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...