sentra vs celica vs rsx vs neon

which car would you guys get? based on anything, like looks, cost, power, handling etc.. give your reasons why you chose that car.

There are only really two choices for me here, either the Spec-V or the SRT-4.

I really don't like the way the Spec-V looks and I doubt it can outperform the SRT-4 in acceleration and handling stock to stock. I have always liked cars with large displacement and N/A, I feel they have more potential to be modified. But in this case, the SRT-4 is only $20k, so it is a hell of a bargain. :sunglasse

RSX all the way, its the only totaly new and freash design out of the lot.

Sure the SR-T might be faster, but I doubt it has the same level of enginering and finess that the RSX posses IMO brute power dosn't make for superior design and enginering.
The SR-T is also based off a much less inspiring and very boring family car, the same as the SE-R which has to be well past its used by date by now. Both the sentra/pulsar/sunny/primera/whateverelseplatform and Neon where never designed to be sports cars, hence any sports models derived from the same basic chassis will always have compromises.
The RSX and the Celica were both designed as sports car, but the RSX builds on 20 years of building some of the wolds best engines, 10 years of useing variable cam technology and over 30 years of history in F1 and motorsport. The Celica builds on only 20 years of building sports cars and limited motorsport success, but combines it with a new for Toyota engine design, that is not quite as good as it needs to be.

The RSX is quite simply the most modern car, build speficly as a sports car, and takes advantage of a long history of succesful use of new inovative technology.
The Celica tries but falls short of the mark with its engine and being slighytly older (remember Honda could look at all the problems the Celica has, and avoid them with the RSX).
The Neon and Sentra are both ceritanly fast, but are both very primative in the way they go about it and suffer comprimises from being based on chassis never designed to handle that level of performance.

I would chose the rsx simply because of looks and as said before a long history of well engineered cars. Sure the neon is fast ...... Whoopdy doo.... Ive heard and seen to many horror stories about neons and their many headgasket problems, and just being cheaply built cars in general. Hmm rsx type s and a turbo kit.... Hmm is the neon that much faster anymore? :nono:

i voted for the acura as well. i won't get into the thought that Moppie has, he pretty much summed everything up quite well. but i will say if i was in high school and just wanted a car that was cool at the time and didn't care for how long a car will last or how much engineering was involved in designing the car etc, i'd go for the neon. faster than any of the other cars, looks like what a high school kid would drive, not to mention design, so why not? the other two get an honorable mention.

but i will say if i was in high school and just wanted a car that was cool at the time and didn't care for how long a car will last or how much engineering was involved in designing the car etc, i'd go for the neon.

Have to say Im tempted by the Neon for the same reasons, anything with that much hp and that little weight would have to be a blast to drive, especialy since it sounds like some very serious work was done to the suspension and brakes to cope.
But its not something I would ever by new, as a 5-10 year old used car it would be great buy, espcialy if its still running after that amount of time, but I want something a little more sophisticated for a new car.

i would get the spec v
the one with the "skyline" fascia, at least that one was nice, well i would like it because i'm currently in college and a celica or an rsx is waaaay out of my price range, i wouldn't get a neon even if it is the srt because its a neon and u never know when it will mess up on you especially if it's running a lot of boost...i prefer N/A cars, if anything i would change the cams to racing cams or something...i respect the rsx and celica they are waaay faster and are much more reliable, but for a good cheap bang for your buck in my opinion without a turbo or anything else would be the spec v

A 2003 SRT-4 with just Mopar Stage 1 (injectors and PCM), LSD, and suspension mods finished 8th in the recent One Lap of America. I don't know how anyone can disprove that it isn't a serious performance car. It ran with heavily modded Vettes, Vipers, Audi S4s, Evos, WRXs, M-cars, Porsches, etc under harsh conditions.

The SRT-4 doesn't use the old Neon/Eclipse 2.0L motor, so it doesn't specifically have whatever problems the 2.0L has. It uses an internally modified version of the PT-Cruiser's 2.4L DOHC, which has been around since 2000.

Top 10 of 2003 One Lap of America:

1 2 chev MTI Z-07
2 4 Chevy Corvette Z06
3 1 Dodge Viper
4 3 RUF RGT
5 8 Porsche 996 Twin Turbo
6 5 Toyota Supra Turbo
7 20 CHEVROLET CORVETTE ZR1
8 52 Dodge SRT-4 <----- :boink:
9 10 Lamborghini Diablo
10 50 Audi S-4

From http://www.onelapsupra.com:

What is the Car & Driver Cannonball One Lap of America? It's just one of the most famous, challenging, and grueling endurance races in the USA. Through the course of one week, the field of over 100 race teams participate in 19 racing events (mostly road course time trials) at 9 venues all across the country... but there's a twist -- you drive your race car on the track during the day, then pile all your luggage, spare parts, and tools into it and drive overnight to a faraway track for tomorrow's race. 4,000 street miles, 300 race miles, and 100+ race teams battling it out in a single week.

i didnt know which one i would of gotten till now, i was gonna go with the srt-4, but since it has 4 doors, and didnt think it looked as good as the rsx, i picked the rsx. if the neon came in two doors, and looked a little better, than i would definately get that over the rsx.

i'm not much for honda but the rsx would be my first pick , but if i couldn't get that i'd get a celica. if i had to get a four-door i'd probably get the sentra. I'm just not much for dodge.

Sentra all the way, to me it has the best looks.
I hope that I am not totally alone on this one.

:evillol:
.:C.H.R.I.S:.

SE-R in the R-Tune (ie the one on Speed Chanel)

RSX- game over


The Neon is getting on now- and despite the SRT4 having plenty of power and handling mods- it is just non-justifiable as a new car due largely to a lack of sophistication as Moppie already pointed out- and I am somewhat doubtful of the SRT's reliability as well..........

The SER is also too old- and an economy car platform will only inhibit the sporting ability- but it is still a fine-car regardless

The Celica is so similar to the RSX that it is hard to draw any differences between the two- but Honda have more experience in the field at the end of the day and thats the way I'd go............


NB: The Celica is the only car from that list available over here and the only one I have driven- this is all just my opinion

Give me the SRT-4. It is, by far, the best bang for the buck. It can easily out perform all the cars on that list and already has a great factory performance market. IT is nice to be able to mod your car and keep your warranty.

I must point something out since it seems that some of you don't know. The SRT-4 is not being marketed as a Neon. No where on the car does it say Neon, no where has Dodge called it a Neon. The only thing it shares with the Neon is the fact that it has a striking resemblence. In fact the frame isn't even the same. The car in entirely new. As for reliability, you should read last months issue of Sport Compact Car. They looked inside the SRT-4 and they found an overly built car mechanicaly. They were very impressed with the build quality of the Neon. I get sick of all the naysayers. The only common problem the Neons ever had was the damn head gasket which is an easy fix. I don't see how you can be so general and assume that it isn't built well.

I must point something out since it seems that some of you don't know. The SRT-4 is not being marketed as a Neon. No where on the car does it say Neon, no where has Dodge called it a Neon. ..........They looked inside the SRT-4 and they found an overly built car mechanicaly. ..........They were very impressed with the build quality of the Neon. ..................



So is it a Neon or not? Because that all adds up to one very contradictory statement.
The simple fact is the car looks like a Neon becuase its uses the Neon body and floor plan, if Crysler want to strengthen it (which they would have to) and claim its differnt then they are welcome to, but they do it largely for the same reason there is no Neon badge on the car, its because the Marketing deparment belive (rightly so) that its a bad idea to associate the Neon with a wild performance car.

They are not the only company to do it, Toyota take the Corrola platfrom and build the Trueno/Levin of off it, and then claim its a differnt car but underneath its still a Corrola, and it shares all the same problems with being a performance car that the Corrola does.
The simple fact is no matter how much work you do to a car designed to only ever be a econmical cheap family car, it will underneath always only be a econmical cheap family car.
As I said above while Crysler might have done an enormous amount of work to create the SR-T, it is still at its most simple form a Neon, just like the SE-R is still a Pulsar/Sentra.

The only thing the SR-T has over the other cars listed is bang for your buck, which it clearly has plenty of, and as you mentioned performance surport from the factory that puts the other 3 to shame, but it gets its peformance in a very primative way, prehaps if it was 15 years ago then it would be considered a great car, sort of a secure mans compact muscle car, but by todays standards its a bit of a dinosour, and while it may be excpetional fast, its also somewhat old fashioned.

I would still love to be 18 and living in the US with enough money to buy one though, if I could be young and irrisponsible again it would be my car of choice.
But as a slightly older and more mature individual with more sophisticated tastes it seems a little primative for me.

So is it a Neon or not? Because that all adds up to one very contradictory statement.
The simple fact is the car looks like a Neon becuase its uses the Neon body and floor plan, if Crysler want to strengthen it (which they would have to) and claim its differnt then they are welcome to, but they do it largely for the same reason there is no Neon badge on the car, its because the Marketing deparment belive (rightly so) that its a bad idea to associate the Neon with a wild performance car.

They are not the only company to do it, Toyota take the Corrola platfrom and build the Trueno/Levin of off it, and then claim its a differnt car but underneath its still a Corrola, and it shares all the same problems with being a performance car that the Corrola does.
The simple fact is no matter how much work you do to a car designed to only ever be a econmical cheap family car, it will underneath always only be a econmical cheap family car.
As I said above while Crysler might have done an enormous amount of work to create the SR-T, it is still at its most simple form a Neon, just like the SE-R is still a Pulsar/Sentra.

The only thing the SR-T has over the other cars listed is bang for your buck, which it clearly has plenty of, and as you mentioned performance surport from the factory that puts the other 3 to shame, but it gets its peformance in a very primative way, prehaps if it was 15 years ago then it would be considered a great car, sort of a secure mans compact muscle car, but by todays standards its a bit of a dinosour, and while it may be excpetional fast, its also somewhat old fashioned.

I would still love to be 18 and living in the US with enough money to buy one though, if I could be young and irrisponsible again it would be my car of choice.
But as a slightly older and more mature individual with more sophisticated tastes it seems a little primative for me.


i'm sorry but i disagree alot....from what you are saying the EVO is just a lancer and it also it gets its perfoarmance in a very primitive way....


and i'm very sorry sorry that i have to quote this but: "winning is winning" just the fact that you can brag about having a high tech engine does not make up for the fact that you just lost.....

"winning is winning" just the fact that you can brag about having a high tech engine does not make up for the fact that you just lost.....


If it was only about who could run faster down the 1/4 then there is absolutly no argument, even around a circut the SR-T would probobly be faster, but there is a lot more to a car than just how fast it is

If it was only about who could run faster down the 1/4 then there is absolutly no argument, even around a circut the SR-T would probobly be faster, but there is a lot more to a car than just how fast it is



and i agree with you...for the same reason now i'm more inclined to get a 350Z over an evo even though the evo is technically faster


the reason i'm defending the srt4 is because a lot of people seem to bash it with reasonings like "its just a neon" or "all neons have head gasket problems" or "its a just a dodge"....like either the german or american of Daimler/Chrysler divisions don't have a long racing and quality histories...true they might have turned out a crappy car or two along the way...but who hasn't


and polygon is right. That engine is extremelly well build...they guys at SCC literally said that it was "almost overly well built" i guess this is why they offer all those upgrades under warranty...


I guess when chossing between an RSX and SRT4 it really comes to what you want more...if you want looks and luxury get an RSX if you want more performance get an SRT....its as simple as that...each car catters to a slightly different crowd

So is it a Neon or not? Because that all adds up to one very contradictory statement.
The simple fact is the car looks like a Neon becuase its uses the Neon body and floor plan, if Crysler want to strengthen it (which they would have to) and claim its differnt then they are welcome to, but they do it largely for the same reason there is no Neon badge on the car, its because the Marketing deparment belive (rightly so) that its a bad idea to associate the Neon with a wild performance car.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with this, too. My 1999 R/T doesn't have the word "neon" on it outside anywhere. Why then, do most of the integras, civics, and even the occasional celica that I race, all end up saying "beat by a NEON"?
Anyway, back on subject, I would have to go with the SRT-4 too. This is partially because I am happy with my current NEON, and partially because I've read up on them. You can always argue "turbocharge the rsx, and see which is faster". if you buy a $20K SRT4, and put $6000 work into it, it'd probably still be faster than the $23K car with a $3000 turbo. I would have to say that, with respect to price and performance, the SRT-4 would be the best choice. With respect to stock performance, the SRT-4 still wins in my book. appearance isn't the greatest, I will say that, but the RSX isn't really that much better, in my opinion. And the celica. I have driven the GTS, but only in a parking lot at Toyota. However, the talk around toyota was about the huge amount of blown engines, due to the overly tight sport shifting box. Anyway, I'd go with the SRT-4. You can always change the look of a car, but sometimes its harder to change the performance.

i think that the srt-4 is harder to make look better, than it is to make an rsx faster. i think the srt-4 looks better stock than any body kits, or anything ive ever seen out there anwways, and i dont think it looks that bad, its just that i think the rsx looks better with its two doors. based on looks, first would be the rsx, se-r spec v second, srt-4 third, then the celica. the celicas rear looks too high, and i dont like the front lights.

So is it a Neon or not? Because that all adds up to one very contradictory statement. The simple fact is the car looks like a Neon becuase its uses the Neon body and floor plan, if Crysler want to strengthen it (which they would have to) and claim its differnt then they are welcome to, but they do it largely for the same reason there is no Neon badge on the car, its because the Marketing deparment belive (rightly so) that its a bad idea to associate the Neon with a wild performance car.

Ooops, I'm a victim of my own argument. :grinno:

While the floor plan and body is almost the same, the frame is not. Just like the Evo has a different body than a regular Lancer. The only thing the SRT-4 shares with a regular Neon is a striking resemblance. I agree with the marketing comment though. It has bit Chrysler in the ass before. It is like with my car, the LeBaron GTC. Most people write it off as a simple LeBaron, but it has a stiffer suspension and frame, more luxurious interior, forged engine, turbo charger, and it looked better. It had a lot of other options over any other LeBaron, but it was written off as being a slow econo box because people didn't know any better. It seems that Dodge can't avoid that with the SRT-4.

They are not the only company to do it, Toyota take the Corolla platform and build the Trueno/Levin of off it, and then claim its a differnt car but underneath its still a Corrola, and it shares all the same problems with being a performance car that the Corrola does. The simple fact is no matter how much work you do to a car designed to only ever be a econmical cheap family car, it will underneath always only be a econmical cheap family car.
As I said above while Crysler might have done an enormous amount of work to create the SR-T, it is still at its most simple form a Neon, just like the SE-R is still a Pulsar/Sentra.

Ah, but the car was simply called a Trueno on the other side of the pond. The same car could be had here as the Corolla GTS. And I would say that they could hold their own. I would have to disagree with you here. A car can have humble beginnings but still be a performance car. Take the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, Subaru WRX and WRX STi, and the Nissan Skyline GT-R34. All were taken from humble econo car roots. The Lancer, Impreza, and Skyline are all econo cars. Chrysler has simply done the same thing with the SRT-4.

The only thing the SR-T has over the other cars listed is bang for your buck, which it clearly has plenty of, and as you mentioned performance surport from the factory that puts the other 3 to shame, but it gets its peformance in a very primative way, prehaps if it was 15 years ago then it would be considered a great car, sort of a secure mans compact muscle car, but by todays standards its a bit of a dinosour, and while it may be excpetional fast, its also somewhat old fashioned.

While the RSX will give you more luxury than the rest, I would say the SRT-4 is on par with the other two in every category except performance, where it blows them all away. Hell the seats in the SRT-4 are the same seats out of the SRT-10 Viper. I also don't understand how you can call turbocharging primitive. It is a much better alternative than bigger displacement and a lot of tuning from the factory. Turbos have also grown in sophistication over the years. The Garrett T03 from 15 years ago is vastly different from the Garrett T03, not to mention, the GT03 from today.

To touch on some other points. The SRT-4 is not a straight line car only, they can handle. In fact they have been doing very well is SCCA Pro Rally events. Topping out in their class and even surpassing some others in upper classes in cars like Evos.

As for the R/T, I've seen plenty of them, and they all had Neon badges on them. I don't know what happened to yours but the R/T was marketed as a Neon. It varied very little from a regular Neon while the SRT-4 is vastly different.

All except for the SRT4 run in SCCA SSB where they regularly get beaten by 140HP Miatas. The SRT4 has enough power advantage over the other 3 to justify it as my choice.

The SPEED Worls Challenge RSX's (Realtime and King) and Sentra SER's are not representitive of the street car. They may run the stock tub and a few stock pieces, but are worth about $140+k each once you add in all the racing parts and suspension tuning.

Most people write it off as a simple LeBaron, but it has a stiffer suspension and frame, more luxurious interior, forged engine, turbo charger, and it looked better. It had a lot of other options over any other LeBaron, but it was written off as being a slow econo box because people didn't know any better. It seems that Dodge can't avoid that with the SRT-4.



You forget I used to own an orginal SiR Civic, I bet it got written off by more people as being a slow pile of crap civic than your Le Baron does.
But like the Le Baron and the EVO and WRX etc it only shared the basic unibody with the lesser models, every thing under the car, subframes, suspension and brakes, and every thing under the bonnet was differnt, and it made an infinte differnce to the cars performance.
But like the early EVOs and WRXs it is still just based on a cheap econo car design, while you can stiffen a car with differnt sub frames, and put a bigger engine in it, you can't change the basic unibody design of the car, and it is the single most important part of a cars design, it literaly holds the rest of the car together. Stiffer subframes will only help so much if the body of the car still flexs, stiffer suspension can never fully compensate for attachment points that compromise roll centers and geometry for leg room and lower production costs.
If you ever get to drive a purpose built sports car hard enough you will soon understand what Im refering to, and while the RSX and Celica make compromises, the simple fact that they are designed to be a sports car means they make much less compromises than the SE-R and SR-T do.

There is another reason, the unibody has to carry all the stress put on a car under hard driving, and there is a limit to how much it can take. One that was never orginaly designed to be used on a performance car will have much much lower limits than one that was.
The Trueno/Levin/GTS Corrola is a classic example of this, while it may be a great handling car, with lots of potential for hp engines, the basic unibody was never designed to handle the stress's modern suspension and tyre design combined with lots of hp can put on it, and if not seem welded, and reinforced in the right places the cars willl literaly tear themselves apart. The early MK1 and MKII escorts have a reputation for cracking the A piller, early WRX's and EVOs are very good at cracking front windows Mazda 323/Famila GTs/DOCH Turbos/BFMRs/GT-s/GT-R) are great at cracking the firewall and chassis rails. There are a whole host of problems that often don't show up untill 5-10 years into the cars life, problems that arise purly because the basic design of the car was never ment to handle the stress its being put under.
While Im not saying the SR-T or SE-R will do the same thing, Im sure that in 20 years (assuming such cars are still allowed) you will see more RSX's and Celicas than you will SE-Rs and SR-Ts (as a % of the number built).

As for the R/T, I've seen plenty of them, and they all had Neon badges on them. I don't know what happened to yours but the R/T was marketed as a Neon. It varied very little from a regular Neon while the SRT-4 is vastly different.
Man, I'm pretty sure that if you've seen an R/T w/ a "neon" emblem on the outside of the car, you aren't looking at an R/T. Unless, of course, somebody went through the trouble of painting stripes on my car, switching the emblems, changing the entire interior fabric, and give my car 40 more hp and started calling it an "R/T." And besides, throw a turbo in my 'regular' neon, sit it next to an SRT-4, and lets see how vastly different the SRT-4 really is.
I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but now that I think about it, all Chrysler really did was turbocharge an R/T. Which isn't a bad thing. But, then again, in retrospect, thats a lot of what they did to STI's, EVO's, and skylines, too. I know that they did other things to modify them, but the big change was the turbo.
Oh, and the toyota corolla's upgrade is the matrix, and just below that is the corolla S type.

Yeah, I guess you do know what I am talking about Moppie. Though I was under the impression that the SRT-4 has an entirely different frame than the Neon does. Perhaps I will have to look into that more.

Jaronervin, I wasn't trying to be a jerk either, all I was trying to say is that perhaps the owner before you took them off. All the R/Ts I've seen have Neon emblems on them. As for saying the SRT-4 is a turbocharged R/T, don't kid yourself. The entire drivetrain is different from your R/T. It can handle power that your engine could only dream of. Not one mechanical part in the SRT-4 could not be found on your R/T. I don't see how most of you think that the SRT-4 is just a Neon with a turbocharged engine, it is not. It is a completely new car from the ground up.

Come on, now, I (as well as most of the other people in this forum) know that the SRT-4 is more than a turbocharger. But I ask you this, if a 225 HP SRT-4 was stripped of its turbo, how much horsepower would it have? This is hypothetical of course; who'd be dumb enough to un-turbocharge it. Anyway, you take off the 75-100 HP turbo, which is probably closer to 75, since it is a stock. You are now dealing with a 150 hp neon. I will say that, obviously, the SRT-4 was built to handle more power, and with enough mods, the SRT would eventually prevail. But it'd still be close. Just my opinion, of course, but I have to defend my car, as it gets a worse wrap than the SRT-4 itself.

what did they exactly do different to the SRT-4 from the RT? of course obviously the engine, so are you saying that the chassis is the same as the RT, but diff mechanical parts, and engine?

Nope, I am saying that everything is different from an R/T Neon. The body, interior, frame, and all the mechanical bits are different from the R/T. If any Neon the SRT-4 would be closest to the SXT simply because the SXT has the same layout and some of the same body panels.

True, yes. However, I am talking about two different generations of neon.
The last of the 1st generation R/T, 1999, and the 2nd generation SRT-4. So my R/T is nothing like the SRT-4. Not better, not worse, just different.
And again, in overall performance, the sport-designed SRT-4 would definitely hold an advantage over the R/T, RSX, Celica, and Nissan alike. But on the good old straight track, it'd be a good race. I know, however, that roads dont always come in straight lines. And, given the choice, I'd obviously still take an SRT-4. But, the simple R/T isn't bad, either.

so same chassis as the sxt, but with differnt engine, and mechanical stuff?

True, yes. However, I am talking about two different generations of neon. The last of the 1st generation R/T, 1999, and the 2nd generation SRT-4. So my R/T is nothing like the SRT-4. Not better, not worse, just different. And again, in overall performance, the sport-designed SRT-4 would definitely hold an advantage over the R/T, RSX, Celica, and Nissan alike. But on the good old straight track, it'd be a good race. I know, however, that roads dont always come in straight lines. And, given the choice, I'd obviously still take an SRT-4. But, the simple R/T isn't bad, either.

Very true. The 2.0L Neons can be made to be pretty dang quick. They ar good cars. When my GTC was totaled I was looking at getting an R/T.

so same chassis as the sxt, but with differnt engine, and mechanical stuff?

Nope, just the same layout and some extirior and interior panels. The frame is different.

Do you have any links to articles that say the SRT-4's frame is different from the Neons? I haven't been able to find any information on that.

while we're on the subject, anyone know the litres the SRT-4 puts out?

While the basic frame might be the same, it is modified by the factory to be stiffer. It is same way with the Evo. They start with a Lancer frame and stiffen it. It ends up being about 60% different from the original. Is it new from the ground up, no, but it is vastly different.

The SRT-4 has a 2.4L I4.

Out of those four I would definatly choose the Srt-4. I really hate the neon but the SRT-4 has lots of power and almost always it beats other ricers hands down and it is stock.

ok so the srt-4's chassis is the same as the sxt, but with reinforcements to it like the evo, that would explain some of the weight gained.

Id get a RSX and throw a throw a turbo on it, step aside NEONS.

And i dont care what you say, it is a souped up neon. Just like a Trans am is still a firebird. You may have a sweet engine and handling but you are still gonna look like an old woman because you know what, women typically dont know shit about engines.

You would get more chicks in a v6 mustang convertible than a Badass Neon.

Get a nicer car overall and take away the advantages of the Neon with a turbo and some suspension mods.

come on guys, you all do realize that the neon has a stratus 2.4 liter engine that's been turboed right? Same angine in the damn caravan!!!
I would go for the nissan sentra se-r.

2 reasons:

1) biggest engine in it's class -> 2.5 liter 4-banger (hell yeah)
the displacement is exactly why these cars respond better to bolt on mods than any other car here.(well, maybe the srt4 does too, cuz it's turbo)

2) this is the engine which is in the nissan altima and a few other vehicles nissan is playing all it's cards on this one engine so you know it'll be well supported, reliable(JAP) AND it's here to stay.



BTW: the first turbo kit for the sentra pushes it to 240hp>more than the srt-4!!! and this is only the beggining for the sentra!!!

Id get a RSX and throw a throw a turbo on it, step aside NEONS.

And i dont care what you say, it is a souped up neon. Just like a Trans am is still a firebird. You may have a sweet engine and handling but you are still gonna look like an old woman because you know what, women typically dont know shit about engines.

You would get more chicks in a v6 mustang convertible than a Badass Neon.

Get a nicer car overall and take away the advantages of the Neon with a turbo and some suspension mods.

1. To get an RSX to be able to run the same boost as the SRT-4 you would have to replace the internals and add an intercooler. This would cost you anywhere from $4,000 - $7,000 depending. Last time I checked the RSX was already a good deal more than the SRT-4. Granted the fit and finish of the RSX is pretty good, but the SRT-4's isn't half bad either.

2. I don't care what you say. It is not a Neon, and if you're willing to base your opinion on a car based only on a nameplate it wears then your opinion is worthless. That is just plain ignorance.

3. Sure would get a lot of chicks in a V6 Mustang since that is what most of the chicks are driving.

4. I am sure that a lot of the women on this board would love to hear that you think they don't know shit about cars or engines. Your entire post was ignorant and uninformed. Think before you type next time.

come on guys, you all do realize that the neon has a stratus 2.4 liter engine that's been turboed right? Same angine in the damn caravan!!!
I would go for the nissan sentra se-r.

2 reasons:

1) biggest engine in it's class -> 2.5 liter 4-banger (hell yeah)
the displacement is exactly why these cars respond better to bolt on mods than any other car here.(well, maybe the srt4 does too, cuz it's turbo)

2) this is the engine which is in the nissan altima and a few other vehicles nissan is playing all it's cards on this one engine so you know it'll be well supported, reliable(JAP) AND it's here to stay.

BTW: the first turbo kit for the sentra pushes it to 240hp>more than the srt-4!!! and this is only the beggining for the sentra!!!

1. No the SRT-4 engine is not the same one as in the Stratus or the Caravan. It is simply the same size. It is completely different engine. It also only happens to be 0.1L smaller than the SE-R's engine. That is why it responds so well to mods. I would be willing to bet that the SRT-4's engine can handle a lot more power than the SE-R's engine can stock.

2. You're going to argue that it is more reliable because it is a Japanese car? Just shut up. You've no idea what you're talking about. That is so ignorant it isn't even funny.

BTW: The current SRT-4 is putting 223 HP and 245 ft/lbs of torque to the wheels. The 2004 model will have a Quafie LSD and will have 230 HP according to Chrsyler. They claimed the 2003 model only had 215 HP at the crank so I can't wait to see what Sport Compact Car's dyno says when they run the 2004 model and it pushes around 240+ to the wheels. Your numbers, I am sure, are at the crank.

Don't get me wrong, I like the other cars in this comparo, but I simply think that you can't beat the SRT-4. It won Sport Compact of the year for a reason.

Get a load of this !!!
the power of the 1ST turbo kit built for the spec V SE-R!!!

QR25DE kit
T3/T04B Garrett Turbo
7 lbs of boost: (240whp)
8.5lbs of boost: 264.6 whp and 250.4 ft-lbs
www.fi-r.com

The SE-R ROCKS!!!

NOW TELL ME THAT YOUR NEON CAN DO BETTER AT SAME AMOUNT of BOOST!

this is the link to the forum where it's discussed further!
http://www.nissanforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=31918&highlight=ser+spec+turbo

Get a load of this !!!
the power of the 1ST turbo kit built for the spec V SE-R!!!

QR25DE kit
T3/T04B Garrett Turbo
7 lbs of boost: (240whp)
8.5lbs of boost: 264.6 whp and 250.4 ft-lbs
www.fi-r.com

The SE-R ROCKS!!!

NOW TELL ME THAT YOUR NEON CAN DO BETTER AT SAME AMOUNT of BOOST!

this is the link to the forum where it's discussed further!
http://www.nissanforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=31918&highlight=ser+spec+turbo


I don't doubt what you just said, but first off, the turbo kit that you just rambled off is going to void your warranty. All of the factory stages allow the SRT-4 to keep its warranty. Second you need to learn that boost does not equal horsepower, it is airflow. The turbo you listed is capable of a lot more airflow than the SRT-4's.

Besides, this is a stock vs stock comparo, leave it at that.

BTW: I still think that the SRT-4's 2.4L has more potential than the SE-R's 2.5L.

i read somewhere that the sentra had rigid rear axles, and not independent. im starting to doubt its handling ability compared to the rest of the cars in this comparo, which has independent rear suspension.

Polygon : "Second you need to learn that boost does not equal horsepower, it is airflow!"


Dude, I'm not an engineer or anything but on a properly tuned engine MORE AIRFLOW = MORE HP!!! That's the point of turbos afterall!

And don't get me wrong, i think that the SRT-4 is a great car, the best domestic compact out there! It runs head-to-head with the 350z AND MUSTANGS in the 1/4 mile. I just think that nissan has always made awesome engines and they did it again with the SE-R!

Sure, the turbo will void your warranty, but you can't expect any car to run at full potential w/o voiding it!

Polygon : "Second you need to learn that boost does not equal horsepower, it is airflow!"


Dude, I'm not an engineer or anything but on a properly tuned engine MORE AIRFLOW = MORE HP!!! That's the point of turbos afterall!


so you disagree with him by saing the same thing :eek7:



btw what polygon said was right...even if that 7 psi might seem low the number is meaningless if you don't compare turbine sizes.....a smaller housing will put out the same amont of air at a higher psi than a larger housing at lower psi...so for a proper comparison you have to compare psi, size and aiflow characteristics


also the sentra has no doubt higher compression....so you need lower psi to reach a certain power

so bottom line a turboed sentra will never even be as close in reliability as the srt4 at the same power levels on the stock bottom end

the sentra engine is very good but trust me they come from the factory eqiped to handle its own power...factories don't put overly strong parts in a engine just for the fun of it...the acounding department will make them put the cheapest part that can run realible at the stock power levels....this is how business works

and again bringing modded cars to the table its meaninless....heck i can make a metro to beat a viper in the 1/4 mile...does that make it better than a viper?