Funny this thread is up....

Last night I ran against a Stage 2 SRT-4 in my stock 05 SSL on the highway. I was quite impressed how my car held up in it's stock form. We went from a 60 roll, we were pretty close through 3rd then he started pulling on me halfway through 4th and by 5th he was a full car length and gaining. He claimed that he had a boost leak and that he was only running 10 psi and should have been running 13 which didn't seem right to me because stock they are suppposed to push 17-18 psi I think. It was a great race though, just wish I had some power upgrades. Trying to keep the warranty while I can though.

Definitley the best new bang for buck car so far. Great car to get some good #s without killing the wallet. However the evo is still in my book in a class ahead of the srt-4. Surperior handling, all-wheel drive, acd, brembos, and lots of 4G63 tuning potential make it a much more fun of a car to drive.

The neon is not the easiest car to work with aesthetically speaking. However, some can look pretty decent. I like this one..



No cross on the front bumper, Huge FMIC, CF Lip, APR Mirrors...Add a wingless truck with a decklid lip spoiler, get rid of the eyelids, smoke the healights, and paint the FMIC black and it's even hotter.

 

So what does an SRT4 do at a race track/autox? ...lose

 

I just never understood why everyone hates the SRT4. First of all its not a neon with a turbo. Only thing about the SRT4 that is similiar to the Neon, is interior and exterior. Nothing mechanically is a Neon. Dont get me wrong when people ask what I drive I say Neon(mainly cuase its worthless to say I have a SRT4). I just find it funny that sooooooo many people cant seem to except the fact that its a fast car(or quick to yall) and will smoke just about any other car on the road. I personally wouldnt own an Evo but I know its potential and its a badass car in my book. Also as far as the EVO the SRT4 is by no means as good as an Evo in anything. But thats comparing apples and oranges. Evos and SRT4s do have about the same WHP but you lucky bastard got AWD and we got FWD .
One thing that really trips me out is the people with Civics saying that a Neon isnt meant to race. This doesnt really bother me though becuase only ignorant dumbass are the ones that make comments like that. Most true car enthusiast appreciate the SRT4 for what it is. But the cocky 16yr olds are the ones that think there cars are gods and SRT4 is JUST a Neon. Now dont get me wrong. Everyone knows jsut as well as me that the SRT4 "guys" have a nice group of dumbass 16yr olds that give the SRT4 and its owners a bad name.

And for the Record a SRT4 is as much as a Neon as a Evo is a Lancer.

 

I'll do my best to change your perspective but it already appears that you THINK you have things figured out. I own the car, you don't, so who's gonna know more about the specifics on the purpose behind the SRT-4 project? So if your ready, open up your ears and mind young butterfly and listen...

The team of 9 engineers that worked on the SRT-4 project were ALL involved in one form or another with racing on a road course (NOT drag strip). John Fernandez, director of PVO aka SRT back then, has a huge background in SCCA racing with the Neon ACR. He also raced last year as the driver of one of the two Mopar SRT-4s in the T2 series. Although acceleration in a straight line was important because it appealed more to the masses, handling was just as important. They wanted the SRT-4 to succeed in racing on the road course just as the Neon ACR did back in the day (which it dominated its class). With keeping the overall cost of the SRT-4 to its target price, they succeeded in providing a balanced suspension that performs rather well in stock form and a superb platform for improving upon with aftermarket parts.


To understand the point that the SRT-4 is not just a neon with a turbo you have to first eliminate comparing its birth to how the Evo was born. The Evo is an entirely different purpose built vehicle and does not apply here. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Neon and SRT-4 do not share the parts that count. All of the parts I mentioned were pieced together into a balanced package that makes the SRT-4 an entirely different vehicle in comparison to the Neon. Not to mention the R&D behind it all to make sure it all withstands the rigors of racing and everyday driving. My point was that some people think that Dodge took a Mitsu turbo and slapped it on a Neon motor but that is FAR from fact.


You are correct. In STOCK form the Evo wins in all categories. Its higher price tag allows itself to have advantegous parts such as AWD and a better balanced suspension and chassis. But the SRT-4 for being FWD and costing less is no slouch and dominates its own class.


Congratulations. Your car is teh faster with only $1k in mods. You dominate all. Give me a break dude. Get off your "my car is better than yours" high horse already. Lets not forget one important thing...YOU HAVE ALL WHEEL DRIVE!!!!! Of course your going to have quicker e.t.'s with a low 60ft. What do you think you'd run with a 2.0 or 2.1 60ft? Not as impressive huh? Traction is your advantage and don't forget it when your trying to compare our cars.

Will any of this change your perspective? Probably not. Its impossible to change a haters mentality.

 

No, they beat a 700hp AMS Evo in the One Lap race.

 

Hmm, the story of the engineers obviously did not translate into a car that handles worth a damn or that is suitable for any track. This is not an opinion, as it is born out on the track time and time again.

Which class does the SRT-4 dominate? I didn't see any at my recent SCCA Divisional...

Uh, I know I have all wheel drive. What's your point? Does that not count? Is that not part of the car? Is that not part of racing? S2000s have RWD, but blast Evos and STIs off the course in the A stock SCCA class. In fact, AWD is almost no help to us whatsoever as I found out recently. You point to the whole 60' thing. Well, uh, I know I get better 60's, but that's the whole point. If you can't hook up, then what good is the car? I said the srt-4 is only good for straight line performance, and there are no straight-line-from-a-roll racing venues that I've ever heard of..., so again, what's the problem?

What hater's mentality? I didn't hate on the SRT-4 once, and I mentioned that I _like_ SRT-4s. They just are not comparable to Evos in any practical way. You agree, right? That was my point and was geared to earlier arguments, one of which was yours...

 

Damn... Hit the nail on the head, yet again he did.

 

So does your mom, but your dad and I don't mind.

 

I responded to your assumption that the SRT-4 was purposely built for straight line. Why are you still confused?


Class = competing cars in its price range


Well calling the car a "low-priced hot-rod for the low-budget ricer" and saying that the car is ''good for purging BOVs at everyone on the road" leads one to believe so.

 

SRT owners go home !!! no one cares about your turbo neon ... especially on EvolutionM.net ...... lol . Who cares if SRT's are good straight line or from a roll , it's still a neon . Try SRT Forums maybe ..... lol . Evo's ... stand up . Represent your marvel of technology ..... lol .

 

No you just didn't...

 

Wow your the 16 yr old that Im talking about. Your a very mature person.

 

1) I see no evidence to the contrary. Do you? You told me the pedigree of the engineers who worked on the design of the SRT-4. You didn't say they made the car to be a competitive race car. Whether or not that was their initial desire, that is not what they ended up making.

2) Ok, so you define a car's "class" as other cars in its price range, yet I still saw no SRT-4s competing at the SCCA Divisional. So, how again does the SRT-4 dominate its class? Do you mean, it can beat anything in its class from a roll on the highway? The SRT-4 has classes that it belongs to in the SCCA, yet I saw _0_ SRT-4s. There were three regular Neons, 2 of which were ACRs.

3) That's not hating, that's just the ugly truth. There are _MANY_ ricers driving Evo's, too, so don't think I'm singling out SRT-4s. It's just that Evos are NOT low-priced, so they don't fit that whole description. As for the BOVs, I sure with the local ones would stop trying their hardest to make sure I know they have a turbo...it's so freakin' annoying.

 

I never attacked anyone, I just defended the SRT-4 as it was being bashed & shared some of my own experience's. Your the one who took it as talking $hit.

As for posting on here, what is wrong with it? I've spent plenty of time working on Evo's, I am a car enthusiast at heart & I dig the Evolution. I'm not here to pick a fight, just to share my thoughts like everyone else has. Being that this was a topic on a car that I own, I posted my thoughts. Isn't that what a message board is used for??? Don't take the internet so seriously man, I'm here reading all this **** just like you. I've got 4 good friends with Evo's & they don't talk half the **** I get on this forum. Take it for what you want man, I'm done trying to prove my point.

*peace

 

I know I'm kind of taking this out of context, but this reads very funny

Along these lines, one big reason that I didn't get the STi is that it looks exactly like the WRX but for a couple of minor cosmetic details. You can easily make a WRX look exactly like an STi (wing, lip, scoop, decals), but you'd have to redo the entire body of a Lancer to make it really look like an Evo.