I never said the Viper model wasn't of historical significance. I said the cars in question aren't historically significant. There are plenty of other Vipers around for one to ogle and/or own, both on the road and in museums. The prototypes still exist, too. So where's the issue? If these were neons, Rams or LH cars, no one would care one bit yet each of those models is more historically significant to the Chrysler Corporation than their halo car. Those other models were the rebirth of Chrysler in the '90s that made Chrysler the most-successful, most-profitable car company on this hemisphere when Daimler bought it and raped the company. Again, these cars are not street legal, they are not suited for competition (production Vipers were never competitive in any form of motorsport), so what's Chrysler going to do with them? Put them in a museum next to the dozens of actual, historically notable Vipers already in museums? Leave them in the hands of the already-proven-irresponsible people that had them, several of whom have crashed these cars when they weren't even supposed to be driving them? Any other option beyond taking the measures they have makes no sense when you think of the potential litigation. Chrysler's been very lucky thus far that no lawsuits have yet arisen from the decision to loan them in the first place. How long can they continue to roll the dice? Due to potential litigation, the cars can neither be parted out nor sold as-is. So what's the proposition to "save" these cars? Put them in a giant warehouse, the location of which no one will ever care about since no one would go there anyhow since there's nothing special in it? That's still leaves the potential that one or more of the cars could be stolen in a break-in, and that leaves Chrysler wide-open again to liability, since it would be their fault that the cars were not disabled beyond driveability.
Why has not one other person seen any of this? Why doesn't Chrysler get any credit for having loaned these rolling litigation magnets as long as they did? A few jerks spoiled it for everyone by driving them and getting into accidents. If your whole class got sent back to school early because a couple of kids kept throwing shovels into the impellers, does that make the superintendent of the hydroelectric power dam the bad guy? No.
The Turbine Cars are not even a comparison. They passed (actually exceeded) all FMVSS at the time and were 100% street legal. Chrysler didn't crush all the Turbine Cars. There are at least four you can go see in museums, and at least one is rumored in private hands. Regardless, what else could they do with them? They couldn't sell them to the general public since there was no parts or service knowledge with which to keep a paying customer on the road. There was no racing class in which they'd be competitive, and weren't suited to modification to make them so (the Turbine Cars were pig slow). So, why the hell would you sit on a bunch of cars for absolutely no reason, be they Turbine Cars or test-mule Vipers?
In the overly-litigious society America has become, this is the only solution that makes sense as a company. People sue because the coffee's too hot, people sue because they got caught in the ventilation system while attempting to rob a place, and people who have signed lengthy waivers stating they understand the risks of what they're about to do still sue when the whole venture goes sideways, and somehow they always seem to get a true "jury of their peers", made up of people who are equally stupid and award them not only the victory but an enormous sum of money as well.
It was fun while it lasted. So until I hear of a truly-viable reason why--as well as a solution as to how--these cars should be "preserved", it's a tip of the hat, and fare thee well.