Your srt divers are all the same

[s2kfan01]

For the past year ive been hearing about the dimond in the rough, the srt-4. The 240 hp motor was impressive and the body looked ok(by "ok" I mean better than a 1986 ford tempo) Then i had a chance to get inside one...thats when I relized why the car was so cheap, bad interior, poor and uncomfortable seats, undeatailed design to name a few things. But i didnt mid that too much. What really turned me off to the car was people like you. Every time i go to one of these forums I see the same thing. Divers diafying there cars. Talking about how there awesome NEON kills corvettes and STIs. The only reason that could possiblly be true is YOUR NOT RACING ON A REAL TRACK/DRAG STRIP. Classic punk style. Red lighting and racing people who really dont feel like racing a turbocharged grocery-getter. In every review/comparison ive read(and there have been many) by a credited news/mag all the cars you claim to kill (s2000, vette, evo, sti, wrx, ss camaro, etc) has better: 0-60, 1/4 mile, egronomics, interior design, and overall reliability.Hell, why not race the srt-4 in la mans. it goes like 250 mph right?

PERSONAL BONE TO PICK: it seems like the most popular "kill" is the s2000. i happen to admire the enginering(interior and exterior), body style and importantly the relitivly cheap price tag.(note: the s2000 pushes 240 ON A SMALLER NON-TURBO ENGINE) Yet the "almighty" srt-4 seems to kill it everytime.

heres the facts:s2000
Price as tested $32,477
Engine type 2.0-liter dohc 16V inline-4
Horsepower 240 bhp @ 8300 rpm
Torque 153 lb-ft @ 7500 rpm
Transmission 6-speed manual
Tires Bridgestone Potenza S-02; 205/55R-16 89W f, 225/50R-16 92W r
0–60 mph 4.9 sec
Braking 60–0 134 ft
Lap time 2 minutes, 17.66 sec
Slalom 65.9 mph
Skidpad 0.90g

srt-4:
60 mph in 5.6 seconds
quarter-mile in 14.1 seconds
70 mph brake 167 feet

Try turbocharging a s2000 kiddos, now go have fun with your toys.

[s2kfan01]

by the way the stats are from www.roadandtrack.com and www.caranddriver.com

[90CorollaSR5]

You like what you want, let others like what they want. Also I don't think turbocharging a stock S2000 engine would go over too well. Yes, the S2000 engine pushes 240 hp but only 153 torque, which is where the SRT-4 is superior, it has what? like 260-270 torque? I'm not actually sure but its somewhere up in mid 200 range.

[R/T_Racer]

you call $32,000 some odd dollars a "cheap" price tag? Im sorry but I could find quite a few ways to better spend that much money.

Besides, if you put an extra $12,000 into an SRT-4, mainly areas that you say need work (interior, seats, etc..) it would definitly be money better spent than on an S2000. I agree, the exterior/ interior styling of the S2000 is very cool, I like the way it looks, but its so much more expensive than an SRT-4.

How many cars can you name that do 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, that cost about $20,000 (give or take $2000)? i cant name very many.

I understand that you have your opinion and i respect that, so this is just my opinion of your opinion.

[selp]

the s2000 is to expensive.. beside srt4 is made to be use day by day ..
and if there are srt4 forums there might be s2000 forums, so go and tell your folks what you like about that car! and let us enjoy our car thats why we bought it ..

[Saki0]

s2kfan01: You are one of those people that gives Honda lovers a bad rap. You have no arguement saying "Try turbocharging a s2000 kiddos, now go have fun with your toys."You might as well say"I have to put 3k(just and example) to beat your cheaper car" Yay!!! Srt-4's are super performers for the price...s2000 is nice as well. Don't get mad if a cheaper car eats a much more expensive car(it happens). Anyway have fun with your cars.

[blindside.AMG]

Don't get mad at s2kfan01, he rides the short bus to school!

[selp]

hahaha anyway! everyone was different likes!

[Scatch!]

C'mon, guys! Why waste your time on trolls? We all know that the SRT-4 can't be touched FOR THE PRICE. Now, if someone told me that they beat an S2000 with a stock SRT-4, I'd laugh right in their face. But I don't expect a $20-21K sedan to beat a $32K purpose-built sport roadster...

I want to know where that 167 foot 70-0 test was done. I've never seen an SRT-4 test that poorly.

[s2kfan01]

the s2000 is cheap BECAUSE it out performs 50-60 grand roadsters on all points. You people have still said nothing about the crappy interior and shitty design...tools

[s2kfan01]

of the srt 4 that is

[s2kfan01]

one more thing, why is turbo/super charging the s2000 a bad idea, its been done with amazing results, as seen in some racing mag my brother subscribes to. the brake test is from road and track.

P.S. Dodge suck balls!

[s2kfan01]

sakio is a dumb ass, the point is that a neon has to use a turbo to get the power a s2000 already has naturaly asperated. anyway the s2000 doesnt need ANY MOD to beat the srt 4, proven by the facts at the top of the thread

[NeonInnovations]

you know whats funny i saw a stock miata and a stock s2000 run and the suto miata whooped tha a$$ hahaha

[NeonInnovations]

hey s2k where you from ill run my 2000 ACR Neon against your rice rocket any day of the week..what you wanna make it fun well run for pinks..sound good??