which is your fav srt

[street_racer_00]

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.

[TypeS]

Originally Posted by Steiner

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.

[TypeS]

Originally Posted by street_racer_00

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.

[Steiner]

Originally Posted by street_racer_00

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?

Originally Posted by street_racer_00

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

Originally Posted by TypeS

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.

Originally Posted by TypeS

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.

[Polygon]

Originally Posted by CassiesMan

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.

Originally Posted by street_racer_00

own this...

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.

Originally Posted by TypeS

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.

Originally Posted by TypeS

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.

[TypeS]

Originally Posted by Polygon

*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.

[Andydg]

Originally Posted by TypeS

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.

[TypeS]

"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.

[Polygon]

Originally Posted by TypeS

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:

Originally Posted by TypeS

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.

Originally Posted by TypeS

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.

Originally Posted by TypeS

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.

[TypeS]

Originally Posted by Polygon

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?

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




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

End of story!

[CassiesMan]

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.

[TypeS]

Right, let the Enzo beater get in on this

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) ...

[street_racer_00]

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).

[TypeS]

Originally Posted by street_racer_00

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

[GritMaster]

Originally Posted by TypeS

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?