SRT-4 Test Drive
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

This is a discussion on SRT-4 Test Drive within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; I was bored today, so I test drove a few cars (but no Evo, unfortunately, they wouldn't let me unless ...

  1. #1
    Registered User DeeezNuuuts83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    199

    SRT-4 Test Drive

    I was bored today, so I test drove a few cars (but no Evo, unfortunately, they wouldn't let me unless I would let them run a credit check). One car was the Mustang GT (which was fun, but the shifter sucked), and the second was, you guessed it, the SRT-4.

    Excuse my language, but let me tell you that that ****er is QUICK. There is no noticeable lag, and it seems as if there is endless speed. Regardless of what gear you're in or what rpm you're at, power is just a heartbeat away. I would change the shifter (since its throws are pretty long), but other than that, it's a good car, engine-wise. I still think it's a funky-looking one, but after you drive it to redline (only 6000 rpm?) and look at it, it isn't so bad anymore.

    Don't worry, I still like the WRX better, and I'll save up for that AWD bad boy, regardless of what I told the Dodge and Ford dealerships. But I still want to test drive the Evo...

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Registered User breepsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    585
    Sounds cool, i wanna test drive one to. How was the handeling on it?

  4. #3
    Registered User DeeezNuuuts83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    199
    I didn't really get a chance to check its handling capabilities. I was mostly looking for what it was made for: straight-line acceleration, and I sure as hell found it. But based on what I experienced, there wasn't too much body roll as you'd expect, but it wasn't meant to be thrown into corners the way you'd want to. Seriously, this car is no joke when it comes to straight-line acceleration.

  5. #4
    Registered User VetteVert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Posts
    820
    Good review, but I'm curious as to where everyone gets the "intended for straight-line only" stuff. No it isn't an off-roader, nor bad weather champ. It is, however, set up remarkably well for road racing (for a production $20k car; everything is relative). As I've said before, handling isn't new for the neon (look at its autoX performance record; kills the WRXs), but power is. I guess we will see soon enough.

    VV

  6. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    370
    Originally posted by VetteVert
    Good review, but I'm curious as to where everyone gets the "intended for straight-line only" stuff. No it isn't an off-roader, nor bad weather champ. It is, however, set up remarkably well for road racing (for a production $20k car; everything is relative). As I've said before, handling isn't new for the neon (look at its autoX performance record; kills the WRXs), but power is. I guess we will see soon enough.

    VV
    VetteVert,

    Assuming that you've got some knowledge of track racing, then you'd know that a FIXED camber of "0" up front on a FWD vehicle equals bad. Obviously you could throw on some camber plates but that's not how the original platform was designed.

    I don't think Dodge had any intention of making this car road course "friendly" from the get-go. I think they had a vision of it being quick from a roll and nothing more. From a marketing stand point it makes a lot of sense for them. Otherwise, they would've thrown in a LSD (and this applies for both track and drag racing use).

    Anyhow, just my .0222
    2002 WRBP WRX

    Old setup = BPM GT turboback, PDE up-pipe, Unichip w/custom map, cooler plugs (NGK range 7), Walbro 255LPH FP, MBC (15 PSI), and custom built turbo utilizing the 13G housing (Internals: Hitachi compressor wheel, Mitsu 15G turbine lightly clipped).

    1/4, 12.88 105.10 - 1/8, 8.09 85.96

    New set up = Now w/UTEC and STI Injectors

    1/4, ? - 1/8, ?

  7. #6
    Registered User 03WRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    320
    Originally posted by boosted 4
    VetteVert,

    Assuming that you've got some knowledge of track racing, then you'd know that a FIXED camber of "0" up front on a FWD vehicle equals bad. Obviously you could throw on some camber plates but that's not how the original platform was designed.

    I don't think Dodge had any intention of making this car road course "friendly" from the get-go. I think they had a vision of it being quick from a roll and nothing more. From a marketing stand point it makes a lot of sense for them. Otherwise, they would've thrown in a LSD (and this applies for both track and drag racing use).

    Anyhow, just my .0222
    Well said!
    2012 Black WRX Premium
    2003 wrb WRX - Cobb Stage 2

  8. #7
    Registered User VetteVert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Posts
    820
    Nope, not a track racer myself (hence me asking the question). So did the other neons that had so much autoX success have a different fixed camber setting, or was it adjustable? Did they just throw on some camber plates? Do they make adjustment plates at the top of the tower to handle that?

    VV

    P.S. Like I said, I'm just going on past success records, so that is why I'm curious. It would be the same as if someone said that the WRXs sucked at rallying with their successful past...

    Originally posted by boosted 4
    VetteVert,

    Assuming that you've got some knowledge of track racing, then you'd know that a FIXED camber of "0" up front on a FWD vehicle equals bad. Obviously you could throw on some camber plates but that's not how the original platform was designed.

    I don't think Dodge had any intention of making this car road course "friendly" from the get-go. I think they had a vision of it being quick from a roll and nothing more. From a marketing stand point it makes a lot of sense for them. Otherwise, they would've thrown in a LSD (and this applies for both track and drag racing use).

    Anyhow, just my .0222

  9. #8
    Registered User Shard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    4,554
    Originally posted by breepsh
    Sounds cool, i wanna test drive one to. How was the handeling on it?
    Lets go dude! I want to as well!

  10. #9
    Registered User driverj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    916
    Posts
    1,184
    Originally posted by boosted 4
    VetteVert,

    Assuming that you've got some knowledge of track racing, then you'd know that a FIXED camber of "0" up front on a FWD vehicle equals bad. Obviously you could throw on some camber plates but that's not how the original platform was designed.

    I don't think Dodge had any intention of making this car road course "friendly" from the get-go. I think they had a vision of it being quick from a roll and nothing more. From a marketing stand point it makes a lot of sense for them. Otherwise, they would've thrown in a LSD (and this applies for both track and drag racing use).

    Anyhow, just my .0222
    Main reasons I didn't wait for the car. Especially the fixed camber issue.

  11. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    370
    Originally posted by VetteVert
    Nope, not a track racer myself (hence me asking the question). So did the other neons that had so much autoX success have a different fixed camber setting, or was it adjustable? Did they just throw on some camber plates? Do they make adjustment plates at the top of the tower to handle that?

    VV

    P.S. Like I said, I'm just going on past success records, so that is why I'm curious. It would be the same as if someone said that the WRXs sucked at rallying with their successful past...

    I'm not really sure about the Neons of the past. Although, I do know that the Neon ACR was purpose-built. The other Neons were, well just Neons.

    It's worth mentioning, by the way, road course cars vs. Autox cars are prepared differently. I haven't been to any Autox's this year and didn't go to many last year either. If I recall, the Neons do ok on a local level. Of course it all depends on which classification a particular vehicle falls into and how you have the vehicle configured.

    I think it's really cool that Dodge brought this one to market. And for the price it will sell. However, for an extra $2k they could of made the SRT-4 more of a purpose built car IMO (maybe even a factory installed option along with suspension tweaks).
    2002 WRBP WRX

    Old setup = BPM GT turboback, PDE up-pipe, Unichip w/custom map, cooler plugs (NGK range 7), Walbro 255LPH FP, MBC (15 PSI), and custom built turbo utilizing the 13G housing (Internals: Hitachi compressor wheel, Mitsu 15G turbine lightly clipped).

    1/4, 12.88 105.10 - 1/8, 8.09 85.96

    New set up = Now w/UTEC and STI Injectors

    1/4, ? - 1/8, ?

  12. #11
    Registered User WRXless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kelowna
    Posts
    231
    Hmmmm, I remember Top Gear getting a better track time in the SRT-4 than they did with the WRX; something like 4 seconds better....
    Sheppe (aka WRXless)
    '02 Jetta GLS 1.8T

    Jetta Pic 1
    Jetta Pic 2
    Jetta Pic 3

  13. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    370
    Originally posted by WRXless
    Hmmmm, I remember Top Gear getting a better track time in the SRT-4 than they did with the WRX; something like 4 seconds better....
    I wouldn't doubt it. With the all season (no stick) tires on the WRX, less powerful motor, and heavier that would make sense. The SRT-4 is blessed with much better tires (even with it's 0 camber) and can do a lot for skidpad numbers.

    However, on the WRX you can tweak the front suspension for track use. With lowering 1.5" springs a WRX can realisticly get more than -2.00 out of the front (mark my words "with LOWERING springs"). With out lowering springs I think you could probably get about -1.25" on the front.
    Last edited by boosted 4; 03-25-2003 at 08:59 AM.
    2002 WRBP WRX

    Old setup = BPM GT turboback, PDE up-pipe, Unichip w/custom map, cooler plugs (NGK range 7), Walbro 255LPH FP, MBC (15 PSI), and custom built turbo utilizing the 13G housing (Internals: Hitachi compressor wheel, Mitsu 15G turbine lightly clipped).

    1/4, 12.88 105.10 - 1/8, 8.09 85.96

    New set up = Now w/UTEC and STI Injectors

    1/4, ? - 1/8, ?

  14. #13
    Registered User VetteVert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Posts
    820
    I know they were nationally competitive and I'm pretty sure they won their class a few years as well.

    And I read that about the best motoring vid as well...and he didn't say anything about skidpad #s, but track #s. While they have more performance oriented rubber, theirs is far from ideal as well. They are running skinny tires on 6" wide wheels...

    I won't debate the 0 camber thing...I can't. Maybe they could be even faster if they were adjustable. It is just that things don't always happen like they are "supposed" to. Sort of like the stock turbo on a WRX. 16psi is supposed to be on the brink of it's efficiency range, with anything higher just making heat. But many people turn it up to, say, 17.5 and run faster times and mph (talking drag here). Not supposed to happen, but it does. I think the same will happen on a road course with the neon. I'd bet money on it.

    VV

    Originally posted by boosted 4
    I'm not really sure about the Neons of the past. Although, I do know that the Neon ACR was purpose-built. The other Neons were, well just Neons.

    It's worth mentioning, by the way, road course cars vs. Autox cars are prepared differently. I haven't been to any Autox's this year and didn't go to many last year either. If I recall, the Neons do ok on a local level. Of course it all depends on which classification a particular vehicle falls into and how you have the vehicle configured.

    I think it's really cool that Dodge brought this one to market. And for the price it will sell. However, for an extra $2k they could of made the SRT-4 more of a purpose built car IMO (maybe even a factory installed option along with suspension tweaks).

  15. #14
    Registered User ebbtide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    195
    I'm not an autoXer, but I do know that a neon specfic class was developed for autoXing because the neons were stomping every other car in the division. Neon's have a huge autoXing heritige, much like the WRX and rallying. That's why the ACR was built, factory supported autoXer.

    Now as far as the SRT, the suspension was built from the factory for drag performance and for an easy ride. It floats a little too much for my taste over bumps during cornering and accel, but that will be an easy fix. KW is developing SRT coilovers that are fully adjustable, and with about an inch lowering, this SRT will pull the same handling around corners as the famed ACR's, and better pull during the straights. LSD is also on the way.
    2003 Dodge SRT-4 Black
    221 whp/ 241 wtrq *Stock*
    13.585 @ 102.88 *Stage 1*

    "Nothing gives you such a sense of the infinite as stupidity"

  16. #15
    Registered User DeeezNuuuts83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    199
    The road-going versions of both the Neon and the WRX differ from their autoX/rally editions, but the production WRX is far closer to its own counterpart than any production Neon is to its own counterpart. So I could really care less about the Neon's autoX history. Giving more credit to the Neon because of stuff like that would be like saying that the Celica is a wild beast since its funny-car version is bad-ass. Get it?

    Basically, the performance of autoX/rally/etc. cars doesn't mean anything when it comes to the cars that are sold in dealerships since they're so different in most cases.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •