Boosted CRX vs SRT-4

Wow, now that this is getting way out of hand...MERRY CHRISTMAS, happy hanchuaku(spelling?!) happy Kwanza, and FESTIVUS FOR THE REST OF US! stop the hate guys, we all love fast cars period.

215 hp and 230 tq on 03s with no lsd and i believe these were making about 220 whp.

05's were rated at 230 and 250 and dyned that at the wheels.. they had lsd and i think had stage 1 injectors stock? correct me if im wrong.

i love that car, it makes all that tq at low rpms( fun for crusing in the city).. its just too hard to launch and most kids cant drive them. down here everyone got new cars bc of the hurricane and 2 kids bought srts and both lost to an experience driver in a rsx type s who previously owned a wrx(modded it and beat a modded evo right b4 the hurricane)

this is also the first stick car for both srt drivers.(wonder how long their trannys gonna last?)

Good kill. Sounds like you have a quick ride. Most people think SRT-4's are high 13 sec. cars, but on the average they are low 14 sec. rides. I've raced one before. I believe they have axle hop issues. To beat it by 7 car lengths means, to me, that he must've been somewhat modded, as i'm sure your car should be in the 12's.

Oh, and i'd say 7 car lengths is more like 4-5 tenths of a sec. 1/4 mile wise, judging by my times at the track versus slower cars.

On a track with good traction I would more than likely be in the 12's. However on the street on a dusty dirty road I wasn't running as well as I probably should. And the place we raced at wasnt exactly a quartermile since it was just some random road with markings that have been there since I can remember (probably made by some kids). As for mods on the SRT-4 i think it has intake exhaust and a bigger downpipe not positive tho, just what ive been told.

215 hp and 230 tq on 03s with no lsd and i believe these were making about 220 whp.

05's were rated at 230 and 250 and dyned that at the wheels.. they had lsd and i think had stage 1 injectors stock? correct me if im wrong.

i love that car, it makes all that tq at low rpms( fun for crusing in the city).. its just too hard to launch and most kids cant drive them. down here everyone got new cars bc of the hurricane and 2 kids bought srts and both lost to an experience driver in a rsx type s who previously owned a wrx(modded it and beat a modded evo right b4 the hurricane)

this is also the first stick car for both srt drivers.(wonder how long their trannys gonna last?)

I would have to agree with you on that one......all info is correct and about kids buying them and thinking they could beat the world just gives us real srt tuners a bad name....... :nono:

[QUOTE=2000LS1Z28]Good kill. Sounds like you have a quick ride. Most people think SRT-4's are high 13 sec. cars, but on the average they are low 14 sec. rides. I've raced one before. I believe they have axle hop QUOTE]

for most part they are high 13s cars.......the majority of people that drive them cant drive and are just kids............. thus them hitting low 14s........and yes they do have tons of wheel hop due too mounts that cant handle the power......

It's not just Mustang guys that SRT-4s are econoboxes, though I'm sure a vast majority of them do, since mustang's were designed to be fast fun cars from day 1

And thus begun a long line of tradition of Ford failing miserably at their project goals...

Mustangs designed to be fast from day 1.... :grinno: :lol: I test drove an 02 gt 5spd while the dealer was detailing my nissan right before I bought it, and it was far from "fast". Lets look back at the 96-98 gt's shall we? Those things are dogs from the factory, and the sn95 5.0's werent all that far behind them. Even the foxbody mustangs could see a high 14-low 15 stock. So I'd re-think that arguement. I'm not sure about the costs to mod an srt-4, but have you seen the prices for a built 2v or 4v modular shortblock? :eek:

well for starters about 5000 give or take will get you in to low 11s....high 10s....not bad for a 4banger.....

well for starters about 5000 give or take will get you in to low 11s....high 10s....not bad for a 4banger.....
I wonder can you make sig pic a little bigger? I'm still squinting to make it out.


B18c1 and boost is a great combo 10psi can net 300WHP stock guts with good turbine and tuning.

Mustangs designed to be fast from day 1.... :grinno: :lol: I test drove an 02 gt 5spd while the dealer was detailing my nissan right before I bought it, and it was far from "fast". Lets look back at the 96-98 gt's shall we? Those things are dogs from the factory, and the sn95 5.0's werent all that far behind them. Even the foxbody mustangs could see a high 14-low 15 stock. So I'd re-think that arguement. I'm not sure about the costs to mod an srt-4, but have you seen the prices for a built 2v or 4v modular shortblock? :eek:

hey... comon every one has a couple off years... they are runnin mid 13s now on a regular basis. and the fox mustang may not have been blazin fast stock, but that is one of the most easily modded cars out there, tremendous aftermarket and its so easy to get them to go fast. im gonna admit tho... the 94-98 mustangs were nothing special. the 4.6 improved in 99 though and wasnt to bad, now its better... i think they are goin in the right direction with it. all we need now is some weight reduction and about 50 more ponies. which i see comin in the near future.


oh shit i didnt realize i just jumped in the middle of a mustangs suck thread... :uhoh: crap. im glad i never saw this thread before... i probably would have gotten pissed at someone. you guys, this is what it comes down too, mustangs from day 1 have been the car every one wants to beat, so everyone that doesnt have one talks shit about em. they have had tremendous success in racing and on the street for years.

^^ amen to that.

It's sad that no one cares about driveability anymore, just dyno numbers and OTHER PEOPLE'S quarter mile times.

I can tell you a 230whp FWD car does not sound appealing to me.

And dynos aren't all accurate.

More importantly, at the end of the day, a dyno gives you a number, you being able to handle the power and drive it to the end of the 1/4 mile gives you the speed.

What's sad is someone with a slow car trying to race, but what is even sadder is someone with a high hp car who can't drive it.

I hear too much of "Car A can do high 13's with good driver and low 14s with bad so it is faster" and not enough of "I run xx.xx, can you beat that?"

People too quckly defend their own car by referencing someone else's car of the same model. And too easily brush off a loss because of a "bad driver" - racing is as much about the driver as it is about the car!

Too much triabalism.

Last note, a car's power is no longer about cc's and no. of cylinders...we should all know that by now. I'm so sick of people bringing those two factors into it.

/end rant

One last thing, a question if I may.

Why would a car manufacturer underrate a sports car? Yes in Japan it was because of the Gentlemen's agreement, but why in America would a car company do that? Is it illegal to have a certain power to weight ratio?

One last thing, a question if I may.

Why would a car manufacturer underrate a sports car? Yes in Japan it was because of the Gentlemen's agreement, but why in America would a car company do that? Is it illegal to have a certain power to weight ratio?

:dunno: ............Insurance purposes and marketing.......good question..

I wonder can you make sig pic a little bigger? I'm still squinting to make it out.

Yeah I had the same problem.......nah just dont know how to shrink it...

B18c1 and boost is a great combo 10psi can net 300WHP stock guts with good turbine and tuning.

dont forget........h22 and boost...... :eek:

omg, your sig is such a badass pic!! And I like the little eyelids on the bugeyes, makes them look mean instead of docile....damn bugeyes!! :icon16:

As for the underrating: doing it for marketing purposes is counteruntuitive - power sells cars, so the higher than can put it the better - hence using crank power instead of wheels.

Insurance is possible, and more likely - however, it would depend on the company. I mean, most companies charge u heaps for a turbo, but there are heaps of cars with turbos just because they have 3 cyl and need the turbo to move...slowly!! :p So I dunno if insurance companies base it on manufacturer power figures or not :confused:

dont forget........h22 and boost...... :eek:
H22 doesn't fair as well as the B and K series do.

If you have alot of money you'll be able to get GREAT numbers out of the H22 motors a few creep around at 2.5 ltrs or larger and push PSI.

A few real nasty street motors are up to 2700cc and make 300WHP N/A.

Most people take the B series still as it going in alot more cars common to tuners it got all the aftermarket while Ludes were somewhat left out still a quite mod friendly motor it just doesn't have following of the Bs.

That whole open deck ish also keeps people away from boosting a H22 becaues it unlike a B won't take 10 psi on stock guts.

Hey Right_lirrr, have you seen the success of the SRT-4 in the american rally competitions. it came in overall first place in 2004 beating out both the Evo and the WRX.
And I feel ya on the drivability and true-life road application of a car but dont diss the SRT-4 on those terms because thats just one more of its fortes.

In the SCCA the SRT-4 has been smoking lots of AWD cars despite it beeing FWD. and in the Redline/ superstreet time attack it was a FWD car that smoked all the Evos, STIs, and GT-R including Igor's z-tuned. the Chevrolette Grandam series Cobalt SS took overall best lap and oblitirated last years record by 3 seconds. FWDs can hang.

H22 doesn't fair as well as the B and K series do.

If you have alot of money you'll be able to get GREAT numbers out of the H22 motors a few creep around at 2.5 ltrs or larger and push PSI.

A few real nasty street motors are up to 2700cc and make 300WHP N/A.

Most people take the B series still as it going in alot more cars common to tuners it got all the aftermarket while Ludes were somewhat left out still a quite mod friendly motor it just doesn't have following of the Bs.

That whole open deck ish also keeps people away from boosting a H22 becaues it unlike a B won't take 10 psi on stock guts.

yeah if I ever owned a hatch I would try to get my hands on a k series...
just that motor alone stock in a hatch would do some serious damage....

Hey Right_lirrr, have you seen the success of the SRT-4 in the american rally competitions. it came in overall first place in 2004 beating out both the Evo and the WRX.
And I feel ya on the drivability and true-life road application of a car but dont diss the SRT-4 on those terms because thats just one more of its fortes.

In the SCCA the SRT-4 has been smoking lots of AWD cars despite it beeing FWD. and in the Redline/ superstreet time attack it was a FWD car that smoked all the Evos, STIs, and GT-R including Igor's z-tuned. the Chevrolette Grandam series Cobalt SS took overall best lap and oblitirated last years record by 3 seconds. FWDs can hang.

ok i havent researched it... but i highly doubt a FWD car beat a AWD car in a rally race, id be willing to bet it was converted to AWD, kinda like the ford focus rally car... but then again i havent researched it at all...

ok i havent researched it... but i highly doubt a FWD car beat a AWD car in a rally race, id be willing to bet it was converted to AWD, kinda like the ford focus rally car... but then again i havent researched it at all...

well my model the acr is build for track and auto x..............

well my model the acr is build for track and auto x..............
That they are.

American Club Racing if memory serves me.

the SRT-4 that faired so well in rally still was FF.

My god if this hasn't gotten otu of handI dunno what to say anymore...Can't we just end all f this and move on for once, until the next "I BEAT A MUSTANG, YAY!" quote comes along. i don't see why people hate us so much, what did I ever do to you, hah. But seriously this is getting crazy. Late.

ok i havent researched it... but i highly doubt a FWD car beat a AWD car in a rally race, id be willing to bet it was converted to AWD, kinda like the ford focus rally car... but then again i havent researched it at all...

Yeah dude, no kidding. go to mopar.com and check it out. I dont think it was in the SCCA rally but some other American Rally Series of sort. The white and blue Mopar SRT-4 FWD came in overall first in 2004 outgunning all competition including dozens of STI and Evos and Audi Quattros.

the same year that Sam Hubbinet came in first at the Formula D with the Mopar Viper. 2004 was the year for Mopar man!

and yes the SRT-4 faired so well from coast to coast that the ACR series got the green light.

I don't doubt the SRT-4 can do well in rally. It's a FF layout which if I remember correctly is the second best platform for rally (behind AWD). And back when AWD wasn't that well developed or cheap, most rally cars WERE FWD. I remember Audi's quattro was the first rally car that showed the true potential of AWD back when they were all FWD.

And my memory may be screwing with me here, but doesn't Honda's Type-R used to represent their Rally cars - which were all FF? Or were they never involved in rallying? I really can't remember.

However, you kind of walked right into my point that there's too much of proving a car is good by talking about other people, which most of the time is in a biased context.

I mean, yeah, I believe you that the SRT-4 can beat evos and STi's...but can the best SRT-4 driver compete against the best of the evo and STi drivers in the WRC?? I wouldn't think so, because driver skill at that level is so similar, the competition would be based more heavily on car technology as well.

Sure it's persuasive to compare what a great driver can do - but it shouldn't be the end all of a debate.

I see on here far too often the excuse "I got too much wheel hop" taken as a good reason for why a FWD was slow down the 1/4 or why another car beat you. If you get bad wheel hop that you can't control, then you have a slow car (unless you run 13s - but then it's sad cos you think about what the cars potential is and how you can't reach it :-P) . It's irrelevant what this mythical "good driver" can do with it.

Ok, I've finished my rant...which kinda goes on many tangents...oh well, lol.

As a final point, I don't doubt the SRT-4 is a very driveable car (as in, it has a good useable powerband - which, btw, is pretty much my definition of driveability). However, it is not a good drag car because one, it is FWD and two, most people can't break 14s which is sad for a car which claims 230whp. So yeah, other people's 1/4 times are irrelavant to what's better, mustang or SRT-4. :-)

I don't doubt the SRT-4 can do well in rally. It's a FF layout which if I remember correctly is the second best platform for rally (behind AWD). And back when AWD wasn't that well developed or cheap, most rally cars WERE FWD. I remember Audi's quattro was the first rally car that showed the true potential of AWD back when they were all FWD.

And my memory may be screwing with me here, but doesn't Honda's Type-R used to represent their Rally cars - which were all FF? Or were they never involved in rallying? I really can't remember.

However, you kind of walked right into my point that there's too much of proving a car is good by talking about other people, which most of the time is in a biased context.

I mean, yeah, I believe you that the SRT-4 can beat evos and STi's...but can the best SRT-4 driver compete against the best of the evo and STi drivers in the WRC?? I wouldn't think so, because driver skill at that level is so similar, the competition would be based more heavily on car technology as well.

Sure it's persuasive to compare what a great driver can do - but it shouldn't be the end all of a debate.

I see on here far too often the excuse "I got too much wheel hop" taken as a good reason for why a FWD was slow down the 1/4 or why another car beat you. If you get bad wheel hop that you can't control, then you have a slow car (unless you run 13s - but then it's sad cos you think about what the cars potential is and how you can't reach it :-P) . It's irrelevant what this mythical "good driver" can do with it.

Ok, I've finished my rant...which kinda goes on many tangents...oh well, lol.

As a final point, I don't doubt the SRT-4 is a very driveable car (as in, it has a good useable powerband - which, btw, is pretty much my definition of driveability). However, it is not a good drag car because one, it is FWD and two, most people can't break 14s which is sad for a car which claims 230whp. So yeah, other people's 1/4 times are irrelavant to what's better, mustang or SRT-4. :-)

Yes it is sad that we dont get alot of traction and alot of guys cant get the power to the ground thus not breaking 14s but thats something people should realize when having a car that pushes out 230hp-250tq and weights 2900 and that is FWD......and only gets worse when modded...........but when racing on the track its pointless to run on street tires unless you really dont care what you hit.....thats why running a more track oriented tire grade such as slicks or drag radials are ideal for this purpose....not saying all the stock times are based on slicks...just saying not everyones a professional driver.....

I totally agree with you.

It's just that the first comment that comes up around here when car A gets beat by a lesser car is "*BS flag* oh I saw Mr Y do it in xx.xx"

It was just beginning to annoy me is all. I'm alright now though :-)

Happy new years all