Neon SRT-4 Finally tested... we have underrated HP numbers!

geno

Lifer
Dec 26, 1999
25,074
4
0
By Sport Compact Car

Here's the thread I got the info from thread

As for the 14.2 quarter, no way that was made on street tires, but the 5.8 second 0-60 sounds dead on! I'm psyched to see Dodge reintroduce a turbo car to the market (besides the PT of course) :D
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
46
91
Too bad it looks like a ricer POS. Crappy interior to go with the riceboy scoops, wings, and various other crap. But hey, what do you expect for $20,000 from Chrysler.

Anyway, Neons are junk and a purdy engine isn't gonna make it any better. Spend the extra $2k and get a REAL car like the WRX.
 

geno

Lifer
Dec 26, 1999
25,074
4
0
Originally posted by: NFS4
Too bad it looks like a ricer POS. Crappy interior to go with the riceboy scoops, wings, and various other crap.

Anyway, Neons are junk and a purdy engine isn't gonna make it any better. Spend the extra $2k and get a REAL car like the WRX.

you sir, get a big fat
rolleye.gif
Of all the negative things you just listed, the WRX has all of them. As for the "junk" statement, I laugh at that until the car comes out and actually has the chance to prove itself, until then you have nothing to say since this car shares very little of its drivetrain/suspension/brakes with it's econo-car brother.

But hey, what do you expect for $20,000 from Chrysler
A car that'll kick the crap out of everything else in the Sub 20k market- which it looks like it'll be doing pretty soon.
 
Jun 18, 2000
11,174
750
126
The goal was to build a fast, affordable car. You can bitch all you want about how this is a "riceboy POS," but I dare you to find a new car this fast for under $20,000.

By the way, the WRX base price is at $24,200 and the expected base price to the SRT-4 is under $20,000. I distinctly remember you bitching about a similar price difference between the Passat and Accord in the other thread, so you can kindly take your domestic bashing and shove it.
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
46
91
Originally posted by: geno
Originally posted by: NFS4
Too bad it looks like a ricer POS. Crappy interior to go with the riceboy scoops, wings, and various other crap. But hey, what do you expect for $20,000 from Chrysler.

Anyway, Neons are junk and a purdy engine isn't gonna make it any better. Spend the extra $2k and get a REAL car like the WRX.

you sir, get a big fat
rolleye.gif
Of all the negative things you just listed, the WRX has all of them. As for the "junk" statement, I laugh at that until the car comes out and actually has the chance to prove itself, until then you have nothing to say since this car shares very little of its drivetrain/suspension/brakes with it's econo-car brother.

The WRX has purposeful styling (afterall, it is a rally machine) and ANY Subaru interior has a Neon beat. And let's not even compare Subaru reliability to Neon junkiness.

But for $19,995 it's a fast little biatch. But in my world, being fast isn't the only story...other things like reliability, interior design/comfort, resale value, etc come into play.
 

geno

Lifer
Dec 26, 1999
25,074
4
0
The WRX has purposeful styling (afterall, it is a rally machine) and ANY Subaru interior has a Neon beat. And let's not even compare Subaru reliability to Neon junkiness.
Oh, so since it poses as a rally car, that makes it cool. got ya. As for the interiors, the WRX doesn't have any better of an interior design, as far as materials go, the WRX has it beat, but I'd love to feel how those seats in the SRT feel, that's a big part of the experience. Neon junkiness? hah, recent years have yielded some damn good cars for the money. The WRX doesn't have the strongest tranny in the world, I've even heard Subaru fans refer to it as the "glass tranny", a big drawback IMO. This isn't a comparison of reputations, it's a comparison of cars. You can't assume for a minute that because a company has a good track record, that automatically means they'll build a perfect car.


this just in! WRX owners HATE their interior!
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,344
126
You can't assume for a minute that because a company has a good track record, that automatically means they'll build a perfect car.

No, but it certainly helps sell(or not sell) them.
 

cjchaps

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2000
3,013
1
81
There is absolutely no way the cars dodge sells to you or I are going to be as fast as the one that megazine tested. If you read the article all the way through, I believe it says something about the Neon they got is a prototype. In other words, Doge gave the mag a fast non-standard little car, in order to sell more because of the hype. I'm not denying they are going to be fast, but I don't think they are going to be able to do 0-60 in under 6 on a FWD car like that. I would even question the low quarter mile time.... mid to upper 14's seem more likely to me.
 

Phuz

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2000
4,349
0
0
Originally posted by: cjchaps
but I don't think they are going to be able to do 0-60 in under 6 on a FWD car like that. I would even question the low quarter mile time.... mid to upper 14's seem more likely to me.



What does it being FWD have anything to do with it? The engine puts weight right on those tires making it better for traction/launch than RWD... this car does do 0-60 in six seconds. Its being designed for that sole purpose.. obviously, its just like any other neon... the exception, a very quick little engine and a few other perks.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,344
126
Originally posted by: Phuz
Originally posted by: cjchaps
but I don't think they are going to be able to do 0-60 in under 6 on a FWD car like that. I would even question the low quarter mile time.... mid to upper 14's seem more likely to me.

What does it being FWD have anything to do with it? The engine puts weight right on those tires making it better for traction/launch than RWD... this car does do 0-60 in six seconds. Its being designed for that sole purpose.. obviously, its just like any other neon... the exception, a very quick little engine and a few other perks.

pssssst....there's a thing called torque steer. Usually happens when the same tires guiding the car are the same tires powering it.

Not to mention that under hard acceleration, the car dives down in the back, not the front.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
22
81
They also said their dyno test confirms that the car is actually putting out 223HP instead of the claimed 215HP...
This is well within normal variance and does not mean that HP was under-rated by the factory. There can be up to a 10% variance in the HP of a mass-produced engine. HP is also rated with all standard accessories running, and is an average of more than once engine.

ZV

EDIT:
The engine puts weight right on those tires making it better for traction/launch than RWD...
And as soon as there is any acceleration at all, that weight is transfered rearward and away from the front wheels. FWD is only better for traction in situations where there is not a lot of acceleration. Plus, having all that weight at one end can really screw up the handling dynamics.

ZV
 

MiataGirl

Banned
Sep 2, 2002
309
0
0
usually 5.5 0-60 is equivalent to a 14 second quarter mile run..14.2 then sounds very right for a 5.8 0-60 run.
 

MiataGirl

Banned
Sep 2, 2002
309
0
0
Originally posted by: Phuz
Originally posted by: cjchaps
but I don't think they are going to be able to do 0-60 in under 6 on a FWD car like that. I would even question the low quarter mile time.... mid to upper 14's seem more likely to me.



What does it being FWD have anything to do with it? The engine puts weight right on those tires making it better for traction/launch than RWD... this car does do 0-60 in six seconds. Its being designed for that sole purpose.. obviously, its just like any other neon... the exception, a very quick little engine and a few other perks.

fwd cars inherently have worse traction off the line actually..awd is best, rwd is second.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Meh...would have taken it more seriously if it weren't so ugly :confused:

Anyway, let's see if I end up happy with my S2000 :D
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
22
81
Originally posted by: MiataGirl
fwd cars inherently have worse traction off the line actually..awd is best, rwd is second.
I thought Millenium had been through this with you in the last thread. *sigh* RWD is the best for drag racing. That's all there is to it. AWD just adds weight, adds inertia to the drivetrain, and saps power from the wheels with traction (the rear wheels). For straight line, RWD is best, AWD is second, and FWD is dead last.

ZV

 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,344
126
AWD is good for launches...after that it becomes parasitic. Assuming all you are doing is accellerating in a straight line.
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: geno
Originally posted by: NFS4
Too bad it looks like a ricer POS. Crappy interior to go with the riceboy scoops, wings, and various other crap. But hey, what do you expect for $20,000 from Chrysler.

Anyway, Neons are junk and a purdy engine isn't gonna make it any better. Spend the extra $2k and get a REAL car like the WRX.

you sir, get a big fat
rolleye.gif
Of all the negative things you just listed, the WRX has all of them. As for the "junk" statement, I laugh at that until the car comes out and actually has the chance to prove itself, until then you have nothing to say since this car shares very little of its drivetrain/suspension/brakes with it's econo-car brother.

The WRX has purposeful styling (afterall, it is a rally machine) and ANY Subaru interior has a Neon beat. And let's not even compare Subaru reliability to Neon junkiness.

But for $19,995 it's a fast little biatch. But in my world, being fast isn't the only story...other things like reliability, interior design/comfort, resale value, etc come into play.

What?!? The WRX is ugly, the interior is cheap, and resale value...hahaha who is going to buy a used WRX? Nobody. Why would anyone want something that some kid has probably thrashed? Ehh?? Ugly car. Bleech.

 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,082
9,457
136
Shut up NFS4 :|, this Neon is one classy car. I hear they actually used the same interior from the Viper in this car. :p ;)
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: Phuz
Originally posted by: cjchaps
but I don't think they are going to be able to do 0-60 in under 6 on a FWD car like that. I would even question the low quarter mile time.... mid to upper 14's seem more likely to me.



What does it being FWD have anything to do with it? The engine puts weight right on those tires making it better for traction/launch than RWD... this car does do 0-60 in six seconds. Its being designed for that sole purpose.. obviously, its just like any other neon... the exception, a very quick little engine and a few other perks.

All I can say to that is I hope that people like you continue to buy fwd cars so there are plenty of rwd cars available for me. :) Fwd is suck.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,344
126
What?!? The WRX is ugly, the interior is cheap, and resale value...hahaha who is going to buy a used WRX? Nobody. Why would anyone want something that some kid has probably thrashed? Ehh?? Ugly car. Bleech.

Resale on the WRX is going to be VERY good. Just watch. Limited numbers, high demand, and subaru reliability.
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: vi_edit
AWD is good for launches...after that it becomes parasitic. Assuming all you are doing is accellerating in a straight line.

And not good for turning.
 

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
Originally posted by: MiataGirl
Originally posted by: Phuz
Originally posted by: cjchaps
but I don't think they are going to be able to do 0-60 in under 6 on a FWD car like that. I would even question the low quarter mile time.... mid to upper 14's seem more likely to me.



What does it being FWD have anything to do with it? The engine puts weight right on those tires making it better for traction/launch than RWD... this car does do 0-60 in six seconds. Its being designed for that sole purpose.. obviously, its just like any other neon... the exception, a very quick little engine and a few other perks.

fwd cars inherently have worse traction off the line actually..awd is best, rwd is second.

She is quite right.

Under acceleration, a vehicle's weight shifts drastically to the rear wheels.

Ever watch dragstrip footage? Why do you think the front wheels come off the ground?

Viper GTS
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: MiataGirl
fwd cars inherently have worse traction off the line actually..awd is best, rwd is second.
I thought Millenium had been through this with you in the last thread. *sigh* RWD is the best for drag racing. That's all there is to it. AWD just adds weight, adds inertia to the drivetrain, and saps power from the wheels with traction (the rear wheels). For straight line, RWD is best, AWD is second, and FWD is dead last.

ZV

I did go throught it with her. According to her we have no proof so why bother? Some people are just ignorant.
rolleye.gif
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
46
91
Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
Shut up NFS4 :|, this Neon is one classy car. I hear they actually used the same interior from the Viper in this car. :p ;)

AHAHHA, thanks for the laugh :D