Dodge Neon SRT-4

rezo00rezo00 Member Posts: 103
The SRT-4 will have a 16-valve dohc turbocharged 2.4-liter transverse-mounted four driving the front wheels with 205 hp and 220 lb ft of torque. Weighing in at an estimated 2970 pounds, the SRT-4 goes from zero to 60 in 5.9 seconds,

So says autoweek.

lb/hp = 14.48
does anyone see a problem here...
«13456711

Comments

  • mattdee1mattdee1 Member Posts: 4
    When I heard that figure, I thought it sounded a bit optimistic.

    I'd be more inclined to believe mid to high 6's.. but who knows? Time will tell.
  • davemurraydavemurray Member Posts: 1
    There's a controversial analysis about the SRT-4 from the site http://autozine.kyul.net/0_News/Latest/Current/News_frame.htm :


    "That is all for what Chrysler press kit told me. What it did not say is how to handle the tremendous torque in the front-wheel-drive chassis. The Neon and even R/T were never renowned for handling, now putting far more power to the front wheels without the help of any limited slip differential and traction control (yes, the press release did not mention) will surely make it one of the worst hot rods to drive. Expect torque steer, wheelspin, understeer and scary moments ...


    "So, go for the SVT Focus instead. European guys are more lucky, as the Focus RS will debut later this year. With 15 more horsepower and 1 lbft more torque than the Neon ...


    What do you think ?

  • freddy_kfreddy_k Member Posts: 376
    An econo car with 200 hp is - still an economy car, only faster, more dangerous, and uncomfortably loud and stiff. You still get the questionable build quality and fit n finish. There are so many affordable cars to choose from that already come with a natural 200 hp, or close to it, that would be a much smarter buy to anyone except the drag racer. The Turbo is an extra maintanence expense which will need replacing eventually and wear the engine quicker.
  • imaramimaram Member Posts: 36
    I don't think current turbos are the bane of the enthusiasts wallet that their predecessors were.

    This application only follows what "tuners" have been doing for some time already. If that package were in the current PT, the press would be going freaking nuts!

    Can't agree with his handling observations on past iterations. While not stellar, handling was certainly better than mid-pack for mid-level econoboxes. A tire change was enough to raise it several notches on the scale, too, since Chrysler put such pitiable rubber on as original equipment.

    Can agree though with the sentiment that unless there is some enhanced control, torque steer and understeer are unavoidable, I would think.

    SVT Focus would be an admirable alternative, though not quite as attractive to my mind.
  • beanboybeanboy Member Posts: 442
    "The Neon and even R/T were never renowned for handling"

    Hmm, better tell the folks with Neon ACRs (American Club Racer) that their cars aren't renowned for handling. The Neon, especially in first gen guise, was and is one of the best auto-x cars out there, and fine for track racing as well. Just be careful with those front wheel bearing and slicks, tehe.

    The SRT-4 will have equal length driveshafts, which will ease the amount of torque steer problems.

    Hmm, if the turbo does go at 80K, replace it with a better one for $600. Big deal.

    freddy_k, what other new sporty car comes with 200HP or more for 20K or less?

    -B
  • rezo00rezo00 Member Posts: 103
    autocross is a joke...real roads dont look like thoes carzy mall parking lot courses...want to beat every one in an autocross? get a high powered gokart and it will kick everyones [non-permissible content removed].
  • cyranno99cyranno99 Member Posts: 419
    this car is built for the Neon's image... nothing else. I'd rather buy a WRX at a higher price. Both of those cars are "homely" looking.

    same???
    beanboy "Dodge Neon SRT-4" Jan 4, 2002 7:38am
  • imaramimaram Member Posts: 36
    Don't know why we're talking about it in here, since it's a sedan, but, hey, lose the oversized trunk-handle and the hood decoration, and I like it!

    cyranno: Subaru styling is definitely an acquired taste! I haven't acquired it. :)
  • cyranno99cyranno99 Member Posts: 419
    not surprised .... the local dealer is advertising that there are a few WRX still on the lot... so buy one and modify the headlights!!!!
  • mattdee1mattdee1 Member Posts: 4
    Is it possible that some of you are missing the point? What do you want for under $20k?

    In building the SRT-4, Chrysler isn't saying "Aha! We'll teach the competition a lesson in handling, power, refinement, styling, stability, longevity, and all around sex appeal with this one!" To be closer to the truth, I think they're saying "Here's a Neon with a turbo. Have fun guys!"

    The car is obviously targeted at the young "tuner" crowd. It's not SUPPOSED to be a WRX or Integra Type-R... that's why it's thousands of dollars less expensive.

    Look at all these kids (young and old) that put buttloads of cash into everyday grocery getters to get them to look and drive like performance vehicles (see www.riceboypage.com for heaps of examples). The idea of the SRT-4 is to take that 'everyday grocery getter' and make it respectable on the tuner scene in STOCK trim, with an intact warranty to boot. Some of these cars that people modify, how much cash and time do they have to invest to get their cars to perform on par with the SRT-4? 205hp stock... add a few simple bolt-ons, nothing major, and you can have that thing at about 215-220hp or more, still with a warranty. If you want to talk major mods, the sky's the limit.

    I just wish I could see the look on Joe Blow's face when a kid in a Neon beats his Type-R to the next stoplight.
  • rezo00rezo00 Member Posts: 103
    now that I think about it under 20k is cheap
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    The Neon handled pretty darn good for its price class, and Skip Barber uses them for their track cars. Beat the hell out of them, too.

    Problem was Chrysler dropped the ball on this car after intro. With some juice, a little more development and tighter quality control, the little Neon could have been one of the most inexpensive fun car bargains in the world.

    Chrysler missed a great opportunity with this car, IMO. It could have been the re-incarnated Alfa Romeo Sprint of the 2000s, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.........
  • swinga7swinga7 Member Posts: 45
    they should have named this new car something different. the neon name is already seen as a "chick" car. What guy will honestly want to say that he drives a neon? Even the extra power wont convince me to ever get inside one of those.

    plus I still think its looks stupid.. its cross between the dodge neon, dodge stratos, and a subaru wrx. Three cars that I thought looked bad to begin with, why would I want all three in one car?
  • beanboybeanboy Member Posts: 442
    If you noticed, I also said "fine for track racing as well." Plenty of Neons like this one: http://www.empire1.net/racing/car.shtml out there.


    -B

  • moparmadmoparmad Member Posts: 197
    First thing that strikes me is how does a Neon weigh nearly 3000 pounds? My wifes 95 weighed 2260 pounds,are the new ones that much heavier?
    I love the way everyone attacks the Neon SRT before it is even in production,just be happy that the car companies are making an effort. They need to start before they can improve if it truly does end up being a pig.
    Also the SRT is scheduled for 17 inch rims,50 series tires completely tuned struts and shocks,11" discs and standard ABS,it will be far from a Neon with a Turbo shoved on it.
  • tysalphatysalpha Member Posts: 51
    Swinga:
    "they should have named this new car something different. the neon name is already seen as a "chick" car."

    Actually, if you look at Dodge's site, it looks like the name is just "SRT-4" .. no reference to Neon in there. Also it's a bit blurry but a picture of the trunk labeling appears to only say "Dodge" and "SRT-4".

    "plus I still think its looks stupid.. its cross between the dodge neon, dodge stratos[sic], and a subaru wrx. Three cars that I thought looked bad to begin with, why would I want all three in one car?"

    You know if you don't like the styling of this car or the cars that influenced it -- why consider it or even talk about it? It seems you are wasting your time.

    Everyone:
    My personal take on the styling. I think it's a big improvement over the standard Neon. I like the new, more "Dodge-ish" grille. I don't care too much for the cross-eyed headlights, but they look less awkward than the Subaru WRX's. I think the trunk spoiler would be better if it weren't so tall, and were thinner/sharper.

    As for performance -- I guess we'll have to wait and see.. No doubt it'll be faster than a lot of cars on the road, but will it really make 0-60 in 5.9? Still when you consider the $20K price, I think it's a great deal.

    Shifty is right tho: the changes from the 1st to 2nd gen Neon should have made it more sporting -- not less. They should have produced the SRT two years ago, when they first did a "tuned" Neon concept.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Ah, don't me me started. Chrsyler missed a tremendous, absolutely tremendous opportunity with the Neon, IMO. It could have kicked Honda right in the pants.
  • jaserbjaserb Member Posts: 820
    My first new car was a '99 Neon Sport 5 speed in electric blue. With the (stock) fog lites, body effects and spoiler I thought it looked pretty good. It was a kick in the pants to drive, too. What other new car could you get at the time with 150 hp for under 13 grand fully loaded (or now, for that matter)? I'd probably still have it, but with bits and pieces falling off periodically after 10k miles, I decided I'd better lose it before the warranty ran out. I completely agree with Shifty - if Dodge could have given the Neon a minimal amount of quality to go with its spunky engine and tight handling chassis, they would have had a real winner, ala Sentra SE-R (the old, much better one).

    -Jason
  • rezo00rezo00 Member Posts: 103
    only big full size dodges and chryslers will have any quality...they get some MB components...litle ones get Mitsubishi components which is the one brand besides ford and VW that is rated worse then dodge (not including dawoo/kia/hundai)
  • imaramimaram Member Posts: 36
    I am not aware of any current Chryslers with MB componenets. Transmissions are slated for upcoming models.

    Neon, and Sebring and Stratus sedans are all Chrysler.

    Sebring and Stratus coupes are Eclipses with new skins. Currently, that's the extent of Mitsu. Next gen Neons will be based on Lancer. I'll take some of that any damn day.
  • mattdee1mattdee1 Member Posts: 4
    If Chrysler was a bigger, richer company, like GM, they probably would have put more into the Neon. But the truth is, cars like the Neon aren't were the big profits are made, so they won't invest in drastically improving them (especially when they already sell quite well as they are).
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Well, I see your point but a really outstanding Neon would have increased market share, even at no immediate profit. This is what the Japanese did anyway, selling their cars cheap to get market share in the 80s. Geez, don't they pay these execs enough to figure this stuff out?
  • jaserbjaserb Member Posts: 820
    Mattdee1...
    If the Neon were made by GM, more money would have been put into development? Like GM did with the Cavalier, Sunfire, Saturn S-series, Sprint, Metro, Citation or Chevette? When has GM ever made small cars a priority? The only really good GM compact I can think of is the Nova/Prizm venture with Toyota. I think the point is that domestic manufacturers need to start beefing up their entry level models, or they'll never build up a customer base that aspires to the profitable ones. If my first car was a Neon that turns out to be a piece of junk (which is true, btw) I'm highly unlikely to buy a 300M or Ram when I get to that position in life. Same goes for Ford and GM.

    -Jason
  • revdrluvrevdrluv Member Posts: 417
    This model looks interesting, but I am sorry this is coming way too late. Chrysler needed to come out with a replacement for the neon right now, not just some new hotted up version of the current one. The neon is getting old.

    As far as dometics entry level models...
    The focus is a great car with really nice handling and a great manual transmission, (a little weird looking though) if ford could only deal with those realiabilty issues. Funny, but I don't think they are having these same problems from the focus in the UK. It is their best selling automobile.
  • rezo00rezo00 Member Posts: 103
    Saturn, Saturn, Saturn, Saturn, Saturn...duhh...
  • mattdee1mattdee1 Member Posts: 4
    Yeah, I guess GM doesn't do much in the way of beefing up their entry level cars either, so maybe it was a bad example. The point I was trying to make was that regardless of how logical or obvious a product idea might seem to an auto-enthusiast, it's not necessarily going to look logical and obvious to the bean counters at these car companies.
  • rassom1rassom1 Member Posts: 35
    The current Neon body style is 2 years old, 2nd generation. What is considered to be old?

    Saturn=Boring
  • rezo00rezo00 Member Posts: 103
    it looks exactly like the previous neon body style with very few changes.

    neon=broken
  • revdrluvrevdrluv Member Posts: 417
    Not body style, but whats inside. Its basically the same old neon but slightly better looking. It is an old platform that needs to be retired.
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    I think Chrysler is trying to do what Honda does - add a sportier model to the lineup a year or two before the car gets a full redesign.

    I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of domestic fans that would love to show up the modified Civics/Eclipses on the street.
  • boomn29boomn29 Member Posts: 189
    Can this car really make 0-60 in 5.9 and sell for under 20k??
  • swinga7swinga7 Member Posts: 45
    well you could show us up in a neon but your still gonna look like a fool for driving it. :)

    the neon srt is in the same category as the new turbo beetle. fast chick cars.
  • toyotas1toyotas1 Member Posts: 134
    And the Civic and Corolla are "Manly" cars? The Sentra screams "I Have Grapefruits"? The Neon is the most elegantly styled car in it's class (along with the 03 Corolla)! And considering the fact that the SRT-4 is about the 100 lbs. less than an Eclipse GT with slightly more torgue (and probably more aggressive gearing), a low 6-second time should be expected (Eclipse GT's run around 7 seconds flat).
  • bonzirunnerbonzirunner Member Posts: 3
  • bonzirunnerbonzirunner Member Posts: 3
    Remember the Omni GLH. I have one with over 200hp by small modification of the stock turbos.
  • speeds2muchspeeds2much Member Posts: 164
    I have to chime in here...

    I owned a 2000 Neon LX w/ a 5-spd and ABS, and let me tell you, that car holds it own against some great cars. Its ride, handling and steering were top-notch, it's driving position was excellent and visibility all-around was great (a little less so through the rear window, but not a big deal). It also was pretty sharp-looking, reliable and dirt-cheap. It also had a lot of features and practicality. I used to go nuts wondering why the car didn't sell better than it did. My previous cars were: BMW 318i, Infiniti G20, Porsche 914 4, and the Neon held its own in this company. I sold the car because I had to move overseas, but also because I started to crave owning a new Porsche. But it was not a no-brainer for me to buy the Porsche because the Neon was a helluva lot of fun to drive, not to mention more practical and cheaper to run.

    Chrysler is making a big mistake by scrapping this car and slapping a badge on a Mitsubishi, IMO, which is what I've read is in the works. They should refine it a bit more and market it better (instead of marketing the O% financing, etc., making it looks like a desperate set of cheap wheels, they should have ads featuring the car winning on the racing circuit and teenagers getting action because of it...that kind of spin). Anyway, Chrysler also needs to offer a spoiler-delete option for that awful (IMO) trunk handle you need to get with the 150 h.p. engine.

    My next car will almost certainly not be the Neon, but I still love those little buggers.....
  • mikemajestymikemajesty Member Posts: 99
    agree completely. i had a 99 neon, dohc with 150 hp. it was a blast to drive. i continualy held my own againt my friends celica gts and beat up on my other friends ecplips gt a couple of times. i beat them both of the line. it was a really good handler too, with what i think are great seats. build quality was crap though, i cant argue that. but i got it for 11500 dollars(end of model year), so i wasnt expecting acura like quality or anything. great car. i also did not have one problem with the car in the 40000 miles i had it, not one unscheduled maintainece.
  • w1kk3dw1kk3d Member Posts: 2
    "...beat up on my other friends ecplips gt a couple times"
    If you're talking about the '00-present Eclipse GT's, then you need to lay off the crack pipe :)
    There were no pre-00 Eclipse GT's. I think you meant the GS, which in that case, yes, you would beat 'em up =P
  • w1kk3dw1kk3d Member Posts: 2
    "...Mitsubishi components which is the one brand besides ford and VW that is rated worse then dodge"
    The new 2.4L Engines in the 96-99 Eclipse Spyders, and in the current Eclipse RS/GS are practically bulletproof. I know 3 people who work at 3 different Mitsubishi's here, and I think only 1 time has someone come in with engine problems. That's 6 years & counting. I'd love to see where you get your info.
  • mikemajestymikemajesty Member Posts: 99
    it was a 2000 gt, and no, i dont smoke crack. and i would really would have spanked your extremely slow spyder. the 2000/2001 gt is an embarassment, what around 60 horses per liter or so. they run like what, mid 15's in the quarter mile. they handle like camry's as well. i had a neon r/t package with no stripes, and ran a 15 flat in the qm.im sorry its hard for you to believe, but eclipse gt's are dogs, in every aspect of performance.
  • verozahlverozahl Member Posts: 574
    ... Neon city. Anything to make Neon sportier would be great, because I have to see them all of time.
  • swinga7swinga7 Member Posts: 45
    you seriously are smoking something. how do you figure that your little 150hp neon r/t could beat a 210hp eclipse spyder gs-t?

    I would bet anything that you would lose that race.

    ps. you have to make sure the person in the next car knows your trying to race him before you can claim that you smoked them. "yea man I smoked a viper off the line with my civic!! yea, i'm fast!!"
  • mikemajestymikemajesty Member Posts: 99
    your claim of smokin a viper in a civic is retarded first off. and i know i couldnt beat the gs-t convertible. i said i would smoke the 200 hp gt convertible(make sure you actually read things correctly). the spyder gt runs about a 16.2 qm my friend, about as fast as a pt cruiser or, as you said, a civic ex. by the way, i have seen plenty of civis that can take vipers in the qm. and also, before you make ignorant comments about drag racing, the races im talkin about were done on a track, so if the other guy didnt think he was racing he was definately in the wrong place, and must have been really confused since we raced 3 times. also, i already have a couple of trophies drag racing with my first gen rx7 that puts about 300 hp at the wheels and runs low 12's. ignoratnt.
  • mikemajestymikemajesty Member Posts: 99
    the way i say your remark about the viper and civic and viper is retarded because an eclipse gs-t spyderis not really a viper. they run like what, a 15 second qm, considering the stock coupes ran 14.8's or so.
  • bruticusbruticus Member Posts: 229
    I'd like to know of other 200hp, sub-$20K cars out there.

    For those who cast doubt on the 0-60 time reported by Autoweek, first keep in mind that when carmag editors test for 0-60, they drive the car almost to the point of failure. My current C&D briefly mentions this by saying (paraphrase) "we have at least one tester who was able to snap off clutchless upshifts, turning in the 0-60 numbers contained in the review."

    Second, the hp/wt figure listed in post #1 is 14.48 pounds/hp. Using Edmunds' figures, the Audi S4's ratio is 14.37 pounds/hp, and the quoted 0-60 time is 6.0. In terms of straight numbers, the Neon would seem to be at a disadvantage and, therefore, should not be faster than the S4. But keep in mind the S4 has AWD; the inherent driveline friction will significantly lower power delivered to the road.

    Third, it's almost impossible to have the absolute, definitive, inviolate 0-60 (or 1/4 mile, etc) figures. SO much affects a car's performance that even running a test at 8am or 8pm will make a noticeable difference.

    If possible, I'll definitely secure a test drive in an SRT4, if only to see how much more fun it is than my '96 ACR, but my heart is set on a WRX. The price increase isn't outrageous to get AWD and Subaru reliability.

    DjB
  • swinga7swinga7 Member Posts: 45
    supposed to be stupid to exagerate your stupid comments about beating up on all these cars with your super cool neon
  • mikemajestymikemajesty Member Posts: 99
    what super cool cars? an eclipse gt? wow, that is super cool. and bruticus, i too doubt that the srt will do 60 in 5.9, but the time you quoted for the s4 is incorret, it does sixty stock in 5.5. i would say about 6.2 is reasonable for the srt. but dodge says they will have a huge factory aftermarket support in the mopar division for the neon srt.
  • bruticusbruticus Member Posts: 229
    Given the very slight difference in power/weight ratio, and the additional driveline friction from the S4's Quattro system, what slows the Neon down so much?

    I'm honestly curious, as opposed to combative.

    DjB
  • mikemajestymikemajesty Member Posts: 99
    you are assuming that quattro would slow acceleration times to 60, which it doesnt. watch any awd car launch against any rwd car and the awd car will always get the jump. as for why its so much faster considering the power to weight difference, there could be alot of factors. gearing is a large one, and aerodynamics may be another. im not sure what the neon srt weighs, but the s4 is damn heavy at around 3600lbs. i really am not sure how to answer the question, but i sure shifty could, so where are ya.
  • bruticusbruticus Member Posts: 229
    Anybody know if the Neon is geared lower than the Audi to get maximum utility from the lower engine output?

    How much difference do aerodynamics make at sub-60 speeds? I'm not an automotive engineer, so if one is reading please weigh in! Many years ago, one of the carmags tested the F150 Lightning vs a Ferrari 350 (or 355, can't remember) and the truck beat the Ferrari 0-60. And then began eating Italian dust as the Ford's bricklike aerodynamics got the better of it.

    Yes, if driven poorly a RWD car will experience a lot of wheelspin, whereas an AWD car won't. But I still believe that AWD results in less power getting to the road.
Sign In or Register to comment.