Car Thread: SRT4 Vs MiniS vs SVT focus Vs Mazdaspeed VS GTI

Those sucky Neons.

Heh, interesting.

When is the SRT-4 going to be available? I'll have to give it a test drive and see if all this hype is true.

Wow. 14.2 in the quarter. I'm impressed.

Of course the Linfenfelter 'Vette runs 8.95......

Hype would be saying something is fast without proof.

Actually most run in the mid to high 9s and lower 10s. ANd most cost 20 to 30 thousand more than the SRT as well.

I would HOPE it would be faster. Add the cost of the vette to parts for the SRT and I am betting you'll see similar results.

Nice my favorite sport compact (Mazda speed Proteg�) came in second overall, plus it won the skidpad contest

Plus it is sooooo much better looking than the SRT-4

Interesting to see the Civic Si and how much it really isn't that good.

yeah the mazdaspeed would be my choice as well... the srt4 really needs a lsd from the factory. funny how givens its superior stats that it could barely beat the portege.

i dont know why but i find this image quite amusing. front wheel rubber burning power!!!

I remember not too long ago a 99 R/T won a burn out contest. It's was Gary Howell's car, was on the front cover of a few mags.

Wrong-O. It was a 98 R/T and it was Don Howard's car. It won the 1999 Mopar Nationals Burnout contest.

Here's a link to his page with a clip, its DAMN impressive.

http://www.bored383.com/pages/neon.htm

if you're too lazy for that here's the burnout video:

http://www.bored383.com/movies/burnout.mov

Don rules, he plays paintball, shoots automatic weapons, and has classic Fury. Good guy.

- Ca$h

Think of the SRT4 with an LSD (they make em) and a tweaked suspension. With some adjustable konis, some mopar X-rates, and some solid alumium swaybar mounts it would have completely ass raped the competition.

Woo woo.

NOW HEAR THIS; to all you neon-naysayers... these are all basically forced induction cars (few exceptions that have bigger engines), but look at how BADLY the neon schooled the competition in acceleration. Now imagine that power in a FIRST generation neon, you know, the lower, sleeker, lighter bodies. The ones with GREAT suspension from the factory. Imagine something like that thrown into the contest. > And yes, it can be yours. This is what I've been ranting about all these years, neons WHOOP ASS.

Muha.

- Ca$h

Sorry cash 98 in 99, not that there was hardly any difference in the cars.

Of course to be fair you would have to perform such upgrades on all the other cars too, and in the case of the Proteg� I doubt it would get ass raped with the same level of upgrading, except maybe in a stupid straight line

There is no proof 'till I drive one. Period.

Actually that lingenfelter will run you around 50 grand on top of the price of the stock car. They are very expensive and very fast. There is no substitute for cubic dollars, as they say... But even still, I think you'd have a hard time getting a neon to run 8's, even with that budget. Also keep in mind that vette was perfectly street-legal.

But anyway, I'm not knocking the Neon. Dodge claims 215 horse at the crank. They measured 223 horse at the wheels. And a 14.2. That's faster than a WRX. Of course, they missed one thing in the review. They said the first thing they would change is they would give it a limited-slip diff. The first thing I would change is the stinking FRONT WHEEL DRIVE. FWD is great for economy cars. It sucks wankers for sports cars. FWD is a joke. That's my only real problem with the car. If it were RWD, the open diff would be more acceptable. It could use a Torsen though.

Understear, VS OT arguement, FWD and RWD both have their minuses. If I wanted a strictly racing car I would go RWD. Otherwise I would want a FWD

Mini Cooper S

Got Schooled!

- Ca$h

Yup, it's not as fast as the SRT-4, but i would still go for the MCS, simply because i don't need a fast car that looks ugly.

My friend used to do that all the time with his rental Toyota Camry... just use the eBrake and floor it~!

Check this video out. 8.95 @ 154 mph. That's sick.

Of course, today I read about a turbocharged Hayabusa bike that was putting down 485 horse at the wheel. Makes the Vette look like a Geo Metro. It probably runs high 7's to low 8's. I think I would **** myself riding hardware like that.

Then there's Dodge's Tomahawk concept motorcycle which is basically a 500hp Viper engine with a seat on top of it... we're talkin 0-60 in under 3 seconds, top speed of around 300mph...

The way I see it, FWD, RWD, and AWD all have their advantages and disadvantages. Some are more appropriate for certain applications than others. Listed below are my remarks:

FWD - Light weight (in a front-engine car), low inertia, inexpensive, and superior gas mileage make FWD a good choice for an economy car. It also provides (generally) better handling on snow/ice than RWD. However, FWD is a poor choice when performance is demanded: as the car accelerates, weight is taken OFF the drive wheels, reducing their traction. The result is excessive wheel slip when accelerating in a straight line, and massive power-on understeer when accelerating out of a corner. Additionally, from a handling perspective, the driver only has control of 2 out of 4 wheels, making car control much more difficult. Verdict: appropriate for a Honda Civic, but not for anything claiming to be a performance car.

RWD - Generally heavier and more expensive than FWD (in a front-engine car), and with more inertia and slightly poorer gas mileage. Additionally, handling in snow and ice is poor. However, RWD is an efficient design in the sense that when the car is accelerating, weight is tranfered onto the drive wheels - just when they need it the most. This is critical in a racing car, when 0.5 mph of corner exit speed can mean the difference between the pole and the back of the pack. The driver can control the front wheels with the steering wheel and the rear wheels with the throttle, making for a responsive car in corners. For these reasons RWD has seen so much success in racing, especially when coupled with a mid-engine design (which eliminates the weight and inertia penalties normally associated with RWD in a street car). Look at a Formula 1 car, and that will tell you everything you need to know. I think RWD is an excellent choice for a sports car, too.

AWD - Of the three choices, AWD is the most expensive, the heaviest, and has the most inertia by a fair margain. Because of power losses in the drivetrain, and because of friction in the tires, AWD also provides the poorest fuel economy of the three. An additional drawback is that in certain race car designs (particularly Formula-style), the addition of AWD would raise the center of gravity of the car dramatically. However, AWD has the major advantage of high performance in traction-deficient enviromnemts. In terms of handling in the snow, AWD is king. In the racing world, AWD is pretty much an all or nothing deal. If your driver ever has a time when he wants to accelerate harder, but if he pushed the gas more the rear wheels would slip, then AWD will provide a monsterous advantage. If that is not the case, then AWD provides no advantage whatsoever. In fact, I've seen a lot of driving schools where the AWD sports cars (WRX's, etc.) get smacked down because the weight, friction, and inertia of the drivetrain, while the extra traction never goes to use because the speeds are high and the power is low. However, if you entered into the WRC with a RWD car you would get slaughtered. For drag racing, AWD can be either a blessing or a curse, depending on a variety of factors. A RWD car with a 4-link suspension can usually almost keep with AWD off the line, and will destroy it from there on. Of course, there are not many sports cars with 4-link suspensions... Anyway, AWD is pretty application-specific.

So like I said, I don't see one of the three as the "best." It totally depends on the application. But for a sports car, FWD is definitely the worst choice of the three.

Having said that, it must suck when a FWD car beats a RWD car in a race.


"Err.. my backend needs some work, I swear!"


I wouldn't want a RWD as a every day car. Not a chance.

AWD sure. I just haven't found any AWD cars I liked. Well cept the Talons and the Stealths.

zimph what is really embaressing is when you get a FWD guy swearing up and down his is the better way as he understters into a pull or go 4 wheels off.

there is nothing worng with driving a rwd car as a daily driver, as long as you are not on the edge the cars will feel identical, all other things equal

Nim it snows and rians a lot here. Don't get me wrong, I know they are "Better" for racing, but to me not for everyday driving. I have no problems going around corners at a high rate of speed on my FWD.

I mean come on, it's not THAT bad..




I am about to put about $500 in it. Getting a Cold air intake, a bored throttle body and maybe a under drive pulley.

Just to add 15-20 HP to the car. Not because I want to race it, but just for kicks.

an excuse of a weak driver

It snows and rains a helluva lot here too (especially snow this winter) I have a RWD Pickup truck and I can drive it perfect in the snow, as Nim said, an excuse of a poor driver.

Also you would pick a Stealth AWD over many other AWDs? Those cars weigh like a million pounds...

Yeah lets make it harder just for the sake of making it harder.




Wearing seatbelts is a excuse for being a weak driver.

Hell take doors off too.

I think Nim is referring to the fact that if someone chose a car solely for the purpose of it being easier to drive in snow (rain isn't a big deal at all IMO) that just means your not very good at driving in snow.

Here in New England we've had nothing but snow this winter, its been challenging with my truck but I am not about to sell it and get some crappy little FWD car just so it makes it easier to drive.

Also you can't have any fun in the snow with a FWD car, I love going into empty parking lots, jacking on the brakes then nailing the gas and spinning like a top

No it doesn't, that means you just want it to be EASIER to drive in the snow. I can drive a RWD in the snow just fine, I drive Cheryl's Mustang 5.0 every week. I prefer to drive a FWD in the snow. Not because I am a crappy driver, but because it's just safer.
Well it's a good thing not all FWDs are crappy.


This explains alot.

Yeha it explains that sometimes I like to enjoy myself.

Once again you prove how much of tool you are.

Run into a tree.

You said you'd rather have a VW beetle (slow, ugly, and girly) over a neon (faster, cheaper, more fun).

- Ca$h

Yeah I'm the tool, I am the one that said if you like FWD cars you can't drive.

Yep, I'd rather have a whole shitload of cars over a Neon.

And Zim, stop putting words into mine and Nimisys' mouth, though thats all you ever do anyways.

If you drive a FWD drive car, that has no bearing, but you said that you like FWD because it is easier to drive in snow, and we both commented on it, stop backstepping and looking like an idiot, oh wait, its to late for that. Tool.

Also Ca$h, I don't even like Beetles anymore, they're not new and cool anymore.

I want a Mazda 6 or Proteg� Turbo

Oh so would I! I would LOVE to have a 911, or one of those new Audis. Just not at my grasp righ now.
Yeah, that's all I ever do. What did I put in your mouth?

Nim said it was just as excuse for a weak driver. You agreed with him.

I said you claimed if you like FWD cars you can't drive. Basically saying the same thing.

I can drive, Very well indeed. I prefer FWD for every day driving. So I just disproved your reasonings.
Now who is backpeddling here? Not me. You are projecting.

Heh, this explains a lot.


You'll have to mod it to beat the SRT

Ugh, jesus Zim, can you ever make a post without quoting (and picking apart line by line) someone else's post?

Neither I nor Nimisys said that driving a FWD car denotes lack of driver skill, but instead saying that you prefer to drive an "easier" FWD car in bad weather does, do you still not get the point here?

And yes, I would pick a car because it was cooler rather than some faster ugly POS ::cough::SRT::cough:: because I am rather happy with my penis size.

Also, doesn't the report show that the SRT barely won over the Proteg� Turbo? So I doubt I'd be watsing money in modding it, which won't be soon since I can not afford anything newer than 1994.

Err, that is the correct way of replying to a post. That way, nothing is in question as to what I am responding to. Why do you have a problem with it? Why does it bother you so much? I really don't see the big deal.

I said I like the FWD better in the rain or snow. It was replied to by Nim with this.

an excuse for a weak driver
Saying I was just saying that because I was a weak driver. You agreed with him. I showed that wasn't true AT ALL. Now who is trying to backpeddle?
You may be able to play these games with other people, but it just doesn't work with me I am afraid.
Oh yes because Neons are penis cars. Give me a break.



I never claimed the SRT WHOOPED it. I just said you'll need to mod one to beat the SRT. Just hope the SRT isn't modded as well.

Ok I told myself that my last reply was, well, my last to you on this matter, but your idiocy knows no bounds.

You say that a Neon is not a penis car, but at every turn you brag about how much faster it is than every other damn thing on the planet is you just add some konis, strut bars, blah blah blah blah, so yeah, if you buy a car because its gonna be faster than other cars you are trying to increase your penis size, end of fu*king story.

Also how am I trying to backpedal? I am saying the same thing that I said 8 posts ago, are you missing chromosomes? You say you like to drive FWD because its easier in bad weather, we say thats an excuse of a weak driver, you whine and complain saying how you drive a 5.0 in the bad weather all the time and that you are a good driver. Ok cool, end of discussion, stop trying to make up sh!t to disagree with people on, its goddamn pathetic...

Don't bother picking apart this post line by line while jacking off and telling yourself how witty and clever you are, because its futile, and this is my last post regarding this matter.

perhaps i am missing something here. can a car left entirely to itself not running, parked, out of the way, etc, be safer than a different car in the same exact situation? for that matter can ANY inanimate object be safer than any other left entirley to it self?

or does it's threat to another object (animate or otherwise) directly connected to its human operator? a parked car will not kill anyone by is presence. the same vehicle innocent by itself can be made quite athreat based soley on its operator.

as such the threat level posed by such an inanimate object is controled by its animate operator. if the operator acts within an unsafe manner, so will the inanimate object.

following this concept then coems the fact that no vehicle by itslef is "safer" than anyother in the same situation. it comes down squarley on the operator. may a FWD vehicle be easier to operate in the snow in a safe manner, than a rwd vehicle in the same conditions? possibly, however that does not make the object any inheritantly safer than the other.

so please don't try to make the argument that one is inheritantly safer than another soley based on the object itself, which can not function with out the contorl and input from an animate opertator.

My idiocy? try your baseless accusations. Name calling is just a self defense mechanism used when someone in a bind, like you are now. And you tell me I put words in your mouth. Not once have I ever said that Neons where faster than every other thing on the planet. As a matter of fact I said the opposite. More baseless accusations. End of story indeed. You have to make up crap to even try to save face with your silly statements.
You said I put words in your mouth, saying you didn't say such a thing. Now you admit to it, and are now trying to twist the arguement into something I am doing wrong. Wont work here. Sorry.
This last chest pounding sillyness must be real embarrassing for you.
If I was you I'd not want to reply again either.

No matter how good of a driver you are, a FWD car will still perform better in the snow and or rain compared to a RWD car. It has nothing to do with lack of knowing how to control or drive your car. I've heard the same silly arguements about power streering, manual vs auto, sticky vs non sticky tires etc. It's silly.

You use what can give you the most advantage for your daily driving practices. No matter what your ability is.

no you said: " Nim it snows and rians a lot here " implying that because of STANDARD weather patterns, one platform is superior. i made my comment saying that a good compentant driver will be able to handle any platform in normal weather (sun, wind, rain, snow, etc) and will not be using it [weather] as a prop for their argument of superiority of a said platform. a driver who can not handle normal weather in any platform and then uses their lack of skill as a method of claiming supeiority is both a weak argument and a weak driver. now you state you can hand;le a 5.0 rwd vehicle in the rain, the obvously you are not so weak of a driver as yo are limited by weather to your ability to operate a motor vehcle of any of those 3 platforms.

not nessicarily. a competant dirver in a rwd vehicle could still outhandle and perform a fwd vehicle in both rain and snow. once again it comes down to driver ability. the level needed to perfrom on par may be higher in one or another, but i am not arguing that.

Right and I STILL perfer FWD because it drives better in the snow and rain. That is my whole point. Cherly being a big Stang fan, used to make fun of my FWD Neon all the time. I let her take it in the back roads of WV one day. She is constantly asking me to let her drive it now. Why is that? FWDs aren't as bad as people are making them out to be.

Right, but why make it harder on yourself, and MAYBE indanger yourself? No matter how good you are, the road can smack you in the face. I've seen it happen with the best of drivers. You do have to be a tad more careful with a RWD.

and you listen to nothing. you find it easier to drive in snow and rain and nothing more. your abilities limit how well either vehicle performs or drives "better". their are people that can handle 500ft-lb vettes in the snow with so much ease you would think they had r-compound tires on a dry track. no matter how you cut it, the performance (or better drive as you call it) is still more dependent on driver ability than not.


yes you do need to have more driving ability, i have never said otherwise. i have only said that you can not use a lack of ability to prove superiority. doing so only shows the lack of ability you really have.

I sure can and I will continue to. And it doesn't show any lack of ability. There is a reason FWD cars handle better in the rain/snow. Deny it, make excuses doesn't matter. What I see here is two people having problems admitting that FWD just MIGHT have some advantages over RWD, no matter the driving ability.


It's really getting silly now.