Author Topic: Looky what me was in today... (Read 4061 times)

1slowCX · « **on:** 06:15PM 06/18/2003 »

Thought I'd just brag.....

....its still a neon.....but a better neon.....the guy buyin it, traded in his S2000.....what a fruit cake

^thats me in the car.....wOOt wOOt

Night Angel424 · « **Reply #1 on:** 06:31PM 06/18/2003 »

OOOOH ITS A NON! Jeremy is gonna have to try to contain himself when he sees this one!

Mar_DC2 · « **Reply #2 on:** 06:34PM 06/18/2003 »

oh, they finally got an SRT-4 at menlove eh? too bad i had to quit a week after i started

did you guy's take it for a spin?

utahteg · « **Reply #3 on:** 06:53PM 06/18/2003 »

What kind of fool would trade an S2000 in for a neon??

BnLake · « **Reply #4 on:** 07:12PM 06/18/2003 »

HAHAHAH!! THAT'S THAT KID RYAN!!! lol that srt-4 is actually pretty quick! He raced anthony's eclipse and kept up with him the whole way

utahteg · « **Reply #5 on:** 07:21PM 06/18/2003 »

It's not a bad car, they are pretty quick. What's the rated hp, I know I have a mag with it somewhere but I can't seem to find it?

Staats · « **Reply #6 on:** 07:40PM 06/18/2003 »

yeah i know i was about to say that s h i t

1slowCX · « **Reply #7 on:** 08:39PM 06/18/2003 »

Quote from: OsKaR on 07:12PM 06/18/2003

HAHAHAH!! THAT'S THAT KID RYAN!!! lol that srt-4 is actually pretty quick! He raced anthony's eclipse and kept up with him the whole way

The SRT just came in today....I don't know how you raced him......

wait was it later today.....then maybe....

I don't know what he was thinking when he sold his S2000 for it.....what a dumb a s s

BnLake · « **Reply #8 on:** 09:34PM 06/18/2003 »

ok different person, but it looked exactly like that neon. It's pretty d a m n quick

Mar_DC2 · « **Reply #9 on:** 11:20PM 06/18/2003 »

theyre rated at 215whp and 245ft/lb, but i think theyve been dyno'd at around 225whp and 250ft/lb. but if you ever see a dyno chart from one, the max torque peaks at like 1,000rpm then just drops off into nothing.

Night Angel424 · « **Reply #10 on:** 11:41PM 06/18/2003 »

what is ft/lb?

BnLake · « **Reply #11 on:** 11:44PM 06/18/2003 »

HAHAH!! ok that really blows! 1,000rpm huh.. too bad

Night Angel424 · « **Reply #12 on:** 11:46PM 06/18/2003 »

that first pic is really cool looking, itd be rad if they did an actually paint job like that.

OverLord · « **Reply #13 on:** 12:17AM 06/19/2003 »

Quote from: Night Angel424 on 11:41PM 06/18/2003

what is ft/lb?

It is the unit of measure for torque. It should be lb/ft.

Why sell an S2K for a neon??? Different strokes for different folks.

The SRT-4 peaks at 250 lb-ft at 3000 RPM but torque drops like a rock at 5000 RPM. Hmmm a 2000 RPM torque curve, dodge has a lot of work to do before this car will impress me. I am sure it is fast but I would much rather have the S2K

Mar_DC2 · « **Reply #14 on:** 01:01AM 06/19/2003 »

yes, lb/ft, my bad. i think i just like the way "foot pound" sounds in my head.

i too would much rather own an S2K than that car. ive seen pics of the turbo's on that thing, its just the manifold, turbo, and downpipe all together in one piece. pointless to me, seems like a gimmick for dodge to make more $$$ when the turbo fails. either way, you can't deny 13 second time slips from the factory.

yojimbo17 · « **Reply #15 on:** 07:37AM 06/19/2003 »

Hey I have to admit that Neon is the best Neon I have seen, but what would make you trade a s2000 for a neon? I just don't understand.... The s2000 is a compact 2.0 Liter, 4 cylinder, DOHC V-TEC engine. maximum output of 240 horses and 6-speed transmission. Plus there's so much you can do with the s2000.

Jer · « **Reply #16 on:** 08:51AM 06/19/2003 »

The funny thing is if a Honda were to make a civic for that price that could keep up with the SRT-4, nobody would say "it's just a civic :rolls eyes: People get too caught up in a nameplate. Yes the neon has a gay gay name, but they are pretty peppy little cars. But as stated before different strokes for different folks.

Mar_DC2 · « **Reply #17 on:** 01:50PM 06/19/2003 »

thats because civics have the proven reputation of being a good sports car without spending a huge wad of cash. neons have the reputation of coming in ugly color's and looking like a bar of soap.

MitzuRida · « **Reply #18 on:** 02:09PM 06/19/2003 »

Yeah when i first saw that pic i thaught it was the kid i raced too, but the guy i raced is from california is where he bought his neon, and now he lives here and its regestered here. There fast cars i like them alot if i was goin to go buy a car for 20g brand new i would pick the srt4 i like them no matter what people say and now that mopar just came out with all the parts im sure it wont be long tell we see some with the stage 3 turbo upgrade and all that.

Jer · « **Reply #19 on:** 02:11PM 06/19/2003 »

Quote from: BtownCivic on 01:50PM 06/19/2003

thats because civics have the proven reputation of being a good sports car without spending a huge wad of cash. neons have the reputation of coming in ugly color's and looking like a bar of soap.

I just love ricers, you guys are so much fun to watch babble. Narrow minded, and brand name only. I am so happy you don't drive a neon, makes the rest of us look like complete self centered morons. The car is respectable, as is the S2000. Enjoy your dim little world my friend, you will darwin your way into oblivion eventually.

Night Angel424 · « **Reply #20 on:** 02:55PM 06/19/2003 »

wow, do i sense some hostility? with an unbaised opinion, i thought the car looking like a bar of soap was pretty funny, dont worry Jer, if you like you car, thats all that matters lol.

Jer · « **Reply #21 on:** 03:05PM 06/19/2003 »

I am not concerned whether he likes my car or not, I don't really care. I am just hostile because everyone is sniffing their own a s s to make sure it doesn't stink. He's just mad because for a few K more he could own "just a neon" that would whoop the s h i t outta his JDM "supercar"

Night Angel424 · « **Reply #22 on:** 03:10PM 06/19/2003 »

lets make my car fast haha

Jer · « **Reply #23 on:** 03:16PM 06/19/2003 »

can do, but lots of money is involved

Night Angel424 · « **Reply #24 on:** 03:50PM 06/19/2003 »

nevermind, i need a job!!!!! i turned in 5 resumes yesterday, 5 today about 40 in the past month! and NOTHING. anyway, can i drive your NON again? lol

utahteg · « **Reply #25 on:** 04:18PM 06/19/2003 »

The question regarding torque = it is the force (hp) multiplied by distance (ft). So saying ft-lbs is totally correct. This is your free lesson in Engineering for the day...the next one won't be free...j/k.

Night Angel424 · « **Reply #26 on:** 05:53PM 06/19/2003 »

thank you twinner! you have aided in my unstupification. LOL JK

Jer · « **Reply #27 on:** 07:58PM 06/19/2003 »

best way described to me to actually get a mental image about what torque is. take the distance where the connecting rod attaches to the crank take the dead center of the crank inside the rod, point A, and measure to the dead center of the cranks main rotating shaft, point B, Measure from A to B, and that is ft in the following equation. Take how many pounds of force that is exerted when the crank is at the fullest of it extension on a horizontal plane from point A to point B and that is lbs in the following equation

Tq = ft X lbs

So saying that the distance on a motor from the point where a rod connects to the crank and the rotational center of that crank were 12 inches (yes I know it's a lot) and let say the combustion chamer exerted 100 lbs of force on the piston, assuming in the perfect world there were no loss to friction then the resulting tq would be 1200 Ft/lbs of torque.

Or on your basic Honda engine, 3 inches of travel and 10 lbs of force would create 30 ft/lbs of torque J/k It's a joke I sent out for Erik, but he's not here

utahteg · « **Reply #28 on:** 08:17PM 06/19/2003 »

and a real world example by DD

Mar_DC2 · « **Reply #29 on:** 12:58AM 06/20/2003 »

Quote from: Dark Dragon on 02:11PM 06/19/2003

I just love ricers, you guys are so much fun to watch babble. Narrow minded, and brand name only. I am so happy you don't drive a neon, makes the rest of us look like complete self centered morons. The car is respectable, as is the S2000. Enjoy your dim little world my friend, you will darwin your way into oblivion eventually.

woah, dude, you've been way super defensive lately. no need to get your thong all bound up. i was simply stating a fact while trying to include a little bit of humor. neons have a bad rep, and civics have a good one, get over it. the reputation doesnt necissarily count out the car as a good performer. ive seen what neons can do on the track, theyre just as good as most other sport compacts out there. unlike the majority of honda/acura owner's, i am not a one car man. i respect any car that retains good performance. i dont like neons because they look like bars of soap, but i respect them. once again, thanks for not taking my sarcasm serious, and being such a nice guy! :a s s h o l e:

Quickshifter · « **Reply #30 on:** 12:43PM 06/20/2003 »

SDo Btown since when have Neon's had a bad rep? And what is the bad thing about them?

Jer · « **Reply #31 on:** 12:56PM 06/20/2003 »

Sorry Btown, I was just in a bad mood yesterday, appologies. QS neons have a bad rep because they aren't exactly sporty looking, but they can perform. The bad thing about them that I know exists it the s h i t t y s h i t t y head gasket design. Other than that, I am very pleased with mine.

Mar_DC2 · « **Reply #32 on:** 01:10PM 06/20/2003 »

i didnt say neon's are s h i t t y, i said they have a s h i t t y rep, genius. if you'll go back and read the whole post, instead of commenting after the first sentance, you'll notice that i commenced neons on their good performance throughout the whole post.

Jer · « **Reply #33 on:** 01:24PM 06/20/2003 »

Quote from: BtownCivic on 01:10PM 06/20/2003

i didnt say neon's are s h i t t y, i said they have a s h i t t y rep, genius. if you'll go back and read the whole post, instead of commenting after the first sentance, you'll notice that i commenced neons on their good performance throughout the whole post.

Take some of your own advice

I wasn't quoting you as saying they were s h i t t y, and neith was QS. I was telling QS that they have a s h i t t y headgasket

Mar_DC2 · « **Reply #34 on:** 01:47PM 06/20/2003 »

i was replying to quickshifters comment reguarding why i think neons are s h i t t y. but thats okay, we all make mistakes.

OverLord · « **Reply #35 on:** 07:10PM 06/20/2003 »

I hope we all feel better now. This topic took a huge turn into the shitter.

Disclaimer. I am not saying this car is not a great performer because any factory car that can run 14's is not slow by any means. I am saying that I think dodge could have got more power from this motor.
I want to explain why I am dissapointed with Dodge's effort to make a fast factory neon. First of all they get 2.4 liters to play with. Then they add a turbo (16G) at 14 psi and they are only getting 223 hp at the wheels. I know the price is lower than most cars but I would hope for more than 223 hp with this kind of hardware. They didn't even add a much needed LSD.

utahteg · « **Reply #36 on:** 09:31AM 06/21/2003 »

I feel the same way Corey, a 2.4 boosting 14 psi and have 223 hp...I really think Dodge could have done better. My 1.8 with the 18G w/ 16 psi is pushing 230 hp at the wheels. If I had larger injector I could tune it and get possibly 5 to 10 more horses. With the turbo and the price we paid for the integra new we are still under $21,000.

I think the new neons aren't a bad looking car and I'm not bashing on them either.

Mar_DC2 · « **Reply #37 on:** 03:51PM 06/21/2003 »

well, you guy's also have to take into account the fact that its a factory produced car. look at the nissan skyline GTR. a finely tuned 2.6L twin turbo I6 only making 276hp. thats because japan had a 280hp limit on all factory produced cars at the time it was built. so what they did was put in a finely tuned motor and add an extremely restrictive intake and exhaust system and dropped the boost down very low. thats why GTR's are known to produce upwards of 400hp with just the addition of intake, exhaust, and a boost controller.

its basically the same concept with the SRT-4. they want their car to be affordable, so they cant give it so much power from the factory. i guarante if you get rid of the restrictive manifold, turbo, and downpipe combo, add 2.5" downpipe, better intake and exhaust, a better manifold and turbo, and up the boost to 20psi, you'd be getting around 280-300whp. but you wont keep traction very easily without that LSD. i mean, its a little more money than just intake, exhaust, and a boost controller, but i think the power would be worth it.

utahteg · « **Reply #38 on:** 03:58PM 06/21/2003 »

If you were to do those upgrades, then the car would cost a lot more money, not just a little bit more money (depending on the quality of parts of course). At 20 psi you better have at least 280 hp, but your are totally right about traction problems without a LSD.

OverLord · « **Reply #39 on:** 07:18PM 06/21/2003 »

That is true B-town, it is affordable but to get those type of numbers, like twinner stated, they would have to spend a lot more cash on the car. I realize that they cant give it too much power but you have to admit that considering its hardware 223 whp seems a little low. imagine a 2.4 k series motor set at 14 psi now wouldn't you expect a lot more than 223 whp?

Jer · « **Reply #40 on:** 07:39PM 06/21/2003 »

I agree with the turbomanifold/turbo/BOV being a pretty crappy decision on Dodges part. Really crappy. Dodge left the power so "low" on the SRT-4 because of insurance purposes, insurance is going to be very expensive in the age bracket the SRT-4 was targeted for if it were to have as much power as the 2.4L is capable of. And as far as the LSD, I believe dodge has already put that into the works for the next year SRT-4

Mar_DC2 · « **Reply #41 on:** 08:04PM 06/21/2003 »

thats exactly what i was trying to say, they want it to be affordable, so they made it as such. 223hp on a 2.4L seems low because the engine is so detuned. they detuned it so it would make less power, which in turn would make insurrance more affordable for their target market. don't you think 276hp seems low for a 2.6L twin turbocharged I6?? theyre not building a highly modified street car from the factory, theyre building a mass-produced sports car for the consumer's. you cant expect every car to be maxed out on power from the factory. those that want more power out of it can spend the extra cash and get the power, those that dont can still have a somewhat fast car without spending a whole lot of money. thats why there are aftermarket performance parts available, to create more power. if you were to upgrade all the parts i listed before, it wouldn't be more than about $3,500 at the most, not much more than a regular turbo kit.

utahteg · « **Reply #42 on:** 03:35PM 06/22/2003 »

What I would like to see is some one tune a SRT-4 and see how much whp they can get out of the current setup...without any additional upgrades...just tuning.

Jer · « **Reply #43 on:** 03:43PM 06/22/2003 »

upgrades as in? If it doesn't inculde stuff such as exhaust and intake or boost controller. I would be willing to bet with the proper tuning, you could get 300 WHP

utahteg · « **Reply #44 on:** 03:46PM 06/22/2003 »

I mean no upgrades...as is from the factory, well you would need something to be able to tune it with, but other than that - nothing. I bet you're pretty close DD, a 2.4L turbo'd should be right around that number.

Jer · « **Reply #45 on:** 03:51PM 06/22/2003 »

With let just say a boost controller, I wouldn't bet more than 260-270

utahteg · « **Reply #46 on:** 05:27PM 06/22/2003 »

It should be just fine...doesn't it come from the factory boosting 14 psi?

Mar_DC2 · « **Reply #47 on:** 06:09PM 06/22/2003 »

id bet with a boost controller, FPR and SAFC-II dyno tuned you could probably get like 250-260whp. with just a boost controller you wouldn't want to boost too high for the risk of running it lean.

OverLord · « **Reply #48 on:** 10:45PM 06/22/2003 »

All this talk has me excited to see what the SRT-4 does after it has been properly modified.

Mar_DC2 · « **Reply #49 on:** 11:46PM 06/22/2003 »

i know, ive been thinkin about it, and if i had the money i'd probably pick one up. kinda sad, a honda guy switching to mopar, but that car looks so bad a s s. especially in black.

zula99si · « **Reply #50 on:** 12:07AM 06/23/2003 »

These new Neons are fun and pretty fast from the dealer, but a b i t c h to work on, THe ECU doesn't like having after market controllers on it (Boost Controler, Turbo Timer, Etc.) we've worked on one , Apex-I AVC-R Boost COntroller, HKS T-TImer.

Jer · « **Reply #51 on:** 07:22AM 06/23/2003 »

Mopar claims 14 PSI, but a friend of mine didn't see the gauge go over 12 PSI

OverLord · « **Reply #52 on:** 05:28PM 06/23/2003 »

It seems that they are overstating the boost and understating th HP and Torque. SCC tested the car and got 223 WHP and 250 lb-ft of torque. Dodge claimed 215 hp and 245 lb-ft of torque.

utahteg · « **Reply #53 on:** 05:35PM 06/23/2003 »

Jeremy, he will only read 12 at this elevation, you need to multiply our elevation by the correction factor...sorry I don't have it handy...the book is at work. It's not too bid of a deal on low boost or pressure, but it makes a huge difference when, in my case at work, I have to buy a pump to run at 300 psi.

Elite Rides | Car Forums

Author Topic: Looky what me was in today... (Read 4061 times)