Lancer Evolution 8 Vs. Neon SRT-4. (Video)

This is a stock Evo 8 Vs. a (Slightly) modded SRT-4. After watching the video I must say that either the guy in the Evo can't drive a stick or slightly was an understatement.

Evo 8 Vs. SRT-4. (http://www.srtforums.com/hosted/grunge/EvovsSRT4.wmv)

damn link didn't work for me....... i want to see it though... i hate neons... the name is gay.... they look like girl cars too...

at least the SRT-4 has some guts

I personnally hate the ZX2 much much much more. Its such a POS. A stock Hyundai can beat it.

Holy skylines Batman!:eek7: Slightly modded?:screwy: yea right :grinno:

slighty modded is definitly an understatement

LOL @ "slightly modified"

thats a 11-12 second neon...

Damn that's some real serious ownage!

damn that is one fast neon. do you know what it has done to it, cause he just stomped that evo :owned:

Wow... I'll take two of them srt4's!

that was either a stage 3 or equivalent srt or a crappy evo driver cuz the ownage was complete

I don't think it had to do with driver error that neon was just damn fast. Hell the 3rd run he gave that mitsubishi a headstart and still caught up.

Wow... I'll take two of them srt4's!
Screw that I'll take an SRT-10 plz.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

SRT-4 = SON OF GLHS!
:biggrin: :biggrin:

I personnally hate the ZX2 much much much more

my friend has a zx2 sport, and its not slow at all, he just has intake and some good tires and he spanks up on civics and all kinds of cars, last night he took a 90 si with i/e by 2 cars

That guy in the evo needs to learn how to drive. No way an srt-4 would win by that much, he wasted the evo like no other. I dont care what stage neon you have, and evo isnt exactly a pushover. There arent enough mods out to make an srt-4 that fast.

i dont believe that...almost impossible

Holy skylines Batman!:eek7: Slightly modded?:screwy: yea right :grinno:

Took the words right out of my mouth, there is nothing slightly modded about that Neon.

my friend has a zx2 sport, and its not slow at all, he just has intake and some good tires and he spanks up on civics and all kinds of cars, last night he took a 90 si with i/e by 2 cars


Aww c'mon man, ZX2's are like 17 second cars.

srt 4 is a great car runs 14 -14.5 I got to drive one it was fun not bad for a neon. but did not like the viper seats

There arent enough mods out to make an srt-4 that fast.
Look think what you want but did you ever hear that Mitsubishi struggle through a gear? Obviously there are enough performance oriented parts for that engine, this particular Neon shows that.

This is what I can't believe. Thats basically $2,000 cheaper then a fully loaded S-10 Xtreme.
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/blackcat/images/DSCF0017.JPG

Whats the picture of, devil? I only see a red dot.... :frown:

Fuckin a....well its the window sticker, it says the price is $19,995.

the driver in the Evo 8 sucks, is a BIG dissappointment hearing and watchin it :shakehead . i need to look at Evo killin other cars. but NICE video :grinyes:

That guy in the evo needs to learn how to drive. No way an srt-4 would win by that much, he wasted the evo like no other. I dont care what stage neon you have, and evo isnt exactly a pushover. There arent enough mods out to make an srt-4 that fast.

You don't know crap about the SRT-4 then. It is putting 223HP and 250 ft/lbs of torque to the wheels. So it is putting maybe 30HP less to the crank than the Evo. A stage 2 kit will have you beating an Evo a stage 3 will give you what you saw in that video.

There is an SRT-4 that runs 9s in the 1/4 mile perhaps they in the 8s by now. Don't underestimate the SRT-4. Dodge has been turbocharging longer than Mitsubishi has.

Dodge has been turbocharging longer than Mitsubishi has.



Yeah, but hasn't Chyrsler been using Mitsu motors in its old turbo cars?


Like the Colt, the DSM cars, probably your Lebaron...


:confused:

You don't know crap about the SRT-4 then. It is putting 223HP and 250 ft/lbs of torque to the wheels. So it is putting maybe 30HP less to the crank than the Evo. A stage 2 kit will have you beating an Evo a stage 3 will give you what you saw in that video.

There is an SRT-4 that runs 9s in the 1/4 mile perhaps they in the 8s by now. Don't underestimate the SRT-4. Dodge has been turbocharging longer than Mitsubishi has.

The future of the SRT-4:

http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/848236ALLPARnews.JPG

FYI: Mitsubishi made the turbos that Chrysler used, if not the whole motor.

You don't know crap about the SRT-4 then. It is putting 223HP and 250 ft/lbs of torque to the wheels. So it is putting maybe 30HP less to the crank than the Evo. A stage 2 kit will have you beating an Evo a stage 3 will give you what you saw in that video.

There is an SRT-4 that runs 9s in the 1/4 mile perhaps they in the 8s by now. Don't underestimate the SRT-4. Dodge has been turbocharging longer than Mitsubishi has.

I doubt that SRT-4 in the vid runs 9's or even mid 12's.
A Lancer is STILL not a pushover. That Neon blew it away by TOO much, the Evo guy just cant drive. An Evo is by no means slow, if the Neon was going to beat it then it would have been a closer race, not a 2million car lengths ahead race like in the vid.

Aww c'mon man, ZX2's are like 17 second cars

his is a freak then, its not really that slow, he rolls with us whenever we go out and cruise or whatever and we roll civics with gsr's, new sti, srt4, modded gti's, he never gets left behind, his really isnt that slow for a near stock car

I never said that the SRT-4 in that video can run 9s in the 1/4 mile. I said that there is one that can and I said it because you made the statement that an SRT-4 can't be made to go that fast. If he had the stage three kit installed on his SRT-4 and the Evo was stock that is what would happen. Stock the SRT-4 runs mid to low 14s. It takes very little to get one in the 12s. You need to open your mind. I can tell you just don't like the SRT-4.

Chysler used "some" Mitsubishi turbos and engines but very few. Chrysler designed and built the 2.2L I4 in my LeBaron. Let me give you a rundown of the engines used in the turbo time period.

1984-1987 Turbo I: Chrysler designed and built 2.2L I4 with a Garrett T03 turbo.

1988 Turbo I: Chrysler designed and built 2.2L I4 with a Mitsubishi TE04H turbo.

1989-1993 Turbo I: Chrysler designed and built 2.5L I4 with a Mitsubishi TE04H turbo.

1987-1989 Turbo II: Chrysler designed and built 2.2L I4 with an intercooled Garrett T03 turbo.

1989-1990 Turbo IV: Chrysler designed and built 2.2L I4 with an intercooled Garrett VNT25 turbo.

1991-1993 Turbo III: Chrysler designed and built 2.2L block with a Lotus head. Intercooled GarrettTB03 turbo.

As you can see Mitsubishi never made a turbo charged engine for the Chrysler and oonly one for the Dodge cars, the Stealth. They did make the 2.0L I4 and turbo in the DSMs, but they weren't Chryslers at all. The 3.0L N/A V6 used in the LeBarons was also a Mitsubishi. And used in very few cars there was an N/A 2.6L V6 from Mitsubishi in the early 80s. Chrysler used their own engines and Garrett turbos more than Mitsubishi. Both engines in my LeBarons are Chrysler designed and built by the same engineeres that designed the 440 V8. I feel that the 2.2L/2.5L engines in the turbo cars werer far stronger than the 2.0L used in the DSMs. Chrysler knows how to build strong engines. Also the SRT-4 engine is designed and built by Chrsyler the turbo is a Mitsubishi.

I am not trying to debate that Mitsubishi is bad. Hell Chrysler owns 85% of the voting stock, they pretty much own the company. There is even going to be a Dodge version of the Evo 8. I am just trying to point out that it the SRT-4 can eat the Evo up with some factory modifications. Also that Chrysler has knowlege in turbocharging and made their own engines and used mostly Garrett turbos. I am proud of that.

I've yet to see a fast evo factory standard or even lightly modified, under a rolling condition. Where they make up all their performance is off the line and up to about 75 mph or about 180kph. They really do not have long legs and are built and designed more towards a rally type of car than a pure street car.

Either way that SRT handed him his nuggets lol.

first of all ill start on the Evo. The driver cant drive. To launch an Evo you need to hold the revs pretty high to get into the power band. That guy pulled off low down the revs, so it got no take off. Notice how the Evo drops back very quickly and then keeps up once it has reached its powerband.

Also, slightly modded can mean anything. The comparison is void as soon as you know either of them arent standard.

And we all know which is the better performance car overall.

There's nothing wrong with the ZX2. My stock 2001 ZX2 pulls in with about 130 HP and that's not all that bad for a four cylinder car. I can get low 16's, high 15's and I havn't even started to modify it yet.

yes, i finally decided to post again. i think the evo driver was horrible because of his launch and various other aspects of his driving skill that other members have already gotten into. the srt-4 is an amazing car for the money (octagon-i mean that and im not trying to diss the neon in any way), but even if the neon was 'lightly modded' i dont think the evo would have been such a pushover. my explanation is that the evo driver sucked and that is what gave the driver of the srt-4 that incredible advantage. the neon might have been a stage-2, but even then the race would have been close. wha did it was the driver of the evo.

the evo did get killed though. damn, what a sad driver-rcae-etc. props to the neon. stage 2-3 whatever. that guy obliterated an evo. :shakehead i wonder how the evo driver felt after he got crushed.

actually, i have a theory. if you view the first run from a roll, you will see that there is a car that overtakes the evo in the right lane. if that evo was going all out it must have been passed by some kind of monster. i swear i saw a car about to pass the evo towards the end of the rollong run. maybe, the evo driver was not only bribed with gas money, but also with compensation money so he would let the neaon win. also, why did the evo surge ahead so minimally before the srt driver floored it (refering to the rolling run). maybe he had it in fifth or something i dont know. finally, i remember seeing a video of a bmw 328 coupe taking a new gen mercedes sl500 from a rolling start, but the merc driver flew past him. both are comparable (even if the merc had an auto-downshifts once floored from a rolling start) because the bimmer was a manual and the driver could have found a gear suitable to highway overtaking-racing. the benz does 0-60 in anywhere from 6.0 to 6.3, so the bimmer couldnt have been at such a huge dis advantage (the bimmer could do 0-60 in 6.8, 6.9. i dont know 50-70 acceleration times for both the bimmer or the merc). overall, that was a poor example to compare the the evo ad srt race, but i was searching for something to back up my argument.

There's nothing wrong with the ZX2. My stock 2001 ZX2 pulls in with about 130 HP and that's not all that bad for a four cylinder car. I can get low 16's, high 15's and I havn't even started to modify it yet.


you must be joking

i had a Volvo S70 T5 and messed with a ZX2 that was trying to overtake at its full power. I flew past him. There is no way a 130hp ZX2 is a low 16 second car. More like high 17.



In defence of the EVO it had the 6 speed gearbox - From latest best motoring the 5 speed is faster and weights less (the apparent reason) (EVO 8 RS). It had no Super AYC or ACD.
Although the SRT-4 must have had quite alot of mods to beat an Evo which is a rally car and rally cars are more or less for sprinting up to 80mph so they're quite good at doing that.

He did do one good launch but i think the SRT-4 was that much faster. It was more or less a set up - the SRT had a camera and organised the race so he already knew he was going to win.

you must be joking

i had a Volvo S70 T5 and messed with a ZX2 that was trying to overtake at its full power. I flew past him. There is no way a 130hp ZX2 is a low 16 second car. More like high 17.

A. The driver may have sucked.
B. He probably had an automatic
C. Have you ever driven one and gotten it timed? No, I didn't think so

A. The driver may have sucked.
B. He probably had an automatic
C. Have you ever driven one and gotten it timed? No, I didn't think so

O god i can't be bothered................

ok guys.. i don't post to often.. but that video of that srt4 vs the evo was taken the night of the neon/srt4 statewide show/race meet. the srt moded by www.neonparts.net, it is slightly modded(well you decide).. in that it has a more efficient intercooler, boosting 15 psi, 3" downpipe and exhaust, mopar stage 1, and had upgraded turbine wheel. The vid was taken late at night in Tampa.

fuckit

Ford ZX2 130hp 15.5 1/4 mile

Volvo S70 T5 236hp 14.5 1/4 mile

no way in hell is a Ford ZX2 going to beat a Volvo T5

fuckit

Ford ZX2 130hp 15.5 1/4 mile

Volvo S70 T5 236hp 14.5 1/4 mile

no way in hell is a Ford ZX2 going to beat a Volvo T5


Ford ZX2 Sport what year are you talking about cuz I raced one that was a stick and I bet him but it was close races so I have to say you are bs

ok my analysis...

the srt4 WAS slightly modded

if the wrx's and evo's are just about even, THAT GUY COULDN'T DRIVE. when i was joking around and raced a wrx one day the baby was fucking fast. the evo in that vid did not look like it took off correctly. the srt4 and evo should have been just about even through the whole thing if the driver was better. unless the wrx i raced was modded up the butt... but i dont think it was.

btw just in case anyone has doubs about how strond the new srt-4 engine is i suggest reading this month's SCC...they ahve a whole article on it

the guys turbo could have been fucked up in the EVO.. I know in my WRX, the turbo for some reason started only giving me 6 pounds, instead of the 13 or whatever it was supposed to have..

he could have broken it in really shitty... right off the lot kinda shit...

it could have been set up, cause i think in the third vid, the EVO got the jump and then let off the gas...

if that neon ran fucking 2's, I would still not drive it... neons are gay.. even the name says so...

Ford ZX2 Sport what year are you talking about cuz I raced one that was a stick and I bet him but it was close races so I have to say you are bs

What are you talking about?

I got the time from some website i personnally don't believe it. I still don't care how fast the ZX2 is i was just proving a point to some random ZX2 driver who claims that ZX2's are faster than T5's

somehow 130hp will never take turbo 236hp.

http://www.zx2.org/faq.htm and this is where i got its 1/4 mile from.

17 is your best? Guess the ZX2 driver was crap.

What are you talking about?

I got the time from some website i personnally don't believe it. I still don't care how fast the ZX2 is i was just proving a point to some random ZX2 driver who claims that ZX2's are faster than T5's

somehow 130hp will never take turbo 236hp.

http://www.zx2.org/faq.htm and this is where i got its 1/4 mile from.

17 is your best? Guess the ZX2 driver was crap.

When the hell did I ever say that ZX2 was faster then T5, and I also didn't say that I ran 17 with the car, I said that I've ran low 16 high 15 and I also said that the ZX2 was a good car for just 4 cylinder, 2.0 liter, non-turbo.

When the hell did I ever say that ZX2 was faster then T5, and I also didn't say that I ran 17 with the car, I said that I've ran low 16 high 15 and I also said that the ZX2 was a good car for just 4 cylinder, 2.0 liter, non-turbo.


remember this
A. The driver may have sucked.
B. He probably had an automatic
C. Have you ever driven one and gotten it timed? No, I didn't think so




This was when you were qouting this

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
you must be joking

i had a Volvo S70 T5 and messed with a ZX2 that was trying to overtake at its full power. I flew past him. There is no way a 130hp ZX2 is a low 16 second car. More like high 17.

remember this

:eek7: I still never said you stupid Volvo didn't beat the ZX2. All I'm trying to do is show you that the ZX2 isn't as bad as you thought it was. You even said yourself that the ZX2 could do 15.5 sec. in a quarter. Your original statement said high 17's, so you proved yourself wrong. End of discussion. :banghead:

End of discussion. :banghead:

:iagree:

Thread closed.