This Is How Many Dodge Viper Generations There Are (Viper Week 2021)

Let me confess something real quick: This article isn’t a… shall we say, “self-contained” piece. In fact, this is actually a type of article I used to make quite frequently during my time on CarThrottle (and less frequently on DriveTribe after CarThrottle’s website went down the toilet). Making “response” and or “rebuttal” articles (whichever you choose to see this as) was how I properly got my start in writing, and those first few response articles were about Vipers no less! Given that, it seems fitting that my first response article in ages has to do with the Dodge Viper (it’s also perfectly in time for Viper Week, so that’s a nice bonus).

What I’m responding to is an article written by Adam Ismail  on Jalopnik questioning how many generations of Dodge Viper there really were. I implore you to read the story yourself (as you’ll get the full picture of what he said and what I’m responding to), but basically Adam believes that there are only three generations of Dodge Viper, and I’m here to make a case for why many of us (his colleagues included) believe there are five. However, first I want to acknowledge the things we agree upon.

Concession No.1: There Were Three Main Body Styles

While there are visual differences that help you tell an SR I and an SR II Viper apart, and differences that help you tell a ZB I and a ZB II apart, the primary styling of both respective “eras” are largely the same. SR I cars still have the same headlights, taillights, profile, cast the same shadow, and have the same clamshell hood (excluding the NACA duct and hood louvers). The front bumpers may be different, the interiors may be different, the removable top may be different, and the side pipes might’ve been rerouted to the back for “gen 2” cars, but the shape of the RT/10 model is the same whether we’re talking about an SR I or an SR II. Likewise, the only visual difference I’ve been able to discern on ZB-era cars is in the size and position of the hood vents, plus the depth and shape of the front hood scoop (going from a thin oval-like shape to a deeper square one). The wheels options were also different for ZB II cars, but other than that they are exactly the same visually.

If it were, say, an LD-generation Charger, we wouldn’t classify the 2015 facelift car as an all-new gen from the 2011-2014 models. While there were several improvements made for those facelifted cars, they still ride on the LD (see: Updated LX) chassis even to this day. The Dodge Durango is another good example, where we wouldn’t call 2014 facelift models a “fourth-gen Durango” and we wouldn’t call 2020 facelift models a “fifth-gen Durango”, as both still ride on the third-gen platform that has underpinned the Durango since 2011. If we can recognize this fact for the Charger and Durango, then what makes the Viper so special?

Concession No.2: SR II and ZB II Vipers Do Still Use The Same SR and ZB Chassis

This is where I think we’ll find the most common ground. You talk about people usually reserving the word “generation” for when an all-new chassis and body of a car comes out, and I completely agree. Far more often than not, that word is used to signify when a car made the switch to an all-new chassis and a completely different body (among other things). By contrast, facelift or update or mid-cycle-refresh usually means a car that is still riding on the same chassis, but has received some changes to keep it competitive (or to realign it with current company values or a new design language). Referring to SR II and ZB II Vipers as “Gen 2 and Gen 4 Vipers” breaks this line of logic for seemingly no good reason. After all, they’re much more like mid-cycle-refreshes than all-new models.

If I agree on all these major points, then why do I believe there are five then, right? Here’s my rebuttal…

Counterargument: While There Are Only 3 Body Styles, There Are 5 Chassis Iterations

I tend to think of myself as a Viperholic, but even I’m not so… strict, as to believe each and every Viper generation is totally unique from a design standpoint. It might irritate a few Viper faithfuls, but SR Is and SR IIs are more visually similar than they are different. The same holds true for ZB Is and ZB IIs, perhaps even more so. With that said, I don’t feel this is grounds for oversimplifying the lineup to just three Vipers. That’s a disservice to the changes and upgrades made to SR II and ZB II versions of the car.

Even if you refer to the Viper generations solely by their chassis codes instead, you end up at five Vipers. SR I, SR II, ZB I, ZB II, and VX I. “Compromising” by using Porsche 911 chassis nomenclature doesn’t make things better either, as you end up with this: SR I, SR I.2, ZB I, ZB I.2, and VX I. By that point, you might as well just say “SR II” and be done with it, as II and I.2 mean the same thing here. There’s literally nothing to be gained by using Porsche logic instead, you still end up with five either way.

That said, Dodge did have enough sense when naming their chassis codes to realize that the “gen 2” Viper does still ride on the same chassis as its prior self. Meaning that “SR” denotes the phase of the chassis that underpins that specific Viper, and the numbers indicate if it’s an early SR model or an updated SR model (this train of thought is also applicable to ZB Vipers). Within the chassis codes themselves, Dodge recognizes that SR II and ZB II Vipers aren’t really their own generation, but rather an improvement that was built upon an earlier iteration of the car. Think of them as “series two” cars, a notable “rethink” of an existing chassis, but more extensive than just a piddly update. No matter what though, this still means there are five Vipers.

Here’s the catch, we’re talking about how people refer to various Viper iterations as “generation x”, and we both agree that this is inaccurate seeing as that word (in this context) normally means a car that rides on an all-new platform and has a new design. Knowing this, we can’t very well say there are five “generations” of Viper, as even the chassis codes admit that SR and ZB IIs are still related to their original platform mates (SR I and ZB I respectively). This, perhaps, is the perspective of the “three-generations” camp. While there may be five in total, there are only three that were all-new designs.

However, this idea that there are only “three Vipers” (as in three Viper generations) works best when using this mindset. If you were to change that word to something else, the argument starts to fall apart. The issue is not “how many Vipers are there”, it’s connotation. If you use the word “iteration” instead (and said “iteration 4 Viper” or something weird like that), then the problem is solved, as iteration doesn’t have the same meaning in the automotive world that generation does.

As with most of this article though, it isn’t quite that simple. While “generation” conveys a leap in development far greater than what was actually made, I feel iteration goes too far the other way. It seems to nearly run together the development of the car into one version (think SR V), rather than recognize the fresh designs some of them were. Perhaps I’m thinking too hard about it though.

Regardless, swapping out the word generation for a synonym that doesn’t adhere to the same meaning undermines the validity of the “three-generations” claim. The whole argument is predicated on the incorrect usage of that word, so if you remove it, you remove the main reason for only believing in three versions of the car. Iteration doesn’t imply something being “all-new” like generation does (in this context), so a sentence like “there are five iterations of the Viper” would be completely true. Not only that, but this perspective is also backed up by the chassis codes.

All of that is a long way of saying: Without semantics, the three-generations argument isn’t that strong. It is correct, but it’s correct primarily because of semantics. If you remove the word in question, it’s no longer true. That’s why it isn’t very strong.

Is There A Good Compromise Between Both Arguments?

Like is there an explanation that incorporates both sides of the argument? Well yes, but both can get a bit anal and long-winded. If you try to explain things from the three-generations side of the argument, it would be best to explain that there are only three body styles, but five total iterations of the car (which is confusing). From the five generations side of the argument, you’d have the inverse problem (also confusing). In either case, people’s eyes will just glaze over before you’ve even finished.

Alternatively, you could refer to Vipers exclusively by their chassis codes instead. The benefits are that you’d please the five-generations camp by acknowledging that there are five, and you’d also appease the three-generations camp by recognizing that SR I and SR II cars are still –ultimately– SR-based and aren’t separate generations. This comes with its own –notable– drawback though: How many people (average car enthusiasts or otherwise) really know Viper chassis codes? Look, there are a lot of cars with an egregious amount of chassis codes (the lineage of the Mercedes E-Class is a good example), but most of us know what an E30 M3 is, or what an E92 M3 is, or perhaps even what an F80 M3 is. How many people know that Gen 3 (or 2, going by three-generations logic) Vipers are called ZB I? I can’t imagine it’s many. While easily the best compromise between the two beliefs, you might have a hard time getting people to understand what Vipers you’re referring to.

Unfortunately, though we may not like it, saying “that’s a Gen 3 Viper” or “that’s a Gen 5 Viper” is a lot easier and faster, and there are more people that know what a Gen 3 or 5 Viper is than there are people that know what a ZB or VX I Viper is (which is just the chassis codes for Gen 3 and 5 Vipers). Not to mention it’s a lot easier than getting even moderately into the details of what separates the “gens” (or what makes a generation in the first place).

Are There No Right Answers Then?

Oh, there is a correct answer, but there’s only two of them. You either believe there are three generations, or you believe there are five generations. I mean, there definitely wasn’t just a single gen, and there was another version of the car after ZB II. As stated in the last few paragraphs of the counterargument, you can say (candidly) there are only three Viper generations, but the caveat is that such a belief only works if you use the strictest automotive definition of the word “generation” and don’t substitute that word for another. On the other hand, you can truthfully say there are five Viper generations as well, provided you subscribe to a less strict definition of that word or use a different –but similar– word entirely (cough iteration cough). There’s also the benefit of being backed up by the number of chassis codes too, but I’ve belabored that enough.

Let’s Review:

Yikes, where to even start. So much was discussed and debated, but perhaps it’s best to start here: Either answer is correct. There were only three all-new generations of the Viper (SR I, ZB I, and VX I). However, there were five total iterations of the car (SR I, SR II, ZB I, ZB II, and VX I). While it might be annoying to hear someone say “there are three Viper generations” or “there are five Viper generations”, it seems to me –given everything that was discussed– that both are valid answers.

Having said that, I do believe one answer is more valid than the other. Sure, it might be a bit inaccurate to say “gen 2” or “gen 4”, but I feel it’s even less accurate to say there were three total Viper generations in the whole 25-year history of the car as well. I would think even most people recognize the existence of SR II and ZB II Vipers, which –when counted with SR I and ZB I Vipers– gives us a total of 4 Vipers right there. SR (and ZB and VX) still denotes the chassis itself, the number simply tells us if it’s the original or the updated version of the car (not unlike 991 vs 991.2). Better still, those chassis codes (as stated numerous times) even admit to SR II Vipers still being on the “SR” platform and not an all-new generation onto themselves. Despite that, you still end up with a total of five snakes. 

Additionally, using Porsche-logic instead doesn’t change things either. Going by Porsche chassis nomenclature, you still end up with five Viper iterations, and with a naming structure that looks like this: SR I, SR I.2, ZB I, ZB I.2, and VX I. The only downside to naming the chassis(s) like this is that “point two” is a bit redundant when just saying “two” does the same job (and still results in their being five iterations of the Viper). 

You could still settle for only using the chassis codes when trying to describe a specific stage in the Viper’s life, but you might have a slightly hard time getting people to understand which Viper you’re referring to. Arguably a small price to pay for accuracy, but some people don’t want to deal with the (minimal) hassle. Moreover, you might have to use an incorrect term (Gen 2 for example) just to get them on the same page, so why not just lead with that in the first place? It’s incorrect sure, but not so much so that you’re feeding someone false information. 

With the reestablishing of what was talked about in this article complete, it’s time to conclude. 

Conclusion:

“So how many Viper generations are there, three or five?” In a word: Yes. There are both three and five Viper generations, it simply depends on your perspective. Both answers are valid.

I imagine that won’t please anyone though, so here’s a “once-and-for-all”, definitive answer on what I believe to be the full truth: There are five. Now obviously it seems like I’m saying that because I already believe as such (and I can’t deny that there may be some level of bias), but look at it this way: The belief that there are only three generations forces you to omit SR II and ZB II Vipers in order to fit the narrow (automotive) definition of the word generation. I find this to be the weaker argument because if you have to whittle down the lineage of a car to fit a narrow (though correct) definition of a word, then you’re using the wrong word. It’s not that the family tree is wonky (though that is kind of the case with the Viper), it’s that the word doesn’t fit the circumstances surrounding the car. In short: With this belief, you’re altering the lineage of the car to fit the definition of the word. 

By contrast, the belief that there are five generations forces you to do the opposite. Here, you’re fitting the word to the car, not the car to the word. To clarify, you’re playing fast-and-loose with the definition of the word generation to fit the circumstances of the car. Don’t misunderstand, this is also wrong, but at least you get the full picture of the Viper’s (immediate) family tree rather than weeding out important steps in the car’s history. Not only that, but the three-generations argument can almost be completely dismantled by using the words “iteration” or “version” instead, as neither of those words have the same implication of “all-new design and engineering” like the word generation does. Given the mutually agreed-upon definition of said word, you have to omit SR II and ZB II Vipers, because neither were blank-slate designs nor completely re-engineered versions of their respective predecessors. However, if you change that word –again– to “iteration” or “version”, the need to omit is completely eradicated. Neither words convey nor imply huge generational leaps, so by using those words instead, you don’t have to omit anything. Neither words overstate the significance of the changes that were made on SR and ZB II Vipers, and that exaggeration is the whole basis for the three-generations belief in the first place. 

At this point, you might be saying “but none of that disproves the fact there really were only three all-new generations of the Viper (SR I, ZB I, and VX I)” and you’d be right. The grievance I have is that the argument starts in the right place, but then goes too far. Here’s what I mean: Initially, the argument starts by saying “there are only three all-new generations of the Viper” which is correct. However, it then seems to turn into “therefore, we can now say there are three generations of the Viper in total” which is incorrect. While SR II and ZB II Vipers can’t really be called “generations” in their own right, we also can’t just exclude them from the picture because calling them “Gen 2 and 4 Vipers” isn’t quite right. Yes they aren’t generations onto themselves, but they are integral parts of Viper history, and I think it’s more important to include all the Vipers there’s ever been than it is to cherry-pick the lineage so we can use one specific word to accurately describe it. By that point, you’d only be accurately describing three generations, not the entire lineage.

Ultimately, speaking in factual terms shouldn’t require ignoring certain parts of history just to keep said terms factual. Otherwise they’re less factual and more circumstantial. Additionally, though it isn’t right to play fast-and-loose with the definition of a word, I think it’s more important to include all the phases of the Viper throughout history than it is to get hung up on the specific automotive definition of the word generation. Especially when there’s no hangups with saying there are five phases of the Viper with words like version or iteration. Even the word I just used –phases– is an acceptable alternative. 

That is the reason why I believe there are five generations of the Dodge Viper. Without a specific definition and a strict adherence to the word with that definition, there’s just no good reason for going against the chassis codes.

What do you all think though? Feel like I made a compelling case for the status quo, or is there something else I need to consider? Let me know in the comments below. See you all in the next Viper Week article!