UNSANE Dodge Neon SRT-4

[thehemi]

As for the econocar statement, I don't think you guys are getting what I'm saying. I'm talking about the total package...operating costs, insurance, cost to buy, etc. Grand Ams are compact, economy cars. Just because they don't get 40 MPG doesn't mean they aren't economy cars. To me, economy means more than MPG...

Grand Ams are a great cars for the buck.
Our family has had 3 or 4 and they have
all been really reliable (only minor probs).

The SRT-4 is probably a great car for the
market segment they are targeting. And
I am glad to see an American brand that
is going to set the bar for the imports.

[phantom505]

I just went to Dodge's site. I can't say I'm terribly impressed. Here's their stats:

215HP@5400
245ft/lbs@3200*
*Peak torque maintained between 3200-4200 RPM

The 5 speed manual has TWO overdrive gears. Probably because this thing is thing eats gas, even if it is a four.

What is so great about those numbers? From what I can tell it is designed to run a 1/4 mile, nothing more. Ya, it'll smoke a stock GA in the 1/4. However, one problem, it seems well tuned already. I don't think you'll squeeze much more out of it.

I don't know how much you paid for yours, but I paid less than this Neon's MSRP for my GAGT loaded.

Don't think I'm knocking Dodge, I have a good ole Dakota '97 SLT with a 318 sitting out front and I wouldn't take anything else.

Originally posted by phantom505
I just went to Dodge's site. I can't say I'm terribly impressed. Here's their stats:

215HP@5400
245ft/lbs@3200*
*Peak torque maintained between 3200-4200 RPM

The 5 speed manual has TWO overdrive gears. Probably because this thing is thing eats gas, even if it is a four.

What is so great about those numbers? From what I can tell it is designed to run a 1/4 mile, nothing more. Ya, it'll smoke a stock GA in the 1/4. However, one problem, it seems well tuned already. I don't think you'll squeeze much more out of it.

I don't know how much you paid for yours, but I paid less than this Neon's MSRP for my GAGT loaded.

Don't think I'm knocking Dodge, I have a good ole Dakota '97 SLT with a 318 sitting out front and I wouldn't take anything else.

First, let me say this... I hate Neons! So that's how I feel...

Now for the facts.

Here's the impressive part.. 215hp in a car the size of a Cavalier. That's actually a lot of power, that's a great power to weight ratio. Less weight with more power = pretty quick. Even if you can't squeeze much out of it (though I'm sure you can, since Dodge still had to regulate everything to Federal Environmental laws), it's still packing quite a punch from Day 1.

[phantom505]

I hear ya. And I know what a little power in a small car get you. But geez, it still a small car! Afterall, I had a Ford ZX2 for a while.

I have seen some really weird stuff out here. Like the Hyundai frame that had a Chevy 350 drivetrain crammed in it. That thing was fast, but nothing else.

I guess for me this is like saying, get a motorcylce because there is no way a car can beat it. I'll stick to my cargo capacity.

[VTECSiGAH8R]

Originally posted by SilverGA2001
First, let me say this... I hate Neons! So that's how I feel...

Now for the facts.

Here's the impressive part.. 215hp in a car the size of a Cavalier. That's actually a lot of power, that's a great power to weight ratio. Less weight with more power = pretty quick. Even if you can't squeeze much out of it (though I'm sure you can, since Dodge still had to regulate everything to Federal Environmental laws), it's still packing quite a punch from Day 1.

I have read that the Neon SRT-4 puts down 220 at the wheels, which is more than they state at the crank. So the engine actually is putting out like 250 hp. TO me, the power to weight ratio is impressive, and the performance to price ratio is somewhat mindboggling. But just to **** off Jason E, it is still a neon

[Chaotic Reality]

Heh this thread is like the radio, same things are being repeated.

I agree with the concensus!

-Jon

[MJE95GAGT]

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
I have read that the Neon SRT-4 puts down 220 at the wheels, which is more than they state at the crank. So the engine actually is putting out like 250 hp. TO me, the power to weight ratio is impressive, and the performance to price ratio is somewhat mindboggling. But just to **** off Jason E, it is still a neon

yeah 227whp

[phantom505]

I pulled my info right off Dodge's site.... I assume they are crank numbers only because I have never seen any maker do anything else.

Another thing.... I like a challenge. If I wanted to buy something off the shelf and kill everyone with it I would have gone out and found a SuperCuda (I think they are about 650HP base). I still haven't seen it beat yet. I think the Viper comes close, but here we go again with tiny cars pushing huge HP. Then again who can afford the 4 mi/gal?

[Jason E]

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
I have read that the Neon SRT-4 puts down 220 at the wheels, which is more than they state at the crank. So the engine actually is putting out like 250 hp. TO me, the power to weight ratio is impressive, and the performance to price ratio is somewhat mindboggling. But just to **** off Jason E, it is still a neon

Oh shut the hell up

[Mike3800]

Originally posted by Jason E
Once again...Mike speaks sense...and him and I were one with the universe

Ok, for all you "But its a Neon" whiners...lemme say this. Our cars??? They're GRAND AMS....so what? How is a friggen GA sooo much "better" than a Neon? Tell me...I really wanna know. Both are, in essence, econoboxes. Period. Sure, the GA is bigger, has arguably more style, more comfort...but a loaded GA GT costs 3-4k more than this "Frankeneon" (C&Ds words, not mine).

Now consider this...

Both cars are econoboxes, rental cars, family cars...period. The GA GT is the sport compact of the GA family...the SRT-4 the same. Now I ask you...

WHICH ONE DOES A BETTER JOB? Which car fulfills the performance promise more? A GA GT that looks quick, and is quick, for 3 grand more? Or a Neon that goes like hell, corners like hell, and is a true PERFORMANCE CAR, for 20k??

I don't give a flying fu(k if its a Neon...the damn car screams. So what if its only a Neon? We "only" drive GAs. Period.

hmmmm.... I really could not have said it better.

[Mike3800]

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R

But I guess this stuff doesn't matter in the fictional world that Mike3800 and JasonE rule huh (where the ultimate vehicle has a 600 hp v8, a little steel frame, 4 wheels, 2 wooden seats, and costs $600)?? Just cuz you guys are upset that GM doesn't make a car that is all power and nothing else anymore doesn't mean that you should just go and give props to every cheap car that comes out as fast without even looking at the downsides, every car has tradeoffs.

Ya know you are right. I am glad the F-body is gone too for this very reason. 160MPH RWD fast as hell and reasonbly priced... it was too small and the interior was not refined like a $500,000,000,000,000 BMW. I need expensive classy interior. Leather seats, CD changers and that crap aren't enough for my $20,000.. Stellar performance and average enterior don't equal 20,000

[Mike3800]

Originally posted by Jason E
Period. And to those SRT-4 guys, all I can say is this...you still can't beat an LT1, and I can mod just as much as you

ummm.... oooh.... well.... hmmm... *cough*

it's damn close and we all know reported mag times etc.... I wouln't exactly say that till after they have been sold and taken to the track etc... you might want to look into some headers and what not.. cause you can make a boost controler at home depot.

[Jason E]

I know...I am aware you can do amazing things with turbos...I made that comment thinking the same thing you just said.

But, GMHTP magazine just did their LT1 bolt on shootout a couple issues ago...a guy with an A4 '94 Z with headers, cat back, roller rockers, every bolt on you can name...ran a 12.4. A cheaper way to go is my car with a blower for 3k...instant 12s. Even with the stock POS exhaust.

Honestly Mike, I don't plan to mod the Z, outside of the subframe connects and STB it currently has, and maybe a CAI and a Corsa (Corsa will probably come real soon actually). This car is a keeper, and I don't plan to beat on it and mod the frig out of it. She'll never be a trailer queen, but she's gonna be a show stopper as long as I can keep her in her current state

I was hoping you'd show up eventually...I was drowning here on my own. Good show

[VTECSiGAH8R]

Originally posted by Mike3800
ummm.... oooh.... well.... hmmm... *cough*

it's damn close and we all know reported mag times etc.... I wouln't exactly say that till after they have been sold and taken to the track etc... you might want to look into some headers and what not.. cause you can make a boost controler at home depot.

They say the Neon turbo is basically at it's limit tho I believe, pushing 15 psi. I read that somewhere, that they have the small version of the Eclipse turbo (16G) and 15 psi is the max boost. So maybe a boost controller could offer the car more stable boost, but I don't think it would add much power. Only time will tell.

Usually exhaust upgrades add a crapload to turbo cars tho, like 30 rwhp in the case of the stock Supra twin turbo I believe (downpipe, headers, exhaust).

[VTECSiGAH8R]

Originally posted by Mike3800
Ya know you are right. I am glad the F-body is gone too for this very reason. 160MPH RWD fast as hell and reasonbly priced... it was too small and the interior was not refined like a $500,000,000,000,000 BMW. I need expensive classy interior. Leather seats, CD changers and that crap aren't enough for my $20,000.. Stellar performance and average enterior don't equal 20,000

Of course it gets annoying when people only evaluate cars by their performance tho, and that is the main point I wanted to bring up. Noone is glad the F-Body is gone (well, at least on this website I think ), but face it, it is gone because of how it only focused around the drivetrain, every single magazine would rate cars with much less performance (Mustang) better for that reason.

The Mustang didn't even have to be that stellar interior-wise (and it isn't) and yet it still would beat out a Camaro that could run circles around it, just showing how little GM focused on the interior and comfort.

Don't get me wrong, I love F-bodies and I always thought the interior was adequate, but I can understand how people could get annoyed.

My dad had a 93 v6 Camaro (yeah yeah, not a v8, but he loved the looks and couldn't afford the v8 plus insurance and extra gas mileage and repair costs and high insurance and everything else of our other car) the year it came out cuz he loved how they changed it. But he got sick of it after maybe 3 years because the thing was waaaay to low for him to get into daily.

I liked it cuz it was fun to shift and seemed decently fast to me (although slower than our SHO we had at the time), but I was a little kid and the car seemed fine.

Diriving my neighbor's 94 Z28 before the UF vs UM game last year was a lot of fun because of the power, but at the same time I was 17 years old, a lot bigger, and it was a bitch to get into.

Mmmmm, the power tho....my neighbor was driving a truck in front of me, and I was trying to baby the Z, but he took off trying to get me to floor it, so coming out of a corner I slammed the pedal, got a little sideways and took off pretty damn fast (my dad was freaking out in the passenger seat). Then the UM window flag broke off and we had to turn around and get it (I guess too much acceleration for it, ).

[thehemi]

215HP@5400
245ft/lbs@3200*

Remember, the cars are on the dynos
and putting 220hp 250ft/lbs to rubber.
This 2.4L puts more torque to the tire
than my 4.3L V6 makes at the crank.

The 5 speed manual has TWO overdrive gears. Probably because this thing is thing eats gas, even if it is a four.

Yeah, I believe turbo cars do drink gas.
Mustang SVOs have turbo 2.3s and they
can really suck up the gas if you keep it
over ~3000rpm. Stay under and the car
can make really decent fuel mileage.

[Mike3800]

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
They say the Neon turbo is basically at it's limit tho I believe, pushing 15 psi.

Nothing is at it's limits from the manufacturer. :evilgrin:

Off topic
My crazy ex-co-worker put nitrous oxide on his GSXR1300. THAT'S INSANE!!!

Back on topic
If I were to buy one, I'd up the boost. At my altitude (5100-6100 feet above sea level) it would only get near to stock anyway with upgrades. That's another reason I am such a fan of forced inducted cars, out here a stock WRX can take a Mustang GT with no real issues...

[Jason E]

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
Of course it gets annoying when people only evaluate cars by their performance tho, and that is the main point I wanted to bring up. Noone is glad the F-Body is gone (well, at least on this website I think ), but face it, it is gone because of how it only focused around the drivetrain, every single magazine would rate cars with much less performance (Mustang) better for that reason.

The Mustang didn't even have to be that stellar interior-wise (and it isn't) and yet it still would beat out a Camaro that could run circles around it, just showing how little GM focused on the interior and comfort.

Dude, name ONE comparison test (outside of one that R&T did in '98 where a Cobra beat an SS) where the Mustang won...I ask you, ONE. For the entire time the 4th gens were out ('93-'02), they never lost versus a Stang....

[Jason E]

Originally posted by Mike3800
Ya know you are right. I am glad the F-body is gone too for this very reason. 160MPH RWD fast as hell and reasonbly priced... it was too small and the interior was not refined like a $500,000,000,000,000 BMW. I need expensive classy interior. Leather seats, CD changers and that crap aren't enough for my $20,000.. Stellar performance and average enterior don't equal 20,000

I really don't think my interior looks all that bad, at all actually. I was never impressed with the landing-strip dashboard, but the soft-touch material for the dash they went to in '97 looks very nice IMO. Door panels and console are of a somewhat better grade than a lot of GM cars (can you say '00+ GA door panels??? Ewwww...). The one concession is the quality of the leather...its not the best. If my Z was a normal one, I definitely would have opted for the cloth.

Stupid things like the hump int the passenger front floor suck...otherwise, front area is good, rear sucks (what sports car doesn't??), and the trunk, if you load it right, can haul major stuff. If I didn't live in the snow belt, I'd have 2

Originally posted by Jason E
Dude, name ONE comparison test (outside of one that R&T did in '98 where a Cobra beat an SS) where the Mustang won...I ask you, ONE. For the entire time the 4th gens were out ('93-'02), they never lost versus a Stang....

I think he meant sales wise. The Mustang was selling 2 to 1 vs the Camaro and Firebird combines. Though I disagree that the Mustang has a better interior. I think it's actually worse, and the F-Body wasn't all that bad. And performance wise, the F Body was never beaten. But sales figures didn't lie.