SRT-4 Vs S2000

Its there any car safe from those SRTs?

http://24.216.102.175/Public/SRTvsS20001.wmv

Mirror(should be a bit faster)

http://home.mn.rr.com/storago/SRTvsS20001.wmv

A modded turbo 4 against what seems to be stock N/A one?

Am I supposed to be surprised?

Here's an MBC/intake SRT-4 against an intake-only S2000:
Right-Click, Save As (http://www.rc.i4m.org/Videos/Redline@20Drift@[email protected])

2.4 liter turbo, less power loss, dont need to worry about traction cause its on the highway vs. 2.0 n/a, both with similar curb weight, and similar power. i would be more suprised if the s2000 won.

yea i wouldnt be suprised either if the srt-4 beat the s2000, and i dont care if its faster, cause i know the s2000 a better car. like its got a better chassis, better balance, smoother shifter, and better steering, all that good stuff that i like. if you ve driven both cars, you would know what im talking about.

not bad (was a pretty bad whooping)

the srt-4's are awesome cars, but i do agree w/ nismo in saying i'd take the s2k over one if i had the extra cash.

Nice vids. srt4 is a cool car. dont haaaaate


























actually, i'd take the s2000 too if i had the extra GREEEEEN

tsk tsk...guys i was expecting a better response....i did not post this in the s2000 forum....


no duh....of course the s2000 its a better car...but this was not a car comparison thread....this was a street race....

why with the hate response....where in my post i ever said something bad about the s2000....

and do please give credit where credit is due...the srt4 its an amazing little car and for the money its ridiculously fast

and of course if i would have the green i would get the s2000....and if i would have even more money i would get the zo6 and with even more the viper even more the 360 modena and so on.....so what was the point of that?

Carnutt I can't get your link to work...

tsk tsk...guys i was expecting a better response....i did not post this in the s2000 forum....


no duh....of course the s2000 its a better car...but this was not a car comparison thread....this was a street race....

why with the hate response....where in my post i ever said something bad about the s2000....

and do please give credit where credit is due...the srt4 its an amazing little car and for the money its ridiculously fast

and of course if i would have the green i would get the s2000....and if i would have even more money i would get the zo6 and with even more the viper even more the 360 modena and so on.....so what was the point of that?

ah, nonono, i agree w/ u 100% that for the money u can't get anything faster (brand new stock.)

no hate response from me or the others (even said the s2k got a whoopin), jus that the s2k is a bit more appealing of a car is all.

don't really know wut type of responses u were looking for i guess?

Carnutt I can't get your link to work...

Server's down:(...

ah, nonono, i agree w/ u 100% that for the money u can't get anything faster (brand new stock.)

no hate response from me or the others (even said the s2k got a whoopin), jus that the s2k is a bit more appealing of a car is all.

don't really know wut type of responses u were looking for i guess?


well carnnutt starts by saying that its clear that the s2000 was clealy stock and the srt4 was modded....were did that came from...bassed on what...

there is no evidence for that and it implies that only with mods an srt has a chance against an s2000. i bed to differ(in a straight line of course)

and then oonismo started to say how much better the s2000's chassis is...of course he is right...but what was the point?

my opinion is that the s2000 drived had it coming...anyone that buys an s2000 to dragrace is a dork....that is like buying a monster truck to autocross

well carnnutt starts by saying that its clear that the s2000 was clealy stock and the srt4 was modded....were did that came from...bassed on what...

there is no evidence for that and it implies that only with mods an srt has a chance against an s2000. i bed to differ(in a straight line of course)

and then oonismo started to say how much better the s2000's chassis is...of course he is right...but what was the point?

my opinion is that the s2000 drived had it coming...anyone that buys an s2000 to dragrace is a dork....that is like buying a monster truck to autocross
will you shut up? the s2000 is a better car.
big deal, dodge threw everything thing they had at a pre-made mod'ed car. The quality on this car is way down because 1 it's a new model 2 you still get what you pay for :nono:
Mod anything enough you'll get the same results :loser:

will you shut up? the s2000 is a better car.
big deal, dodge threw everything thing they had at a pre-made mod'ed car. The quality on this car is way down because 1 it's a new model 2 you still get what you pay for :nono:
Mod anything enough you'll get the same results :loser:


not let me ask you this...are you iliterate and cannot read because i could swear i wrote in my second post that the s2000 is the better car.

come on guys, this aint nothing worth fighting over cool race, sucks for the s2000 owner though

IMO S2000's are a joke. I've seen them run at the track, and I gotta get a chuckle when you see the owner acting all hard after he posts a 15 sec. pass at LACR (2700 ft., that's why the time is affected). I remember Car and Driver doing an article w/ a bunch of modified import 4 bangers. The S2000 in it had a supercharger, exh., int, and quite a bit of suspension tuning. At the end of the article they listed it's price (i believe close to $80K). They also stated that the stock Z06 they tested just recently was more then a second faster on the raod course that they went to. I see them as nothing but hype. Those SRT-4's do alot better at the track. Almost everyone on LS1.com hates them, but I believe it's because there might be some vids out there of LS1's getting smoked. Pretty competent cars, but I dunno if the new LSD helped them to corner better.

Amazing isn't it? It is amazing how fast the SRT4 is for the money. I never thought Dodge would build anything like the Omni GLH Turbo again, and I was 100percent wrong.

I am no Dodge fan, and the build quality of a Neon does leave me wondering if the Keebler Elves have a night job. But, you have to give credit where credit is due. With it's unbelievably quick nature bone stock and it's easy to mod design. The SRT4 is bang for the buck heaven.

well i love the SRT 4. that car is quit a little beast. if i run into one, i'm not sure if i can win, since those things put down 248whp stock for the 04 model. its quit a beast.

well i love the SRT 4. that car is quit a little beast. if i run into one, i'm not sure if i can win, since those things put down 248whp stock for the 04 model. its quit a beast.



are you sure about the 04 putting down so much...I kept looking around for an 04 dyno and could not see one

i know the stage1 (ecu, injectors) will put down 240whp 260wtq...that is for the 03

for the 04 i know it alreardy has bigger injectors...but i'm not sure what they did with the ecu

the biggest thing with the 04's is the stock quaife diff...that will make quite a difference both in launches and in handling


IMO S2000's are a joke. I've seen them run at the track, and I gotta get a chuckle when you see the owner acting all hard after he posts a 15 sec. pass at LACR (2700 ft., that's why the time is affected). I remember Car and Driver doing an article w/ a bunch of modified import 4 bangers. The S2000 in it had a supercharger, exh., int, and quite a bit of suspension tuning. At the end of the article they listed it's price (i believe close to $80K). They also stated that the stock Z06 they tested just recently was more then a second faster on the raod course that they went to. I see them as nothing but hype. Those SRT-4's do alot better at the track. Almost everyone on LS1.com hates them, but I believe it's because there might be some vids out there of LS1's getting smoked. Pretty competent cars, but I dunno if the new LSD helped them to corner better.


i remember that car and driver test...that IMO was a big slap in the tuner's face.....to have your heavily modded 68K car being beaten by a cheaper stock Z06 is bad

so the guys at ls1 hate the srt4....not surprising...the srt4 seems to be one of the most hated cars out there...i think that is because of the neon body...being smoked by an f-body its not as bad since it looks very agresive and everyone knows how fast those ls1 engines are...but being smoked by a 4 banger neon must be hard on the ego

I don't think people hate the SRT-4...how could you hate a $20k, 13 second turbo 4 banger that gets 25mpg...rather it's the cocky, outgoing younger drivers that piss off the older, more knowledgeable guys. Hell, at the pace these younger guys are wrecking these things there won't be any left to hate in 5 years.

I defend the SRT-4 quite often on ls1.com. My screen name there is denom. i think Dodge hit the bullseye with the car. People keep talking about reliability, and i've heard the engine in that car (2.4 liter 4 banger) is actually derived from the PT cruiser (Actually it was first a minivan engine). The reliability rating on the cruisers is said to be awesome, but I dunno if the turbo might have affected engine life. In any event I like the car. Less I can say for the S2000.

well carnnutt starts by saying that its clear that the s2000 was clealy stock and the srt4 was modded....were did that came from...bassed on what...


Because I have seen a heads-up drag-race between the two cars stock-for-stock, and the S2000 won. That same S2000 ran a 13.9 at the track (wherever he's from -- member at S2KI.com), while the SRT ran a 14.2, both stock.

That video I linked, which is unfortunately not working, shows the same two cars after the SRT got some goodies, including intake and upped boost via an MBC, and the SRT pulled by about a foot at the end.

Don't call me biased either, as I am a member at SRTforums.com, and am looking at 2004 SRTs for when I graduate, among other cars. Also, when Steiner was looking for a new car to replace his SpecV, I was the one that was pushing the SRT, while everybody was pushing the WRX.

On the other hand, I will call YOU biased, based on how the tone of your post sounded.

Also, about their track-handling, check here:
SV Challenge Series Track Records (http://www.speedventures.net/track_records_db.asp)

Check to see how many 240 (read: STOCK) HP S2000's are in their various track's records, beating TONS of Viper records.

Moreso, the S2000's supension and IRS is tuned for handling, NOT good launches, which is the S2000's weak point, when it comes to a straight-line.

Lastly, as for freeway prowess, here's a vid of a bolt-ons S2000 going top-speed. It's not served by me, so it should work...NO forced-induction in that car, and it's reading in Kmh, so it technically tops-out at about 174 mph:
http://auto.joins.com/upboard/pds/pdst/Honda%20s2000%20top%20speed%20(1).mpg

ALL THAT, leads me to believe that the SRT was a LOT more modded than that S2000.

You should by now I don't talk out my ass. I usually back-up what I say.

You should know better than to think of me biased....i did fully agree that the s2000 was the superior car.

However i find it ridiculous the use an s2000 as a drag racer and you know that many owners will only do that. The design of that car is the complete oposite of what a drag racing car should be as you pointed out yourself in your post. Drag racing an s2000 is a slap in the face of the engineers that built it.

An I can think of two reasons why a stock srt4 could have taken that s2000....bad driver or high altitude(srt4 is designed to automatically compesate for)...of course all this is pure speculation on both of our parts since we really don't know any details about who raced or were the race was.

and yeah i know that you post in srt4forums...i've been lurking around there for a while to get some more info on the srt.

its kind of funny...i'm really not sure what we are arguing about since be both agreed that both cars are awesome.

rather it's the cocky, outgoing younger drivers that piss off the older, more knowledgeable guys
Is it the older, more knowledgeable guys, or the older, more arrogant drivers?

:lol: Is This Turning Into Another Argument Over The Neon Srt-4......i Haven't Seen The Video Yet...but I Say Good Kill :thumbsup:

I think some folks forgot about the factor of the driver.... As most folks know, one must be pretty skilled to produce a quick time in a drag race in a s2k.



And nice sig, BLUCIVIC.

I think some folks forgot about the factor of the driver.... As most folks know, one must be pretty skilled to produce a quick time in a drag race in a s2k.



And nice sig, BLUCIVIC.


i did remember that in my last post...plus another very important factor often overlooked its altitude

altitude will murder an s2000 since its NA...while beside the fact that the srt4 is turbo its ecu will actually compensate for the altitude factor by pushing more boost

both are pwn3d by stock civic ex's all day.

close the thread now... :biggrin:

back to topic...i can understand how u feel about seeing ppl try to drag the s2k, i see it every time someone else has a type r (most atleast.)

about 90% of the racers don't realize that not all cars were made/set-up to go in a straight line as opposed to having more strengths in auto-x/road racing.

sickening really...

It only took me about 4k miles to learn that my first major SRT-4 mod would be to the suspension and not to the engine. Today I'm installing some Eibach springs, shorter end links and stiffer bushings. This little car hauls ass, but the stock ride height (including the raked ass end iof the car) contributes to some definate body roll characteristics in sharp and hard cornering. By all accounts the work I'm doing later today will put this fucker on rails despite only a moderate drop.

It only took me about 4k miles to learn that my first major SRT-4 mod would be to the suspension and not to the engine. Today I'm installing some Eibach springs, shorter end links and stiffer bushings. This little car hauls ass, but the stock ride height (including the raked ass end iof the car) contributes to some definate body roll characteristics in sharp and hard cornering. By all accounts the work I'm doing later today will put this fucker on rails despite only a moderate drop.


if i would be you i would get some ground controls or the mopar stage 3...costly but IMO worth in the long run....

oh another thing you can change is the chamber...the srt4 comes with exactly 0 camber from the fatory...which causes some nasty undesteer...a nice -1 degree should do wonders for handling

Ok this is ONLY MY OPINION:

The S2000 is a joke for what you pay for, unless your thing is autocrossing which mine isnt. The SRT is an ok car, but, its look is something I cannot over come. The SRT-4, to me, is a better car because its 10 grand cheaper and comes from the factory turbo so it can be built to go fast cheaply. Free up the exhaust and crank up the boost and youll be beating alot of cars that other four bangers wont be able to touch.

Im getting sick of people saying "But it has a turbo" or when V8s are brought up "But It has more Cylinders!!!" Its called RUN WHAT YOU BRUNG! If you bring a damn Civic with exhaust to race a big block chevelle... thats your ass. Same goes for cars with bigger engines or forced induction.

Ok this is ONLY MY OPINION:

The S2000 is a joke for what you pay for.

To re-phrase Morpheus in Reloaded:

"I am glad that it is only your opinion."

You obviously have NO idea about the car, especially since it out-drags the GT's around my town, stock-for-stock.

If you're going to say that, might as well say that also about the Z3 roadster (the 240HP version), the Audi TT, the Porsche Boxster, the Porsche Boxster S, the BMW Z4 3.0, and the 350Z roadster, among other cars...all of which are THOUSANDS more expensive than the S2000, with similar amenities and intentions, and all SLOWER than the S2000, except for the Z4 3.0 and the and the Boxster S, which are within .1-.2 of an S2000's fastest magazine times, which are still slower than actual times owners have gotten out of the S2000.

I hate to say it, but all of those cars which are in the S2000's class, even the MUCH slower ones, have either more cylinders (Boxster, 350Z, Z3, Z4) , or forced-induction (Audi TT).

All of this in a car that you can still drive like a Civic around town (meaning VERY comfortably), without losing that high-RPM growl and punch.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=6846

I didn't watch the vid...But I think the S2k is a joke of a drag racing car. That's just me though. I'd buy one if I wanted a nice looking car to cruise around in, have some passing power, and not kill me in payments or gas. But I don't think they're fast at all. I have a couple of good friends who have them and they're nice for what they are, but I just can't stand their utter lack of pull(torque). I really like they're look though. A low-cost roadster with a high-revving motor. Like I said, nice for what it is, just not my first choice if I want to drag race somebody.

To re-phrase Morpheus in Reloaded:

"I am glad that it is only your opinion."

You obviously have NO idea about the car, especially since it out-drags the GT's around my town, stock-for-stock.

If you're going to say that, might as well say that also about the Z3 roadster (the 240HP version), the Audi TT, the Porsche Boxster, the Porsche Boxster S, the BMW Z4 3.0, and the 350Z roadster, among other cars...all of which are THOUSANDS more expensive than the S2000, with similar amenities and intentions, and all SLOWER than the S2000, except for the Z4 3.0 and the and the Boxster S, which are within .1-.2 of an S2000's fastest magazine times, which are still slower than actual times owners have gotten out of the S2000.

I hate to say it, but all of those cars which are in the S2000's class, even the MUCH slower ones, have either more cylinders (Boxster, 350Z, Z3, Z4) , or forced-induction (Audi TT).

All of this in a car that you can still drive like a Civic around town (meaning VERY comfortably), without losing that high-RPM growl and punch.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=6846
Like I said I dont care for the S2000. Its an over priced joke. I havent lost to one. The GTs that I know of have not lost to one. So again I will say they are a joke because I dont care for taking turns at high speeds. Its obvious that you care for the S2000, but, I do not.

Like I said I dont care for the S2000. Its an over priced joke.

Simple question: What other cars would you say this about? Any of the other cars I mentioned before that the S2000 beats or matches in a straight-line, and DESTROYS in a curve? I would hope so, as otherwise, that would just show bias against a car just because of what it is.

The Boxster S for example, is about thirty-thousand dollars more than the S2000, yet is about the same speed in a straight-line, and is out-handled by the S.

Also, for your viewing pleasure, I present these:

Stock S2000 VS modified 1998 Mustang GT(Right-Click, Save As) (http://www.rc.i4m/org/Videos/S2000@[email protected])

Stock S2000 VS even more modified LX 5.0 (Right-Click, Save As) (http://rc.i4m.org/Videos/S2000@[email protected])

and the best one:
2002 Mustang GT (camera car) talking shit against an S2000 (Right-Click, Save As) (http://rc.i4m.org/Videos/talking_shit.wmv)

Don't forget, in the first two examples, that was a 2001 S2000. It has been proven time and again that 2000-2001 S2000s are slower than the 2002-2003 models, stock-for-stock...which is probably what the third vid has. Also, the 2004's have already shown in one dyno that they are putting-down as much to the wheels as they are rated at the motor.
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=171514&page_number=2

Anyhow, I'm the type of guy that would NEVER buy an automatic, except for maybe an SUV (I do have an SUV that's a stick), and I enjoy swapping gears and making RPMs climb...so that might explain my affinity for the S2000. I would kill to drive a Formula Car with their 16,000rpm redlines.

The fact that not do you only own a Mustang V8, but an automatic at that, might explain your side.

and the best one:
2002 Mustang GT (camera car) talking shit against an S2000 (Right-Click, Save As) (http://rc.i4m.org/Videos/talking_shit.wmv)



I love that line, after they get walked by the S2000.

"That was dead even basically..."


hahahaha

haha.. the first link didn't work for me. but the second one did.. haha.. and boy.. the accent that guy had sounded like it was straight fromt King of the Hill! hahaha... and boy.. did that mustang shift slow.


Damn.. that last video was halarious. Arrogant bastards...



"SHIT!!" the camera man yells as the s2k passes by.. hahahahha.

Simple question: What other cars would you say this about? Any of the other cars I mentioned before that the S2000 beats or matches in a straight-line, and DESTROYS in a curve? I would hope so, as otherwise, that would just show bias against a car just because of what it is.

The Boxster S for example, is about thirty-thousand dollars more than the S2000, yet is about the same speed in a straight-line, and is out-handled by the S.

Also, for your viewing pleasure, I present these:

Stock S2000 VS modified 1998 Mustang GT(Right-Click, Save As) (http://www.rc.i4m/org/Videos/S2000@[email protected])

Stock S2000 VS even more modified LX 5.0 (Right-Click, Save As) (http://rc.i4m.org/Videos/S2000@[email protected])

and the best one:
2002 Mustang GT (camera car) talking shit against an S2000 (Right-Click, Save As) (http://rc.i4m.org/Videos/talking_shit.wmv)

Don't forget, in the first two examples, that was a 2001 S2000. It has been proven time and again that 2000-2001 S2000s are slower than the 2002-2003 models, stock-for-stock...which is probably what the third vid has. Also, the 2004's have already shown in one dyno that they are putting-down as much to the wheels as they are rated at the motor.
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=171514&page_number=2

Anyhow, I'm the type of guy that would NEVER buy an automatic, except for maybe an SUV (I do have an SUV that's a stick), and I enjoy swapping gears and making RPMs climb...so that might explain my affinity for the S2000. I would kill to drive a Formula Car with their 16,000rpm redlines.

The fact that not do you only own a Mustang V8, but an automatic at that, might explain your side.
What? I dont care to see other people racing. Just because one car beats the other doesnt mean thats how all races with the same cars end up. Ive played with an S2000 before and I wasnt the one that lost. So I could really care less of others losing to S2000s. And who cares if I bought an automatic? Youd be surprised how many people have talked shit about my car being automatics yet Im the one laughing at the end when I kick their asses in a race. Youre calling me biased yet i believe youre the one thats overly biased to the S2000 because everytime someone says something negative about them youre the one always trying to insult the other person and trying to teach them a bit of history about them. Its called an opinion. Many people have them. I dont like the S2000. I could care less about it. How hard is it to understand that?? Hell I dont even like the SRT-4, i think its ugly ass hell but Id pick that over the S2000 because of its ease of modification to make faster.

Remember: Cheaper + faster = Better.

What? I dont care to see other people racing. Just because one car beats the other doesnt mean thats how all races with the same cars end up. Ive played with an S2000 before and I wasnt the one that lost. So I could really care less of others losing to S2000s. And who cares if I bought an automatic? Youd be surprised how many people have talked shit about my car being automatics yet Im the one laughing at the end when I kick their asses in a race. Youre calling me biased yet i believe youre the one thats overly biased to the S2000 because everytime someone says something negative about them youre the one always trying to insult the other person and trying to teach them a bit of history about them. Its called an opinion. Many people have them. I dont like the S2000. I could care less about it. How hard is it to understand that?? Hell I dont even like the SRT-4, i think its ugly ass hell but Id pick that over the S2000 because of its ease of modification to make faster.

Remember: Cheaper + faster = Better.

I never said I wasn't biased towards the S2000.

I will always be biased towards a car I like. Fact is, I can appreciate all cars for what they are, and not hate a single one.

Notice, I am never on here to bash any car, but to defend them. Be it the S2000, the SRT-4, Civics, and hell, I've even defended Mustangs in the Honda boards.

There will always be some narrow-minded %*^% who has experienced what is good for them...and decides whatever else is there is just...bad. I have made it one of my missions to expound what is good in ALL cars. This is why when I was thinking of a screenname for me, I did not choose IntegraBoy or MazdaFreak or some other crap, as I owned both an Integra and a Mazda at the time I found the interweb phenomenon we call car forums.

I also owned Chevys, Fords, Nissans, Toyotas, Pontiacs, and grew up with my stepdad's built Olds.

I guess I'm trying to understand this hatred of yours for a vehicle I and most automotive journalists can only call an awesome engineering feat.

Also, you haven't answered my question. What other cars do you assign this animosity towards? Maybe it's a type of cars you particularly dislike. How do you feel about the 2003 Mustang GT Convertible? http://www.autobytel.com/content/research/detail/Ford/Ford-Mustang/Mustang-GT-Premium-Convertible.htm

At a little over 29-thousand-dollars, it's only barely cheaper than a 2003 S2000 at about 30K-flat: http://www.autobytel.com/content/research/detail/Honda/Honda-S2000/S2000-6-spd-MT.htm

That Mustang, I guarantee you, is NOT that much faster than that S2000, manual or automatic...if at all.

As a sarcastic rib, I would note that you are probably happy that a Ford made it into Car and Drivers Ten-Best list for 2003...a Focus.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article_id=7571

Here's the whole list:
Acura TSX (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article_id=7572)
Audi S4 Quattro (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article_id=7574)
BMW 3-series/M3 (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article_id=7575)
Chevrolet Corvette (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article_id=7576)
Ford Focus (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article_id=7577)
Honda Accord (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article_id=7578)
Honda S2000 (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article_id=7579)
Infiniti G35 (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article_id=7580)
Mazda RX-8 (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article_id=7581)
Toyota Prius (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article_id=7582)

Lastly, I am not against automatics...I was merely pointing out where you might not like the S2000, as the car the way it is, will never work with an auto...and requires precise driver inputs to get the most out of the motor...a driver's car, as it is. I'm more into driving, than I am into cars per sé...which will explain my love for the S2000.

Anyhow, I've said my piece, hate whatever car you want, I guess.

As for the no torque discussion, I guess my videos speak for themselves...

I wouldnt pick a convertible GT. I know of some low 13 sec. bolt on GT verts, but, theyre not my style.


I really dislike verts.



I never said I hated the S2000, I said I didnt care for it. Its a great car for what it is but its not my taste.

I thought I was the only one who hated convertables. I just dont understand the whole wind in hair thing. Just sounds like more drag to me...maybe when im fifty I will understand :grinno:

"ABS
Air Conditioning
Alarm
Base List Price Below Average*
CD Changer
CD Player
Child Seat Tethers
Leather Seats
Power Windows/Locks
Side Impact Door Beams
Traction Control
No Standard Child Safety Locks
Highway Mileage Below Average*
No Standard Side Air Bags

*Compared to other vehicles in this class
Vehicle Summary
Engine: 4.6L 8 Cylinder 260 hp Gas
Safety: ABS Brakes / Driver-Passenger airbags
Tran: 5 Speed Manual OD
Drive: AWD
Seats: 4
"

Never knew they made AWD Stangs these days. I feel so left in the past.