR MOUNTS WHICH SUPPORT A 10 CYLINDER ENGINE. THE DOORS DO NOT OPERATE PROPERLY WHEN PARKED ON AN INCLINE AND A HARDTOP ROOF WEIGHING CLOSE TO 100 POUNDS FLEW OFF THE CAR ON THE HIGHWAY, A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER IT WAS INSTALLED BY THE DEALER. I HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR CONCERN. HOW AM I, WITHIN YOUR SYSTEM, ABLE TO HAVE AN INVESTIGATION COMPLETED WHEN THE REGISTRAR WHO WAS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INITIAL TESTING WON'T EVEN RESPOND TO MY INQUIRIES? I DON'T BELIEVE A COMPANY RECEIVING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR FROM A MANUFACTURER FOR TESTING ITS PRODUCTS, CAN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AN UNBIASED OPINION, WITH OBVIOUS REASONS TO BE BIASED. I ALSO REITERATE HOW CAN A COMPANY WHO IS DISJOINTED FROM THE END USERS BY A DEALER NETWORK, A NETWORK THAT HAS NO REASON TO CONFORM TO ISO STANDARDS, CLAIM TO BE ISO COMPLIANT. I SIMPLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT PROCEDURES ARE IN PLACE AT CHRYSLER FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION. WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THEIR PRODUCTS.
COPY OF REQUEST SENT TO ISO INTERNATIONAL; I HAVE SOME SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUES INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FRAME SUPPORTING A DODGE VIPER. I HAVE CONTACTED THE REGISTRAR UL LABORATORIES, INCLUDING TODAY, ON 2 OCCASIONS REGARDING THIS PRODUCT. THE FIRST REQUEST FOR INFORMATION WAS IGNORED. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT TELL ME WE LIVE IN A SELF REGULATING COUNTRY AND ARE UNWILLING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE. THE DEALER INFORMS ME THE MANUFACTURER CONTENDS THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER SAYS THEY ARE HAPPY TO REPAIR ANY WARRANTY ISSUES HOWEVER THEY CAN SEE NO ISSUE. WHAT I HAVE OBSERVED IS VISUALLY THE WELDING ON THE FRAME AT HAND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED WELDING STANDARDS. X-RAY TESTING OF THE FRAME REVEALS 7 OF THE 11 WELDS TESTED HAVE GROSS PEROSITY MEANING THE WELDS ARE NOT DONE PROPERLY THE FRAME SUPPORTS THE LOWER CONTROL ARMS WHICH HOLD THE WHEELS ON THE CAR. AS WELL AS THE MOTOR MOUNTS WHICH SUPPORT A 10 CYLINDER ENGINE. THE DOORS DO NOT OPERATE PROPERLY WHEN PARKED ON AN INCLINE AND A HARDTOP ROOF WEIGHING CLOSE TO 100 POUNDS FLEW OFF THE CAR ON THE HIGHWAY, A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER IT WAS INSTALLED BY THE DEALER. I HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR CONCERN. HOW AM I, WITHIN YOUR SYSTEM, ABLE TO HAVE AN INVESTIGATION COMPLETED WHEN THE REGISTRAR WHO WAS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INITIAL TESTING WON'T EVEN RESPOND TO MY INQUIRIES? I DON'T BELIEVE A COMPANY RECEIVING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR FROM A MANUFACTURER FOR TESTING ITS PRODUCTS, CAN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AN UNBIASED OPINION, WITH OBVIOUS REASONS TO BE BIASED. I ALSO REITERATE HOW CAN A COMPANY WHO IS DISJOINTED FROM THE END USERS BY A DEALER NETWORK, A NETWORK THAT HAS NO REASON TO CONFORM TO ISO STANDARDS, CLAIM TO BE ISO COMPLIANT. I SIMPLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT PROCEDURES ARE IN PLACE AT CHRYSLER FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION. WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THEIR PRODUCTS.
Safety Rating for the 2000 DODGE VIPER
NHTSA has not yet tested the 2000 DODGE VIPER in its New Car Assessment Program.
Technical Service Bulletins for the 2000 DODGE VIPER
Chrysler (FCA US, LLC) has issued 1 technical service bulletin (TSBs) for the 2000 DODGE VIPER. TSBs are notices sent by manufacturers to their dealers describing a known issue and the recommended repair procedure.
0045 — POWER TRAIN:AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION
SUBJECT REGARDING SOFT 1ST AND 2ND GEAR SYNCHRONIZER STRUT. *TT
NHTSA Investigations for the 2000 DODGE VIPER
There are no NHTSA defect investigations on record for this vehicle.
Other Model Years of the DODGE VIPER
- 1995 DODGE VIPER — 3 complaints
- 1996 DODGE VIPER — 8 complaints
- 1997 DODGE VIPER — 3 complaints
- 1998 DODGE VIPER — 4 complaints
- 1999 DODGE VIPER — 2 complaints
- 2000 DODGE VIPER (current)
- 2001 DODGE VIPER — 1 complaint
- 2002 DODGE VIPER — 1 complaint
- 2003 DODGE VIPER — 7 complaints
- 2004 DODGE VIPER — 11 complaints
- 2005 DODGE VIPER — 10 complaints
Other DODGE Models
- DODGE DURANGO — 19,139 total complaints
- DODGE GRAND CARAVAN — 18,729 total complaints
- DODGE RAM 1500 — 15,420 total complaints
- DODGE CARAVAN — 14,266 total complaints
- DODGE DAKOTA — 9,227 total complaints
- DODGE CHARGER — 8,114 total complaints
- DODGE RAM 2500 — 8,092 total complaints
- DODGE INTREPID — 8,078 total complaints