C&D: Dodge Neon SRT-4

[MrFatbooty]

I guarantee I'm pickier than you, and I don't know what this "timeless" crap you talk about is. You ever driven a Porsche 914? That's a car with "timeless" handling yet if you restored one to its stock form with the original style shocks, tires, etc it would be not very good compared to say, an MR2 spyder. But, update it to modern shocks, brakes, tires etc and it can be absolutely incredible.

Registered and logged-in users don't see this ad! Register your free account today.

[AcuraFanatic]

Whoever brought this thread back up from it's grave needs to die.

[redgoober4life]

Originally posted by MrFatBooty
I guarantee I'm pickier than you, and I don't know what this "timeless" crap you talk about is. You ever driven a Porsche 914? That's a car with "timeless" handling yet if you restored one to its stock form with the original style shocks, tires, etc it would be not very good compared to say, an MR2 spyder. But, update it to modern shocks, brakes, tires etc and it can be absolutely incredible.

Uhm.

[LuckyDog]

Originally posted by DriverZ



by kaminari

hmmmm...

This design reminds me a lot of the original Neon. I know a lot of Neon fans from the first-gen (the 'Hi' model) thought the current one grew up too much (didn't some Chrysler exec say at the debut that this generation says 'Hello'?), so that front may go over well with them (assuming it'll swap right on a normal Neon, I don't see why you'd ever want to get rid of the SRT-4's front).

[SRT4Neon]

Originally posted by fastball
Yes, BUT..... Dodge must still use a turbo to pull that off. Ask them to coax that power with nothing but a block, pistons, and cams. Their engineers will look kind of like this .

Still proves Germany and Japan got it goin on!

Hate to say it but thats not true, my GF's neon with just intake and header was running mid to high 14's. we beat every damn hondas around here. even a Si that had intake,header, exhaust,cams, cam gears and vtec controller. but all i have to say is the SRT4 is the baddest car under $20 grand it even beats the WRX.

[98CoupeV6]

Originally posted by SRT4Neon
Hate to say it but thats not true, my GF's neon with just intake and header was running mid to high 14's. we beat every damn hondas around here. even a Si that had intake,header, exhaust,cams, cam gears and vtec controller. but all i have to say is the SRT4 is the baddest car under $20 grand it even beats the WRX.

WRX isn't under 20 grand, it's like 24k. The SRT-4 is the fastest car this side of a 350Z, but that interior :eugh:

Your girlfriend's Neon or her Neon SRT-4?

[Dorikin]

Originally posted by SRT4Neon
Hate to say it but thats not true, my GF's neon with just intake and header was running mid to high 14's. we beat every damn hondas around here. even a Si that had intake,header, exhaust,cams, cam gears and vtec controller. but all i have to say is the SRT4 is the baddest car under $20 grand it even beats the WRX.

You gotta a timeslip for that....??

[jaje]

Originally posted by SRT4Neon
Hate to say it but thats not true, my GF's neon with just intake and header was running mid to high 14's. we beat every damn hondas around here. even a Si that had intake,header, exhaust,cams, cam gears and vtec controller. but all i have to say is the SRT4 is the baddest car under $20 grand it even beats the WRX.

with those mods (intake/exhaust/cams & vtec controller) a sohc vtec ex coupe can run high 14's low 15's...with the si and same mods they are running mid 14s

sorry but i don't think you are racing good drivers or they weren't racing at all...especially if you beat an si with all those mods

if you can get a neon to run mid 14s with just a intake and header then you'd have to have a neon acr (probably lightened) b/c the 2.0 won't get you even in the 14s with those to mods

your claims sound very fishy

[asianautica]

The SRT-4 is faster than a 350Z too. It just have a horrible time trying to find traction. It's the only car that has a faster 5-60 time than its 0-60 time. I think it's 0-100 is similar to the M3.

[asianautica]

Originally posted by jaje
with those mods (intake/exhaust/cams & vtec controller) a sohc vtec ex coupe can run high 14's low 15's...with the si and same mods they are running mid 14s

sorry but i don't think you are racing good drivers or they weren't racing at all...especially if you beat an si with all those mods

if you can get a neon to run mid 14s with just a intake and header then you'd have to have a neon acr (probably lightened) b/c the 2.0 won't get you even in the 14s with those to mods

your claims sound very fishy

I think you hit the bulls eye on that one. Driver skill has alot to do with it. Also, in a street race, there's just way too many variables to even make a fair comparison.

[fastball]

Originally posted by SRT4Neon
Hate to say it but thats not true, my GF's neon with just intake and header was running mid to high 14's. we beat every damn hondas around here. even a Si that had intake,header, exhaust,cams, cam gears and vtec controller. but all i have to say is the SRT4 is the baddest car under $20 grand it even beats the WRX.

Your girlfriend's car just a Neon or an SRT4? I'd believe it if it were SRT4, but you also are not comparing apples to apples. Notice I said if Dodge had to do it without a turbo they would be miffed. Take away the turbo and other negligable factory mods and its a ho-hum Detroit 4 banger which couldn't get out of its own way no matter how much you modify it. America is still in the dark ages when it comes to inline four cylinder engines compared to most German companies and for sure Honda and Toyota. And, you really need to make sure that turbo is well cared for. The last time Chrysler Corp. used extensive turbos with the K-cars they lasted about 60k. Now, I'm sure this go around they aren't as bad, but I would not abuse it very much. Turbos are a touchy thing (unlike VTEC, which is pretty much change the oil...... and play all you want. Nearly indestructable.)

[asianautica]

Originally posted by fastball
Your girlfriend's car just a Neon or an SRT4? I'd believe it if it were SRT4, but you also are not comparing apples to apples. Notice I said if Dodge had to do it without a turbo they would be miffed. Take away the turbo and other negligable factory mods and its a ho-hum Detroit 4 banger which couldn't get out of its own way no matter how much you modify it. America is still in the dark ages when it comes to inline four cylinder engines compared to most German companies and for sure Honda and Toyota. And, you really need to make sure that turbo is well cared for. The last time Chrysler Corp. used extensive turbos with the K-cars they lasted about 60k. Now, I'm sure this go around they aren't as bad, but I would not abuse it very much. Turbos are a touchy thing (unlike VTEC, which is pretty much change the oil...... and play all you want. Nearly indestructable.)

I think that argument is pretty lame, take away the turbo argument. It's like saying take away the WRX turbo or the evo's turbo. If you take the turbo out of a turboed car, the engine would be crap for NA. Because it wasn't design for NA. The SRT-4 isn't anywhere near it's limit either. Mopar is supposed to have the 3 stages of turbo upgrades and the first two are factory warranty. I mean w/ stage 2, it's 300HP and 300ft-lb of tq. Also, Dodge has a 100k miles warranty so you should be worried about the engine breaking down @ 60k anymore.

Any car if not well cared for will break down just the same. But if you follow the factory service schedule, I don't see how it can break down on you. Turbos are touchy things if you didn't install it properly, but factory turbo isn't too bad if it's installed properly. Just look at MR-2 turbo, supra turbo, wrx, evo, and the list goes on. VTEC has it's bad side too. I.E. burning oil and burning rings. I don't know about your car but my GS-R, if I stay in VTEC for the whole tank, I get around 16MPG. That's really bad for a 1.8L I4. Mind you my mileage normally is 23 city and 27 highway.

[MrFatbooty]

I typed out a whole wordy statement but decided it was pointless. You could take away the turbo from the SRT-4, but then it wouldn't be an SRT-4 any more. It came that way from the factory. As for which is more evolved from an engineering standpoint, who really cares? Turbo motors will have something that VTEC motors will never have: low-end grunt.

The point of the SRT-4 is not to be some kind of refined sporting car that is civilized and will appeal to the masses. It's not supposed to be comfy, it's not supposed to have a lot of amenities, it's not supposed to be quiet, and it's not supposed to get good mileage. It's supposed to be faster than everything else you can buy for the same price and that's it. If you like that fine; If you don't then enjoy your Prelude.

[jaje]

there's a difference about a engine built for n/a purposes or forced induction...take an engine that was designed specifically for forced induction (usually beefier deck support, iron block, heavier rods, pistons, etc.) and try to make it a n/a revver you'll fail without a complete rebuild

just the same as take an engine built for high performance n/a purposes and add forced induction and you over stress the engine b/c its internals, design, and compression characteristics had a much different purpose in mind

[SmOkIneLf]

Originally posted by fastball
Your girlfriend's car just a Neon or an SRT4? I'd believe it if it were SRT4, but you also are not comparing apples to apples. Notice I said if Dodge had to do it without a turbo they would be miffed. Take away the turbo and other negligable factory mods and its a ho-hum Detroit 4 banger which couldn't get out of its own way no matter how much you modify it. America is still in the dark ages when it comes to inline four cylinder engines compared to most German companies and for sure Honda and Toyota. And, you really need to make sure that turbo is well cared for. The last time Chrysler Corp. used extensive turbos with the K-cars they lasted about 60k. Now, I'm sure this go around they aren't as bad, but I would not abuse it very much. Turbos are a touchy thing (unlike VTEC, which is pretty much change the oil...... and play all you want. Nearly indestructable.)

all you do is bash turbo cars like their inferior to the almighty VTEC you blew me away your so smart and non ignorant . like people said above me of course if you take away a turbo from say a WRX it wont be fast because it was meant to be turboed not rev to 9k rpms. If Honda was so smart and you think every other company that made turbo cars are stupid well then your basically basing Ferrari and Buggatti which no doubt are alot better. and to just that argument for you saying honda engines can last and are built strong. the 2jz-gte can handle 900hp on a stock bottom end, show me a honda that can do that and i'll shut up.

[honda_pilot]

Originally posted by kazi
0-60mph: 5.6sec
1/4mile: 14.2sec@102mph




Even though I'm not a big fan of the Neon, I must give Dodge mad props for the accomplishments.

Must completely agree with you, its a Neon but a rather fast one. This is what every company should be throwing out at least one of, a very fast production turbocharged vehicle $20k and under...

The most unresolved question in the automobile market would be resolved..."What would make astonishing sales and yeild a large profit?"

[fastball]

Originally posted by SmOkIneLf
all you do is bash turbo cars like their inferior to the almighty VTEC

That's because they are. Some people will dissagree with me, and that's your opinion. I just sate facts. Tuboed motors, while they are fast which I NEVER denied, are unreliable, have severe throttle lag, and can mask the inferiorities of any engine rather cheaply. And they're inexpensive, which is why you can get an SRT4 for under 20k. To each his own. I just stated the facts.

[MrFatbooty]

A VTEC motor is still just a cammed-up n/a motor and a turbo motor is a turbo motor. They're two totally different animals. Not to say there's anything bad about a VTEC motor, but turbos most definitely have their merits.

How many turbo'd cars have you actually driven?

Reliability
To say that every turbo motor ever made is unreliable is an overstatement. The SRT-4 is brand new so we really have no clue one way or the other if it's going to be reliable or not. There are plenty of turbo cars that will run around just fine with no extra maintenance. The Toyota 3S-GTE (Celica alltrac, MR2 Turbo), 7M-GTE (MkIII Supra Turbo), and 2JZ-GTE (MkIV Supra Turbo) come to mind; as well as the Nissan SR20DET (Silvia/180SX even though it's JDM-only) and VG30DETT (300ZX Twin Turbo). Sure the turbo'd versions of the Mazda RX-7 like to blow up, and the cranks on some iterations of the Mitsu 4g63 are less than ideal, but for the most part there are no major issues associated with these cars in their stock forms. What happens is people tend to upgrade these motors more often than normally-aspirated cars which increases their failure rate.

Turbo Lag
Sure it takes a second for a turbo to spool up, but in most cases that will happen well before a VTEC motor gets revved up to the cam switchover point. The VW/Audi 1.8T motor is totally contrary to this, as it makes its peak torque at 1850 rpm.

Masking inferiorities?
The Ferrari 288GTO and F40, Mercedes S600 and CL600, Bugatti Veyron, Porsche 911 Turbo and Cayenne Turbo, Lotus Esprit, and other such cars sure are inferior to a 4-banger Honda...

[asianautica]

Originally posted by fastball
That's because they are. Some people will dissagree with me, and that's your opinion. I just sate facts. Tuboed motors, while they are fast which I NEVER denied, are unreliable, have severe throttle lag, and can mask the inferiorities of any engine rather cheaply. And they're inexpensive, which is why you can get an SRT4 for under 20k. To each his own. I just stated the facts.

I'm sure the people with Supra TT will disagree with you on the reliable issue. Throttle lag is all dependent on the turbo size. Small turbo will hit max boost at around 3500 RPM. If you compare that to VTEC which won't activate until 4400RPM on the GS-R and 5xxx RPM on the Si & ITR. Now that's much more noticable lag than turbo. So you're saying turbo engines in the old S4, Skyline, Supra, Sylvia are inferior to a comparable Honda engine w/ VTEC? If so, tell me what's so inferior about it? Turbo is not that cheap if you want to make it reliable too. Why do you think the SRT-4 doesn't even have power window in the rear or LSD? I'm just stating the facts too.

[jaje]

Originally posted by fastball
That's because they are. Some people will dissagree with me, and that's your opinion. I just sate facts. Tuboed motors, while they are fast which I NEVER denied, are unreliable, have severe throttle lag, and can mask the inferiorities of any engine rather cheaply. And they're inexpensive, which is why you can get an SRT4 for under 20k. To each his own. I just stated the facts.

a production engine designed for forced induction would be a weak engine otherwise b/c it would normally have heavier duty lower compression setup...all that adds up to the engine being able to handle boost better than all aluminum with lightweight (weaker) engine internals

sorry i'd trust a sr20det more than a b20vtec with a t3 or hybrid turbo slapped on it b/c its just begging for cylinder wall wobble or broken rods as that engine stock was never designed with that in mind

vtec is just an alternative to forced induction...its real neat item is the ability of the computer to change the engine characteristics for fuel economy and emissions which a super charger or turbo cannot do

and yes a turbo, etc will add one more item that can fail and lead to a break down...but the difference between a turbo'd engine today and from the 80's in terms of reliability is such a jump you'd be very surprised

[SmOkIneLf]

Originally posted by fastball
That's because they are. Some people will dissagree with me, and that's your opinion. I just sate facts. Tuboed motors, while they are fast which I NEVER denied, are unreliable, have severe throttle lag, and can mask the inferiorities of any engine rather cheaply. And they're inexpensive, which is why you can get an SRT4 for under 20k. To each his own. I just stated the facts.

as mr fat booty said some turbo's kick in earlier than VTEC does, and the reliability issue. ANY car can be reliable as long as it is taken care of properly i know a friend whose father owns a ford truck with 300k miles on it runs fine. a turbo car can be reliable. go say that to Supra owners who a good amount have their cars over 100k miles and still outrun ferrari's, porsche's, and viper's. yea a good amount of honda's mostly civics have alot of miles on them and are fast but you forgot to mention thats high miles on the body not that engine. show me an ITR or GSR with over 100k miles modded that can beat say a stock viper GTS from a roll, and isnt trailered there or anything, in street trim and street legal. VTEC is great don't get me wrong but dont compare it to Supra's Skyline's etc.

[jaje]

Originally posted by SmOkIneLf
VTEC is great don't get me wrong but dont compare it to Supra's Skyline's etc.

i would not compare a civic's engien to any of those cars...but the nsx type r in stock trim can accelerate faster than stock supra tts and gt-rs...that's a fair comparison b/c in jgtc that n/a nsx can hold its own with its turbocharged competition

[asianautica]

Originally posted by jaje
i would not compare a civic's engien to any of those cars...but the nsx type r in stock trim can accelerate faster than stock supra tts and gt-rs...that's a fair comparison b/c in jgtc that n/a nsx can hold its own with its turbocharged competition

If you compare car, then yes, NSX-R can hold it's own against both Supras and Skylines. But you're also comparing MR vs FR, so that's kinda different as well. Not to consider because it's sanction racing, they cannot exceed a certain HP rating, so you can't really compare the potential of the engine either. The Supra and GT-R can handle twice the HP on stock internal compare to the NSX.

[fastball]

Mabe I haven't educated myself on turbos enough. I guess they have changed in the last 15 years. All I can remember about turbos is my uncle telling me how bad they are and to never own one. I helped him rebuild a few and learned myself that no matter how well you take care of them they just don't last over 100,000 and are just hell on your engine. Mabe they are much different in the last few years. But you guys obviously don't remember the nightmare Chrysler, Ford, and Audi turbos, either.

[asianautica]

Originally posted by fastball
Mabe I haven't educated myself on turbos enough. I guess they have changed in the last 15 years. All I can remember about turbos is my uncle telling me how bad they are and to never own one. I helped him rebuild a few and learned myself that no matter how well you take care of them they just don't last over 100,000 and are just hell on your engine. Mabe they are much different in the last few years. But you guys obviously don't remember the nightmare Chrysler, Ford, and Audi turbos, either.

I guess there's a difference in reliability between domestic, audi vs japanese in turbo then. I think it has alot to do with japanese car out lasting american cars in general and turbo engines included. I mean I never hear owners of supra, skyline, 300zx and other japanese turbo engine complaining about short life span.

[SmOkIneLf]

Originally posted by asianautica
I guess there's a difference in reliability between domestic, audi vs japanese in turbo then. I think it has alot to do with japanese car out lasting american cars in general and turbo engines included. I mean I never hear owners of supra, skyline, 300zx and other japanese turbo engine complaining about short life span.

exactly. fastball go over to supraforums alot of the members have Supra TT's BPU and such on stock twins with over 100k miles, so why are you saying they can't last past 100k miles..then my cousin's VR-4 must be one hell of a lucky car along with alot of other 3Si owners who own VR-4's with stock twins and over 100k miles man. btw this isnt to you asianautica just stating something.

[More&Faster]

if you go to a supra forum and ask around, ofcourse youll see all the guys with high power/high mileage cars. these guys take good car of their cars. if you just keep tally of which cars are blowing black smoke on the road, youll see that joe consumer has better luck getting 200k out of a naturally aspirated power plant. i agree that a properly maintained turbo can last. look at turbo saabs and volvos, many of them running well past 200k miles. the best example of all is all the trucks driving around on the freeways. im sure they clock over a million miles before they rebuild a turbo.

not a turbo, nor vtec, is the solution to all your problems. each one has its own strengths and weaknesses. to each his own.

[jaje]

we are all forgetting one important aspect of a vtec system...if oil pressure drops vtec will not engage where a turbo or supercharger has no such failsafe

[asianautica]

but you also forgetting one other important aspect of a VTEC system... it burns oils quite a bit if you stay in VTEC for too long. Also, due to the high revving, your piston rings will most likely fail causing even more oil consumption. Like More&Fast said, both has advantages and disadvantages, pick what you like. Neither is perfect.

[MrFatbooty]

Eh whatever the VTEC vs. turbo argument is old and played out to death. You can say bad things about either one.