Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Basically, I'm a dead man in one year's time. And the person who kills me? That person will be driving a SRT.
Sphinx 99 - Funny you say that, because I've found just the opposite. I've said for years that BMW 3-series drivers are the worst on the road. Whenever I have been passed on a double-yellow line on a winding road in Pennsylvania, it's inevitably a BMW. They must think that's how Europeans drive, taking advantage of the handling and acceleration. LOL In reality, and I know because I have a British license and drove on Europe's roads, Europeans drive VERY fast, but in a very controlled and respectful way. Sad for BMW's reputation, this does not apply to many 3-series drivers in the UK, who have the reputation of being arrogant wankers. 3-series drivers in the States also tend to weave in and out of traffic and tailgait "slower" cars. Must be that BMWs are just cheap enough for idiots to buy, but great cars so they keep those drivers alive. Porsche drivers, I've found, know that they are on public roads and only gun it when the traffic is clear. More $$, more sophistication. I'd say the typical stock Neon driver is just a normal working stiff who put-puts along with the flow of traffic. Having said all that, I'll concede that SRT drivers will be a different breed and probably often dangerous, but come on, your allegations about Neons vs. BMW's etc. are absurd.
For this reason alone, the SRT scares me. Since I'm in the mood for outlandish predictions, here's another one: 20% of all SRTs sold and driven in the state of Michigan will suffer one major at-fault collision within the first two years.
As far as reliability goes...well thats what warranty protection is for. I was never fond of the dodge neon, I always looked at it as a POS personally. Still do for that matter. But the SRT is a different car in my view. It comes with a mitsubishi engine (unlike the base neon), mitsubishi turbo and completely different transmission to handle the increase in torque. Along with upgraded brakes all round, tuned suspension. These are major cost factoring componets which make up the car in my view. I personally never had an issue with the shell of the neon, it's always been its drivetrain which I disliked.
A wiper motor, power door lock, or power window motor is NOT going to affect my view of reliability of this car. These are not componets which will leave someone stranded. And extended warranties will give the peace of mind to owners in case of failures similar to this.
I remember test driving a 92hp mitsubishi eclipse and then then getting behind the wheel of a 195hp, AWD eclipse GSX. It is a completely different driving experience and felt like a totally different car.
Another example would be the 120hp Lancer which is not going to feel anywhere near like a 271hp, AWD Lancer Evolution.
I agree. It's also a very fun to drive car.
I feel the same way. For a sub 20k daily driver, this would be one hek of a fun car to drive.
I have personally had my eye on a lancer evolution for a while, but after seeing the mitsubishi webcast from the LA auto show today, I was extremely turned off with how this car is being marketed. I maybe starting to some age, but I look at it more as maturity.
If you aren't sporting a baseball cap on backwards, with michael jordon sneakers and a michael vick jersey, you probably would of found the introduction of the EVO almost downright embarrassing today!
10 to 1 it has a Mitsubishi engine in it.
10 to 1 it has a Mitsubishi engine in it.
That is a very weak analogy without any substance.
If I solely judged a company like BMW by the amount of E46 M3 engine failures, or the M60 engine failures from the mid 90's, that would be just as worse..
Comparing the SRT-4 to a Syclone and Grand National as a bad thing just floors me. It is a good comparision, but has anybody ever noticed how the resale of one of these examples is better then any car ever made by Honda or Toyota? There were plenty of Hondas and Toyotas that cost what a GN did in 1987, but how many of those Honda's still bring an average of $13,000 today? Here's a little clue, look at autotrader.com the most expensive 87 Honda on the planet has an asking price of $4995, where the limited GNX always goes for over $30,000 and a regular GN is usually in the $10-$15K range. The Syclone is the same story, although it is a little newer and a little more money, still a 91 Supra will only bring 1/2 what a Syclone will bring, and the Supras cost more to begin with! The Shelby GLH-S Omnis are not rusting away in some corner either. They only actually made 500 of the Shelbys and they were $11,000 new in 86, and they still will bring 1/2 that. What else made in 86, the great pit of performance automabiles, will still bring 1/2 it's MSRP? Carroll Shelby himself has remarked that it was one of the best cars he ever did, past and present. I say putting the SRT-4 in that kind of company is a big compliment.
The GNX's on the autotrader website have 7,500-22,000 miles on them. Kinda hard to compare that to a mass production sedan that will probably have at least 100,000 miles on it. GN's with mileage on them sure start getting close to that $4995 mark. So what you are saying is that to keep the Neon's value up you can't drive it more than 500 miles a year? That's alot of fun. But on the positive side it won't give it that many opportunities to break down.
Not to mention the 87 GNX was $29,900 new. It was a $10,000 option and only 500 were made. Hmmmm.. A new Accord was $14,680 maximum and they sold over 300,000. Big difference.
http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/buick-grandnational/buick-grandnational.shtml
It seems strange people here thinking something was so wrong with the 95-98 neons, funny BMW would choose the 1st Gen neons basic motor to use in their new Mini Coopers, and Cooper S.
The original Neon engine was 2.0L while the Mini Cooper used a 1.6L engine. It was built jointly in Brazil with Chrysler but it's not the same engine that was used in the Neon. So yet again you are WRONG.
Only 3000 Syclones were made. Really useful comparing it to regular cars too. I wonder how many "regular" 1987 S-10's are still running and how much are they worth?
And we won't even begin the talk about the "regular" Omni's.
So if you make very few of something like that and barely use it then of course you will probably have something of value. But then again why would you buy a car and not drive it? Heck even a first year S2000 with no miles on it will be worth something in 20 years. The only made 5000 of them.
I've been wondering about that also. 95-99 eclipse fwd turbo's, weighed in around 2900lbs, had fwd and 210 hp with 214ft-lbs of torque and were only capable or reaching 60mph in 6.5 seconds and were around 14.8-14.9 in the 1/4 mile.
The car had a similar power to weight ratio as the SRT-4, yet clearly falls short in performance.
Dyno runs on the eclipse showed the factory claim of 210hp was about right. The SRT-4 may very well be WAY underrated by dodge.
Making it an even bigger bang for the buck!
260hp sounds about right as that's what it took in modifications to push an eclipse into those acceleration ranges.
The SRT-4 is also capable of 148mph. Which shows it can't just be the gearing propelling those acceleration times..
MM&FF have gone under 14 seconds in the GT.
"To even get close to the 14.1 1/4 mile times you need to get a Mach 1 or Bullit edition and then you are way over the SRT-4 budget."
Bullitts have gone 13.6's. MT and R&T have both gone 14.0 in a regular GT. Mach 1? Get close? The Mach 1 has 300+ horsepower. Not to mention the current Mustang came out 5 years ago and the redesigned model will be out before too long.
"Yes, I owned a 2000 Neon and it was very reliable for 14,000"
Lol, 14,000 miles. Wow, what a test. Sorry, nothing going wrong in 14K miles doesn't make a car "very reliable"
the 95-99 Talon/Eclipse/Laser was correctly rated at 210hp with a smaller engine, smaller turbo and a much smaller side mounted intercooler. Not to mention that the car's ECU was not very well tuned. I have a 95 Talon TSi and upgrading to a Mitsu 16G turbo showed HUGE power gains.
And as stated in one of my previous posts, Anonymous, Until you can show this specific car (the SRT, not the general neon) is NOT reliable, I think we have to call it as much. Yes the magazine editors only get a day or 2 to drive the cars but they are all driving the SAME 2 or 3 cars. Generally trying to push them beyond their limits for several hundered miles. I have not read one article that said (something broke during our road/track test) so you are gonna have to prove that its not a good car.
2. NO ONE has of yet written anything I have read stating that anything has broken on the SRT
3. Not broken = reliable so far..
If I am missing an article somewhere, please let me know cause I think I have read just about all of them.
I thought it was a Chrysler Engine, with a Mitsubishi Turbo...
Judas, I'm sure once some dedicated Mopar magazines get a hold of a stock SRT-4 it will go about 13.7 on a good day as well (the 13.99 in Mopar Now was with a full tank and a passenger no less), so it's still more on the lines of a Bullit. So what if they have 300 hp, like I said the SRT-4 is under rated (opposite of the problem the last Cobra had), and weighs lots less. I have a Hemi Ram on order with 345 hp so I guess it will smoke a Bullit with your thinking? Other people say the SRT-4 is just a neon and now that's a 3 year old package so what's your point about being a 5 year old package? Dodge has some Hemi powered RWD stuff coming out about as soon as the next Mustang, maybe they should just quit now while they are still ahead!
I wonder why if this SRT-4 is no big deal then the other car makers don't just pump out a few sub 14 sec cars, with superb handling, loaded with features, for under $20,000? The Honda folks are just sad because the old Si and the old DOHC neon were neck and neck, then they re designed the Si slow and tame, while the neon gets the SRT-4 treatment. The old saying should be, "If you can't beat them... go to the internet and try and blast their reliability and resale."
About 25. Sorry, 14K trouble free miles doesn't equal a very reliable car. PERIOD. If you think it does then I don't know what to tell you, except it's a silly notion. Those old DOHC 4 bangers GM made used to blow their head gaskets like clockwork every 30K miles. But I guess by your logic they were very reliable engines.
"So what if they have 300 hp, like I said the SRT-4 is under rated (opposite of the problem the last Cobra had)"
The 03 Cobra is way underrated as well. Big deal.
"I have a Hemi Ram on order with 345 hp so I guess it will smoke a Bullit with your thinking?"
Wow, can't argue with that logic. The point is that you said "To even get close to the 14.1 1/4 mile times you need to get a Mach 1 or Bullit edition and then you are way over the SRT-4 budget" which is obviously complete BS. Sorry. Bullitts do a hell of a lot more than "get close to 14.1", they complete destroy it, and the Mach 1 has 35+ more horsepower. Even regular GT's do a hell of a lot more than "get close to 14.1"
Your argument is just completely faulty.
As far as the Neon engine being the same basic design. Well so is any SOHC 4 banger but that doesn't make every SOHC engine basically a Neon engine. Considering the bore and stroke have to be drastically different to knock .4 liter displacement off the Neon engine it would be safe to say it ain't the same.
Maybe that's why Dodge decided (or had to) price it so cheaply??
However, as for respect, the mere act of posting here and reading the thread is an act of respect. Since we're talking about a car with the awesome performance of an SRT, that respect is well-founded.
No.
odie6l "What is the perfect automobile for a teenager?" Dec 22, 2002 9:28pm
That is "What is the perfect automobile for a teenager" topic. This is where the first discussion for the 2.4L engine started. Mitsubishi Engines are very smoky, and do burn oil, that's why I wouldn't want one.
So they key to getting an SRT is to wait until the dust settles. Don't pay any Additional Dealer Markup. and don't pay MSRP.
Granted you won't be first on you block, but you will have an enjoyable car with a low payment.
Drive the heck out of it until the warranty runs out, then sell it to a high schooler.
Enjoy.
It is very unedmund's like in how people are posting to one another.
-B
Designed and built in Mexico, refined by Americans (who changed some cooling, reduced boost, and adjusted the PCM), the 2.4 can be tweaked to increase power but was restricted in Mexican vehicles to lower insurance costs. the 2.4 Turbo engine, is Mexican, build in Mexico, engineered by Mexicans and refined by Americans and Germans.
No wonder I can't find any exact engine specs on any of the models carrying this engine. Is it possible Chrysler wants to conceal the fact this engine was designed by Mexicans?
Maybe what they meant was that the engineers there took the 2.4L motor and ran the plumbing of the turbo etc. to see if it physically would fit into the engine bay. Then the American/German engineers did the drawings and designed the pieces for production and emissions regs.
What makes you think the current cobra motor is underrated? I haven't heard of any dynos proving that. There was a lawsuit from the previous Cobra in 99 where 4,100 cars made no where near the claimed amount by Ford, a touchy subject for them, and maybe a reason to make more power then advertised by all manufactures (including the current cobra). I have also heard of dynos on the new 5.7 Hemi putting down 310 to the wheels, which would be more then the advertised 345 at the crank (especially considering the HD truck running gear's drivetrain losses). Even Motor Trend said the Hemi felt like it had 30 HP more then advertised, but they had no dyno proof. Bottom line as far as the SRT is concerned, physics says it takes more then 215hp to move over 3000 pounds from zero to 103 in a 1/4 mile, and wheel dynos have put HP AT THE WHEELS more then the advertised 215 at the crank, that's not just being a little conservative, that's Ronald Regan conservative there!
Sorry if I seemed angry in previous posts, I just never understand why other must come into a forum just to bash somebody else's choices. This isn't a comparison forum, and a few people came here just to try and put other down. I have never specifically gone into a Honda, or Infinity, or whatever forum just to pick apart other peoples rides. But in all of the Dodge forums there just seems to be no shortage of people with nothing better to do with their time then read the 100+ forums of cars they never owned, and know nothing about, just to chime in with "It's only a Neon" Sounds like Honda owners have a playbook like Democrats do, "tax cuts for the rich", "take away your social security", "It's only a neon"....