sentra vs celica vs rsx vs neon

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by Moppie

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.....

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by Neutrino

"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

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by Moppie

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

[jaronervin]

Originally Posted by Moppie

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.

[OoNismoO]

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.

[Polygon]

Originally Posted by Moppie

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Moppie

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.

Originally Posted by Moppie

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.

[kfoote]

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.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by Polygon

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).

[jaronervin]

Originally Posted by Polygon

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.

[Polygon]

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.

[jaronervin]

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.

[OoNismoO]

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?

[Polygon]

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.

[jaronervin]

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.

[OoNismoO]

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