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.
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.But hey, what do you expect for $20,000 from Chrysler
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 fatOf 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.![]()
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.They also said their dyno test confirms that the car is actually putting out 223HP instead of the claimed 215HP...
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.The engine puts weight right on those tires making it better for traction/launch than RWD...
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.
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.Originally posted by: MiataGirl
fwd cars inherently have worse traction off the line actually..awd is best, rwd is second.
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 fatOf 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
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.Originally posted by: MiataGirl
fwd cars inherently have worse traction off the line actually..awd is best, rwd is second.
ZV
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.![]()
![]()