My review of the SRT-4

[Z_Fan]

http://www.members.shaw.ca/whuzzup/srt_img_header.jpg


The Dodge SRT-4 is a pretty decent little car – I’ve said that before, and I’ll say it again. For a long time I wasn’t a big fan of the Dodge brand. It probably wasn’t until Dodge introduced the Viper that they attracted attention to seekers of the Sports Car. Well, I could be wrong – but it was the Viper that first convinced me Dodge might one day make an affordable car that would truly perform. It’s over a decade later, but Dodge has definitely come through. (I was hoping they’d make the Viper faster and cheaper…well, they got it half right anyhow, it’s faster but it’s a solid $40,000.00+ CDN more now than when the first generation Vipers hit the streets.) So, beggars can’t be choosers, we’ll take the SRT-4 and thank Dodge for their efforts. But, is the SRT-4 a Sports Car?

It’s not the best car in the world. Please, please, don’t run around calling your SRT-4 “Viper Junior”. While Vipers are definitely hot, a pair of these sexy bitches didn’t just get together and mate – popping out the SRT-4. So, yeah, it’s not VIPERJR on the vanity plate. Please don’t! Plus calling your SRT-4 that would exhibit very little respect for the Viper and its achievements. Moving right along, the SRT-4 has things that one might not like and since that is always fun to write about, we start there. The SRT-4 doesn’t have an idiot light for low windshield washer fluid. Now that’s annoying. But, like most cars, it has both an idiot light and a gauge for fuel…go figure. Now speaking of fuel, the 2004 model capacities specify the tank to be 48L. For shits and giggles we ran our SRT-4 dry. It took a relatively amazing 51L of fuel.

But we need more complaints. Right. So, the instrument panel, which happens to be very beautiful, nicely positioned and well lit…has one flaw that annoys the absolute hell out of me. The speedometer is measured in increments of FORTY! Yes, 0, 40, 80, 120, 160, 200, 240 (well, you get the idea). There is no mention of 10, 20, 30, 50, 60 70, 90, 100, 110, 130, 140, 150, etc. Downright stupid. Oh sure, we all know what numbers fall in between, but at a quick glance it is often just a little too difficult to determine speed. This definitely needs to be revisited and Dodge needs to equip the future SRT-4 with a speedometer that is in increments of 20. Hell, even if they’d just put the damn numbers on smaller, that’d be good enough. My goodness, for the speedometer numbers to be completely absent…WTF were they thinking? It will grow on you but that doesn’t make it any less stupid.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/whuzzup/srt_img_speedo.jpg
Speedometer (night time view) of the SRT-4.

All cars with a trunk release in the glove compartment are of idiotic design. Yes, this is the stupidest concept ever dreamed up in automotive design. Major annoyance. We want in the god damn trunk, not the glove box and then the trunk…just the trunk! So, maybe someone can figure this out. The SRT-4 has the release in the glove box, (Bad) which you can lock, but you can open the pass through from the cabin. A SPEC-V has a trunk release by the driver seat. (Good) So, if security was the issue, aren’t both these scenarios just plain stupid? Clearly everyone designing cars is highly educated with multiple degrees. This could very well explain the problematic designs.

Once afforded the opportunity to drive an SRT-4 after a snowfall (in stock trim) it was quickly apparent that this car is useless without winter tires. This was learned first hand by attempting to turn left (90 degrees) on hard packed snow covered roads. At 10km/H the car still wouldn’t negotiate the turn without sliding way off course. The original equipment tires are high performance summers – just plainly not meant for the snow at all. If you live in Calgary, well, you’ve got no choice really. Open the wallet, grab the VISA card and get yourself some decent wheels and winter rubber. Our SRT-4 has a set of 16” alloy wheels manufactured by Borbet. The rubber is a nice set of Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50’s. It’s worthy of mention that if you purchase wheels and tires online from Tire Rack, you have the option to get your new equipment Road Force balanced. If you don’t know what that is, fine but if you do, then you also likely know it is very expensive, and I believe there are only a few such machines in our fine city. Oh, did I mention Tire Rack does this for no charge? In any case, once properly equipped, the SRT-4 handles beautifully in the snowy conditions.

The next time you pull along side a SRT-4 be wary that it’s packing a serious amount of go-juice right out of the box. Our 4-door pocket rocket pushed out 238 wheel horsepower and 261 lb-ft of wheel torque right from the factory! (Which, for the record is more than the engine specifications provided by the manufacturer which are 230 hp / 250 lb-ft torque.) Yes, introducing and welcoming the concept of drivetrain GAIN! Shouldn’t this be on an episode of “How’d they do that?”

http://www.members.shaw.ca/whuzzup/srt_img_stock_dyno.jpg
Chassis dyno from Davenport Motorsports.

It’s a very well packaged 2.4L turbo-charged 4-banger with considerable punch. Forget the horsepower for just a moment, and stay focused on the torque. The SRT-4 has double the torque when compared to the top of the line Toyota Celica GTS. (Yes, you read that right - * DOUBLE THE TORQUE *) Oh, and yes, it has 117 lb-ft more torque than the fully equipped Acura RSX Type S possessing a pitiful, indeed downright shameful 143 lb-ft torque. Torque is your friend. I’m sure a lot of folks just can’t stand it when they pull alongside a big-ass truck. The truck owners know that all the little cars can’t beat them across the intersection – and they probably have an advantage right through second gear versus most cars. From first hand experience, trucks love to destroy little domestics and imports alike. Well, worry no more, the SRT-4 takes care of that little problem and you can quickly wipe the big shit-eating grin off their faces showing them the ass end of your SRT-4 in very little time. It’s a nice feeling not being whooped by all those damn trucks. I’m sure there are lot of people with 4-bangers (and some 6’s and 8’s) who have acquired absolute disdain for this regular occurrence. Now I know that when your faced with this situation, you just run your little RSX Type S through the gears, and by the end of third, you're pulling away and you claim your victory. But this isn't victory at all you see. It's just a small reclaimation of dignity. You lost before you got across the intersection. Not the case with the torque abundant SRT-4. Fucking trucks anyway…pfft.

So then, it’s really no wonder this car outruns all other competitors in class – in fact, the SRT-4 beats them so badly from 0 km/h to 160 km/h, it’s almost laughable. Yes, if you have a Toyota Celica GTS, Acura RSX Type S, Nissan SE-R Spec V, Chevy Cobalt, Saturn Ion Redline, Honda Civics, Porsche Boxster (and the list goes on and on), running in stock trim – please don’t embarrass yourself at the lights if you happen to pull alongside an SRT-4. Unless you happen to find an SRT-4 driver that can’t locate first gear, you’re in for a spanking. (Please feel free to tromp the base SX 2.0’s, and you can tell your friends it was an SRT-4…they’ll all laugh!) I feel compelled to note that the SRT-4 will even beat up on the Porsche Boxster S models if it is 2004 or earlier. The SRT-4 is just a few tenths faster, but hey, that’ll still wipe the smirk off on any Boxster S owner leaving you with a big-ass upside-down frown. The 2005 model of the Boxster S has more HP allowing it to rocket to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds. Still, with the SRT-4 running to 60 mph in 5.4, it’s going to be very close indeed. The straight-line performance of the SRT-4 would certainly indicate it walks all over several cars often referred to as Sports Cars. But do Sports Cars have 4 doors?

http://www.members.shaw.ca/whuzzup/srt_img_engine.jpg
A glance under the hood of the SRT-4.

People often talk about higher end acceleration – and I like to think that consists of speeds in excess of 160km/h. Yet the benchmark is often performed from 100km/h to 160km/h. So for the sake of that argument, we can talk about SRT-4 performance in this area. This is where the SRT-4 just destroys the stock competition. Lacking a closed course, testing 100km/h to 160km/h times can be difficult. (We had the luxury of a newly built, but vacant, highway!) The incline (or decline) of the roadway plays a major factor in this kind of a test with vehicles with little horsepower. On flat ground, the SRT-4 runs from 100km/h to 160km/h in a best of 8.3 seconds. Usually it’s closer to 9.0 seconds, especially if it is a very slight incline. If this was an attempt to provide true, but not really accurate times, we also have a video clip of a stock SRT-4 doing this test in 7.1 seconds. (Hey, it was downhill.) A Nissan SE-R Spec-V runs it on the same flat stretch in 12.3 seconds. When you are traveling at these speeds, you cover enormous distances in 4.0 seconds representing the advantage the SRT-4 would have. All this means is that the Nissan really can’t keep up at all. Not even close. The Celica GTS would get destroyed equally as bad. Now there will be those who will always say: “It’s just a Neon.” Yes, that might be true, but the person driving it is more likely to call it: “The Neon that just smoked your RSX Type S.” – and let’s face it, you calling it a Neon isn’t going to fix your ego after you are very badly humiliated on the quarter mile. I’ve come accustomed to calling it the “Neon” mostly because that alone provides a small sense of amusement.

Oh yes, back on track - it is duly noted that the sparkling acceleration of the SRT-4 quickly dulls for speeds in excess of 160km/h. It’s really just a touch of math and smidgeon of physics, but the horsepower just runs out and it can’t accelerate at a decent rate once you get past 160km/h. It may only take on average 8.5-9.0 seconds from 100km/h to 160km/h, but if you push the envelope, you’ll see the SRT-4 struggles with high-end acceleration. In fact, it takes an absolutely staggering 22.1 seconds to go from 100km/h to 220km/h. Well, at least it’ll do it, where virtually all of the competitors would require a very long, very straight, very downhill road (perhaps with a strong tail-wind) to even get to that speed. For the record, we attempted this test in the Nissan SE-R Spec-V, and well, we got bored just trying to get the car to hit 200km/h, only to learn the car is governed. If we ever do this test again, maybe in a Toyota Celica GTS, we’ll be sure to pack coffee and a magazine to keep us occupied while we wait for it to hit these speeds. Whoops…never mind…the GTS can’t actually even go that fast either. (Governed at 210km/h apparently).

The competitors to the SRT-4 are many, including such popular rides as the Acura RSX Type S (2.0L inline 4 rated at 210hp and 143 lb-ft torque), the Toyota Celica GTS (1.8L inline 4 rated at 180hp and 130 lb-ft torque), Hyundai Tiburon Tuscani (2.7L V6 rated at 172hp and 180ft/lb torque), Saturn Ion Redline (2.0L 205hp and 200 lb-ft torque) – wait, I’ll stop right here. Those are potentially the top contenders, and with the exception of the Redline (close, but no cigar!) they fall very short in the performance categories making one thing abundantly clear: There are NO in-class competitors to the SRT-4 when it comes to the performance numbers. Oh, and the numbers listed above are supposed to be bhp, not whp! And that just makes everything so much worse. It’s OK though…this is good news for everyone, because it means car makers will have to step up to the plate and take a swing. Ultimately, another manufacturer will have to reply – because getting embarrassed badly whilst participating in class comparisons is definitely not an experience they enjoy.

Unfortunately the SRT-4 has back seats, 4-doors, and is front-wheel driven. So, it’s a damn shame but the SRT-4 isn’t a real Sports Car. It just looks that way on the statistic sheet – which is enough reason to buy one.

[Toms-SC]

:D

[theken]

im sure almost every reputable tire shop has a road force balancing machine, stripe tech had one, doesn't really do too much, almost every tire comes from the factory road force balanced

[YCB]

thats a pretty good review :thumbsup:

[finboy]

its STILL just a neon :poosie: :rofl:

very nice write up, very nice car :burnout: :thumbsup:

[turbo'dGSR]

solid write up man, good to hear you are having fun in the the srt. itchin' for more boost yet?

[CSMRX7]

What about the other important aspects of a car? Like turning or maybe braking? Sure its fast in a straight line but what can it do one a real track?

[GoChris]

:thumbsup: good write up. I should really go get a base dyno on mine soon. Spring is coming and that means upgrades :)

[awd]

Excellent review, I wish more people spent the time to write up something half decent.

[Z_Fan]

Originally posted by CSMRX7
What about the other important aspects of a car? Like turning or maybe braking? Sure its fast in a straight line but what can it do one a real track?

Ah yes, a very good question indeed. Admittably missing from the post on grounds of insufficient data.

I will address this in the future. But whilst the snow covers the ground, and winter tires are bolted on, adequate evaluation can not be done in these departments in my opinion.

Soon. Very soon.

I'll be brutally honest too. It'll see a Track Day at Race City in 2005, and rest assured, the SRT-4 will have the absolute shit beat out of it. Seriously abused to be certain. It will ultimately yield and beg forgiveness, at which point I will push even harder.

For the record from the street use information I do have, I'd simply say that the braking ability is top-notch and handling is good but not excellent. I'm looking forward to witnessing first hand the braking system stressed to the extreme on the track - and then we'll see how it holds up. I'm also confident that the handling on the track will be fair, but not good enough without the aid of aftermarket components.

[GoChris]

The SRT-4 has great stopping power from the 4 wheel disc brakes. The front brakes are large enough a 16" rim clears with 1-2mm space if that. I dont know much else about them heh.

Handling is not bad, I can make the back end swing out cornering, it could definately benfit from some sway bar upgrades in my opinion. Like Z_Fan said though, it is a bit hard to get perfect idea in the winter.

[el_fefes]

Awesome write-up! pretty funny at times :D

[BumpinTalon]

haha SRT-4 > RSX Type S for around $8k less. the honda guys are going to LOVE that one

[M_Power]

Nice writeup.
I was actaully thin,king to myself today how well the SRT performed in the real world compared to magazine analysis.

[BigBearWest]

Good stuff man

[jaysas_63]

Originally posted by Z_Fan


I'll be brutally honest too. It'll see a Track Day at Race City in 2005, and rest assured, the SRT-4 will have the absolute shit beat out of it. Seriously abused to be certain. It will ultimately yield and beg forgiveness, at which point I will push even harder.



lol...if i'm ever lookin for a used srt4 i'll stay the fuckin hell away from urs :rofl: :rofl:

[Boost Infested]

some what related to your review..

SRT4 ACR limited to 1000 units. Some of the features include an adjustable suspension, larger sway bars, and 16" BBS wheels. Dodge is dropping the SRT4 line at the end of 2005.
http://www.lake-effect-racing.com/ebbtide/img/1.jpg
http://www.lake-effect-racing.com/ebbtide/img/IMG_1050.jpg
http://www.lake-effect-racing.com/ebbtide/img/IMG_1053.jpg

[finboy]

Originally posted by Boost Infested
some what related to your review..

SRT4 ACR limited to 1000 units. Some of the features include an adjustable suspension, larger sway bars, and 16" BBS wheels. Dodge is dropping the SRT4 line at the end of 2005.
http://www.lake-effect-racing.com/ebbtide/img/1.jpg
http://www.lake-effect-racing.com/ebbtide/img/IMG_1050.jpg
http://www.lake-effect-racing.com/ebbtide/img/IMG_1053.jpg

WOOOOOW, HOTNESS

[Z_Fan]

Originally posted by BumpinTalon
haha SRT-4 > RSX Type S for around $8k less. the honda guys are going to LOVE that one

Well, it's just the numbers. The RSX Type S really does have terribly low torque. I had to double-take when I read the numbers on the specifications sheet. I thought it was a mistake. It was like :eek:


Originally posted by jaysas_63


lol...if i'm ever lookin for a used srt4 i'll stay the fuckin hell away from urs :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl:

Well, I'm not selling it any time soon (obviously) - but yeah, you can expect any car of mine has been driven hard if it visited the track. On the street I'm totally normal. I swear. :rolleyes: I plan to see if I can wear the brake pads out in one track session on the SRT-4. Because most likely you can...then I can upgrade to a more aggressive pad...bwhahah...

[TypeS]

Thats an awsome review man, I've always had a soft spot for the SRT-4, It just demands its respect and you don't argue!

holy fawk that ACR is incredible!! white looks great, and its the same wheels as the viper ACR but smaller

[Loose]

I drove an SRT-4 for about 20 minutes. It has a great power plant but the rest of the car is lacking. Brakes are good but I wasn't a fan of handling. It has good grip and can corner fast, but doesn't offer much feedback and is underdamped. In terms of the overall package, I thought is was well below par. It had aweful seats, driving position, interior, looks, etc.

I am not so much a power nut, so the car didn't really impress me. That said, I still resperct it and understand why so many people absolutely love it. Just not my cup of tea...

[Z_Fan]

Originally posted by Loose
It had aweful seats, driving position, interior, looks, etc.



Oh yeah, that's right.

Forgot to mention that I also dislike the seats. I think it depends on your physical size. For me, these seats are god damn annoying. For casual going to get the groceries, they suck. But if you are tossing the car about, they hug you nicely - but that comes at the price of daily discomfort.

[88CRX]

i'm sure its a great car and all, but people praise the srt-4 like its gods gift to the compact car scene.

there are more importance things then 0-60 times.

[nj2Type-S]

great review! i'm considering an srt-4 for a next car maybe :D

but you really can't base everything on "how fast it can go.." there's more factors involed other than straight line performance... at least that's how i look at it.

nevertheless, srt-4's are waayyy worth the $$$ :thumbsup:

[Loose]

One other thing I hated about the car was the shifter position. The shifter was way to far back for me. 2nd gear was near my hip.

It's little things like that, that will break a car for me. If I can't get comfortable, no dice.

[turbojohngt]

I test drove one of these myself and I gotta say I was quite impressed,its just hard to get out of that car and turn around and go "Shit!Its a neon!":banghead: But long story short,I'd still own one no problem,neon or not...........just need that new stage 3 kit.......:D

[QuA]

I heard insurance on this car is freakishly high.

[StraightFlush]

real good review, after owning my '04 for 1 week I must say I agree with all your points.

How about gas mileage? How many km's are you getting out of a tank? I just made a 1200km trip and I averaged 410km/tank highway driving...I must say I was expecting more, considering on a couple of tanks I never hit any kind of boost!

[Z_Fan]

Originally posted by QuA
I heard insurance on this car is freakishly high.

That's not true.

In fact, I was insuring a Cavalier for the SAME price that I am able to insure the 4-door SRT-4 for. (That's a lot of fours!)

One of the great things about the SRT-4 (from my point of view) was that the insurance was so cheap for the level of performance. Maybe that is why they are under-rated from the manufactuer and why they have 4-doors!

[Z_Fan]

Originally posted by IRL
real good review, after owning my '04 for 1 week I must say I agree with all your points.

How about gas mileage? How many km's are you getting out of a tank? I just made a 1200km trip and I averaged 410km/tank highway driving...I must say I was expecting more, considering on a couple of tanks I never hit any kind of boost! \

I've mentioned in other threads that this car is a complete gas whore. So yeah, while I neglected to put that in the first post, it is true this car is a piglet for fuel.

Since the car requires premium, it makes the cost associated all that much worse.

[Boost Infested]

oh come on, its a 2.4L. 450km per tank i think its pretty good.

maybe you are right foot heavy.

my 2.4L turbo in my 240sx gets about 450ish.

[StraightFlush]

I was under the impression that if you lay completely off the boost...you "should" get better gas mileage...as the 410km on the tank was bone dry...almost runing on fumes. The gas light turns on around 360km's. In comparason my old 2000 Celica GTS was giving me 600km's on a tank when babied on the highway.

[GoChris]

410km on a tank, man i wish i was so lucky. i get no where near that on mine. 350km maybe

[Primer_Drift]

Great write-up Z-fan, I'm not a dodge fan myself but I certainly respect what they've done with the SRT-4.
You didn't mention much fit and finish stuff besides the speedo design. Any complaints as far as door seams, dash design, climate controls etc? Have you had it inspected for any leaks or sweating seals?

[ACX]

They still remain 4 door as dodge did not see the value of making a 2 door neon with the 2000 redesign.

I've gotten OK fuel economy in mine (I have stage 1 and exhaust though, which people SAY will bump mileage, but I've never calculateD) when I laid off, but that so rarely happens indeed I'd say it's a hog. But that speaks to how fun it is fo me to drive.

After a year of ownership, I've personally got no leaks or rattles. Nothing coming apart at all.

Fitment on everything is fine.

:dunno: :D

[awd]

Originally posted by IRL
real good review, after owning my '04 for 1 week I must say I agree with all your points.

How about gas mileage? How many km's are you getting out of a tank? I just made a 1200km trip and I averaged 410km/tank highway driving...I must say I was expecting more, considering on a couple of tanks I never hit any kind of boost!

That sounds about right, my WRX is good for about 350kms in town, and ~420kms on the highway -- give or take for a tank of gas.

[Toms-SC]

Ivan got an SRT-4? :D

[Z_Fan]

Originally posted by rlde.us
410km on a tank, man i wish i was so lucky. i get no where near that on mine. 350km maybe

Well, he was talking highway driving. My SRT-4 gets about 340-370km per tank on normal city driving...so just like your car...


Originally posted by Primer_Drift
Great write-up Z-fan, I'm not a dodge fan myself but I certainly respect what they've done with the SRT-4.
You didn't mention much fit and finish stuff besides the speedo design. Any complaints as far as door seams, dash design, climate controls etc? Have you had it inspected for any leaks or sweating seals?

Well, I'm not a dodge fan either. So there you go.

However, I have no other complaints about fit and finish. Everything seems to be decent so far. We'll have to wait until next summer when I have a chance to beat it savagely. After that, we'll see if it holds up or not.


Originally posted by ACX
After a year of ownership, I've personally got no leaks or rattles. Nothing coming apart at all.

Fitment on everything is fine.


That's what I am hoping to be able to say next year. Pretty confident it will be all A-OK.

[Fluidic]

Great review bro. First time I've ever read a thread from top to bottom wanting there to be more.

Thanks. :)

[StraightFlush]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
Ivan got an SRT-4? :D

Just got back from my trip...needed a car asap, test drove the SRT, loved the power...and slowly I am growing to love the rest of the car. :)


So I have switched to Domestic...but I couldnt be happier with the car over the Celica!

[GoChris]

Originally posted by IRL


Just got back from my trip...needed a car asap, test drove the SRT, loved the power...and slowly I am growing to love the rest of the car. :)


So I have switched to Domestic...but I couldnt be happier with the car over the Celica!

Ya I switched to a domestic from a Honda Civic SiR. I am pretty happy with the switch also, glad you like it :)

[Inzane]

What Dodge has done is made the SRT-4 an affordble muscle car. People sometimes forget that muscle car =/= sports car.

The SRT-4, by what we know, and everything you described in your write-up, is a muscle car. Albeit one that's based on a FWD, 4-door, econobox car, but a muscle car nonetheless. Dodge has taken a powerful engine, dropped it into a cheap car, and made it everything a muscle car used to be back in the yesteryear, an affordable cheap way to go fast -- in a straight line.

The term "sports car" shouldn't enter this discussion at all (and doesn't apply to the RSX either).

To say SRT-4 > RSX Type-S is an oversimplication and one-dimensional thinking. There are so many aspects that can affect the relative *niceness* of a car. And price difference is not as much as some are claiming. MSRP for a SRT-4 is $27,380. MSRP for a Type-S is ~$31,000. That's a difference of a little under $4k.

But anyway, back on topic, nice write-up Shawn. Glad you're enjoying your new car.

[ACX]

Feel notwithstanding. Hard Numbers are Hard Numbers.


RSX msrp 33k canadian

0-60 mph: 7.2 sec.
1/4 Mile: 15.3 sec. @ 93.1 mph
Slalom: 68.9 mph (700 ft.)
Skidpad: .86g (200 ft.)
60-0 Braking: 137 ft.

SRT-4 27,380.00 Canadian.

0-60 mph: 5.9 sec.
1/4 Mile: 14.1 sec. @ 102.1 mph
Slalom: 71.3 mph (700 ft.)
Skidpad: .88g (200 ft.)
60-0 Braking: 117 ft.

edit: not trying to flame here.

[Inzane]

Originally posted by ACX
Feel notwithstanding. Hard Numbers are Hard Numbers.

RSX msrp 33k canadian


Thanks for correcting me. I guess I had the old MSRP for the Type-R in my head or something (which was ~$31k). Sorry about the goof.

Performance: SRT-4
HP/TQ: SRT-4
Styling: RSX Type-S
Features/Amenties: RSX Type-S (not totally sure on this)
Quality & Fit/Finish: RSX Type-S
Sound: RSX Type-S (assuming stock, no fart cans. SRT-4 sounds like ass IMHO)
Price/Value: SRT-4
Safety: Who cares
Fuel Economy: Who cares
Reliability: RSX Type-S (A prediction on my part. SRT-4 is still unproven, but RSX is probably better here)
Resale: RSX Type-S (again, a prediction)

Comes down to what a person wants I guess.

[ACX]

For sure personal choice is what it's really all about.

For Amenities, I'm not sure what the RSX has that the SRT wouldn't, but no block heater stock, and no cruise are 2 big knocks.

For Reliability but not quality, I'd say saw off. There have not been really big issues with the powertrain in the SRT 4 or the PT turbo as of yet.

TSB wise both the SRt4 and RSX are not really too bad, RSX has had a couple more.


Different strokes.:thumbsup:

[GoChris]

Originally posted by Inzane


Thanks for correcting me. I guess I had the old MSRP for the Type-R in my head or something (which was ~$31k). Sorry about the goof.

Performance: SRT-4
HP/TQ: SRT-4
Styling: RSX Type-S
Features/Amenties: RSX Type-S (not totally sure on this)
Quality & Fit/Finish: RSX Type-S
Sound: RSX Type-S (assuming stock, no fart cans. SRT-4 sounds like ass IMHO)
Price/Value: SRT-4
Safety: Who cares
Fuel Economy: Who cares
Reliability: RSX Type-S (A prediction on my part. SRT-4 is still unproven, but RSX is probably better here)
Resale: RSX Type-S (again, a prediction)

Comes down to what a person wants I guess.

Sound, in reference to the exhaust, is a preference thing, the SRT-4 I guess sounds meaner, but might be annoying to some, its not bad from inside the vehicle so I don't mind at all.

Features/Ameneties: I don't know much about the RSX as you probably dont about the SRT-4. so I will just list some features, then maybe you can compare. SRT-4 has the option for the Livin Large stereo, Kicker 10" in the trunk, 6 Disc changer (7 disc in total w/ the deck), component speakers with 1" titanium dome tweeters in the dash, 6.5" Poly cone midbass mids in the doors and two way 6x9s with 1" domes in the rear in addition to the subwoofer, so not bad for coming from the factory.

Power windows, locks, sunroof/moonroof, viper style racing seats, which while great for "racing" arent that comfortable on longer trips.

What else can you really call ameneties? :dunno:

[GoChris]

Originally posted by ACX
For sure personal choice is what it's really all about.

For Amenities, I'm not sure what the RSX has that the SRT wouldn't, but no block heater stock, and no cruise are 2 big knocks.

For Reliability but not quality, I'd say saw off. There have not been really big issues with the powertrain in the SRT 4 or the PT turbo as of yet.

TSB wise both the SRt4 and RSX are not really too bad, RSX has had a couple more.


Different strokes.:thumbsup:

No block heater from the factory sucks, but a dealer should install it, seeing as we are in Canada. I had mine put one in, free of charge.

[Z_Fan]

Originally posted by Inzane
The term "sports car" shouldn't enter this discussion at all (and doesn't apply to the RSX either).


Ugh...

:rolleyes:

Jason - I agree with you 100% as indicated in the last sentence of the original post.

The initial post in this thread was specifically focused at performance - and the consideration of whether or not the SRT-4 is a sportscar. The article intentionally avoids comparision of opinionated characteristics of styling and design between various model lines for this exact reason - it's opinionated. The only opinionated information is presented regarding the SRT-4 only, and my personal and biased view of it - and really I was pointing out flaws, not advantageous features. The summation is simply that yes, the car is quick, agile, etc. BUT - it is certainly not a sportscar. I don't think I'll ever consider anything that is FWD and four-doors a sportscar. How could anyone...? It does however possess the numbers similar or better than cars classifed as sportscars!

The notion that the SRT-4 > competitors is based (in the initial post) solely on concrete evidence of performance numbers. It is duly noted that not only is the SRT-4 faster than a RSX (and everything else in its class), but it does also perform the slalom at a higher speed. Therefore, it handles better too. As well, the SRT-4 is very capable in the braking area, destroying the RSX in this department.

I think most people who own a F-A-S-T car are capable of understanding that the SRT-4 is not fast, but we can't deny it is quick! It sure isn't a slug, and is a super-fun daily driver. For me, it is a very nice change. It was horrible to have to wait entire winters before I could pull out the 350z or the Twin Turbo all the while being forced to drive a little shitbox. With the SRT-4, I can atleast keep a little smile on my face until I can pull out the really fun car.

[heavyD]

From what I have read (I haven't driven one) the SRT4 doesn't handle near as well as a Celica GTS or even a Spec V. Just because it does the slalom faster than the RSX doesn't mean it handles better.

Please let's not make this car to be anything more than simply the byproduct of putting a powerful engine in the aging Neon chassis. As we (or at least I) learned in the 80's with the Dodge Daytona Turbo's, putting a turbo engine, fat tires, and stiff suspension on an economy car chassis does not make a sports car. Is is fast; yes. Is it fun; probably. Is is sophisticated; no. It's cheap speed but with the word cheap comes the saying; "you get what you pay for".

[1badPT]

The neon chassis was rebuilt effective 2000 model year to support the (at the time) upcoming PT Cruiser. The chassis is very sturdy (as it has to be because the PT Cruiser wieghs in at a porky 3400 lbs. Every unbiased review of the SRT-4 confirms that it handles very well.

Slalom and skidpad and braking distance are the only ways to accurately measure handling, and the SRT-4 outhandles the RSX in every measure.

edit: the 2005 RSX slightly outperforms the SRT-4 on the skidpad
0.86 G '05 RSX type S (the best skidpad performance of any RSX)
0.85 G SRT-4

And yes you get what you pay for in any vehicle - the SRT-4 what you get is performance :D

[heavyD]

I edited your line to be factual:

"And yes you get what you pay for in any vehicle - the SRT-4 what you get is straight line performance :D"

We don't want to mislead people. I don't dislike the car and think its a pretty good performance bargain but just don't prop it up to be something it isn't.

Also numbers don't necessarily tell the story of how a car handles. Take the EVO vs STI for comparison. Even though they put up near identical numbers, the EVO is always the hands down choice as the better handling car. Why because even though the STi puts up the same numbers, the driver feels nervous in the STi at its limits and confident in the EVO at its limits. The SRT4 comes with far superior tires (KDW's) than the competition which aides its handling numbers considerably.

[1badPT]

You're giving reasons why it handles better. Why can't you just admit that it handles better? Since you edited my line, I'll tell you have such a problem admitting it. You hate Dodge. :thumbsup:

Also the only reason you say the Evo handles better than the STi is because you love Mitsubishi. There's nothing wrong with liking or disliking a brand, but you can't argue the numbers. Most reviewers who test both cars say its too close to call and usually brand preference is what tips the scales.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by 1badPT
You're giving reasons why it handles better. Why can't you just admit that it handles better? Since you edited my line, I'll tell you have such a problem admitting it. You hate Dodge. :thumbsup:

Also the only reason you say the Evo handles better than the STi is because you love Mitsubishi. There's nothing wrong with liking or disliking a brand, but you can't argue the numbers. Most reviewers who test both cars say its too close to call and usually brand preference is what tips the scales.

Hate is a strong word but it's obvious that you LOVE Dodge which is fine. I don't say the EVO handles better, every car magazine that has tested them has said so (I have three at home), even SCC magazine had a whole project STi that's goal was to get the car to handle like an EVO. Sure I like some Mitsubishi vehicles but I surely don't put it on a pedestal like you seem to be doing with Dodge.:rolleyes: I read (subscriptions to Car & Driver for 12 years, Turbo Magazine, SCC) and do alot of research. I tend to value what professionals have to say over guys in a local thread.;)

[1badPT]

Originally posted by heavyD


Hate is a strong word but it's obvious that you LOVE Dodge which is fine. I don't say the EVO handles better, every car magazine that has tested them has said so (I have three at home), even SCC magazine had a whole project STi that's goal was to get the car to handle like an EVO. Sure I like some Mitsubishi vehicles but I surely don't put it on a pedestal like you seem to be doing with Dodge.:rolleyes: I read (subscriptions to Car & Driver for 12 years, Turbo Magazine, SCC) and do alot of research. I tend to value what professionals have to say over guys in a local thread.;)

So why then don't you agree with their professional opinons on the SRT-4's handling performance? :D

[Chandler_Racing]

Does anyone know the srt-4 60-0 times i have read 117ft, which seems pretty impressive for a car under $30,000

[Z_Fan]

Originally posted by heavyD
Just because it does the slalom faster than the RSX doesn't mean it handles better.


:confused:

You know someone is gonna take this silly comment and use it in their signature... :rolleyes:

Right? Because, uhm, handling surely wouldn't be defined by a vehicles ability to turn at speed?! Or how about stopping distances?

Please define, for my amusement, your definition of handling? Since slalom doesn't mean anything...I'm not trying to be a prick, I'm just curious what characteristics or performance tests would be categorized as handling in your view?

;)

[heavyD]

Originally posted by Z_Fan


:confused:

You know someone is gonna take this silly comment and use it in their signature... :rolleyes:

Right? Because, uhm, handling surely wouldn't be defined by a vehicles ability to turn at speed?! Or how about stopping distances?

Please define, for my amusement, your definition of handling? Since slalom doesn't mean anything...I'm not trying to be a prick, I'm just curious what characteristics or performance tests would be categorized as handling in your view?

;)

Use it as your signature. Please:rolleyes: Where did I say that slalom doesn't mean anything? It's one handling test that was performed with summer only performance tires compared to all-season tires on the RSX. Tires can make up for lesser suspension tuning. With lesser tires the RSX performs better on the skidpad. Your review was nice but I wouldn't start sending out resumes to automobile magazines anytime soon.
:barf:

To shut you up for good please take a look at a comparison (anyone with a vested interest in the post please read the whole article to see how poorly the SRT4 does really handle):

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=39&article_id=1425&page_number=1

The SRT4 can't even handle as well as some cars in its price range. How can a car as slow (everyone knows how slow Celicas are) as the Celica run faster laps around a course than a SRT4? Could it possibly be superior handling?:rolleyes: You guys make me wanna cry sometimes its so futile trying to hammer into your heads that you are wrong. I'm sure that your going to say stuff like: Road & Track hates Dodge, Road & Track sucks, Road & track drivers can't drive. Please save it for someone who cares.

[1badPT]

Their drivers do suck.

Here's two more magazines for you - both posted better performance numbers for the SRT-4
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0307scc_8greatrides/index.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=16&article_id=7871&page_number=2

R&T has not been kind to domestics in the last few years and that hasn't changed obviously. Have a ride in an SRT-4 - they review the suspension as being too loose, how they could draw that conclusion I don't know but whatever. Also they can't slalom the car at its full potential like the other magazines I listed. So take your pick, their view is either just as biased as yours is or they are shitty drivers.

[Z_Fan]

LOL

Hahahah, you can't seriously think that slalom means nothing?
Please, I know you are much smarter than that. It means a great deal...but OK. What you are saying is the test isn't fair. And I can agree with that if one car is equipped with better suited gear.

BUT

You then proceed to point out a test from Road & Track. (For the record, I have read that - as I bought the magazine specifically for that article when it was originally published.) But I followed the link and had another quick review anyhow...

The SPEC-V and Celica which slalom better than that SRT-4 aren't 'stock' vehicles like the SRT-4 is. Now, what they are is factory tuned versions. Thus, you have NISMO and TRD (Toyota Racing Development) involved and have prepared specially tuned suspensions in BOTH of those cars over the strictly STOCK versions. So, basically you are attempting to utilize this test as proof that the Celica or SPEC-V handles better. - BUT - they have been upgraded?! So, now, how again is that any different than than the SRT-4 slalom tests against a car with All-seasons??? It's the same shit, different pile. Clearly I would expect a car to handle better after a suspension upgrade. Makes sense to me. You'd have to upgrade the suspension on the SRT-4 to make that test relevant. So, I figure the outcome is expected, a track that requires handling sees cars with upgraded suspensions produce the quickest lap times. Wow, shocker! But I would also point out that other 'testers' have produced higher slalom times for the SRT-4 than those posted in that specific article.

There is a reason that tests are done in stock trim. In stock trim is what counts. If you put aftermarket components on a car, well, then the tests are no longer fairly representing what a purchaser can or should expect from the vehicle. It's not my fault that an auto-maker sells a particular car stock with all-seasons. As a purchaser, I shouldn't have to rush out and spend another thousand bucks to make the car perform just because the manufacturer lacked the foresight to equipe the car properly! At least Dodge did express some wisdom with the SRT-4...and put on excellent rubber. Besides, in Calgary, IMO if you drive around in winter with all seasons...well, you're crazy! It's winter dammit, which is why you need winter tires!

All-seasons should be banned all together. BAD BAD BAD idea that are the cause of many accidents every year...cuz, well, they suck in snow! They work if you don't expect or demand much from your car. So, that's why they are common, because for many people they don't care - the car is strictly a tool to go from A to B. But if you expect performance for the various seasons, you know full well you're never gonna have all-seasons on a car. Period! You will have an excellent winter tire, and an excellent summer tire. All-seasons will be left for the girly drivers who commute to their work and go get the groceries. Pfft! All seasons.

Well, it's all opinionated IMO. (a comment for the sig line!) I actually dislike Dodge. And the SRT-4 hasn't changed that. (And short of someone parking the latest Viper in my garage for half the current price, I'm not gonna be a dodge fan anytime soon because the Viper is seriously overpriced! (By about $40k IMO) But it [SRT-4] is still a lot of fun to drive. As for calculating the fun factor, you have to give acceleration more weight than handling anyway! Simply because the reality is that you will have much more opportunity to enjoy acceleration - whereas you will have to go corner hunting in order to enjoy that aspect on the streets...

That being the case, the SRT-4 is going to provide a lot more 'fun' in the course of normal usage.

Track comparisions IMO are usually irrelevant. They are very dependent on track characteristics and it is very possible for a track to favour a particular vehicle over another. Example, an RSX-S or Celica GTS or, well, anything in class to the SRT-4 wouldn't stand a chance at Race City. It favours the SRT-4 completely. Those cars couldn't touch it. That would include the factory tuned versions (NISMO and TRD) because the straights are simply too long at Race City - too long for their upgraded suspensions to overcome the loss down each straight.

Oh, BTW, I never proclaimed to be a journalist...

[NickGT]

Well with all that has been said, and the great review by Z_Fan. I think an SRT-4 would suit me perfectly. I like straight line power (not that this is all the SRT-4 is limited to). Am I wrong to like the styling as well? Cause I think it looks pretty cool. :thumbsup:

When you get out to the auto-X track Z_Fan you should get some SRT-4 Video footage up as well. That would be rad. Thanks again for the review!

[Z_Fan]

Originally posted by NickGT
When you get out to the auto-X track Z_Fan you should get some SRT-4 Video footage up as well. That would be rad. Thanks again for the review!

I'm just itching to get out there.

Got the "Stickypod" all ready to go. Video camera ready to go. All we need is nice weather and an Auto-X course.

This is a ways into the future - but I will do this out of curiousity and interest. We'll put the SRT-4 up against a SPEC-V and see what shakes out. Both on summers. No all season shit. Both stock. Same driver. Same track. And we'll get numbers that won't express bias.

That is fair enough.

[NickGT]

Originally posted by Z_Fan


I'm just itching to get out there.

Got the "Stickypod" all ready to go. Video camera ready to go. All we need is nice weather and an Auto-X course.

This is a ways into the future - but I will do this out of curiousity and interest. We'll put the SRT-4 up against a SPEC-V and see what shakes out. Both on summers. No all season shit. Both stock. Same driver. Same track. And we'll get numbers that won't express bias.

That is fair enough.

Perfect, I can't wait to see the results. Although right now I'll express my confidence in the SRT-4.

Check Pms

[ACX]

This is getting humorous..

The numbers I posted above were from 8 great rides in SCC. Presumably same drivers or calibre of drivers. SImilar conditions I can only assume.

Their numbers. If a car goes stops and turns better than another how can it not be said to perform better, unless you're looking at the stats through an empty bottle of haterade.

:rofl:

Man I could be way off. I'm not hating here the RSX is more than a fine car.

:thumbsup:

[heavyD]

Originally posted by Z_Fan
LOL

Hahahah, you can't seriously think that slalom means nothing?
Please, I know you are much smarter than that. It means a great deal...but OK. What you are saying is the test isn't fair. And I can agree with that if one car is equipped with better suited gear.

BUT

You then proceed to point out a test from Road & Track. (For the record, I have read that - as I bought the magazine specifically for that article when it was originally published.) But I followed the link and had another quick review anyhow...

The SPEC-V and Celica which slalom better than that SRT-4 aren't 'stock' vehicles like the SRT-4 is. Now, what they are is factory tuned versions. Thus, you have NISMO and TRD (Toyota Racing Development) involved and have prepared specially tuned suspensions in BOTH of those cars over the strictly STOCK versions. So, basically you are attempting to utilize this test as proof that the Celica or SPEC-V handles better. - BUT - they have been upgraded?! So, now, how again is that any different than than the SRT-4 slalom tests against a car with All-seasons??? It's the same shit, different pile. Clearly I would expect a car to handle better after a suspension upgrade. Makes sense to me. You'd have to upgrade the suspension on the SRT-4 to make that test relevant. So, I figure the outcome is expected, a track that requires handling sees cars with upgraded suspensions produce the quickest lap times. Wow, shocker! But I would also point out that other 'testers' have produced higher slalom times for the SRT-4 than those posted in that specific article.

There is a reason that tests are done in stock trim. In stock trim is what counts. If you put aftermarket components on a car, well, then the tests are no longer fairly representing what a purchaser can or should expect from the vehicle. It's not my fault that an auto-maker sells a particular car stock with all-seasons. As a purchaser, I shouldn't have to rush out and spend another thousand bucks to make the car perform just because the manufacturer lacked the foresight to equipe the car properly! At least Dodge did express some wisdom with the SRT-4...and put on excellent rubber. Besides, in Calgary, IMO if you drive around in winter with all seasons...well, you're crazy! It's winter dammit, which is why you need winter tires!

All-seasons should be banned all together. BAD BAD BAD idea that are the cause of many accidents every year...cuz, well, they suck in snow! They work if you don't expect or demand much from your car. So, that's why they are common, because for many people they don't care - the car is strictly a tool to go from A to B. But if you expect performance for the various seasons, you know full well you're never gonna have all-seasons on a car. Period! You will have an excellent winter tire, and an excellent summer tire. All-seasons will be left for the girly drivers who commute to their work and go get the groceries. Pfft! All seasons.

Well, it's all opinionated IMO. (a comment for the sig line!) I actually dislike Dodge. And the SRT-4 hasn't changed that. (And short of someone parking the latest Viper in my garage for half the current price, I'm not gonna be a dodge fan anytime soon because the Viper is seriously overpriced! (By about $40k IMO) But it [SRT-4] is still a lot of fun to drive. As for calculating the fun factor, you have to give acceleration more weight than handling anyway! Simply because the reality is that you will have much more opportunity to enjoy acceleration - whereas you will have to go corner hunting in order to enjoy that aspect on the streets...

That being the case, the SRT-4 is going to provide a lot more 'fun' in the course of normal usage.

Track comparisions IMO are usually irrelevant. They are very dependent on track characteristics and it is very possible for a track to favour a particular vehicle over another. Example, an RSX-S or Celica GTS or, well, anything in class to the SRT-4 wouldn't stand a chance at Race City. It favours the SRT-4 completely. Those cars couldn't touch it. That would include the factory tuned versions (NISMO and TRD) because the straights are simply too long at Race City - too long for their upgraded suspensions to overcome the loss down each straight.

Oh, BTW, I never proclaimed to be a journalist...

I'm done with this thread but all your excuses above are pretty lame and considering the only fellas responding own SRT4's the denial and excuses are pretty well expected.

I still think the car is a great performance bargain though and give Dodge alot of credit for putting money into a car like this even when it isn't really profitable. Companies like Honda or Toyota (dropped the celica & mr2 and now have no sporty cars) are more interested in making profitable cars not enthusiast cars hence barely a pulse of excitement in their current lineup of vanilla cars. It's kind of funny really but if you look at the 90's the sport compact market was completely dominated by Japanese cars. Now with GM putting out the supercharged Cobalt SS and the SRT4 the quickest compacts are domestics.

[Z_Fan]

Originally posted by heavyD
I'm done with this thread but all your excuses above are pretty lame and considering the only fellas responding own SRT4's the denial and excuses are pretty well expected.

No, don't go - your contribution and point of view is valued.

I have yet to provide you with any denial or excuses - beyond pointing out the same excuse you used. (Different or lesser equipment during a test). You can't deny suspension upgrades would provide better handling...that is the point, right? The TRD and NISMO suspension upgrades would definitely aid the car in slalom and track times.

For the record, I haven't said or even attempted to say that the SRT-4 will outhandle everything else in class. And the initial write up excludes handling all together. It's only about go...

HEY: THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART!

What my comments were about was your apparent denial that the slalom tests were indicative of stock cars handling characteristics - nothing more.

That notion is exclusive of the car participating in the test. So why you feel it is all about the SRT-4 is beyond me...But if you are wondering where I got the idea that you don't accept slaloms tests as handling characteristics...here it is...


Originally posted by heavyD
Just because it [SRT-4] does the slalom faster than the RSX doesn't mean it handles better.


*AND* after you say this - which is fine - you proceed to argue that it [slalom] is in fact what determines handling. Why or how do I feel that you do that? Well, the reason is the article you refer to has cars that slalom faster than the SRT-4 and then you claim that makes them handle better. BUT you have just finished saying that just because a car does the slalom faster doesn't mean it handles better. (That makes sense if you read carefully!)

If you wonder why this leaves me confused...well... :confused:

If you actually search my posts on this forum, you will find many instances where I question the handling of the SRT-4, including actually writing somewhere that I think the SPEC-V would perform better in the corners. When I first drove the SRT-4, that was definitely my original impression - that it couldn't turn. I chalked that up to infamiliarity with the car...which was partially true...and I am just itching to prove that the Nissan product is more capable than the SRT-4 'out of the box' - and maybe it is, maybe it isn't, it will come down to which car suits my driving style better.


Originally posted by heavyD
I still think the car is a great performance bargain though and give Dodge alot of credit for putting money into a car like this even when it isn't really profitable. Companies like Honda or Toyota (dropped the celica & mr2 and now have no sporty cars) are more interested in making profitable cars not enthusiast cars hence barely a pulse of excitement in their current lineup of vanilla cars. It's kind of funny really but if you look at the 90's the sport compact market was completely dominated by Japanese cars. Now with GM putting out the supercharged Cobalt SS and the SRT4 the quickest compacts are domestics.

This is exactly what I was originally attempting to convey. That you have to give credit where it is due, and Dodge deserves some with regards to the SRT-4. That's all...

See, so actually we agree! :)

[finboy]

Originally posted by Z_Fan

The SPEC-V and Celica which slalom better than that SRT-4 aren't 'stock' vehicles like the SRT-4 is. Now, what they are is factory tuned versions. Thus, you have NISMO and TRD (Toyota Racing Development) involved and have prepared specially tuned suspensions in BOTH of those cars over the strictly STOCK versions. So, basically you are attempting to utilize this test as proof that the Celica or SPEC-V handles better. - BUT - they have been upgraded

a fair test would be the srt4 acr posted on page one :D

[heavyD]

Originally posted by Z_Fan
This is exactly what I was originally attempting to convey. That you have to give credit where it is due, and Dodge deserves some with regards to the SRT-4. That's all...

See, so actually we agree! :)

No arguments from me on that one.:thumbsup:

[pb24dagrk]

Originally posted by heavyD


Hate is a strong word but it's obvious that you LOVE Dodge which is fine. I don't say the EVO handles better, every car magazine that has tested them has said so (I have three at home), even SCC magazine had a whole project STi that's goal was to get the car to handle like an EVO. Sure I like some Mitsubishi vehicles but I surely don't put it on a pedestal like you seem to be doing with Dodge.:rolleyes: I read (subscriptions to Car & Driver for 12 years, Turbo Magazine, SCC) and do alot of research. I tend to value what professionals have to say over guys in a local thread.;)

so basically are you saying you're a magazine racer and think that all magazines are equal and true?

go to any track (drag strip or road course) and an srt-4 will dominate any RSX stock for stock....

just admit it, geez

when a magazine posts its times/results, those are not necessarily even close to a car's best abilities (it's also a funny coincidence how magazine drivers tend to suck driving domestic cars)

[ade99]

Great review man. But Z_Fan, it's just a Neon ;)

[ACX]

Originally posted by pb24dagrk


so basically are you saying you're a magazine racer and think that all magazines are equal and true?

go to any track (drag strip or road course) and an srt-4 will dominate any RSX stock for stock....

just admit it, geez

when a magazine posts its times/results, those are not necessarily even close to a car's best abilities (it's also a funny coincidence how magazine drivers tend to suck driving domestic cars)

how the piss did you find your way here? :zzz:

<---Togo :D

[pb24dagrk]

Originally posted by ACX


how the piss did you find your way here? :zzz:

&lt;---Togo :D

haha, you man

i was looking up Sti's for a friend, because he's looking to buy one, and this forum was the first that popped up on google :thumbsup:

after i linked him to pics of Sti and specs etc., i was bored and decided to register and troll around :guns:

[ACX]

Originally posted by pb24dagrk


haha, you man

i was looking up Sti's for a friend, because he's looking to buy one, and this forum was the first that popped up on google :thumbsup:

after i linked him to pics of Sti and specs etc., i was bored and decided to register and troll around :guns:

haha well welcome :drama: :love: :angel:

[jersturbo]

Ivan...hows the S2...is in yet?

:thumbsup:

Jer


Originally posted by IRL


Just got back from my trip...needed a car asap, test drove the SRT, loved the power...and slowly I am growing to love the rest of the car. :)


So I have switched to Domestic...but I couldnt be happier with the car over the Celica!

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by jersturbo
Ivan...hows the S2...is in yet?

:thumbsup:

Jer



I am wondering the same.

[StraightFlush]

hey guys, yes its in...had it put in 2 days after I bought it. The car feels better...I wasnt hitting over 15psi boost until today...2nd gear boost spiked to 18psi...held it alittle and settled to 16psi to redline...car pulled real hard, but with the roads the way they are...the car simply looses traction left right and center so I cant get the real feel of the extra power just yet. :)

Overall I am impressed with it...cant wait for springtime..so I can get rid of these god awefull snow tires!

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by IRL


Overall I am impressed with it...cant wait for springtime..so I can get rid of these god awefull snow tires!

Race City? :D
Must be a big change from 0 torque to lots of torque.

[Z_Fan]

Originally posted by IRL
hey guys, yes its in...

With or without toys? Just curious...

[GoChris]

Stage 2 :drool: I will come out to see that!

[StraightFlush]

without toys...

I didnt want the install to be overly involved...and I heard its pretty labour intensive to do all the "toys" aspect of stage2.

Perhaps in the future when I feel like getting alot more involved with mods I will look into the toys part. :)

[Tilly]

because some of the options for the toys are programmed in the upgraded computer, you cannot simply upgrade your kit.

[w3apon]

Good thread, just wanted to add some of my comments after driving the SRT4 for a few weeks now. I'll try not to post what was already mentioned and I'll pick on mostly the bad stuff as the good stuff has been talked about quite a bit in the original post.

the Good
Stereo - The Kicker factory option is probably the best factory I've ever heard. I do not see a need for me to replace it any time in the near future.

Mods - Many many options to choose from here including some outstanding MOPAR aftermarket parts. And the cost is really cheap compared to some of my pervious cars. I can get the car easily to over 300 whp with excellent supporting mods (exhaust, suspension, etc) for under $3k unlike some of my other cars ...cough...$tealth...cough.

The Bad
Sunroof - So slow trying to open and close. Should have an auto open/cose one press button option.

Spoiler - Some like it but it had to go for me. I always had to do a double take when doing shoulder checks because I kept seeing the spoiler as a car in my blind spot. (I've now got the AVS Downdraft)

Wheel Hop - This is very bad, and you really need better motor mounts and possible Lower Control Arm upgrades to get this under control. What's the point of all this power (relatively speaking) if you can't plant it to the ground?

Seats - I don't mind Viper style seating, but these are made for someone with the shoulder width of a pencil. It gets irritating having the seat "wings" pressing into my shoulder blades on longer trips

Gas Tank - Should have made a bigger tank. 60 litres.. The 48(?) litre tank only gets about 320-350 city driving and just over 400km on the highway. I don't think it sucks gas all that bad, it's just the tank is so small.

Handling - OK I'm a bit biased here as I'm use to the handling in my old TT Stealth but it I certainly don't have the confidence feeling when I'm in the higher speed ranges in the corners. It just doesn't feel all that stable. But I've got a bunch of suspension mods ready to be installed that will hopefully fix this.

Rear Windows don't have electric window controls. Not a bit deal to me though.

Wheels, To me the stock wheels are too tall and narrow for the power the car has. Needs some wider tires.

Body Styling - Still looks like a Neon. But not too bad once you loose the rear spoiler and add some "eyebrowse" to the bug headllights.

[Z_Fan]

Originally posted by w3apon
Spoiler - Some like it but it had to go for me. I always had to do a double take when doing shoulder checks because I kept seeing the spoiler as a car in my blind spot. (I've now got the AVS Downdraft)


This is a good point.

I have the same problem - plus I think the big spoiler looks silly on the car. I mean, I'm used to it more or less now, but at first I had issues with shoulder checks.

I think I will replace my spoiler too...just cuz I hate the thing.

[ACX]

Good call dude. I always doubel take myself.

As for mounts, I have deyem racing pieces and they help a bunch.

I have these waiting to go in as well.
http://www.psifimotorsports.com/bushings.htm



:werd:

[StraightFlush]

Originally posted by w3apon
The Bad
Sunroof - So slow trying to open and close. Should have an auto open/cose one press button option.



The factory sunroof does have an auto open, which rocks...but I do agree that it should also have an auto close. As it seems like it takes forever to close.

[w3apon]

It has an auto open? OK I guess I never saw how to do that I alway have to hold the button down for like 10 seconds to make it fully open. What's the trick?


Originally posted by IRL

The factory sunroof does have an auto open, which rocks...but I do agree that it should also have an auto close. As it seems like it takes forever to close.

[StraightFlush]

I found out by mistake aswell.. lol

You hold it down to pop it up...once up, let go of the switch then press it once quickly to open...and let go. It will auto open from there.

[GoChris]

My car came with a bad sunroof motor, wont open unless i push it up first while holding the button lol. spring is coming guess i better get that fixed.

i dont think you can have an auto close, probably a safety feature just like on windows, wouldnt want a body part in it and it started closing

[w3apon]

well damn, thanks for the tip! :clap:


Originally posted by IRL
I found out by mistake aswell.. lol

You hold it down to pop it up...once up, let go of the switch then press it once quickly to open...and let go. It will auto open from there.

[Supa Dexta]

I'm very curious to see what kind of life these things will have... Pushing that little engine like that even from the factory (then combining it with aftermarket goodies) I'm doubtful it'll last long... If it has any connections to an intrepid, hell if they used the same note pads to jot notes on while thinking it up, I'd stay clear.... Parents intrepid/ costumer service = worst of the worst..... Only thing I'd consider using a dodge for is hauling a trailer....

[1badPT]

Given the limits of the engine, they are not anywhere near pushing that engine. Here is an article Sport Compact Car Magazine did based on the complete tear down of the SRT-4 engine:
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/projectcars/0310scc_projneon/index.html

[ACX]

Originally posted by Supa Dexta
I'm very curious to see what kind of life these things will have... Pushing that little engine like that even from the factory (then combining it with aftermarket goodies) I'm doubtful it'll last long... If it has any connections to an intrepid, hell if they used the same note pads to jot notes on while thinking it up, I'd stay clear.... Parents intrepid/ costumer service = worst of the worst..... Only thing I'd consider using a dodge for is hauling a trailer....


The PT GTs have been around longer than the SRT4, same basic motor. There hase been no major or widespread issues with the powerplant. You're talking now 3+ years. In the SRT4s case the tranny was sourced from a diesel truck application lol, and the axles are plenty strong. They used a similat design in Mexico with the Stratus line even before that.

Stock for stock, the turbo setup runs very hot, which is why they setup a big FMIC from the factory, as well, A/Fs are embarrassingly rich, sub 11, sub 10... Any dyno will show you they really reign things in on the top end, which serves to protect.

Turbo swaps see much lower EGTs, being bigger, and not being restricted by with integrated with manifold / wastegate.

All in all like any of the SRT line, much of the extra money is in the drivetrain.

:thumbsup:

[adrianracer]

Originally posted by w3apon
Good thread, just wanted to add some of my comments after driving the SRT4 for a few weeks now. I'll try not to post what was already mentioned and I'll pick on mostly the bad stuff as the good stuff has been talked about quite a bit in the original post.

the Good
Stereo - The Kicker factory option is probably the best factory I've ever heard. I do not see a need for me to replace it any time in the near future.

Mods - Many many options to choose from here including some outstanding MOPAR aftermarket parts. And the cost is really cheap compared to some of my pervious cars. I can get the car easily to over 300 whp with excellent supporting mods (exhaust, suspension, etc) for under $3k unlike some of my other cars ...cough...$tealth...cough.

The Bad
Sunroof - So slow trying to open and close. Should have an auto open/cose one press button option.

Spoiler - Some like it but it had to go for me. I always had to do a double take when doing shoulder checks because I kept seeing the spoiler as a car in my blind spot. (I've now got the AVS Downdraft)

Wheel Hop - This is very bad, and you really need better motor mounts and possible Lower Control Arm upgrades to get this under control. What's the point of all this power (relatively speaking) if you can't plant it to the ground?

Seats - I don't mind Viper style seating, but these are made for someone with the shoulder width of a pencil. It gets irritating having the seat &quot;wings&quot; pressing into my shoulder blades on longer trips

Gas Tank - Should have made a bigger tank. 60 litres.. The 48(?) litre tank only gets about 320-350 city driving and just over 400km on the highway. I don't think it sucks gas all that bad, it's just the tank is so small.

Handling - OK I'm a bit biased here as I'm use to the handling in my old TT Stealth but it I certainly don't have the confidence feeling when I'm in the higher speed ranges in the corners. It just doesn't feel all that stable. But I've got a bunch of suspension mods ready to be installed that will hopefully fix this.

Rear Windows don't have electric window controls. Not a bit deal to me though.

Wheels, To me the stock wheels are too tall and narrow for the power the car has. Needs some wider tires.

Body Styling - Still looks like a Neon. But not too bad once you loose the rear spoiler and add some &quot;eyebrowse&quot; to the bug headllights.

The sunroof has one touch button for open only. After you tilt, just click the button once and it will open on it's own! BTW, I agree with your prognosis on the rest of the car. The "unstable" handeling is the worst, but springs help and make the car look much better. The shifter is terrible as well, even with the Mopar STS!

[Mazstyle]

I love my SRT-4, the only thing I don't like is the turning circle, it has the turning circle of a half ton or mid sized SUV it's almost embarrasing in a tight parking lot because it looks like you can't drive, I guess I'm just used to my little imports....

[GoChris]

ya turning sucks, i think someone actually compared it to a dodge dakota truck and the truck won

[Z_Fan]

http://www.mopar.com/street/products_srt4.htm

^^

I've been looking around the above site for goodies.

I am trying to find some information that was posted (either here or perhaps on srtforums.com. Either way, the info was with respect to a Canadian dealership that was located in either Saskatchewan or perhaps Manitoba. They were sellling MOPAR goodies for the SRT-4 at an excellent price.

Does anyone have that dealership name?

Or perhaps a URL to their site?

Thanks in advance.

[w3apon]

Eastwood in Winnepeg: http://www.eastwood.mb.ca/parts1.asp

Dodge Dealership in Edson, Alberta.
Phil, [email protected]
Don't know if they have a website?

CTA-Motorsports in Brampton Ontario:
http://www.ctamotorsports.com/

[old&slow]

How does it stack up to a WRX?

[Z_Fan]

The one I was looking for was in fact Eastwood.

Thanks for posting the URL.

[jersturbo]

^^
Edson dealer is reported as good prices...though Kelly at Eastwood is excellent to deal with.

There is an Alberta owners forum
http://www.srt4oa.com/forums/index.php?sid=831ad2e095542f2175462023ff1b3e17



Originally posted by Z_Fan
The one I was looking for was in fact Eastwood.

Thanks for posting the URL.

[Euro_Trash]

I started noticing today that SRT-4's are getting to be everywhere!