Dodge Neon SRT-4
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...
So says autoweek.
lb/hp = 14.48
does anyone see a problem here...
Tagged:
0
Comments
I'd be more inclined to believe mid to high 6's.. but who knows? Time will tell.
"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 ?
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.
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
same???
beanboy "Dodge Neon SRT-4" Jan 4, 2002 7:38am
cyranno: Subaru styling is definitely an acquired taste! I haven't acquired it.
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.
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.........
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?
-B
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.
"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.
-Jason
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.
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
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.
Saturn=Boring
neon=broken
I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of domestic fans that would love to show up the modified Civics/Eclipses on the street.
the neon srt is in the same category as the new turbo beetle. fast chick cars.
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.....
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
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.
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!!"
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
I'm honestly curious, as opposed to combative.
DjB
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.