New Dodge SRT4 Shipped, MOT'd and insured, £10K!?
why pay 10,000 for a motor that nearly ruin the company ???? imo id just buy a r32 motor and strap that in , with some new suspention and slick tyres should come in a t 12000 euro ( 9000-9500 pounds )
ive seen no trouble with golfs in my life , apart form kids who burn the clutch out all day that only real issue i seen was the toe and camber can un-aline itself like a mo-fo
even for the price of a bora theres 320 d bmws and 190 d and stuff of that spec to also look at ( depending if you can keep the insurance quote down )
Curious, how did you come by this? The SRT-4 sold over 25,000 in the three years it was in production, almost treble what they expected.
Sure you could get an R32, but then you will have to pay for insurance. Insurance for an SRT-4 is about 300-400 pounds a year for 24 year old Brit with a UK license last I checked. God only knows how much it is for an R32 much less a car with an R32 engine in it. I think both of these cars are not what he's looking for anyways =)
[quote=theirishnoob;460023
ive seen no trouble with golfs in my life , apart form kids who burn the clutch out all day that only real issue i seen was the toe and camber can un-aline itself like a mo-fo[/quote]
I think a Golf would be the best bet for a decent car. Civic's are good, but with the VTec you will consently be shifting to get anywhere with it. From what I have driven a Diesel is about the best economy engine that you can get that doesn't require 3rd gear to go up a hill.
Well when Dodge went to get the car tested for the HP figures they heatsoaked everything so technically it does make 230HP at the crank, but every dyno I have seen of someone's factory SRT they have made between 225-240 HP at the wheels giving you more like 270 HP at the crank. 230HP at the crank couldn't give you a 5.3 second 0-60 in a 2870 pound car =)
The SRT-4 offers alot of things a civic Type-R cannot in terms of performance and it's still the fastest Factory FWD built to date, but like the Viper (The same team of engineers that made the SRT-4 also built the Viper) there isn't much in the way of electronic gizmo's, but it's still by far the best bang for your buck you could get for a new car, which if you bought an 05 you would still have 5 years of warrenty left.
its because of the fuel it use's ( how many octanes it has ) plus the fastest production fwd would be the civicd ( even tho the neon produces more hp it cant get it on the floor )
if your gonna mod the bora go ahead dont mind these jokers . if not just buy it anyways , drive it in to the ground then replace it with a newwer version or a bmw
Fuel isn't going to make THAT much of a difference. The reason I have to use premium is the way the combustion chamber is made, which is the unleaded version of the old favorite Hemi. (double pent cloverleaf for anyone interested)
I disagree and can prove it =) What is the fastest 1/4 for any factory Civic? 14.9? 15.0? I have ran 13.7's and this car can get the power down just fine, just have to launch it like a V8, about 2k RPM's with a bit of clutch slip instead of the Civic Flooring it and hope for the best like all the civic guys I have seen =) The big advantage here to the SRT is the Quaife torque sensing LSD, but then the new Civic's also have their own LSD...
Then the argument that a Civic handles better, the standard Neon is the same as Honda's best model civic numbers wise, but it feels sloppy and more like a muscle car than a FWD, when compaired to the Civic, until you bring in the ACR and you simply cannot compaire the two(The ACR has the same performance figures of a BoxterS) Some people say that this latest generation Neon chassis had more flex than the Civic's, in reality they have the same amount of strength when tested by MT?
I am not saying Civic's are not great cars, they are, very much so. But when you say that a civic will outperform an SRT-4 out of the box your being mislead, in a major way. Once you start putting aftermarket parts on then none of this really means squat and both cars are an even match.
Srry The_Angry_Angel for hi-jacking. If you want I can ask Sam to clean the thread up for you =)
Hehe, well you could get one bought, shipped, and on the road for less than 10k pounds easy. Why you would want to swap the engine out I have no idea though, these engines and drivelines are rated from the factory to withstand over 350BHP in race conditions and most people run them over 400BHP before doing engine internal and driveline changeovers. Max HP I have seen so far is in the low 800 range. Most people are running 400-500 or so that are modding alot. For 2k pounds or so you can add another 120HP with a Mopar Turbo kit puttin gyou right around 355 with race fuel and 5 ECU preset settings, with a WOT feature which cuts the spark but keeps fuel running that explodes when it hits the manifold spooling the turbo during shifts.
If you want an R32, just get an R32, most likely less expensive than buying a car and then swapping the 3.2 VR6 in. Even better, just buy a Bora/GTI VR6, it's the same exact engine, just minus about 40hp, again, it'd probably be less expensive to go forced induction on a 2.8L VR6 than buy an R32, you don't get the AWD though.
The R32 looks cool, but it's insanely heavy, my car is only .1 second slower to 100km/h, simply because the R32 weighs 600 lbs more.
Why not get a Mazda MX-6? You can pick one up for $4k! It's 170lbs lighter then the SRT-4, and has a V6. If you spent $6k on forced induction and internals, then it would be faster then a stock SRT-4.
Sure.... but they are 5-12 years older than the SRT-4... and they are just under 100 pounds lighter with 1/3 less torque. But you would get All Wheel Steer(AWS), but then your not stock and I could say add another 800GBP into the SRT-4 and you would have a car with 300HP, for another 2k you could have 355. :Shrug:
Atleast try to find a car thats new to compair it to. I am talking about factory cars, not modded cars. I could pick up a 500pound car out of the junkyard and get it to run just as fast as most sports cars for under 10k
Are you calling the SRT-4 a sports car? If it's so great, then why did they only make it for 2 years? And, I haven't ever seen a production car that only weighs 500 pounds.
But you are comparing NA to forced induction... Who cares how much power it has, it's still just a Dodge Neon with a turbo.
LOL sorry, I don't have the pound symbol on my keyboard and I haven't set up a key for it yet. What I meant was you could get an old clunker out of a junkyard and fix it up to run with most cars on the road for under 10k GBP
nothing wrong with forced induction. Only thing thats neon on this car is the chassis, but hey if you still want to call it a neon It will still keep up with many cars out there. Thats like calling the R32 just a Golf and it's nowhere near a Golf the only thing the same is whats the same on the SRT, the chassis.
At the end of the day I don't really care what people think =)
For the ultimate car I would much rather have NA over forced induction anyday, but practicalities kick in and start limiting choices rather quickly. The SRT-4 stands out among everything if your looking for a daily driver that cheaps on insurance, good gas milage(for a sports car), seats 5 comfortably, room in the trunk to hide multiple dead bodies, and will still kick it in the pants when you hit the floor. All this from a factory vehicle, with a 7 year bumper to bumper warranty for under $23,000. You couldn't come close to this car for performance until you were atleast in the $35,000 plus range and its still performing on pace with cars that cost over $50,000.
When taking into account all those items it's an awesome car. Absolute performance, hell no, I didn't mean to sound like that. There are plenty of other cars that would be much more interesting to drive than a FWD front end heavy sports car sedan. But when one has to think of practicalities this would rank pretty close to the top for someone to get ahold of and have some fun on the weekends, drive to work everyday, and take the kids to the park in the evenings.
The only thing that pisses me off is you calling the SRT-4 a sports car.
Cost doesn't give you how fast a car is... Of course the SRT-4 can beat $50,000 cars. If you put it up against a 4000lb Caddilac, of course it would win. But, the Corvette is an actual sports car, and costs $44,000. Can a stock SRT-4 beat a 400hp, 3200lb car? IMO, the SRT-4 is a nice car, but it isn't as good as certain people make it seem. If the SRT-4 was a good car, wouldn't they have sold more of them?
Well I am on the fence about this. Performance wise it's just as fast as any other sports car, like a BoxterS, STi, EVO. I don't see a difference from my car to any of those. The only thing that really detracts from any type of "Sport" is it's FWD, but that shouldn't really matter. A sports car looks good, stands out, and goes fast and I think the SRT fits all of those.
Well they sold 25,000 over 3 years which is treble of what they expected. In the states the car is dominating the Rally/hillclimb scene and dominates the autoX until the rain pours down then the AWD's take over.
When I was refering to USD50,000 that was the BoxterS.
If it's not a sports car what is it? (insert neon joke here)
When I went to get insurance its under the compact sports car insurance group. I guess you could call it a tuner car, but there's nothing tuned on it and it's pure factory.
I will refrain from calling it a sports car if you accept the fact that it's one badass car
Sport compact. If the SRT-4 is a sports car, why didn't they try it on Top gear?
The STi and the Evo are not sports cars either. They are sedans, don't handle well on dry pavement, and are sport compact. Just because it is faster then certain sports cars does not mean it is a sports car. If someone turbocharges a Ford Crown Victoria, and it makes 800HP, does that make it a sports car?
Have you watched videos of Evos going around road courses? The driver turns the wheel full lock, and the car barely turns. All the while, there is so much body roll that you are almost three-wheeling around corners.
im sorry but you reckon STi's and EVO's cant handle? For the newer style impreza i can make an accpetion to that remark as it seems they have lost there root's with the handling, but the older STI WRX (95-2000) were great handling cars.
What's all the fuss about anyway? So, the SRT-4 is a good car. Always 'my SRT-4 beats Vettes! It's good value for money!'. Argh! Stop fighting, i've seen/heard enough of the car already.
Nothing against you Chris, but this is getting annoying
Hehe no fuss really. wheel4hummer and I were just having a dicussion =)
They only sold the car in the states and nobody really knows about it so I wouldn't expect anything like that =) They did the Civic, thats not a sports car =)
EVO's and STI's are decent for handling, I think they give drivers a false sense of security though.
It was getting a bit old, I will say it's a sports compact sedan that will kick your arse! that sound better? =P
And you've driven how many Evos? All I've ever heard from anyone that's ever driven one is that they're one of the most neutral handling and throttle adjustable production cars on the market..
It will still keep up with many cars out there. Thats like calling the R32 just a Golf and it's nowhere near a Golf the only thing the same is whats the same on the SRT, the chassis.
They are sedans, don't handle well on dry pavement, and are sport compact. Just because it is faster then certain sports cars does not mean it is a sports car. If someone turbocharges a Ford Crown Victoria, and it makes 800HP, does that make it a sports car?
