sentra vs celica vs rsx vs neon

[OoNismoO]

which car would you guys get? based on anything, like looks, cost, power, handling etc.. give your reasons why you chose that car.

[genjy]

There are only really two choices for me here, either the Spec-V or the SRT-4.

I really don't like the way the Spec-V looks and I doubt it can outperform the SRT-4 in acceleration and handling stock to stock. I have always liked cars with large displacement and N/A, I feel they have more potential to be modified. But in this case, the SRT-4 is only $20k, so it is a hell of a bargain.

[Moppie]

RSX all the way, its the only totaly new and freash design out of the lot.

Sure the SR-T might be faster, but I doubt it has the same level of enginering and finess that the RSX posses IMO brute power dosn't make for superior design and enginering.
The SR-T is also based off a much less inspiring and very boring family car, the same as the SE-R which has to be well past its used by date by now. Both the sentra/pulsar/sunny/primera/whateverelseplatform and Neon where never designed to be sports cars, hence any sports models derived from the same basic chassis will always have compromises.
The RSX and the Celica were both designed as sports car, but the RSX builds on 20 years of building some of the wolds best engines, 10 years of useing variable cam technology and over 30 years of history in F1 and motorsport. The Celica builds on only 20 years of building sports cars and limited motorsport success, but combines it with a new for Toyota engine design, that is not quite as good as it needs to be.

The RSX is quite simply the most modern car, build speficly as a sports car, and takes advantage of a long history of succesful use of new inovative technology.
The Celica tries but falls short of the mark with its engine and being slighytly older (remember Honda could look at all the problems the Celica has, and avoid them with the RSX).
The Neon and Sentra are both ceritanly fast, but are both very primative in the way they go about it and suffer comprimises from being based on chassis never designed to handle that level of performance.

[banditkiller]

I would chose the rsx simply because of looks and as said before a long history of well engineered cars. Sure the neon is fast ...... Whoopdy doo.... Ive heard and seen to many horror stories about neons and their many headgasket problems, and just being cheaply built cars in general. Hmm rsx type s and a turbo kit.... Hmm is the neon that much faster anymore?

[del]

i voted for the acura as well. i won't get into the thought that Moppie has, he pretty much summed everything up quite well. but i will say if i was in high school and just wanted a car that was cool at the time and didn't care for how long a car will last or how much engineering was involved in designing the car etc, i'd go for the neon. faster than any of the other cars, looks like what a high school kid would drive, not to mention design, so why not? the other two get an honorable mention.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by del

but i will say if i was in high school and just wanted a car that was cool at the time and didn't care for how long a car will last or how much engineering was involved in designing the car etc, i'd go for the neon.

Have to say Im tempted by the Neon for the same reasons, anything with that much hp and that little weight would have to be a blast to drive, especialy since it sounds like some very serious work was done to the suspension and brakes to cope.
But its not something I would ever by new, as a 5-10 year old used car it would be great buy, espcialy if its still running after that amount of time, but I want something a little more sophisticated for a new car.

[Strider Negro]

i would get the spec v
the one with the "skyline" fascia, at least that one was nice, well i would like it because i'm currently in college and a celica or an rsx is waaaay out of my price range, i wouldn't get a neon even if it is the srt because its a neon and u never know when it will mess up on you especially if it's running a lot of boost...i prefer N/A cars, if anything i would change the cams to racing cams or something...i respect the rsx and celica they are waaay faster and are much more reliable, but for a good cheap bang for your buck in my opinion without a turbo or anything else would be the spec v

[genjy]

A 2003 SRT-4 with just Mopar Stage 1 (injectors and PCM), LSD, and suspension mods finished 8th in the recent One Lap of America. I don't know how anyone can disprove that it isn't a serious performance car. It ran with heavily modded Vettes, Vipers, Audi S4s, Evos, WRXs, M-cars, Porsches, etc under harsh conditions.

The SRT-4 doesn't use the old Neon/Eclipse 2.0L motor, so it doesn't specifically have whatever problems the 2.0L has. It uses an internally modified version of the PT-Cruiser's 2.4L DOHC, which has been around since 2000.

Top 10 of 2003 One Lap of America:

1 2 chev MTI Z-07
2 4 Chevy Corvette Z06
3 1 Dodge Viper
4 3 RUF RGT
5 8 Porsche 996 Twin Turbo
6 5 Toyota Supra Turbo
7 20 CHEVROLET CORVETTE ZR1
8 52 Dodge SRT-4 <-----
9 10 Lamborghini Diablo
10 50 Audi S-4

From http://www.onelapsupra.com:

What is the Car & Driver Cannonball One Lap of America? It's just one of the most famous, challenging, and grueling endurance races in the USA. Through the course of one week, the field of over 100 race teams participate in 19 racing events (mostly road course time trials) at 9 venues all across the country... but there's a twist -- you drive your race car on the track during the day, then pile all your luggage, spare parts, and tools into it and drive overnight to a faraway track for tomorrow's race. 4,000 street miles, 300 race miles, and 100+ race teams battling it out in a single week.

[OoNismoO]

i didnt know which one i would of gotten till now, i was gonna go with the srt-4, but since it has 4 doors, and didnt think it looked as good as the rsx, i picked the rsx. if the neon came in two doors, and looked a little better, than i would definately get that over the rsx.

[jayman12_23]

i'm not much for honda but the rsx would be my first pick , but if i couldn't get that i'd get a celica. if i had to get a four-door i'd probably get the sentra. I'm just not much for dodge.

[hockeygod2787]

Sentra all the way, to me it has the best looks.
I hope that I am not totally alone on this one.


.:C.H.R.I.S:.

[NISSANSPDR]

SE-R in the R-Tune (ie the one on Speed Chanel)

[Jimster]

RSX- game over


The Neon is getting on now- and despite the SRT4 having plenty of power and handling mods- it is just non-justifiable as a new car due largely to a lack of sophistication as Moppie already pointed out- and I am somewhat doubtful of the SRT's reliability as well..........

The SER is also too old- and an economy car platform will only inhibit the sporting ability- but it is still a fine-car regardless

The Celica is so similar to the RSX that it is hard to draw any differences between the two- but Honda have more experience in the field at the end of the day and thats the way I'd go............


NB: The Celica is the only car from that list available over here and the only one I have driven- this is all just my opinion

[Polygon]

Give me the SRT-4. It is, by far, the best bang for the buck. It can easily out perform all the cars on that list and already has a great factory performance market. IT is nice to be able to mod your car and keep your warranty.

I must point something out since it seems that some of you don't know. The SRT-4 is not being marketed as a Neon. No where on the car does it say Neon, no where has Dodge called it a Neon. The only thing it shares with the Neon is the fact that it has a striking resemblence. In fact the frame isn't even the same. The car in entirely new. As for reliability, you should read last months issue of Sport Compact Car. They looked inside the SRT-4 and they found an overly built car mechanicaly. They were very impressed with the build quality of the Neon. I get sick of all the naysayers. The only common problem the Neons ever had was the damn head gasket which is an easy fix. I don't see how you can be so general and assume that it isn't built well.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by Polygon

I must point something out since it seems that some of you don't know. The SRT-4 is not being marketed as a Neon. No where on the car does it say Neon, no where has Dodge called it a Neon. ..........They looked inside the SRT-4 and they found an overly built car mechanicaly. ..........They were very impressed with the build quality of the Neon. ..................

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.