SRT4 vs Evo 8

I can agree with that, the SRT-4 definitly makes things more interesting, and competetion breads better cars. Still wondering if Honda, Nissan, and Mazda will come out with an answer for the SRT-4? Has anybody heard any rumors on a MazdaSpeed 3? Well for now the only car I can think of that comes close to the SRT-4 performance for it's price tag is the Saturn Ion Red Line, what do you guys think of that car?

I like the Saturn Ion Redline and new Chevy Cobalt SS Supercharged quite a bit. When it comes to street cars, I've always preferred superchargers to turbochargers: lower maintenance, more longevity :)

I like the Saturn Ion Redline and new Chevy Cobalt SS Supercharged quite a bit. When it comes to street cars, I've always preferred superchargers to turbochargers: lower maintenance, more longevity :)


From a technological and tuning standpoit however the turbochargers are far superior to superchargers.


Read the articles posted here, especially the third post.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=201348

I totally agree with that, but superchargers are still cheaper and lower maintenance..

wow.
you double drivetrain loss with more wheels being turned?
really?
fwd drivetrain loss is approx. 18%.
awd is approx. 25%, maybe a bit less.

srt4's were rated at 215 and putting down 223 to the wheels.

evo's are rated at 271 and putting mid 240's down.

z_fanatic, you have a hate issue towards the neon b/c of a rental you drove once?
great comparison to a totally unrelated, different body/chassis/engine, neon.

i don't think its that good of a comparison if were talking all around performance. i think the evo-8 spanks the srt-4 in every category, not by much but it definetly does. ive never driven either one, but from what i've read, stats and numbers the evo-8 wins hands down

The Ion Redline.. LOL we need to compare that to a pinto.. that car sucks, besides the seats. superchargers are stupid for 4 cylinders. Not enough power to run it, since superchargers go off of power created by the engine. Where as turbos go off of exahuast, esencially unused power. Turbos are far superior.

I've 2 problems with Turbos; maintenance, and lag. I remember when Volvos were still the longest lasting cars on the road, whenever there was a problem with one, the first thing mechanics would look at is the Turbo. The biggest maintence issue for cars with turbos is usually maintaining the Turbo.

They're great if your looking for alot of power, but it costs you low end acceleration. Most higher end car companies see this now. The $100,000ish Porsche GT3 is naturally aspirated and gets numbers similar to the older turbo charged GT2. Its been a VERY long since BMW has used a turbo on any of there cars, and because of this they have advanced the rest of the technology on the engine, making for engines like the 333hp 3.3L I6 in the M3 and the 500hp 5.0L V10 in the 2005 M5, which definitly compete and beat the competition from their turbo charged Audi Competition. Most of the great supercars are naturally aspirated (Enzo, CGT, McLaren, etc).

As for the Cobalt SS and the Ion Redline... Silly GM trying to make ameri-ricers... I think im gunna start callin them wheat rockets...

Sorry if this post is kinda OT, it just seemed to go with where this thread was headed

2 things... I agree w/ the American Companies tryin to make "Ameri-Rice" Gm killed the Camaro to come out with a Saturn Redling, yea ok, good decision there.

Oh, flylwsi, it was a Rough ratio, you could've left it at that... I know it isn't truly double because there isn't two of every part of the drivetrain of a 2WD car in the AWD car. But it is driving double the Wheels, Axles, etc. RWD loss is usually 15%, ok, now you are sayin AWD is a 25% loss, I can accept that, well... .25/.15 is 1.666666... So you round that number up, and what do you get? Double!!!

you round 1.666 up and you get 1.75, and hell, it's closer to 1.5 than 2...

i know you know the ratio, but it doesn't have to do with the number of wheels turning, it has to do with what's mechanically behind it...

i'd just hate to see someone think that an awd car has a drive train loss of 30%... that's all...

and honestly, between 1.5 and 2.0, where is 1.6 closer to?

no offense, just trying to keep everything clear...

and my numbers are more precise (taken from dyno numbers/crank hp numbers, as well as from tuners who've confirmed the numbers)

You just jumped on me, I was making a rough estimate, and a POINT... that obviously driving an additional set of wheels would result in a substantially greater mechanical loss!

obviously, yes...
but clarifying your point, that's all...
not jumping on you...
damn...

I mean im like most people i just hated the Neon but i went to the track and i seen one i have to give the car some respect it ran something like !14.30 or something like that pretty good for a 20k car(give or take) but not so every one think in a Neon nut rider i still hate the regular Neon's. But to get back on the topic its no way the Neon is on the Evo's leven the Evo has real history behind it and the specs to prove its self but yes the Neon is no where near on the Evo's level lol