which is your fav srt

Srt-4 Dodge Neon

Srt-6 Chrysler Crossfire

Srt-8 Dodge Magnum

Srt-10 Dodge Ram

Srt- 10 Dodge Viper

i like my own

viper

Viper x 10, why is this even a poll?!?

No contest.

SRT-4, because it's the only one in the aforementioned list that I might actually be able to afford one day.

viper, preferrably one with a henessey twin turbo. 1100 hp.

The viper and ram.

Viper because its the only one on the list I would want to own. Of all of them, its the only one that looks good. And the only one that had a TV serries about it.

Wow I would really love to meet the people who think the srt4 is better than a 10.

Who did I vote for?
Viper? No, just another Viper to me and the looks on it suck. The Viper GTS was the best looking Viper and this one doesn't come close.
Ram? They took a Dodge truck and dropped a Viper engine into it. What's so special about that? Anybody can drop a big engine into a truck to make it go fast.
Neon? Yes, because like the others said, it's in people's price range and is setting records that deal with everyday people. The Neon is the fastest and/or quickest car for under $20,000 is it?
The Ram may be the fastest truck in the world for over, what, $40,000?
The Viper I've never cared much for and $80,000 is just too much and to far from everyday people's checkbook.
My vote on this one goes to the Neon.

the ram any day
it can smoke your every day sports coupe and if you ever meet a h22 turbo hatch that can hang with you, all you have to do is "ram" it off the road and call it a win
RAM srt-10 all the way!

I think being able to outrun 90% of the other vehicles is more my style.
So i shoose Crossfire :P
(J/K)

its like most say you can afford the neon the viper is killer on the street and in your pocket book

its like most say you can afford the neon the viper is killer on the street and in your pocket book
If someone asked you: What do you like better a Ferrari or a GEO?
Would you answer geo due to my pocketbook?

i saw an srt-10 truck at wal-mart the other day. it looked pretty cool, but there's something about trucks with standard transmissions that rubs me the wrong way.

my dad has a 96 viper gts, cobra blue, and it is gorgeous, so my vote goes for the viper. however, it would be close between the viper and the neon if the neon weren't fwd. a turbo awd neon is a pretty good idea in my opinion.

my dad has a 96 viper gts, cobra blue, and it is gorgeous, so my vote goes for the viper. however, it would be close between the viper and the neon if the neon weren't fwd. a turbo awd neon is a pretty good idea in my opinion.
It would cost more and become almost direct competition with the WRX...and the WRX has alot more credibility for a well built car. Im not saying the SRT4 isnt a nicely made car, but Subaru is known for making some well built cars, including safety...Remember the STI that drove into a house? Passenger recieved like 1 scratch.

even a rwd srt-4 would be cool. kinda like a newschool 4-door 240sx.

I actually agree that the srt-4 would be awesome in RWD, with the power some people are pulling out of that engine, I cant understand why anyone would not want a RWD version.

If you take the Neon, add an extra turbo, slap AWD on it, maybe get a little better tuned engine, this thing could take on all the other SRTs.
Remember, Porshe's 911 has a little 3.6 that can out handle, accelerate, and perform the SRT-10 Viper.
True, it's a Porshe, but who says the same thing couldn't happen to an American car?

If you take the Neon, add an extra turbo, slap AWD on it, maybe get a little better tuned engine, this thing could take on all the other SRTs.
Remember, Porshe's 911 has a little 3.6 that can out handle, accelerate, and perform the SRT-10 Viper.
True, it's a Porshe, but who says the same thing couldn't happen to an American car?

You could do that to ANY car... to be fair, slap a turbo on all of those cars, tune the engines.. no need to change most of em to RWD, so they get extra points for that. Then who wins? Uhhh still viper.
SRT-4 is FWD, automatic disqualification.
Crossfire is fugly.
Ditto for the Magnum
Ram, impressive but driving trucks is a PITA. Can't handle like a car.
Viper... fast, handles great, looks pretty good. +1

Give me the Viper.

Also, the SRT-8 isn't out yet and it will be released as a 300C not a Magnum.

I happen to like the Crossfire, a lot. I wish the SRT-6 version didn't have the tea tray spoiler (messes with that awesome boattail styling) and I wish the car sat about an inch and a half lower from the factory on smaller wheels (sorry dub lovers, but the 18/19in package makes the car look toyish).

But those are both problems a wrench like me could fix in a weekend. Though the rumor coming out of the DaimlerChrysler camp is that they're going to drop the Crossfire to go Vette hunting with this car.

http://www.theautochannel.com/N/news/2004/11/17/283139.5-lg.jpg
http://www.theautochannel.com/N/news/2004/11/17/283139.2-lg.jpg
http://www.theautochannel.com/N/news/2004/11/17/283139.1-lg.jpg

It's codenamed "Firepower" and uses a 425hp version of the 6.1L Hemi. Look for the actual car to debut at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit this month.

...Remember the STI that drove into a house? Passenger recieved like 1 scratch.
I didn't know Billy Joel drove an STi.... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

LOL...I remeber that thread...House-1 Subaru-0...Anyways, I consider the Neon a direct competitor to the EVO and STi already. The only reason it is cheaper is becuase of protectionist policies. Free market my ass.

the srt-4 is not as good as an sti, a base wrx yes but sti no

the srt-4 is not as good as an sti, a base wrx yes but sti no
well DUH! It is about 10 grand cheaper though...

Getting off topic. The thread is which do you like. Dont do it by price...say "I like the viper" or "I like the front wheel drive 4banger."

LOL...I remeber that thread...House-1 Subaru-0...Anyways, I consider the Neon a direct competitor to the EVO and STi already. The only reason it is cheaper is becuase of protectionist policies. Free market my ass.


No, it's cheaper because it's FWD, doesn't handle as good, doesn't perform as good, and IT'S A NEON!

You get what you pay for.

An STi will kill an SRT-4 in pretty much every category...stock for stock. They're not in the same class. Can an SRT-4 beat an M3 around the track or in the straight line? Sure, if you put money in it.

2004 Dodge SRT-4 Neon

0-60 mph: 5.2 sec
0-100 mph: 13.4 sec
Quarter Mile: 13.9 sec @ 103 mph
Skidpad: .86g
Top Speed: 148 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 119 ft
Slalom Speed: 69.0 mph


2004 Subaru WRX

0-60 mph: 5.7 sec
0-100 mph: 15.0 sec
Quarter Mile: 14.4 sec @ 94.5 mph
Skidpad: .86g
Top Speed: 130 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 138 ft
Slalom Speed: 62.8 mph

2004 Subaru WRX STi

0-60 mph: 4.8 sec
0-100 mph: 12.9 sec
Quarter Mile: 13.2 sec @ 104 mph
Skidpad: .91g
Top Speed: 147 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 111 ft
Slalom Speed: 69.1 mph

Hmm, seems the WRX is lagging pretty far behind, but the SRT-4 and the STi are nip and tuck. So much for the "it's a Neon, it doesn't handle or perform as good" idea.

Hell, haven't you ever heard of the ACR package?

2004 Dodge SRT-4 Neon

0-60 mph: 5.2 sec
0-100 mph: 13.4 sec
Quarter Mile: 13.9 sec @ 103 mph
Skidpad: .86g
Top Speed: 148 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 119 ft
Slalom Speed: 69.0 mph


2004 Subaru WRX

0-60 mph: 5.7 sec
0-100 mph: 15.0 sec
Quarter Mile: 14.4 sec @ 94.5 mph
Skidpad: .86g
Top Speed: 130 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 138 ft
Slalom Speed: 62.8 mph

2004 Subaru WRX STi

0-60 mph: 4.8 sec
0-100 mph: 12.9 sec
Quarter Mile: 13.2 sec @ 104 mph
Skidpad: .91g
Top Speed: 147 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 111 ft
Slalom Speed: 69.1 mph

Hmm, seems the WRX is lagging pretty far behind, but the SRT-4 and the STi are nip and tuck. So much for the "it's a Neon, it doesn't handle or perform as good" idea.

Hell, haven't you ever heard of the ACR package?

:shakehead

Obviously you don't know the difference between an STi and a base WRX? The Neon will do a LITTLE better than the base WRX in a straight line, but that's it. The base WRX is just a tad slower, the STi is a totally different world. .7 seconds at over 100 mph is a few carlengths buddy. On top of that, you can get the STi into 12s with a good launch, and most "Fast Neon" drivers are in the low 14s.

FWD = Wrong wheel drive, everyone knows that. How can you even compare the handling of an Neon to the STi and Evo :lol: If I want a piece of turd that goes fast in a straight line, I'll just take a civic and make it faster than the SRT-4...for a lot less.

The STi owns the SRT-4 in every category. The Neon beats the base WRX in a straight line by .4 seconds. That's where it ends. It can barely beat the base WRX, let alone an STi.

Magazines compare the SRT-4 to Nissan Sentras and Mazda Proteges, not STis. :nono:

"Gathering performance data, it quickly became clear the SRT-4 was dominating the straight-line tests, and the Mazdaspeed Protegé was being equally relentless with the handling tests. To break the tie, we took to the mountains and let real-world speed decide the winner. As you have surely guessed, the SRT-4 was the faster of the two, but not by much. It took more than three miles for the SRT-4 to pull an appreciable gap on the Protegé."

Now, imagine what the STi would do to a Protege.

Nuff Said.

Oh, I'm sorry, that tenth of a mph gap between the SRT-4 (you know, Quaife LSD and all) and the STi in the SLALOM doesn't qualify as keeping pace in cornering.

The STi's "cornering slaughter" reads like this. It's up a tenth of a mph in the slalom, brakes down from 60mph in 8 less feet, and pulls .05 more g's on the skidpad.

Now where I come from that's not a slaughter. Especially considering the following -

SRT-4 price: $20,995
STi Price: $30,995

And should I add that the SRT-4 is currently mopping up SCCA's Touring II class? Trouncing Porsche Boxsters, Cadillac CTS-V's, and BMW Z4's in the process?

And, for the record, Touring II is a production class just a notch above Showroom Stock (which by the way, is an SCCA class that the previous generation DOHC Neon ACR dominates)

Yeah, Them SRT-4's and Neon ACR's can be made to handle damn well.

They do pretty damn good stock too. They may look like shit boxes, but they don't handle like one.

Road racing or Solo2 racing they kick ass, I wouldn't fuck with one even if I had full suspension.

I was going to leave it at what Layla and Redneck said, but this guy is too misinformed and ignorant. Also, TypeS, the SRT-4 is no mare a Neon that the Evo is a lancer or the WRX and STi are an Impreza.

:shakehead

Obviously you don't know the difference between an STi and a base WRX? The Neon will do a LITTLE better than the base WRX in a straight line, but that's it. The base WRX is just a tad slower, the STi is a totally different world. .7 seconds at over 100 mph is a few carlengths buddy. On top of that, you can get the STi into 12s with a good launch, and most "Fast Neon" drivers are in the low 14s.

Obviously you didn't even look at the numbers he put up. The SRT-4 out does the WRX in every category. It also manages to be right on the ass of the STi in most every category.

Learn to read, and then let it sink in before you make a post that might make you look stupid.

FWD = Wrong wheel drive, everyone knows that. How can you even compare the handling of an Neon to the STi and Evo :lol: If I want a piece of turd that goes fast in a straight line, I'll just take a civic and make it faster than the SRT-4...for a lot less.

You = not so smart.

If FWD is wrong wheel drive then how come Alfa Romeo has been very successful in racing with FWD against many RWD cars. Also, I've watched SCCA where a CTS-V hit an SRT-4. They both went off the track and the grass was wet. The SRT-4 got right back on. The CTS-V had to wait for help to get back on the track. Looks like that RWD helped him out there. It isn't wrong, it is just different. Also, you aren't going to make a Civic run 12s for the price you can pay to get an SRT-4 into the 12s. The car is about $21,000 and for around $2,000 you can get it running in the 12s in the 1/4 mile. I would love to see you make a Civic run 12s in the quarter for around $23,000. Too bad it isn't possible.

The STi owns the SRT-4 in every category. The Neon beats the base WRX in a straight line by .4 seconds. That's where it ends. It can barely beat the base WRX, let alone an STi.

It beat the WRX by a half of a second down the 1/4 mile and the STi only beat the SRT-4 by two tenths of a second. Not what I would call getting owned given that the SRT-4 is a whole ten thousand dollars less! The SRT-4 also murdered the WRX in the slalom and braking and was the same speed as the STi through the slalom and barely longer in braking distance. Also, don’t get me started on how well the SRT-4 has been doing in the SCCA and Rally.

Magazines compare the SRT-4 to Nissan Sentras and Mazda Proteges, not STis. :nono:

Don't be stupid, that is because those are the cars in the same price range as the SRT-4. They aren't going to compare it to the 350Z, Evo, STi, or RX-8 because they all cost about $10,000 more.

2004 Dodge SRT-4 Neon
Hmm, seems the WRX is lagging pretty far behind, but the SRT-4 and the STi are nip and tuck. So much for the "it's a Neon, it doesn't handle or perform as good" idea.

Hell, haven't you ever heard of the ACR package?
True, but the interior of an SRT-4 looks like something out of a kia, maybe even a dihatsu, and when it first came out, didn't offer an LSD... hello torque steer...plus we all know what FWD goes as far as handling characteristics go...MASSIVE understeer...you won't get that in an AWD car...plus it is still a neon for christs sake, even if it is a 230 hp one.

True, but the interior of an SRT-4 looks like something out of a kia, maybe even a dihatsu, and when it first came out, didn't offer an LSD... hello torque steer...plus we all know what FWD goes as far as handling characteristics go...MASSIVE understeer...you won't get that in an AWD car...plus it is still a neon for christs sake, even if it is a 230 hp one.

1. What the hell do you people want? You can't have great performance and a nice plush interior for $20,000. You're just freaking nit picking now. Also, the 2003 did not come with an LSD, however it was also under $20,000 while the 2004 was about $21,000.

2. You can make a FWD car oversteer if you want to. It is set up to do that because it is a hell of lot safer on the street for someone to understeer than oversteer. Also, I just read in the latest Sport Compact Car where they were comparing the STi and the Evo MR and guess what? The STi exhibited understeer at the limit. Won't see that in an AWD car huh? This is from page 117 in the February issue of Sport Compact Car:

Corner entry speeds are faster now, and the STi exhibits classic understeer. Come in too hot and the Subaru will push. Apply too much power exiting a turn and your peripheral view of the inside line is replaced by the guardrail. While huge and tourqy, the STi's power-band is not progressive, meaning you go from a balanced car midcorner to one that pushes, rather than tucks in as you apply power. Recovering from psycho steer means letting off and waiting for the car to come back under your control. Increased steering is of no consequence.

The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what your layout is, FF, FR, MR, or AWD. Weather or not the car will understeer or oversteer is mainly determined by how the chassis is set up. I've seen all types of layouts exhibit massive understeer. It is just more common for a FWD because all the weight is up front. Also, most FWD cars are driven on the street, and like I said, it is much safer for a car to understeer. Also, understeer is quite easy to overcome. Most any skilled driver knows not to steer more, but to turn towards the slide as if you were on ice. This will give the poor tires some of their traction back.

Once again, don't be ignorant.

I agree.

This one is for TYPES:

http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/500/232382OWNED3.jpg

and This one is for Street_Racer_00

http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/232382pwned3.jpg

Polygon: 2
other guys: ZERO, ZILCHE, NOTA, NOTHING, ETC....

Oh and Late...

CivRacer, thanks for the first pic...TUCK FEXAS! (Wreck 'Em Tech!)

1. What the hell do you people want? You can't have great performance and a nice plush interior for $20,000. You're just freaking nit picking now. Also, the 2003 did not come with an LSD, however it was also under $20,000 while the 2004 was about $21,000.

You can get a decent miliage used E36 ///M3 for 15K. Performance and plush for under 20k!

*ducks as Polygon chuncks a rather large object at my face for being an nit picky semantical asshole*

and This one is for Street_Racer_00

http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/232382pwned3.jpg

Polygon: 2
other guys: ZERO, ZILCHE, NOTA, NOTHING, ETC....

Oh and Late...
own this... :biggrin2:

blah blah blah...a neon is still a neon...plus you have no idea what the driver is like...any moron that drives into a corner 20 mph too fast is going to have understeer...that might have been the case for the guy who did the road test review on the STi, you never know.

This isn't even a contest. My SRT-4 is fast, but I would eat another man's poo if it meant I could have his Viper. :D

This isn't even a contest. My SRT-4 is fast, but I would eat another man's poo if it meant I could have his Viper. :D
Too much info, especially right after dinner.

Too much info, especially right after dinner.

You'de do well to eat some poo after all the misfounded SRT-4 hate you've been spewing. I can tell you've never driven one before. My 140fwhp '02 Nissan Spec V had crazy torque steer, but the SRT-4 exhibits very little even though I'm now pushing well over 300hp/320tq at the crank. I also have to laugh at your comment about the interior. No...it's not like sitting inside of an Audi S4, but have you seen the inside of an STi or Evo. It looks pretty bland. At least the SRT-4 has an easy to read boost gauge.

It may be en vogue in other places to rip on the SRT-4, if nothing else for the fan bois that have invaded their forum, but you better bring some real world evidence if you wann do it here. Calling it "wrong-wheel drive", and "just a Neon" is uncreative. Turn the page.

BTW...thanks Layla's Keeper, Polygon, etc for always sticking to facts. It's tough to argue with empirical evidence. :nono:

yeah, totally FAIR empirical evidence coming from DODGE drivers...sheesh....not to mention putting words in my mouth. Did I ever say "wrong-wheel drive"? You may want to go back and re-read the discussion before you go pointing fingers. I'm getting kind of sick of the elitist bullshit going on around here.

And all this talk about hating on the SRT-4 is once again putting an accusation upon me which I have not said anything to support...in fact I said of all the SRT products I'd most want to have, I CHOSE the SRT-4 because of it's speed-per-dollar value...I simply stated that it is not in the same class as the STi...when dodge takes the SRT-4 to corsica, cypress, australia, finland, etc, I will recant my previous statement.

even though I'm now pushing well over 300hp/320tq at the crank. :

Doesn't it come with about that much hp stock since it was underrated? I thought they dynoed at around 230 - 240 whp stock, which would mean they make about 300 at the crank.

Anyway, I have to agree about the interior on all three not being the greatest, not just the SRT-4. I've never driven either one of them so I can't really comment about the handling, but it would just seem like AWD would be a lot better than FWD, even with an LSD.

I drive a FWD car and I'll admit that RWD/AWD are easier to handle around curves. Just because I drive a FWD, I'm not gonna try to argue that it's better than the other two because it's clearly not. I'd much rather have 300 hp to the rear wheels than the front ones.

And all this talk about hating on the SRT-4 is once again putting an accusation upon me which I have not said anything to support...in fact I said of all the SRT products I'd most want to have, I CHOSE the SRT-4 because of it's speed-per-dollar value...I simply stated that it is not in the same class as the STi...when dodge takes the SRT-4 to corsica, cypress, australia, finland, etc, I will recant my previous statement.

I agree. Show me a stock 12 second SRT-4. We all know who's gonna win around the track stock for stock.

yeah, totally FAIR empirical evidence coming from DODGE drivers...sheesh....not to mention putting words in my mouth. Did I ever say "wrong-wheel drive"? You may want to go back and re-read the discussion before you go pointing fingers. I'm getting kind of sick of the elitist bullshit going on around here.

You went on the FWD attack mode early on dude. And sick of the elitist bullshit going on around here...you mean like this kind of stuff?

blah blah blah...a neon is still a neon...

Doesn't it come with about that much hp stock since it was underrated? I thought they dynoed at around 230 - 240 whp stock, which would mean they make about 300 at the crank.

If Dodge rated horsepower like Mazda...lol...yeah 300hp is about right. But 265hp/280tq at the crank from the factory is probably more accurate.

Anyway, I have to agree about the interior on all three not being the greatest, not just the SRT-4. I've never driven either one of them so I can't really comment about the handling, but it would just seem like AWD would be a lot better than FWD, even with an LSD.

I drive a FWD car and I'll admit that RWD/AWD are easier to handle around curves. Just because I drive a FWD, I'm not gonna try to argue that it's better than the other two because it's clearly not. I'd much rather have 300 hp to the rear wheels than the front ones.

The interior on the STi is a little nicer than the Evo and SRT-4. But I mean come on people...this is a street racing forum. When did the quality of the interior carry that much weight? We'd be driving Buicks or Caddies if it was THAT big of a deal. All three have poor qaulity interiors but make up for it with performance that forget about it.

And I agree with the whole FWD vs. AWD vs. RWD thing. To be honest my SRT-4 is for sale right now. At about 285fwhp I'm pretty much at the streetable limits of front wheel drive. However I still lust for more power. That's why I'm getting an Evo. The handling is awesome off the showroom floor and the modding potential of the 4g63 is insane. I know that with some $$$ the SRT-4 could be made to handle like an Evo, but no matter what I do to the Dodge I'll never be able to manage 300+ whp. I can do both with the Evo...plus I loose the boy racer wing on the RS model. :iceslolan

You can get a decent miliage used E36 ///M3 for 15K. Performance and plush for under 20k!

*ducks as Polygon chuncks a rather large object at my face for being an nit picky semantical asshole*

*Looks for a large blunt object*

Yeah, you've got a point, but you're talking about a USED car. I wouldn't mind having an E36 M3, but I guess I should have said that you couldn’t have both for $20,000 in a new car. :)

own this... :biggrin2:

blah blah blah...a neon is still a neon...plus you have no idea what the driver is like...any moron that drives into a corner 20 mph too fast is going to have understeer...that might have been the case for the guy who did the road test review on the STi, you never know.

Like I said before the SRT-4 is no more a Neon than the Evo is a Lancer or the WRX and STi are an Impreza. Nowhere on the car is there a Neon badge to be found unlike the WRX, STi, and Evo, which still bear their economy car badges. Even the Skyline was derived from an economy car.

Also, the guys at Sport Compact Car know how to drive. The staff is composed of racers that would kick your pants any day of the week. Also, the roads they test these cars on they know like the back of their hands. Perhaps you should pick up an issue of it sometime before saying something so stupid as that.

Doesn't it come with about that much hp stock since it was underrated? I thought they dynoed at around 230 - 240 whp stock, which would mean they make about 300 at the crank.

Anyway, I have to agree about the interior on all three not being the greatest, not just the SRT-4. I've never driven either one of them so I can't really comment about the handling, but it would just seem like AWD would be a lot better than FWD, even with an LSD.

I drive a FWD car and I'll admit that RWD/AWD are easier to handle around curves. Just because I drive a FWD, I'm not gonna try to argue that it's better than the other two because it's clearly not. I'd much rather have 300 hp to the rear wheels than the front ones.

No, the SRT-4 has around 265HP and 280 ft/lbs to the crank like Steiner said. If it had around 300 to the crank that would be a hell of a lot of drive-train loss wouldn’t it?

As for AWD being better than FWD. Like I told you, it isn't better, just different. There are too many complications when dealing with handling that you can't say that an AWD car will handle better than a FWD car. Look at how much the SRT-4 beat the WRX through the slalom by. If AWD were so superior it would not have been such a large margin. There are just too many other factors.

Have you driven AWD and RWD cars extensively at the limit around turns? I would bet you haven't so don't comment on things you don't know about. If you have too much trouble with a FWD car around the turns then you haven't learned how to drive it yet.

Besides, you drive a big heavy luxury car. It isn't going to handle very well, even if it were AWD or RWD.

I agree. Show me a stock 12 second SRT-4. We all know who's gonna win around the track stock for stock.

I never said stock you moron.

You said you could make a Civic faster than the SRT-4 for less. I said that you can buy an SRT-4 for about $21,000 and for around $2,000 you could have it running in the 12s. So, $23,000 to run in the 12s. My point was that you couldn’t do that with a stock Civic. You could not buy a new Civic and make it run in the 12s for less than that let alone that price. As for who will win around the track, like I said before, the SRT-4 has been mopping up in SCCA and has been beating out AWD cars in SCCA Pro Rally. The cars they use are stock except for the required safety equipment. Also, the WRX would loose from the looks of it. I would say the STi would be faster, but like I said, it had better be faster for ten grand more!

It seems like you two just read what you wanted to read. You were the ones that came in here spouting your mouths off with elitist bullshit when you didn't even know what you were talking about, excluding you Cassies. I suggest you two go back and read my posts again so that you might understand them because it is pretty obvious that you didn't.

*Looks for a large blunt object*

Yeah, you've got a point, but you're talking about a USED car. I wouldn't mind having an E36 M3, but I guess I should have said that you couldn’t have both for $20,000 in a new car. :)



Like I said before the SRT-4 is no more a Neon than the Evo is a Lancer or the WRX and STi are an Impreza. Nowhere on the car is there a Neon badge to be found unlike the WRX, STi, and Evo, which still bear their economy car badges. Even the Skyline was derived from an economy car.

Also, the guys at Sport Compact Car know how to drive. The staff is composed of racers that would kick your pants any day of the week. Also, the roads they test these cars on they know like the back of their hands. Perhaps you should pick up an issue of it sometime before saying something so stupid as that.



No, the SRT-4 has around 265HP and 280 ft/lbs to the crank like Steiner said. If it had around 300 to the crank that would be a hell of a lot of drive-train loss wouldn’t it?

As for AWD being better than FWD. Like I told you, it isn't better, just different. There are too many complications when dealing with handling that you can't say that an AWD car will handle better than a FWD car. Look at how much the SRT-4 beat the WRX through the slalom by. If AWD were so superior it would not have been such a large margin. There are just too many other factors.

Have you driven AWD and RWD cars extensively at the limit around turns? I would bet you haven't so don't comment on things you don't know about. If you have too much trouble with a FWD car around the turns then you haven't learned how to drive it yet.

Besides, you drive a big heavy luxury car. It isn't going to handle very well, even if it were AWD or RWD.



I never said stock you moron.

You said you could make a Civic faster than the SRT-4 for less. I said that you can buy an SRT-4 for about $21,000 and for around $2,000 you could have it running in the 12s. So, $23,000 to run in the 12s. My point was that you couldn’t do that with a stock Civic. You could not buy a new Civic and make it run in the 12s for less than that let alone that price. As for who will win around the track, like I said before, the SRT-4 has been mopping up in SCCA and has been beating out AWD cars in SCCA Pro Rally. The cars they use are stock except for the required safety equipment. Also, the WRX would loose from the looks of it. I would say the STi would be faster, but like I said, it had better be faster for ten grand more!

It seems like you two just read what you wanted to read. You were the ones that came in here spouting your mouths off with elitist bullshit when you didn't even know what you were talking about, excluding you Cassies. I suggest you two go back and read my posts again so that you might understand them because it is pretty obvious that you didn't.

Ok? Weren't we talking about stock cars? Thought so. You can make anything fast with modifications.

A CRX that you can buy for a couple of thousand dollars with a B18 swap and a turbo would kill the SRT-4 for half the price. Now, you wanna talk about stock?

Oh wait, so since you MUST BE talking about stock, the STi 12 second quarter mile runs are in a different class than the SRT-4. Sorry. Don't even get me started around the track. You can make anything fast with modifications. Stock for stock, the STi owns the SRT-4. Now you can talk about the price tag, but are you comparing CARS, or are you comparing cost?

Let me know next time a stock SRT-4 gets tested head to head against a Lamborghini.

Ok? Weren't we talking about stock cars? Thought so. You can make anything fast with modifications.

A CRX that you can buy for a couple of thousand dollars with a B18 swap and a turbo would kill the SRT-4 for half the price. Now, you wanna talk about stock?

Oh wait, so since you MUST BE talking about stock, the STi 12 second quarter mile runs are in a different class than the SRT-4. Sorry. Don't even get me started around the track. You can make anything fast with modifications. Stock for stock, the STi owns the SRT-4. Now you can talk about the price tag, but are you comparing CARS, or are you comparing cost?

Let me know next time a stock SRT-4 gets tested head to head against a Lamborghini.


Did you even look at the numbers someone posted a couple pages back??? The SRT-4 does not get owned by the STi at all.

"In a comparison test in Road and Track's Spring 2004 issue of Speed the 2004 SRT-4, 2003 SVT Focus, 2004 Civic Si HFP, 2003 MazdaSpeed Protégé, 2004 Lancer Ralliart, 2004 S-Tune Spec V, 2003 TRD Celica GT-S battled it out to see which in-house after-market upgrades performed better at the Streets of Willow Springs racetrack.

The Spec V came in 2nd, being narrowly beat by the Celica. Here are the results, as far as the Spec V is concerned:

1) Second fastest car to lap the racetrack, losing to the Celica by only .24 seconds and beating the power-monster SRT-4 by .07 seconds

2) 1st in the Skidpad (lateral-g); 3rd in Slalom.

3) 2nd in 0-60 and tied with the Focus for 2nd in the quarter-mile (first for both tests went to the SRT-4).

4) 1st in 60-0 and 80-0 breaking

5) Tied the SRT-4 in points for best powertrain.

6) Second most fun to drive vehicle behind the Celica (based on points).

7) Reviewed as the most well rounded vehicle, placing at or close to the top of EVERY category!

----------------
7th Place - 2004 Lancer Ralliart: Has a strong engine, a slick shifter, and predictable handling but its suspension really dislikes being pushed at the track. Reviewed as a good street car.

----------------
6th Place - 2004 Honda Civic Si HFP: Has Neutral handling, good transmission, and excellent balance and grip but has no power and suffers from brake fade.

----------------
5th Place - 2003 MazdaSpeed Protégé: Has a smooth engine, excellent braking, and exceptional handling abilities but suffers from mid-turn over-steer and touchy brake actuation.

----------------
4th Place - 2004 SRT-4: Has incredible power, good exhaust note, and ery supportive seats but was rated as the worst handler out of the ENTIRE group.

----------------
3rd Place - 2003 SVT Focus: Has the most well-balanced, idiot-proof handling of all the cars tested, as well as a lot of grip, but lacks low-end torque and seems disconnected from the road.

----------------
2nd Place - 2004 S-Tune Spec V: Has torque everywhere, more than enough grip, excellent LSD, and is a consistent handler but has a redline that is set too low, bland styling, and a notchy shifter.

----------------
1st Place - 2003 TRD Celica GT-S: Has ultra-responsive chassis, tight gearbox, racy looks, quick steering, and was the most fun to drive but lacks low-end grunt, has a very small powerband, and less than supportive seats."


Now, don't even try to compare an sti or evo to these cars.

Ok? Weren't we talking about stock cars? Thought so. You can make anything fast with modifications.

No shit!

Either you really can't read, you're a complete idiot, or both!

We were talking about stock cars until you brought the damn modded debate up:

If I want a piece of turd that goes fast in a straight line, I'll just take a civic and make it faster than the SRT-4...for a lot less.

A CRX that you can buy for a couple of thousand dollars with a B18 swap and a turbo would kill the SRT-4 for half the price. Now, you wanna talk about stock?

I don't give a shit if you can buy a used CRX and make it fast. That is so stupid. I bought my GTC for $600 and for about $2,000, much like the SRT-4, I can put it in the 12s. That is a lot cheaper than you stupid CRX idea. Like you said anything can be made to go fast so this whole modded debate was pointless. However, you're the one that brought it up.

Oh wait, so since you MUST BE talking about stock, the STi 12 second quarter mile runs are in a different class than the SRT-4. Sorry. Don't even get me started around the track. You can make anything fast with modifications. Stock for stock, the STi owns the SRT-4. Now you can talk about the price tag, but are you comparing CARS, or are you comparing cost?

Since when does the STi run 12s stock? You have no times to show that the STi would own the SRT-4 on the track and Layla already posted 1/4 mile times showing that the STi was only quicker than the SRT-4 by seven tenths of a second. Also, if we are comparing cars, which aren’t what this thread was even about, you have to factor cost in.

Do yourself a favor and stop posting. :headshake

No shit!

Either you really can't read, you're a complete idiot, or both!

We were talking about stock cars until you brought the damn modded debate up:




I brought up the modded debate? :screwy: :eek7:

You're the one who said "for $2000 you can make it as fast as an STi"


:loser:

Anyway, it's in Nissan Sentra's, Focus's and Celica's class, not the Evo's or Sti's.

End of story!

Hey Polygon, let Type S get the last laugh. After all, he who laughs las thinks slowest. Also, Type S, if you could learn to read sometime, youwould notice that when the 'modded' argument was brought up, it was about NEW cars, not used. So your CRX argument looses. You lose. Polygon-1, Type S-0.

Right, let the Enzo beater get in on this :loser:

He brought up his "$2,000" more argument so that he can keep up with an STi, but you can show me where I brought up the aftermarket argument first.

But either way, now that we know what class to put the SRT-4 in (Celcia, Civic SI, Sentra Spec V) ...

Yes, I know that the Evolution is just a lancer and an STi is just an Impreza...duh...but I think you would have to agree with me that the impreza is a much better car than the neon...I'm sick of this "SRT-4 vs. STi" debate, because the cars simply aren't in the same class...sure SRT-4s are cleaning up in showroom stock SCCA categories, but that isn't quite the same level as the FIA WRC that the STi is a proven winner in (just ask petter solberg).

Yes, I know that the Evolution is just a lancer and an STi is just an Impreza...duh...but I think you would have to agree with me that the impreza is a much better car than the neon...I'm sick of this "SRT-4 vs. STi" debate, because the cars simply aren't in the same class...sure SRT-4s are cleaning up in showroom stock SCCA categories, but that isn't quite the same level as the FIA WRC that the STi is a proven winner in (just ask petter solberg).


These guys don't understand. They're as pathetic as the guy who said that his stock GTP is better than an M5 (looks, interior and performance). I think it's a domestic thing :screwy:

If I want a piece of turd that goes fast in a straight line, I'll just take a civic and make it faster than the SRT-4...for a lot less.


That is a Quote by you (TypeS) on December 28 at 12:16 Th only previous mention to modified cars was also by you roughly two hours earlyer saying modifying an srt-4 could make it be faster than an m3 around a track (or something along those lines)

So ultimately it looks like you brought it up first.

I am truly sorry.


And by the way. Streetracer, The STi Was designed and engineered for the WRC. The SRT-4 Was Designed and engineered as a quick economy car that still cost pretty damn affordable.
I wouldn't expect it to outperform a Rally bred-designed and tuned car. Would you?

And hasn't Ford been catchin up to the Sti in the WRC? :iceslolan