C&D: Dodge Neon SRT-4

[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.

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

[AcuraFanatic]

It's a sad day when you'll narrowly beat a Dodge Neon in a drag race with a Boxster S.

[fastball]

Originally posted by AcuraFanatic
It's a sad day when you'll narrowly beat a Dodge Neon in a drag race with a Boxster S.

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!

[AcuraFanatic]

Looking at the spec sheet, interesting things to note:

1. 5-speed manual is one gear to little (6-speed is almost a pre-requisite these days)

2. 75dBA at 70mph is friggin loud, period.
3. 6000RPM redline will not entice Honda guru's
4. 14.0psi of boost puts a lot of stress on the engine

[fastball]

With that kind of boost stress, I'm guessing the pistons, rods, and crank are all iron, as is the block. Jeez, 75db would give me a headache by the time I get to work in the morning (40 minute drive, all freeway)!

[cheezthis]

Originally posted by AcuraFanatic
Looking at the spec sheet, interesting things to note:

1. 5-speed manual is one gear to little (6-speed is almost a pre-requisite these days)

2. 75dBA at 70mph is friggin loud, period.
3. 6000RPM redline will not entice Honda guru's
4. 14.0psi of boost puts a lot of stress on the engine

Just so you know...most cars, such as my GS-R (w/stock cat back) is louder than 80 dBA (A weighted, non-weighted, it's about 88 dB)...so it's not THAT loud. Not trying to start anything, just stating that.

[MrFatbooty]

Originally posted by fastball
Dodge must still use a turbo to pull that off. Ask them to coax that power with nothing but a block, pistons, and cams.

Who cares how they do it? Does it make the car any better or worse because of what technique is used to make that output? You could say the same thing about any Honda, Porsche or BMW engine and be like, "Well they still need to use a cam-switching system to pull that off." Psh.

Originally posted by AcuraFanatic
1. 5-speed manual is one gear to little (6-speed is almost a pre-requisite these days)
2. 75dBA at 70mph is friggin loud, period.
3. 6000RPM redline will not entice Honda guru's
4. 14.0psi of boost puts a lot of stress on the engine

1. Most 6-speeds just have two overdrive gears, 6th is for pussin around on the highway and saving gas.
2. 75 dBA ain't that loud. Besides, it's at redline...do you really expect the car to be whisper-quiet?
3. Honda gurus? How many "Honda gurus" are there exactly?
4. The motor only runs 8.1:1 CR. The WRX runs 14 psi of boost stock also, is that motor overstressed?

Originally posted by fastball
With that kind of boost stress, I'm guessing the pistons, rods, and crank are all iron, as is the block. Jeez, 75db would give me a headache by the time I get to work in the morning (40 minute drive, all freeway)!

As I've already said, this is not the first production motor in history to run 14 pounds of boost. And unless you drive to work at redline the whole way, you won't have to deal with a 75 dBA racket.

[edit] Now don't think that I'm like worshipping the SRT-4, I'm not. The skidpad numbers compared to the Focus SVT and Mazdaspeed Protege indicate that the chassis engineers could have spent a bit more time getting everything dialed in, given that the car's already riding on Pilot Sport tires. Neither the Focus nor Protege has that kind of sticky rubber yet manages to pull much better numbers on the skidpad. However if you look at the braking distance the stickier tires on the Neon show where they really help.

[fastball]

Originally posted by MrFatBooty
(banter, banter, blah, blah, blah)

Turbos are old. It's outdated, out of step with today's technology, and is a cheap, unreliable bang-for-the-buck way to make a car fast. If anyone can do it, its no achievement. Variable valve timming takes some fantastic engineering and precision crafting that Dodge just can't do. Plain and simple. Dodge Neons are rough, buzzy, and terribly annoying to drive to begin with in base form. You think a turbo'ed engine will be any quieter? It's just a cheap piece of plastic that's really fast. wow.

[MrFatbooty]

Really, does it bring you pleasure while you're driving to work to think of all the math those Japanese guys did when designing your car? If you're going to make an argument, please use logic and premises which are at least reasonable. "Fantastic engineering and precision crafting"? Dude, adding superlatives to your sentence doesn't make you sound any smarter, it just looks like you're trying too hard.

These opinions about turbochargers are quite unfounded. If I were to follow your line of reasoning, cars such as the Mazda RX-7 TT, Nissan Skyline GT-R, Mitsubishi Lancer EVO, Nissan 300ZX TT, Porsche 911 Turbo, Subaru Impreza WRX, Toyota MR2 Turbo, Toyota Celica alltrac and Toyota Supra TT would be low-tech hunks of junk with no thought put into them and no precision in their craftsmanship.

As for the SRT-4, the point of it is exactly what you said it is--to be cheap and go fast, refinement be damned. Obviously you're more concerned with things like a cushy ride and a quiet motor than with going fast and can't understand the appeal of a low 14-second car that costs 20 grand. Oh, and Neons aren't made out of plastic.

[Toqureintourer]

Originally posted by MrFatBooty
As for the SRT-4, the point of it is exactly what you said it is--to be cheap and go fast, refinement be damned. Obviously you're more concerned with things like a cushy ride and a quiet motor than with going fast and can't understand the appeal of a low 14-second car that costs 20 grand. Oh, and Neons aren't made out of plastic.

hehe yeah.. i just thought i would mention the itr factor! i guess if it doesnt have a h badge and is loud, stiff and can pull a 14 second 1/4 mile stock, its gotta be trash.. open your minds people, American car companies were bound to catch on to trend soon or later..

later..

[AcuraFanatic]

That's 75dBA at cruising, which takes into effect wind, road and engine noise. I wasn't talking about at redline.

6-speed allows for shorter gear ratios throughout the entire range, not just for two overdrive ratios.

"Honda guru's" is a term I spontaneously dubbed meaning enthusiasts, who, generally in this segment, prefer high revving engines. At last count, there's enough of them to make this site.

14psi in the WRX at $24,000 is a little different than strapping a turbo to an engine that started off life not being built with terribly impressive materials to begin with.

[Toqureintourer]

[b]

Originally posted by AcuraFanatic
That's 75dBA at cruising, which takes into effect wind, road and engine noise. I wasn't talking about at redline.

so im guessing you wouldnt be interested in a awesome car like a itr.. but what can you expect from someone who owns a accord..

6-speed allows for shorter gear ratios throughout the entire range, not just for two overdrive ratios.

well i guess you haven't looked at the ratios of most fwd 6speeds they're like having a extra 5th gear to cruise in.. even test driving a rsx-s i never used the 6th gear like i would use 5th in my jetta..

14psi in the WRX at $24,000 is a little different than strapping a turbo to an engine that started off life not being built with terribly impressive materials to begin with.

what engine do they use in the neon srt? what are the internals made of? til you figure those questions out don't talk **** on it..

later..

[MrFatbooty]

Guess I misread about the sound levels.

Anyway, look at the currently available 6-speed transmissions in the segment. SVT Focus, RSX-S, Celica GT-S. Sure there's the potential to just keep one overdrive gear and space the first five ratios closer together but that's generally not what happens. For example, 4th gear in an RSX-S gives the same RPM as 5th gear in my '92 GSR. Who's got the closer spaced gears?

High revving, whatever. Useful power is useful power and a car that you don't have to wring out to 8000 RPM is easier to drive fast and won't spin its main bearings. It's like the old saying, RPM ruins people's motors.

You don't think that Chrysler just bolted a turbo onto the 2.4-liter motor they already make do you? Even if it is an American company, they're still an OEM and have sufficiently beefed up the internals, otherwise they would see a lot of claims on that 7-year/70,000 mile powertrain warranty. Have you ever taken apart a Mitsubishi 4G63? It doesn't have any sort of exotic materials or spiffy engineering tricks, just thick-ass rods and beefy bearings, crank, pistons, etc. I find it very hard to believe that Chrysler wouldn't take measures to at the very least throw some thicker parts into the block to make it ready for boost. As fastball was so quick to point out there's a lot of iron in the bottom end of the motor, and that's not a bad thing.

[rb6teg]

it would look a little better if that rear end wasn't stuck up so damn high..........I am impressed by it's performance though.......14.2


BTW, where can I find pics of the interior?

[MrFatbooty]

http://www.dodge.com/srt-4/
http://www.edmunds.com/future/2003/d...an/photos.html

[fastball]

Originally posted by MrFatBooty
Really, does it bring you pleasure while you're driving to work to think of all the math those Japanese guys did when designing your car? If you're going to make an argument, please use logic and premises which are at least reasonable. "Fantastic engineering and precision crafting"? Dude, adding superlatives to your sentence doesn't make you sound any smarter, it just looks like you're trying too hard.

Ever see a Dodge with 200,000 miles on it? Neither have I. Ever see a Honda with 200,000 miles on it? Still worth a good buck. THAT'S what precision crafting, tight tolerances, and a better built engine does for you. The silky smooth sound of my engine (even with a K&N and CAI) is part of the reason I bought it in the first place.

These opinions about turbochargers are quite unfounded. If I were to follow your line of reasoning, cars such as the Mazda RX-7 TT, Nissan Skyline GT-R, Mitsubishi Lancer EVO, Nissan 300ZX TT, Porsche 911 Turbo, Subaru Impreza WRX, Toyota MR2 Turbo, Toyota Celica alltrac and Toyota Supra TT would be low-tech hunks of junk with no thought put into them and no precision in their craftsmanship.

O.K. I forgot about those cars. Now, there are few remaining cars with turbos. The ones that are left are very good cars. But remember when Chrysler used a turbo on everything? That was my point. Notice how not one of them is domestic. And a couple of them haven't been in production for a few years.

As for the SRT-4, the point of it is exactly what you said it is--to be cheap and go fast, refinement be damned. Obviously you're more concerned with things like a cushy ride and a quiet motor than with going fast and can't understand the appeal of a low 14-second car that costs 20 grand. Oh, and Neons aren't made out of plastic.

Well, heh, heh. A Prelude is not cushy. But for three grand more I got a car that is still freaking fast and will last 3 times as long. My guess is someone who buys that SRT-4 will drive it like hell, then be out an engine and/or turbo in two years. Lastly, please. I ask kindly, for you to change your tone while you are on HondaAcura.net. Remember, you are on HAN, so there's a pretty good chance most of us are unbelieveably biased toward Hondas, and there is nothing you can say to change our mind. I can give you much more respect if you hold an intelligent discussion instead of your constant angry tone and always talking down to people. Not just me. I noticed you're like that with everyone here. We can talk about cars all day if you talk instead of acting like you know everything (which you don't). In other words, if you don't like us, you have every right to leave.

[MrFatbooty]

I drive a freakin Honda fer chrissakes, a '92 GSR. Now if you don't think a Prelude is cushy, that's a matter of relative scales of cushyness. I've driven one and it sure did feel soft and heavy to me. My guess is you're the type of guy that once you get that new Accord of yours will think it handles better than your Prelude did because of the sh*t tires that come stock on the Prelude and the non-sh*t tires that come stock on the Accord.

And hold on, now YOU are telling ME that I should chill and have every right to leave? That's funny. The story that's not told by the registration dates (the site crashed in the spring) is that I've been around since December, 2000. I also moderate two other forums (Integra and Engine Tech). I don't like when people make illogical arguments and develop "opinions" based completely on non-fact and then assert those opinions in a manner which appears to be an absolute. All this BS that you've spouted about "superior engineering" is completely pulled out of your ass. I don't like that, so I talk sh*t in your direction.

If you don't like the damn car fine, I'm not going to try and sell you one. But to talk like a complete dumbass about how it's not a marvel of modern engineering like the Accord you cream your pants about is pointless, especially since you have yet to demonstrate any real technical knowledge.

[Toqureintourer]

Originally posted by fastball
Ever see a Dodge with 200,000 miles on it? Neither have I. Ever see a Honda with 200,000 miles on it? Still worth a good buck. THAT'S what precision crafting, tight tolerances, and a better built engine does for you. The silky smooth sound of my engine (even with a K&N and CAI) is part of the reason I bought it in the first place.

i've seen a ford escort at 200k does that mean ford escorts are built as good as hondas? hitting 200k depends more on the owner than the car.. I'm sure anyone with enough money can make a dodge last to 200k miles.. its all relative.. i will say yes a honda will be more likely to last 200k miles.. im just making a point..

later..

[yianni64]

Yall fight too much. The SRT-4 is a fast little piece of ****. Simple as that, take it as you will.

[boilers]

I think that thing has awesome power for under $20k. I don't know why people really bother how much HP/L can a car generate anyway.

[yianni64]

Originally posted by boilers
I think that thing has awesome power for under $20k. I don't know why people really bother how much HP/L can a car generate anyway.

HP/L is how people tend to rate how well a car company can make engines.

I cant see myself driving, (much less buying) one of those.

[fastball]

Originally posted by MrFatBooty
I drive a freakin Honda fer chrissakes, a '92 GSR. Now if you don't think a Prelude is cushy, that's a matter of relative scales of cushyness. I've driven one and it sure did feel soft and heavy to me. My guess is you're the type of guy that once you get that new Accord of yours will think it handles better than your Prelude did because of the sh*t tires that come stock on the Prelude and the non-sh*t tires that come stock on the Accord.

And hold on, now YOU are telling ME that I should chill and have every right to leave? That's funny. The story that's not told by the registration dates (the site crashed in the spring) is that I've been around since December, 2000. I also moderate two other forums (Integra and Engine Tech). I don't like when people make illogical arguments and develop "opinions" based completely on non-fact and then assert those opinions in a manner which appears to be an absolute. All this BS that you've spouted about "superior engineering" is completely pulled out of your ass. I don't like that, so I talk sh*t in your direction.

If you don't like the damn car fine, I'm not going to try and sell you one. But to talk like a complete dumbass about how it's not a marvel of modern engineering like the Accord you cream your pants about is pointless, especially since you have yet to demonstrate any real technical knowledge.

Who do you think you are? God? Jesus? The almighty? Should I start kissing your ass, your hiness? You haven't proven a thing that you know any more about cars than I do. Now, I never once implied that I know more than you, but you have become so defensive that you've pulled that arguement on me. I won't get into a war, but you need to learn a few things in life. I looked at your website on your sig, and if that's you, this whole thing does not surprise me. Remember what Mark Twain once said: "It's better to let people think you're an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it."

[MrFatbooty]

Do you notice how every time I destroy one of your arguments you bust out with something else? Wow, you're very creative. You pulled out the same comeback about looking at an old picture of me (I no longer have that hair) the last time I flamed you also. It's nice to see that whenever you loose an argument you have to resort to calling names about what you assume to be someone's appearance.

Here are my problems with you, and I will try explain as simply as possible.

You confuse opinion with fact. It's one thing to say "I think the SRT-4 is a fast piece of shit." It is entirely different than spouting such idiocy as "Turbos are old. It's outdated, out of step with today's technology, and is a cheap, unreliable bang-for-the-buck way to make a car fast." You have stated what is actually an opinion but tried to make it sound like an authoritative statement. When you make a claim about a purported fact such as you have done, you leave yourself open to criticism. When doubt is cast upon your argument, you immediately find some other topic with which you might "win" and somehow by doing so will validate your prior statement. It doesn't work that way.

So I will leave you with this thought: if you post an arguable statement of "fact," be prepared to argue about it rather than resorting to petty tactics of diverting the discussion away from its original topic in an attempt to prove anything that you've said.

[fastball]

Well, you are the only person on HAN I've ever had a problem with. I'm not a "noob", and when anyone else disagrees with me (which is not very often), they don't shove it down my throat. Why are so arrogent? I'm not the only one who gets an earfull from you. You seem to have an insecurrity problem. Get over it.

[yianni64]

This, along with all the other cars in the class, is why a 160hp Civic Si wont do. Back in the day Honda had the field to itself, but now there is so much competition they cant mess around.

Aint it funny how one speed, a lsd, 40hp and a simple underbody kit can make or break a car in my eyes?

[MrFatbooty]

Originally posted by fastball
Well, you are the only person on HAN I've ever had a problem with. I'm not a "noob", and when anyone else disagrees with me (which is not very often), they don't shove it down my throat. Why are so arrogent? I'm not the only one who gets an earfull from you. You seem to have an insecurrity problem. Get over it.

Hahaha this is great. I shove it down your throat because you don't even attempt to rebut my discounting of your claims. You just bring up some other little thing and try and squirm away from getting proven wrong when you can't think of any reason that you're right. I try to get you to pay attention to your original statement which I had a problem with.

You still don't get it do you? I'm criticising you. You have every opportunity to say something back that relates to that topic. Rather than trying to win some other minor argument that's lateral to the original issue, stick to your guns. If you're so smart bust out with some facts or back the fuck up, it's that simple.

[jaje]

get over yourselves...both of you are acting like babies...i've read both topics and none of you are right...you are just pushing your opinions as fact

[asianautica]

Originally posted by boilers
I think that thing has awesome power for under $20k. I don't know why people really bother how much HP/L can a car generate anyway.

I think HP/L only purpose is for people to feel good about themselves. What difference does it make if you make 300HP out of a 2L and 300HP out of a 3L. This car is made for people who wanna go fast and not shell out big bucks. If you look at all the performance figure, it's actually even faster than the 350Z to 100MPH. Even though the 1/4 is @ 14.2 @ 103MPH, it does 0-100MPH in 13.8sec. So, I'm assuming that it has massive wheel spin @ the launch. W/ drag tires and LSD, I wouldn't be surprised if this car can hit low 13s. Not bad for $20k car huh? Also, w/ most of its tq @ 2000RPM, it should be really good in tight courses like autoX.

[yianni64]

Originally posted by asianautica
I think HP/L only purpose is for people to feel good about themselves. What difference does it make if you make 300HP out of a 2L and 300HP out of a 3L. This car is made for people who wanna go fast and not shell out big bucks. If you look at all the performance figure, it's actually even faster than the 350Z to 100MPH. Even though the 1/4 is @ 14.2 @ 103MPH, it does 0-100MPH in 13.8sec. So, I'm assuming that it has massive wheel spin @ the launch. W/ drag tires and LSD, I wouldn't be surprised if this car can hit low 13s. Not bad for $20k car huh? Also, w/ most of its tq @ 2000RPM, it should be really good in tight courses like autoX.

Well, the SRT-4 has some nice sticky rubber on it already. It's a fast little straight line bugger, but as far as handling goes, I have to wait and see it. Until then, I dont think it'll do all that great from what I've seen. What I jsut said was an opinion, so it might be wrong......

[boilers]

Originally posted by asianautica
I think HP/L only purpose is for people to feel good about themselves. What difference does it make if you make 300HP out of a 2L and 300HP out of a 3L. .

Yeah I agree... so what if 2 cars make the same HP and one has bigger HP/L. I think what counts is which one is faster and a better car overall.

I went to nissan board once and they made fun of hp/l there. I forgot the exact story, but they said if they had a race and the honda lost, at least the guy from the honda still got an excuse "Oh yeah, I lost but I got more HP/L than you." ...