← New search

2013 Srt Viper

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Limited comparison data

There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all Viper years →

Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.

What owners reported most

Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

Limited mileage data: 3 of 3 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Visibility. Review the 2 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 1 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Seats. Review the 1 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

0 crash reports0 fire reports1 injury reports

Seats complaints

1 reports
Clear category filter
900 miles · Mar 31, 2014
Electrical SystemSeatsVisibilityInjury

WHILE DRIVING TO WORK ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 AT APPROXIMATELY 5:45 A.M., IN MY BRAND NEW DODGE VIPER GTS THAT I PURCHASED FOR AROUND $150,000 IN LATE AUGUST 2013, FROM AUTO NATION DODGE/CHRYSLER/JEEP/RAM IN SPRING, TX, WITH LESS THAN 1000 MILES ON IT, I MADE A NEWSPAPER STOP AT A CONVENIENCE STORE IN DAYTON, TX, THEN I CONTINUED …

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING TO WORK ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 AT APPROXIMATELY 5:45 A.M., IN MY BRAND NEW DODGE VIPER GTS THAT I PURCHASED FOR AROUND $150,000 IN LATE AUGUST 2013, FROM AUTO NATION DODGE/CHRYSLER/JEEP/RAM IN SPRING, TX, WITH LESS THAN 1000 MILES ON IT, I MADE A NEWSPAPER STOP AT A CONVENIENCE STORE IN DAYTON, TX, THEN I CONTINUED ON HIGHWAY 90 WEST HEADED TO WORK. AFTER COMING OUT OF THE STORE FOG HAD DEVELOPED ON MY WINDSHIELD AND MY REAR GLASS SO I TURNED ON THE FRONT DEFOGGER TO DEFOG THE WINDSHIELD. AFTER THE WINDSHIELD WAS CLEARED I TURNED OFF THE FRONT DEFOGGER. NEXT, I TURNED ON THE REAR GLASS DEFOGGER TO DEFOG THE REAR GLASS. DURING THE DEFOGGING OF THE REAR GLASS I NOTICED SMOKE/SPARKS THAT I MISTAKEN FOR FOG EVAPORATING. AFTER ABOUT TWO MINUTES OF DEFOGGING AND TWO MILES OF DRIVING DOWN HIGHWAY 90 WEST THE REAR GLASS EXPLODED LIKE A BOMB, SLINGING HOT GLASS TO THE BACK OF MY HEAD AND EVERYWHERE ELSE IT COULD GO. I QUICKLY TURNED OFF THE REAR GLASS DEFOGGER AND SLOWED DOWN TO GAIN CONTROL OF THE CAR THINKING SOMEONE HAD SHOT OUT THE GLASS OR THREW A BOWL OR ROCK ETC. THROUGH IT. THIS WAS VERY SCARY AND DANGEROUS BECAUSE I COULD HAVE EASILY PANICKED AND LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR. ALSO, THE SEATS AND THE ENTIRE INSIDE OF THE COCKPIT HEATED UP TREMENDOUSLY, CAUSING ME TO PULL OVER AND LET THE INSIDE COOL OFF BEFORE I DROVE THE CAR BACK HOME (6 MILES EAST ON HIGHWAY 90 TO LIBERTY, TX.... I WAS VERY LUCKY TO BE CLOSE TO MY HOME). "I RECEIVED SMALL CUTS IN THE BACK OF MY HEAD FROM THE GLASS THAT I LATER CLEANED WITH PAPER TOWELS". I CALLED DODGE AND THE DEALERSHIP TO ARRANGE FOR THE CAR TO BE EXAMINED. DODGE SENT A TRUCK TO TRANSPORT THE CAR BACK TO AUTO NATION. DODGE AND AUTO NATION CLAIMS THE CAR WAS REPAIRED BUT THERE ARE SOUNDS THAT THE BACK GLASS MAKES WITH OR WITHOUT THE REAR GLASS DEFOGGER ON. "THIS ELECTRICAL PROBLEM WILL BECOME DEADLY IF NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY"....UPDATED 04-10-14 *BF

NHTSA ODI #10575914

Official recalls

1

14V529000 · Air Bags:frontal; Air Bags:frontal:sensor/control MODULE-INACTIVE

Sep 4, 2014

Chrysler Group LLC (Chrysler) is recalling certain model year 2013-2014 SRT Viper vehicles manufactured November 28, 2012, to June 26, 2014. Due to inaccurate seat position sensors, the frontal air bags may deploy with a lower velocity than designed for the actual seat position.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: In the event of a vehicle crash necessitating air bag deployment, an air bag that deploys at a lower velocity than designed may increase the risk of personal injury.

Remedy: Chrysler will notify owners, and dealers will install a metal shim on the detection plate to correct the seat position sensor accuracy, free of charge. The recall began on December 20, 2014. Owners may contact Chrysler customer service at 1-800-853-1403. Chrysler's number for this recall is P52.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Air Bags:frontal:sensor/control MODULE-INACTIVE

Chrysler Group LLC (Chrysler) is recalling certain model year 2013-2014 SRT Viper vehicles manufactured November 28, 2012, to June 26, 2014. Due to inaccurate seat position sensors, the frontal air bags may deploy with a lower velocity than designed for the actual seat position.

Consequence: In the event of a vehicle crash necessitating air bag deployment, an air bag that deploys at a lower velocity than designed may increase the risk of personal injury.

Remedy: Chrysler will notify owners, and dealers will install a metal shim on the detection plate to correct the seat position sensor accuracy, free of charge. The recall began on December 20, 2014. Owners may contact Chrysler customer service at 1-800-853-1403. Chrysler's number for this recall is P52.

Air Bags:frontal

Chrysler Group LLC (Chrysler) is recalling certain model year 2013-2014 SRT Viper vehicles manufactured November 28, 2012, to June 26, 2014. Due to inaccurate seat position sensors, the frontal air bags may deploy with a lower velocity than designed for the actual seat position.

Consequence: In the event of a vehicle crash necessitating air bag deployment, an air bag that deploys at a lower velocity than designed may increase the risk of personal injury.

Remedy: Chrysler will notify owners, and dealers will install a metal shim on the detection plate to correct the seat position sensor accuracy, free of charge. The recall began on December 20, 2014. Owners may contact Chrysler customer service at 1-800-853-1403. Chrysler's number for this recall is P52.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

1

RQ15004 · Software Security Vulnerability

Opened Jul 24, 2015 · Closed Jan 5, 2016

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:software

On July 23, 2015, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) launched Safety Recall 15V-461 to remedy security vulnerabilities in approximately 1.4 million model year (MY) 2013 through 2015 vehicles equipped with Uconnect head units (HU) 8.4A (RA3 radio) and 8.4AN (RA4 radio) manufactured by Harman International.On July 24, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Recall Query, RQ 15-004, to investigate HU security vulnerabilities and remedy effectiveness in the recalled population and to determine whether similar units have been supplied for use in other FCA vehicles.In an August 11, 2015 letter, FCA submitted a second Part 573 safety recall report expanding the scope of the Uconnect RA4 model radio to include additional 7,810 MY 2015 Jeep Renegade vehicles manufactured from September 18, 2014 through June 25, 2015 (Recall 15V-508).Scope analysis indicated that Uconnect radios installed in FCA vehicles not included in recalls 15V-461 or 15V-508 (subject recalls) are not equipped with built-in cellular access or short range wireless communication features and, thus, do not contain the security vulnerabilities addressed by the subject recalls. SUBJECT VEHICLES: MY2014 through 2015 Dodge Durango, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Jeep Cherokee sport utility vehicles; MY2013 through 2015 Ram 1500, 2500, 3500 and 4500/5500 pickup trucks; MY2013 through 2015 Dodge Viper vehicles; and MY2015 Chrysler 200, 300, Jeep Renegade, Dodge Charger and Challenger vehicles.According to FCA, long and short range wireless vulnerabilities identified in the recalled vehicles could allow unauthorized third-party access to, and manipulation of, networked vehicle control systems.Successful exploitation of the vulnerabilities, coupled with reverse engineering of networked microprocessor control modules, could result in unauthorized manipulation of vehicle control systems. This unauthorized manipulation of vehicle controls and systems could expose the driver, vehicle occupants or other highway users to an increased risk of injury.FCA and its network provider, Sprint, conducted a nationwide campaign to block access to a radio communications port that was unintentionally left open.On July 27, 2015, short range wireless vulnerabilities were also blocked.Finally, third party security evaluation and regression testing identified vulnerabilities that were either remedied by Sprint or through updates to the FCA Uconnect software.ODI identified a total of 30 complaints or field reports on unique vehicles submitted by FCA (29) or received by NHTSA (1) alleging incidents of theft from a vehicle or anomalous performance that the owner alleged were caused by, or may have been caused by, remote hacking.Twenty-six (87%) of these reports were submitted after a magazine article was published on July 21, 2015, describing the remote hacking of an FCA vehicle by researchers who were able to affect the operation of various vehicle control systems, including the service brakes, steering, throttle and ignition.Most of the complaints involved vehicle systems that were not safety critical (e.g., complaints related to radio, navigation system, or air-conditioning control) and did not affect vehicle control.Three complaints reported engine stalls.One owner reported sudden unintended acceleration allegedly related to hacking.None of the complaints or field reports reviewed involved the steering and braking vehicle control effects demonstrated by the research hackers prior to the recall.There were no confirmed incidents of hacking in any of the records reviewed by ODI.The remedies completed by Sprint and FCA appear to have eliminated vulnerabilities that mi