How many actual Wrx drivers ( that know hw to drive awd) have lost to the Srt4 wich can in reality,on the street beat a SpecV or Rsx s
i have a personal record of 5-0 using my friends "stock"WRX versus who knows if they were moded SRT 4's..not even close


Srt's are apitizers


c'mon tell the truth and know one that is afraid to drop at 4k.. its under warrantee and the Srt'4drop high as well


this should be enlightening the real world not magazine racing or a video of who knows what/// lest you forget even the regular wrx is a world class raly champ.. the Srt a girls car with a ricer wing and that smile of "hello' they are known for...gmab

since i've never seen any srt4s around... hmm...
there's a video i saw of a srt4 with temp tags walking a wrx in it...

and the srt4 has more hp and quicker 1/4 times...

runs 14.2
whats a wrx run?

and the srt4 is rated at 215hp at the crank, but puts 220ish to the wheels and 250ish tq...

(per automobile magazine)

it's not just some girls car.

sorry.

and considering there aren't any mods yet available, you didn't race any modded ones.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/t89890.html

the video's there..

the srt4's only hit the dealerships like a month ago, you sure you're not racing regular neons? :hehehe:

and you say 5 here, but in another thread you say you've only raced 3 :confused:

the srt4 has a 100mph trap speed stock, much faster than any stock wrx. any idiot who knows how to shift should be able to waste a stock wrx in a stock srt4 anywhere above 30mph.

thank you... :licker:

around here people got the srt's already acting all bad ass but the car's are not that bad-ass at all, just last week did i take one with my scooby 2.5 rs (with mod's), no biggie.
-Dave
p.s. they're pretty quick and they'll definetly smoke your average civic, hehe.:D

I have the Dodge dealership calling me daily ..would you like me to take a pic at all the Srt available.. and yes they are all he Srt4 with a tiny little boost gauge toyour right.. i say 3 for sure because the 2 other "may have been" Sxt or R/T that were moded and their outward appearance was stock.. but the test driving.. which is the end all be all tells a different truth.. hat speedo doesnot crank up like a Mustang Gt which also trap around 101 stock.. noway no how.. sre you canbe fooled driving the car ,..its light light cars feel faster the tach pulls freely the boost goes to 1 bar firly immediade above 2800 rpm but the SPEEDO.. well i'll tell you like i said before maby its stepping out of my WS6 or th Zr1 or even the Modded Spec V that give me no real impression of the cars capabilities.. a 2.4 turbo.. sorry keep you eye on the speedo..as my nephew was all ooh and awwed the viseral sensation my eye stayed on the speedo climb....
hey you like good for you
i think my spec can chew it up and my Lincoln LS from a roll at 65 mph would spit it out the tail pipes..

I'd but a 1 year old Mustang Gt b4 i'd buy the Srt4.. i nice but not the car that people think.. to much hype.... you see You never driven one.. so hold your comments till you do.. i research before i open my mouth.... You don't think i would love to se a domestic walking the walk.. and as far as Wrx being btter in what respect the Srt interior is great fit and finish is on par .. and why unless yor in snow or constant rain would the Wrx be better? it has AWD and should and can out accelrate a Srt from a stop stock for stockat leat in 85* temps
Like i've said you never address temp senstivity .. ask thee 03 cobra guys about that why a stck 03 cobra making all Hp can only manage a low 13 no beete than a stock N/A Ls1?????? TEMPERATURE

Sorry allow me to be more civil a slow my typing.

the Dealership is Fairbanks Dodge in Coral springs Florida , if you'd like a # i can provide it.. they had a minimum of 20 Srt 4 as of yesterday .. no Blacks but all other colors were available they had alot of yellow aand silver

and i did say ( i'm reiterating) that the last Srt4 i drove felt better than the previous ones.. but i'll repeat again.. when i switched and let my Boy racer Nephew flog it..and as he was impressed so much with its site and sound experience ..all i did the whole time was watch his spedo .. amazinf as he was flogging the hell out of the SRT4 it never got over 70mph.. did it feel faster ..yes but it wasn't faster..
untill they fully release them you may not have the opportunity to drive one.. i hope they feel like the latter car wich did seem t have more punch than the others.. as of now Dodge has only released them to select" fast & furious" markets to see how they are received.. Knowing the Fairbanks manager i got a little inside info .. that dodge was still test marketing the car to see where to sell it..

954-973-3444 Call em.. see how many hot shot Srt4 are just sitting on the lot

and agin overall not a bad car interior exterior.. stereo

I'll say this If the Wrx isn't faster then there is no reason to buy it..!! when you get more for your money from Dodge compare interiors and that alone may do it

Have a Great day and don't forget to dail 10-10-220

ask thee 03 cobra guys about that why a stck 03 cobra making all Hp can only manage a low 13 no beete than a stock N/A Ls1?????? TEMPERATURE

there's also traction issues, considerable amounts of low end torque, track surfaces, gearing, let's get into the issues that make drag racing what it is.

b/c you're not. forced induction cars have less sensitivity to temperature, though cooling between runs helps.

there's so much more to it that you're not addressing, but trying to base it on temperature.

and for god's sake, take your time and proof read everything so we don't have to deciper it.

and you probably want to do the same in your signature, there's some horrible grammar there.

Listen smart guy .. ive addresed all tthose thing on LS1.com.. that the Cobra is geered a bit too steep and all that low end torque would be a detrement to its traction capabilities.. i've told them of impropely geared cars with more hp losing to less hp'red more carefully geared cars..

a car technical performformance is based upon its syergy with hp/tq suspension tires gearing and temp sensitivity

dude i've been racing for 15 years

i don't ned a lesson.. the cars i have now are the slowest i've had in about 7 years but they suit me fine..

i' builfdng another kit Ac Cobra .. with the weight hp and suspension i'll be using it will be the ultimate overall car that i'll own. it will handle ..1.2g+ it will accerate i', figuring with the hp froma 347 s/c stoker 10 second 1/4 the interior will be painstakenly put together with the best Year one and i can find and the suspension
well hell thats the easy part.. Steeeda will provide everything i need..
you act as though i don't know cars.. .. tust me pal i 've had turbo/ s/c nitrous luxury sleeper.. go cart type moster miata w/ a5.0 i think i've covered every configuration .. except for a true Awd monster.. but i live in Florida not really a greeat need for it.. since i can drift any rwd car around a track at will

not to be an asshole or anything, but this isn't ls1.com.

so it sounds like you're saying that it's all about the temp.

if you've not said it here, do so, so we're not questioning it.

i can't read your mind, and i'm not on the sites you're on save for this one.

i'm not quite sure why you feel the need to give me a background on everything you own, like i'm going to respect that, or assume you know what you're talking about.

i can't figure out what you meant to say.

if you don't say anything about the other factors in this thread right here, i'm assuming you're neglecting them.

you've proved that wrong, but it's easier to do it the first time around.

and i'm still going to ask you to proofread what you're typing. take your time and don't get pissy with me.

i've considered a cobra kit car as well, but i don't have the cash... have fun with that...

You've been racing for 15 years, but you haven't been spelling for 15 years have you?

forget about it...
he's gone permanently.

If were talking about the WRX STI it be a joke the ownage the neon would feel! It be a bit more fair with a basic WRX but i think the WRX would win and doesn't the neon lacks an LSD that hurts off the line alot with that much power(i'll leave my HO out of that)

too bad the STI dont have a $20k price tag :(

Originally posted by Ace$nyper
If were talking about the WRX STI it be a joke the ownage the neon would feel! It be a bit more fair with a basic WRX but i think the WRX would win and doesn't the neon lacks an LSD that hurts off the line alot with that much power(i'll leave my HO out of that)

The SRT, LSD or not, will murder a WRX, stock-to-stock.

hydro...ease up on the attitude, man.

Simmer down.

Originally posted by lordvektra
too bad the STI dont have a $20k price tag :(
Too bad neon SRT-4's don't have a 20K pricetag either unless it's been ordered....They're going for dang near 30 grand here...it's rediculous..I'd never pay 30k for a neon..I don't care if it came with a spare set of sprewells and the popes shoe's...

Sup guys. This is my first post and first night reading these forums. I wanted to comment on the 30,000 amount for the SRT-4. I test drove one the other day in Dublin, Ca and its on sale for 18,999 with no dealer mark up either. As far as the test drive goes. It drove fairly well. It seemed to pull a little bit to right quite often when given some gas. The salesman with me was like 20 years old and it was his 3rd day there. So lucky me he was in a mood to try anything for me to buy the car. I ripped through the gears twice and you easily do about 85-90 in 3rd gear. I know the specs say 96mph at 3rd gear redline. Im only 5foot 7 165 lbs and the racing style seats were a very tight fit. The car having no muffler sounds really good. When down shifting you can hear very loud pops. The inside is very plain like a civic or reg. neon but hey... 20 grand and a engine like that you cant complain to much. All in all i love the fact that a american company threw a import style car into the mix worth looking at. It will only make the other companies work harder. I love the rival ways of the wrx and evo that has begun. For me personally im going with the WRX STI over everything including the RX8,evo,350z,is300 ect ect because not only does it have the most horsepower but to me its the most refined of the cars. As they say though.. opinons are like a$$holes. Everyone has one. :smile:

BTW - I have a 99 Eddie Bauer SUV because of my 3 year old daughter. Now that shes grown a little its time for Daddy to get a new toy!!!

well....the SRT-4s r pretty quick if they can beat those STis. wut about the EVO 8 and the NEW STi's, for sure they can beat the SRT-4 if they can hit 13s, but its all about the driver. Have u guys tested out the SRT-4s REAL 1/4 mile time?? im sayin around 14.2 to 14.7 wit a driver, high 13s with a good driver. but i dunno cuz i dont even drive stick.

Lol...This is great..first..A SRT-4 can't really beat ALL Sti's...it sure as hell can't beat a 22B and it sure as hell can't beat every car within the STi chain...The SRT-4 really has no chance at the new STi either..As far as the Lancer Evolution VIII....I don't care..it's a horrible car..I hate it...I'll never like it..And I'll never uderstand what Mitsu was thinking when they were designing it..tsk tsk tsk..

Originally posted by Silver_GTR34
well....the SRT-4s r pretty quick if they can beat those STis. wut about the EVO 8 and the NEW STi's, for sure they can beat the SRT-4 if they can hit 13s, but its all about the driver. Have u guys tested out the SRT-4s REAL 1/4 mile time?? im sayin around 14.2 to 14.7 wit a driver, high 13s with a good driver. but i dunno cuz i dont even drive stick.

There were two guys running them at the track two weeks ago when I went. Both of them were pulling high 14s and low 15s at sea level in 75 degree weather. I was impressed but not wow'd.

High 14's low 15's if you have a broken leg and arm. I was at the track last weekend and I was running at my worst time 14.3. Read up on the SRT a little bit more before you say something like that.

Originally posted by hydro628
High 14's low 15's if you have a broken leg and arm. I was at the track last weekend and I was running at my worst time 14.3. Read up on the SRT a little bit more before you say something like that.

I actually know all about the srt, and since I saw it with MY OWN TWO EYES two weekend ago, no reading is necessary. I didn't say that's all they were capable of, I said THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE RUNNING two weekends ago at Maryland International Raceway. Another board member was there, Civic_gsr_t4 so maybe he saw them too. I don't know what the circumstances were but that's still what they were pulling, allll day long, rather you like it or not. Slips of your 14.3 pass? Where at? Conditions when pulled? And most importantly, what was your MPH?

Don't make an enemy out of me...I already dislike enough srt owners as it is:rolleyes:

If I had a scanner or camera I would be more than happy to show you the 14.3. I hit 98.6 mph for that time, but I ran better times than that.

I saw a badass SRt-4 down in daytona. Just go buy one of those 1-time use cameras from CVS :biggrin2:

SRT-4 are nice, but i rather see the NEW STi or an EVO8 on the road than a SRT-4. no offence to SRT-4 drivers.

Since we're on that subject, here's a direct quote from an SRT owner in their board:

Originally posted by Edward Lovejoy Jr.
What do you mean Supras are out of the SRTs league? The SRT is faster than a stock Supra, check the specs online. And besides, many Supras are old and losing horsepower. I had financing for 40k but chose the SRT anyway, because it's the baddest ass ride available!

Here's the thread:

http://srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4893&perpage=15&pagenumber=9

I don't see how Supra's are runnin 14.2 unless their drivers are...You know..horrible...Because that's what neon SRT-4's run 14.1's and 14.2's..Last time I checked a Supra ran 13.3 in the 400M which is only 7.7 feet less than a real 1320 1/4 mile....Which is no room for .9 seconds.........

Originally posted by carrrnuttt
Since we're on that subject, here's a direct quote from an SRT owner in their board:
Here's the thread:

http://srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4893&perpage=15&pagenumber=9

Hahah, those guys are even more of a joke than I first thought, LOL. That's just absolutely horrible:loser:

Those guys sure are intelligent..I'll tell you..:rolleyes:

once again, where so you stand in this chart hydro?
http://www.scoobymile.com/
and on the other thread, you said you can kick my ass, so here is my mod list just for your reference
Turboxs UTEC engine management, Turboxs FMIC, Blitz SBC-ID, Power Enterprise1818 (same hp rating as a 18g turbo at 400hp), godspeed uppipe and downpipe, HKS carbon titanium catback, STi fuel injectors and fuel pump. Greddy airnix intake, STi tranny and engine mounts and Denso iradium spark plugs heat rage 8, Turboxs launch control ( 8psi at launch, full boost between shifts, kinda like a cheating missing fire system) I am no longer using NOS becuz it is destroying my engine ( knock sensor is going crazy while spraying )
upcoming mod by the end of this summer,
STi 6 speed swap, garrett GT25 turbo (shooting for 400whp), maybe just maybe JE pistons and rods.
best time is at 11's with nos about 1 year ago,
now I am shooting low 12's.
by the end of summer, I should be back to 11's again.
I have great respect of SRT4, but you are making me losing it......

Let's face the facts.
Sure the Neon is all grand and all but it is still a piece of shit...Ever since its first release. just becuase they put a bigger engine in it and highered the gear ratio so it can do 96 in 3rd means shit to me.
The WRX has owned up to its name in every way. And its a beast of a car. Originated for a Rally who can beat that.
I would much rather compare a WRX to a reg neon and the STi i will leave to stomping the SRT.....Oh and for the price difference, i will pay much more for better quality.

Geez..A little hostility goin on here...
The Neon hasn't been a piece of "schiet" since it's debut.....Did you completly forget about the Dodge Neon ACR?...That was yet ANOTHER bargain street killin 4 cylinder car..IT was a great car..and now they have the SRT-4.....Sure..The SXT and R/T wern't ULTIMATE cars..but look at their price tags?...How many ULTIMATE Cars can you buy brand new for 11 thousand dollars like you could almost ANY model neon in the past?......Now the SRT-4....Only 19,995 .....Turbocharged 2.4Liter Magnum 4 cylinder .....OH wow..it lacks a LSD...And it STILL pulls 14.2 in the 1/4 mile.....it's a One wheel wonder...and it lives WELL beyond any previous neons expectations...And it completly blew me out of the water when I first read it's specs....Don't clown on a car as bad as you have...because no car in the history of automobiles has had a unblemished past...All models have strong points and weak points...A Neon's strong point is that it's a bad azz car..It's weak point..Is it's a NEON...I can deal with people thinking my car is less than what it really is....Aslong as my car can wax their cars...

---Edit---

Have you ever ridden in one, or raced one?...If not...leave your bias opinions at the door.

Oh god, screw you guys for reminding me about srtforums :lol: :lol: :lol:

I registered the name eXtremeSRT on there a good while ago because of some of their stupidity I found linked on another forum I had to post about, and I've gone back a few other times for more stupidity. Now I've just posted again, I know I'm gonna regret it cuz I'm gonna get sucked back into there :lol:

I have nothing against Neon SRT4's, in fact I wish somebody I knew would buy one so I could drive it around :tongue: but some of those drivers really need to get their heads back into reality. There are a few good people over on that board, but they get overrun by the idiots.

Man, this bugs me. These guys are giving us Mopar people a bad name. The SRT-4 is a great car for the price but some of the claims these people are making is pure bullshit.

I agree, there are a lot of stupid SRT-4 owners out there.

Originally posted by Shinez
Geez..A little hostility goin on here...
The Neon hasn't been a piece of "schiet" since it's debut.....Did you completly forget about the Dodge Neon ACR?...That was yet ANOTHER bargain street killin 4 cylinder car..IT was a great car..and now they have the SRT-4.....Sure..The SXT and R/T wern't ULTIMATE cars..but look at their price tags?...How many ULTIMATE Cars can you buy brand new for 11 thousand dollars like you could almost ANY model neon in the past?......Now the SRT-4....Only 19,995 .....Turbocharged 2.4Liter Magnum 4 cylinder .....OH wow..it lacks a LSD...And it STILL pulls 14.2 in the 1/4 mile.....it's a One wheel wonder...and it lives WELL beyond any previous neons expectations...And it completly blew me out of the water when I first read it's specs....Don't clown on a car as bad as you have...because no car in the history of automobiles has had a unblemished past...All models have strong points and weak points...A Neon's strong point is that it's a bad azz car..It's weak point..Is it's a NEON...I can deal with people thinking my car is less than what it really is....Aslong as my car can wax their cars...

---Edit---

Have you ever ridden in one, or raced one?...If not...leave your bias opinions at the door.

Ridden in one? Aye
Raced one? Aye
Got spanked in one? aye
Spanked someone in it? Aye
Does this make me like it or the owners? NAY

No one mentioned the owners....I mean come on..you saw how we were talkin about the owners before......

Originally posted by flylwsi
since i've never seen any srt4s around... hmm...
there's a video i saw of a srt4 with temp tags walking a wrx in it...

and the srt4 has more hp and quicker 1/4 times...

runs 14.2
whats a wrx run?

and the srt4 is rated at 215hp at the crank, but puts 220ish to the wheels and 250ish tq...

(per automobile magazine)

it's not just some girls car.

sorry.

and considering there aren't any mods yet available, you didn't race any modded ones.


LMAO. Right man, you really think a FWD car with 215HP at the crank puts down 250lbs/ft of torque? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I don't remmeber the last time a car could have more HP at the wheels than the crank. Even if there were no friction to the ground you still wouldn't put down the full 215. :eek7:

Go check your facts, man. :rolleyes:

I don't know..maybe if they have NOS brand Axles or something...:bigthumb: :loser:

Originally posted by TheSyndicate



LMAO. Right man, you really think a FWD car with 215HP at the crank puts down 250lbs/ft of torque? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I don't remmeber the last time a car could have more HP at the wheels than the crank. Even if there were no friction to the ground you still wouldn't put down the full 215. :eek7:

Go check your facts, man. :rolleyes:

Check your facts, SRT4's regularly dyno 220hp and 250 torque to the wheels. Just because they're RATED at 215 flywheel doesn't mean that's what they atcually make.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl


Check your facts, SRT4's regularly dyno 220hp and 250 torque to the wheels. Just because they're RATED at 215 flywheel doesn't mean that's what they atcually make.



I think the term "underrated" fits well here. Wait.. is that even spelled right? Oh well. It's crazy that the car industry is starting to underrate cars now!:rolleyes:

you guys are so far off the mark here.

this has been gone over so many times it really makes me sick.

and you're telling the wrong person to "check your facts".

i live by facts. you should check yours.

"rated" at 215 crank hp, but it somehow puts about 220 to the wheels in every magazine's tests...

"rated" at 245 ft/lbs of tq at the crank, but it somehow puts 250ish to the wheels in every magazine's test.s


do you know what the word underrated means?

do you know about the 60's muscle cars and their ratings on hp? which were regularly about 50-75 hp shy of what they really made to keep ins. co's happy?

or the skyline in japan with **cough** 280hp? right. independent testing shows about 300 or so to the wheels on a lot of gt-rs.

get your facts right?

hmm...


ej20...

you say you've got the sti trans, and a turbo that makes the same hp as an 18g at 400hp, but you want to swap for an sti trans and gt25 that'll push you to 400hp?

explain... i'm confused.

Fly, I know it's hard to sense sarcasm through mere words over the internet, but I was being sarcastic. I love sarcasm. I am sarcasm.

Originally posted by fatninja19




I think the term "underrated" fits well here. Wait.. is that even spelled right? Oh well. It's crazy that the car industry is starting to underrate cars now!:rolleyes:

Nah, Chrysler I know has been doing it since the 60s.

Was just being sarcastic, Poly. :smile:

Sarcasm is great but it doesnt work to well on line so lets not try it...And if you do put sarcasm in (). it will help i think.

On the average an SRT driver is gonna have alot more problems launching the car then a WRX driver. I mean FWD w/ 215 fwhp. Can you say wheel hop. Let alone if the driver can get the car to track straight. I've heard of the "dollar mod" which will bring the car into the mid 13's. some guy on LS1.com has one. I'm sure he will be willing to race a WRX driver that can race at California Speedway. Stock for stock it is faster then the WRX, not to mention that it's forged internals can handle alot of boost.

fatninja...

just to clarify, my post wasn't directed at you...

it was directed at the post you were talking about...

in regards to tracking straight...

it's interesting to note that the srt4 doesn't have a limited slip in it from what i remember... ( i may be wrong there)

but anyways...

Ladyluke, nah.. I think i'll just keep wiht my sarcasm. People who are used to me will understand, and the others that aren't can just think whatever.

2000z28, I've also heard many people having a hard time launching their WRX's... Well at least poeple who care about the transmission and such. My friend complains about bogging the launch a lot. Idunno.. guess they're just not pro's like me:wink: (now that was very very sarcastic)


fly, coooooool.

since i've never seen any srt4s around... hmm...
there's a video i saw of a srt4 with temp tags walking a wrx in it...

and the srt4 has more hp and quicker 1/4 times...

runs 14.2
whats a wrx run?

and the srt4 is rated at 215hp at the crank, but puts 220ish to the wheels and 250ish tq...

(per automobile magazine)

it's not just some girls car.

sorry.

and considering there aren't any mods yet available, you didn't race any modded ones.



my wrx runs 14 flat 227 at crank and puts out more hp and tq and thats on my bad days, i walk those cars all day

Ladyluke, nah.. I think i'll just keep wiht my sarcasm. People who are used to me will understand, and the others that aren't can just think whatever.

2000z28, I've also heard many people having a hard time launching their WRX's... Well at least poeple who care about the transmission and such. My friend complains about bogging the launch a lot. Idunno.. guess they're just not pro's like me:wink: (now that was very very sarcastic)


fly, coooooool.

i launch at 1500 when i know i can beat u and 4000 when i have second thoughts and i almost never mess up or blew my trans.

my wrx runs 14 flat 227 at crank and puts out more hp and tq and thats on my bad days, i walk those cars all day

Are you sure the SRT-4 drivers aren't sleeping while you race them ? I just got done reading another article in motortrend about the SRT-4 and they ran a 13.89 STOCK !!! It is harder to get a WRX to go a 14 flat than a SRT-4 because of the AWD. I'm sorry to break it to you but a SRT-4 will take you. You can deny that all you want but fact is the SRT-4 is faster than a WRX stock for stock. And by the way I like WRX's way better than SRT-4 but it is the way it is.

my wrx runs 14 flat 227 at crank and puts out more hp and tq and thats on my bad days, i walk those cars all day

04 SRT4's run mid 13's, and even an 03 will tear you up from a roll any day and from a standstill if you make one small mistake.

Wow...lot's of misinformation in this thread. I just bought a 2004 SRT-4 2 weeks ago. I looked at the WRX for a long time and test drove each car 2-3 times before I finally made my decision.

AWD is very cool IMO, but I couldn't justify the added expense considering I have an SUV for the occasional winter trip up the mountains anyways. On top of that, and speaking of the SRT Forums, there is a member in there who owns both a '02 WRX and an '03 SRT-4. Aside from aftermarket rims he hasn't done any significant modding to either cars. He loves them both but has said very matter-of-factly more than once that his Dodge is a little faster than his Subaru...from a roll and off the line.

I think the real debate right now is EVO vs. SRT-4. It sounds like the '03 SRT-4's may be a little slower than the EVO while the '04 SRT-4's may be a little quicker. Keep in mind we're talking about .1 and .2 seconds in a 1/4 mile...so it's gonna be a driver's race everytime anyhow.

I think the real debate right now is EVO vs. SRT-4. It sounds like the '03 SRT-4's may be a little slower than the EVO while the '04 SRT-4's may be a little quicker. Keep in mind we're talking about .1 and .2 seconds in a 1/4 mile...so it's gonna be a driver's race everytime anyhow.

:sly:

'03's are a lot slower, '04s are... still slower :lol:

i read a test about the two cars before, if i remember correctly it saids that the wrx barely beats the srt-4 in the 1/4, but after that the srt-4 just passes it easily.

:sly:

'03's are a lot slower, '04s are... still slower :lol:

I'd sure like to race one and see. Both cars dyno almost identical horsepower at the wheels, the EVO has AWD, and the SRT-4 has more torque. Like I said...it would be a driver's race. I belive EVO and SRT-4 owners could agree on that much.

I went to an event called Jap Fest. They were racing all sorts of very modified Japanesse cars. Let me put it this way, the only car there that impressed me were the EVOs.

The EVOs going around corners, were rock soild, while all the other cars (GTRs, RX-7s, WRXs, Supras, 300Zs, etc) all had body roll. I am not talking about just one or two EVOs ether. There must have been 12-15 of them. They all handled like that. Like I said, very impressed.

There was one there putting out over 500 to the wheels, with a very docile idle as well. So, they can be tuned for very good power.

My 2cents.

Alright just to clear some things up. No matter if 03 or 04 a SRT-4 is not gonna touch an EVO period. Just looking at the numbers out of Motortrend (which is in my opinion the best magazine) the EVO does 0-60 in 4.59 and the 1/4 mile in 13.08. Those are the actual numbers that they came up with and if anyone does not believe me read motortrend June 03. Now the numbers for the SRT-4 for 03 are 13.99 for the 1/4 mile and I'm not sure what the 0-60 was. Something like 5.6sec. The 04 was only slightly quicker and turned the 1/4 mile in 13.89.
I won't even go into handling because the EVO would make the SRT-4 cry. So much for those two cars.
As for the WRX being slightly faster through the 1/4 mile that is untrue. The WRX will do the 1/4 mile in 14.1 which is still slower than the SRT-4. The only place the WRX edges the out the SRT-4 in acceleration is 0-60, which takes the WRX 5.4 seconds.
I hope this cleared some things up and for any non-believers, this is all based on facts from a very respectable car magazine.

the evo has more peak torque than the srt-4. the evo has 273 lb ft at 3500 rpm, and the srt-4 has 245 lb ft at 3200 rpm. i dont need to hear about this displacement bs, and how you can get more out of the srt4, im talking stock.

I think the real debate right now is EVO vs. SRT-4. It sounds like the '03 SRT-4's may be a little slower than the EVO while the '04 SRT-4's may be a little quicker. Keep in mind we're talking about .1 and .2 seconds in a 1/4 mile...so it's gonna be a driver's race everytime anyhow.

now someone has went a little over board, evo-8 will destroy the srt-4 no matter what year, and so will the sti.

and in my opinion the wrx would start of faster but the srt-4 would win in the end of the 1/4

Power and times are one thing. Driving them is were you will seperate all of them.

Here is a thread of EVO 8 dynos...

http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?threadid=35596

Here is a thread of SRT-4 dynos...

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3475

You guys can argue all you want about which factory horsepower and torque ratings, but dynos provide empirical data that is not debatable. That being said, I really like both cars...especially the way the EVO handles and the way the SRT-4 sounds. Stock whp is nearly the same for '04 SRT-4's and EVO 8's...around 220-235 depending on boost and temperature. Stock torque is better in the SRT-4 whether it's an '03 or '04...usually between 240-265 depnding on boost and temperature. Stock torque at the wheels for a stock EVO is consistently under 230.

I don't know who would win a race. Probably the all wheel drive EVO if the SRT-4 driver didn't have a great launch.

And to that report of an EVO doing a 13.1 quarter mile of the showroom floor...I call bullshit! ;)

Steiner,

Dynos are the least reliable data that you can use.

You guys can argue all you want about which factory horsepower and torque ratings, but dynos provide empirical data that is not debatable.

You can argue all you want about hp numbers, but EVO's are still a LOT faster than SRT4's.

EVO owner on another forum

60: 1.72
1/4: 13.02
ets: 103.4


edit: ground kit is my only mod

You Boys, have not seen an EVO in action, at least one that has been modified. If that was the case, there would be no debate.

The HP/weight ratio is nearly identical on the EVO's and SRT-4's so it has the making of a good race. I think lots of people get taken in by the "EVO vs. Neon" thing and don't give credit where credit's due. The EVO is in a different class of car...AWD, amazing handling, etc...but it doesn't out class the SRT-4 in the straight-away. The Dodge is lighter and torquier. Maybe I'll race one if I can find one, but this thread is going nowhere.

on the dyno, the srt-4 might pull same number of torque or more than the evo, i dont know about hp, but the evos gonna actually use most of that power on take off, cause of awd. the srt 4 is dynoed on only two wheels without the driveshaft, and all that stuff that goes to the rear wheels, so of course its gonna have less loss, but out on the streets or track, its just doesnt have enough grip like the evo does. when the evo doesnt need all that traction anymore, i think most of its power is sent to its rear wheels. now on the highway, or high speed rolling acceleration, the srt 4 has the advantage, and im sure most of you know why.

im sure that the evo is faster than the srt 4 on 1/4, theres enough gap between all the times, and trap speeds that ive seen, that its obviously faster.

Ok, this might settle this a bit...

There are a lot of race stories in the SRTforums where basically stock SRT's either keep up or walk stock EVOs.

You might say they were biased, so I went ahead and searched for a race told by an EVO owner himself.

Here's the story told in evolutionm.net:
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?threadid=39525&highlight=SRT

Same story in SRTforums.com:
http://www.srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15349

You might say that the SRT the EVO raced was modded, since it had the stage1 tune...well, the 2004 SRT-4's come with the stage1 tune STOCK, with the advantage of an LSD.

It's a driver's race.

BTW, to add, Armando (SpyderEclipseGst) went to SpeedWorld here in AZ last Wednesday, and told me story of how his buddie's EVO got chased down in the 1/4 by a 2003 SRT where, despite the obvious advantage the EVO had from the start, the SRT managed to chase it down and actually cross the finish before the EVO. Both cars were modded, I believe.

Edit: Just as I know of stock EVO's running mid-14's, and even 15's at the track, stock 2003 SRT-4's have managed 13.7's on the stock tires. Again, driver's race between a 2004 SRT-4 and a 2003 Lancer EVO.

I am pretty sure the EVOs going to the states are putting out less hp that ones they get here in Europe.

Edit: Just as I know of stock EVO's running mid-14's, and even 15's at the track, stock 2003 SRT-4's have managed 13.7's on the stock tires. Again, driver's race between a 2004 SRT-4 and a 2003 Lancer EVO.

Comparing the best possible times of an SRT4 with some monkey who can't drive in an EVO just isn't fair. I've seen an SRT4 run high 13's on our 1000 ft track repeatedly, my TS was getting 12.9 with just an intake. So can I say that 2.5TS's are faster than SRT4's now?

The HP/weight ratio is nearly identical on the EVO's and SRT-4's so it has the making of a good race.

You put too much stock in power/weight ratio. There are a grap of other factors. EVO's are faster, deal with it.

SRT4's are great cars, I never said they're not. They'd probably be my 3rd or 4th pick for the $20,000 range. But you're trying to say they're even with a car that's almost a full second faster. Stock EVO's can even trap faster than I've seen any stock SRT4 trap, so it's not just the AWD launch.

Alright just to clear some things up. No matter if 03 or 04 a SRT-4 is not gonna touch an EVO period. Just looking at the numbers out of Motortrend (which is in my opinion the best magazine) the EVO does 0-60 in 4.59 and the 1/4 mile in 13.08. Those are the actual numbers that they came up with and if anyone does not believe me read motortrend June 03. Now the numbers for the SRT-4 for 03 are 13.99 for the 1/4 mile and I'm not sure what the 0-60 was. Something like 5.6sec. The 04 was only slightly quicker and turned the 1/4 mile in 13.89.
I won't even go into handling because the EVO would make the SRT-4 cry. So much for those two cars.
As for the WRX being slightly faster through the 1/4 mile that is untrue. The WRX will do the 1/4 mile in 14.1 which is still slower than the SRT-4. The only place the WRX edges the out the SRT-4 in acceleration is 0-60, which takes the WRX 5.4 seconds.
I hope this cleared some things up and for any non-believers, this is all based on facts from a very respectable car magazine.

Yes a respectable car magazine that has had a bias against Chrysler. Also I was just reading their magazine last night with the GTO on the cover and they had two 1/4 mile times listed for the 2004 SRT-4 and they stated that traction was a problem with the new tires and that they were worse than the 2003 SRT-4's stock tires. Don't fool yourself it is a drivers race for the 1/4 mile. However; I will say that the SRT-4 won't be able to oust it on the track.

A stock 2003 SRT-4 will give an Evo a run for its money, with the Stage 1 you will be beating them, with the Stage 2 you will be dropping them, and with the Stage 3 you will be blowing their doors off. Too bad the Stage 3 isn't street legal. The 2004s come with bigger injectors and an LSD from Quafie. Don't think that the Evo is unbeatable by a car much less exspensive than it. I love the Evo, but it can be beaten the SRT-4. It is a drivers race. I would love to see a side by side with the 2004 SRT-4 and the Evo 8.

why is everyone getting all these lower times for the srt-4, and even the evo? i hope you guys arent being biased, cause im sure as hell not. of all the quickest times i ve seen with good drivers, the evos usually faster in the 1/4, of course considering the srt-4 being stock without those stage upgrades. with street races, your not always sure if you re actually going to the 1/4 mile mark, maybe you re going pass the 1/4 mile distance where the srt-4 has the advantage, and it ll probably pass the evo.

I think this has now officially become the SRT-4 vs. EVO thread. Sorry for hijacking it, but it's an interesting debate nonetheless. Anybody have an EVO that wouldn't mind racing? ;)

if both stock then i think wrx vs srt-4 is the better comparison, cause ive read in some articles that the wrx was able to edge out the srt-4 in the 1/4, but then after that the srt-4 passes it. if you did srt-4 with stage upgrade, then it would be better to compare it to the evo, or sti. the evo will definately beat the original stock srt-4.

Just as I know of stock EVO's running mid-14's, and even 15's at the track, stock 2003 SRT-4's have managed 13.7's on the stock tires.

I have never heard of times anywhere near that for a new EVO.
All the times I've ever seen for an EVO where below 13.5.
I'm not just basing this on motortrend either. This is from actual people that have raced it. I do believe though that magazines are a good source because they do basically the same thing we would do if we had those kind of cars. Also any magazine you look at the EVO does the 1/4 mile just about 1 second faster than the SRT-4.
IMO it's not a drivers race unless one of them has never driven a stick before. I stand by my oppinion that the EVO will take the SRT-4 in a race everytime.

I have never heard of times anywhere near that for a new EVO.
All the times I've ever seen for an EVO where below 13.5.
I'm not just basing this on motortrend either. This is from actual people that have raced it. I do believe though that magazines are a good source because they do basically the same thing we would do if we had those kind of cars. Also any magazine you look at the EVO does the 1/4 mile just about 1 second faster than the SRT-4.
IMO it's not a drivers race unless one of them has never driven a stick before. I stand by my oppinion that the EVO will take the SRT-4 in a race everytime.

That car in MT was a ringer, plain and simple.

In case you don't know, I lurk at evolutionm.net, and am a member at SRTforums.com.

I have yet to see a stock run by an EVO come close to a 13.08, and even then, they are track prepped (stuff taken out, tire-pressures played with, etc.).

As for the really slow times I reported from EVO's usually come from the drivers. I have also seen them reported by the domestic track-rats that have nothing to lose by lying about it.

Here's one from an owner himself:
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?threadid=42731

And another one:
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?threadid=42794

They got 14.09 @ 95.4mph and 14.366 @ 96.28mph. SRT-4's that get those times usually trap about 100+. That tells you that SRT's would be chasing them down at this point, and anything further, would be leaving them.

Here's a lightly-modded EVO run at almost sea-level with a 1.85 60-ft:
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?threadid=44548

13.16 @ 104.24...if he can bring the 60 down to 1.7, he might get a 13-flat, but these times/traps are achieved with abusing the hell out of that AWD. I think we can all agree that a car's true power is better estimated by the trap-speed than the E.T.

Here's a stock 2003 SRT run:
http://www.srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21933

14.01 @ 100mph

Another one:
http://www.srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22064

13.7 @ 100mph with a 2.079 60-ft.

And another one:
http://www.srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20863

14.3 @ 104mph

Don't forget, these are all 2003's with about 10-20hp LESS than 2004's.

I am not saying all these as some fan-boy either, as I joined-up in SRTforums to keep some of the kids in there in check, as some of them tend to think that the SRT is the fastest ever. I didn't believe the EVO kills either, until I actually bucked-up and learned about the SRT.

Don't get me wrong, if given a free choice, I'd pick the EVO anyday, but if I had to finance a car, the SRT would be my choice, as it saves me considerable money.

Ya, but in the end its still a Neon. Sorry, but until Dodge changes the body style, which I wish they would, I would spen the extra cash for the EVO.

Bang for the buck the Neon gets the nod.

"It's still a Neon" is something I guess I'll have to learn to live with. If somebody had told me 5 or 10 years ago that I'd be the proud owner of a Dodge fricken' Neon I would have told them they were off their rocker. I owned a '66 Barracuda in High School and was a "there's no substitute for cubic inches" kind of guy. This SRT-4 has given me an appreciation for the other side of the coin...13-14 second quarter miles and 25+ mpg. The WRX Sti was my first choice once my insurance confirmed my '02 Spec V was a total, but I'm in the middle of planning a wedding right now. The price difference between say the $27.5k EVO, $30k Sti, and $21k SRT-4 is pretty significant, but at this time it's money better spent elsewhere. I don't regret my purchase. The SRT-4 is conversation starter. Good or bad, every car guy seems to have an opinion on it.

The 13.0 I posted on the last page was got from a search on evolutionm, I didn't spend a whole lot of time looking for the absolute fastest time for a stock EVO on there, I just posted the 1st sub-13.3 I found, which happened to be a 13.0.

I'm not saying anything about which car is a better value (EVO still IMO), I'm just saying the EVO is faster. Given the choice, I'd save money and get an EVO or STi. If I had to stay in the SRT4 price range, I'd get a Mazdaspeed Protege or another Impreza. It has nothing to do with NOT liking the SRT4, the other cars I just like more. If I was handed the keys to an SRT4 I'd be giddy as a schoolgirl (ghey moment of the day over :biggrin: ). I've been trying to convince one of my friends to buy an SRT4, since I'm not gonna get one, this way I at least get to play with it.

Ya, but in the end its still a Neon. Sorry, but until Dodge changes the body style, which I wish they would, I would spen the extra cash for the EVO.

Bang for the buck the Neon gets the nod.

Just because it looks similar to a Neon does not mean that it is just a Neon with a turbo. I happen to think it looks pretty damn good just like the Evo looks a lot like a Lancer. That is like saying oh, it is still a Lance, or oh, its still an Impreza.

Steiner,

Thats just it, the car has out of the box speed. It just needs a make over, big time. The look is well outdated, that is all I am saying. IMO

Just because it looks similar to a Neon does not mean that it is just a Neon with a turbo. I happen to think it looks pretty damn good just like the Evo looks a lot like a Lancer. That is like saying oh, it is still a Lance, or oh, its still an Impreza.


Ya but Dodge really did not make a big effort to change the look of the SRT. And is the Evo based off the same chassis as the lancer like the SRT shares the same chassis as the Neon?

Ya but Dodge really did not make a big effort to change the look of the SRT. And is the Evo based off the same chassis as the lancer like the SRT shares the same chassis as the Neon?

Yes it is. They simply take the same chassis and add new weld points to stiffen them up. Dodge did it with the SRT-4, Mitsubishi did it with the Evo, and Subaru did it with the WRX and STi. It ends up being about 60% different from the original, on the SRT-4 anyhow.

Here's another story of a stock STi, which we can all agree, is faster than the Evo, against a stock SRT-4. Story is told by the STi owner:
http://www.srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23628

And the STi still pulled away, from a 60 mph roll even. No AWD launch, just a lot of drivetrain loss.

When I see a stock SRT4 pull a 13.5 or quicker, then I'll concede that, in a drag race, it's at least in the same ballpark as an STi or EVO.

And "stage" upgrades aren't stock. They're Mopar parts, they don't come on the car from the factory. They're like TRD parts or Nismo or Ford Racing parts.

That guy's SRT-4 is stock. You don't need Stage 1, 2, 3 or anything to powershift. He has...well Stage Zero I guess. Unfortunately those SRT forums can sometimes be a breeding ground for 16 year olds with outrageous misinformation.

That car in MT was a ringer, plain and simple.


Is that an assumption or how do you know that ? I hear people say this kind of thing all the time but what are they basing it off of ? Personally I don't believe it but who knows maybe you're right. Maybe you know a guy that works there or something. I for one am still (no matter what anyone says) gonna stick with my previous posts that I believe the EVO is faster and not just based on what I've read but also what I've been told by people that have witnessed them at the track.

And "stage" upgrades aren't stock. They're Mopar parts, they don't come on the car from the factory. They're like TRD parts or Nismo or Ford Racing parts.


But the 04 already come stock with the "stage 1" kit on there. Bigger injectors and slightly more aggressive tuning(I think..). Plus a LSD. Is it a Qualfie unit??

But the 04 already come stock with the "stage 1" kit on there. Bigger injectors and slightly more aggressive tuning(I think..). Plus a LSD. Is it a Qualfie unit??

Yeah it is.

Just because it looks similar to a Neon does not mean that it is just a Neon with a turbo. I happen to think it looks pretty damn good just like the Evo looks a lot like a Lancer. That is like saying oh, it is still a Lance, or oh, its still an Impreza.

but the lancer evo, and the sti looks a lot more different to their base model counter parts, than the srt-4. like for the evo, its whole side is different, making it a wider car with wider tracks, and the front lights are wider. if you put an evo next to its base model counterpart, it looks a lot more different than an srt-4 next to a neon. i still think the srt-4 looks pretty good though.

And the STi still pulled away, from a 60 mph roll even. No AWD launch, just a lot of drivetrain loss.

It pulled ONE CAR ON AN STi to 140mph, when an STi usually pulls an Evo 2-4 cars at those speeds. Also, we don't know if he ran an '03 SRT or an '04...'04's are the topic of discussion here, as it has been documented that '04s make more HP than the '03 SRTs.

When I see a stock SRT4 pull a 13.5 or quicker, then I'll concede that, in a drag race, it's at least in the same ballpark as an STi or EVO.

So what ballparks did the Evo guys that ran low 14's come from? Besides, the 2004s (the topic of discussion here) haven't been proven yet, as most of them are probably still in their breaking-in stages. I believe 13.7 has been achieved with a stock 2003 SRT...who knows how much the extra 20HP (up to) and the LSD will help the 2004s on a track.

And "stage" upgrades aren't stock. They're Mopar parts, they don't come on the car from the factory. They're like TRD parts or Nismo or Ford Racing parts.

Like fatninja said, most of the S1 tune is already in the 2004s out of the factory.

but the lancer evo, and the sti looks a lot more different to their base model counter parts, than the srt-4. like for the evo, its whole side is different, making it a wider car with wider tracks, and the front lights are wider. if you put an evo next to its base model counterpart, it looks a lot more different than an srt-4 next to a neon. i still think the srt-4 looks pretty good though.

True, but put an Evo next to the OZ Rally Edition Lancer, they look quite similar.

I checked out evolutionm.net today and there are plenty guys on there that run low 13's in a stock evo. with $300 worth of mods they run mid 12's !! A lot of guys there are saying that learning to drive the EVO is key. So if some guy just bought an EVO and doesn't know the first thing about how to drive it then yes a SRT-4 is gonna beat him. But with equal drivers the EVO WILL beat the SRT-4.

It pulled ONE CAR ON AN STi to 140mph

Tonight we went for it again, but this time, from about 60 (now my car has about 1600 miles). I was in 3rd gear at around 3k RPMs. We hit it and I pulled about a car in front up to 140mph when we shut down.

He's saying the STi pulled a length ahead, right?

So what ballparks did the Evo guys that ran low 14's come from?

Just cuz they can't drive the car right isn't the cars fault. I beat a Viper GTS with a bad driver who did nothing but sit there and spin the tires once, but I'm not gonna say it's a "drivers race" between me and a Viper.

Besides, the 2004s (the topic of discussion here) haven't been proven yet, as most of them are probably still in their breaking-in stages. I believe 13.7 has been achieved with a stock 2003 SRT...who knows how much the extra 20HP (up to) and the LSD will help the 2004s on a track.

Like fatninja said, most of the S1 tune is already in the 2004s out of the factory.

Well, the '04's may or may not be a different story. But as it is, the only thing an EVO owner needs to worry about from a stock '03 is going from a hig speed roll.

True, but put an Evo next to the OZ Rally Edition Lancer, they look quite similar.

the oz is still basically like the base model lancer. the evos lights, and fenders all around are still different.

Y does everyone always go off topic. Who cares what it looks like. The neon and ST4 are very simmilar, the Lancer and LANCER EVO look similar. Who the f*** cares . The point is an EVo would beat a SR4. Hands down. But the problem is the drivers. If the guy cant drive then it could go either way. The peopel on here argue more than my gf.
DAM

Tim

...The peopel on here argue more than my gf.
DAM

Tim

I thought it actually sounded like more of an intelligent discussion irregardless of where people stood. People have been posting some good info to back up their opinions. You didn't though.

Y does everyone always go off topic. Who cares what it looks like. The neon and ST4 are very simmilar, the Lancer and LANCER EVO look similar. Who the f*** cares . The point is an EVo would beat a SR4. Hands down. But the problem is the drivers. If the guy cant drive then it could go either way. The peopel on here argue more than my gf.
DAM

Tim

Appearance became another topic due to phrases like "... but you're still driving a Neon."

A neon is a neon and a lancer is a lancer. There in different states of tune but they are the same vehicles, despite modificatins to there apperance and mechanicals:)

Tim

Found a good, credible post in the SRT forums. The race is a stock '04 SRT-4 vs. an EVO 8. Somebody in the EVO apparently videotaped the race, but I doubt that tape will materialize. ;)

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28002

Sounds like EVO from a dig and SRT-4 from a roll.

well there are several videos of srt4 just murdering evos...true they were a bit modified...but srt4 take so well to mods its ridiculous...1500 $ and you'll be almost mid 12's

still if i would have 8k more available i would get the evo

however between an srt4 and a wrx i would get the srt...i drove them back to back and the torque curve on the srt is so smooth its not even funny plus its very nimble and brakes amazingly

the wrx on the other hand was more composed on the freeway but if felt just a bit too heavy for my tastes

To stay on topic--
An Srt-4 will walk a Wrx (stock for stock). From a dead stop a Wrx will jump out to a .3-.5 sec lead to 60 feet.

Actually '03 Srt4's put out more hp to the wheels than they were rated at(according to Jackson racing and I believe SCC Mag.). So I'm not convinced that Dodge gave the '04 too much extra power.

As for the Evo--any true Evo owner/enthusiast will tell you that this car wasn't truely made to be a drag racing car. This car handles unbelievably--the steering is light, short and crisp, and the gearing is very short for a turbo car. When going to the dragstrip, my trap speeds are very close to SRT4's; but my ETs are .3-.5 secs quicker due to the launch. It's a great feeling to launch an Evo and hook up right away-the Srt4's were peeling out almost all of 1st gear.

By the way--my Evo looks almost exactly like an OZ Lancer---except for:the bulging fenders, Enkei 17's, Brembo calipers, hood, intercooler, front bumper, front grill, rear window wiper--otherwise-it looks the same.

To stay on topic--
An Srt-4 will walk a Wrx (stock for stock). From a dead stop a Wrx will jump out to a .3-.5 sec lead to 60 feet.

Actually '03 Srt4's put out more hp to the wheels than they were rated at(according to Jackson racing and I believe SCC Mag.). So I'm not convinced that Dodge gave the '04 too much extra power.

As for the Evo--any true Evo owner/enthusiast will tell you that this car wasn't truely made to be a drag racing car. This car handles unbelievably--the steering is light, short and crisp, and the gearing is very short for a turbo car. When going to the dragstrip, my trap speeds are very close to SRT4's; but my ETs are .3-.5 secs quicker due to the launch. It's a great feeling to launch an Evo and hook up right away-the Srt4's were peeling out almost all of 1st gear.

By the way--my Evo looks almost exactly like an OZ Lancer---except for:the bulging fenders, Enkei 17's, Brembo calipers, hood, intercooler, front bumper, front grill, rear window wiper--otherwise-it looks the same.

You own a nice car man. I love those EVO's. As far as the differences between '03 and '04 SRT-4's: The '03 puts down about 215-220 whp out of the factory. The '04, like mine, puts down about 225-235 whp out of the factory. The SRT-4 got a LSD for '04. The '04 already has the Mopar Stage 1 injectors from the factory, but an '03 w/Stage 1 (injectors and ECM) will beat an '04 in the 1/4 mile by about .2 or .3 seconds depending on the driver. That being said, an '04 with Mopar Stage 1 (just the ECM) will beat an '03 Stage 1 SRT-4 by about .1 or .2 seconds in the 1/4 mile. Stage 1 costs about $350 despite the year of the car. The beauty of Stage 1 isn't neccesarily the horsepower gains (about 15-25whp depending on the year of the car), but rather how the engine's torque curve is broadened.

How is the aftermarket support so far for the EVO?

http://www.arimport.com/pics/srt4.JPG

:lol:

To stay on topic--
An Srt-4 will walk a Wrx (stock for stock). From a dead stop a Wrx will jump out to a .3-.5 sec lead to 60 feet.

Actually '03 Srt4's put out more hp to the wheels than they were rated at(according to Jackson racing and I believe SCC Mag.). So I'm not convinced that Dodge gave the '04 too much extra power.

As for the Evo--any true Evo owner/enthusiast will tell you that this car wasn't truely made to be a drag racing car. This car handles unbelievably--the steering is light, short and crisp, and the gearing is very short for a turbo car. When going to the dragstrip, my trap speeds are very close to SRT4's; but my ETs are .3-.5 secs quicker due to the launch. It's a great feeling to launch an Evo and hook up right away-the Srt4's were peeling out almost all of 1st gear.

By the way--my Evo looks almost exactly like an OZ Lancer---except for:the bulging fenders, Enkei 17's, Brembo calipers, hood, intercooler, front bumper, front grill, rear window wiper--otherwise-it looks the same.

and the front lights, the shape of the lights are different, its wider and more angular. the shape of the rear lights are the same i think, the only difference is that the evo has euros/altezzas, you must have not had your car very long?

OoNismooO--I can go on and on about the differences between the Evo and OZ--someone above pointed out they look similar.


Steiner--nice choice in cars--I bet you're glad you waited till '04. That's a great ride. As for my Evo--there is good aftermarket support(because of the 4g63 engine). The only problem is getting dyno time for fuel tuning(AWD). So far I have a 3" SS Turbo back exhaust, MBC, Intake.

I'd take the WRX over the SRT4 because the WRX has RWD biased AWD were as the SRT4 has FWD (Also known as the worst set up EVER!) I trust Subaru's motor more than I trust Dodges. Subaru has just been making sport compacts longer.

I'd take the WRX over the SRT4 because the WRX has RWD biased AWD were as the SRT4 has FWD (Also known as the worst set up EVER!) I trust Subaru's motor more than I trust Dodges. Subaru has just been making sport compacts longer.


Well, if you knew the whole story about the SRT-4.. you'd know that the motor was completely redesigned to take boost from the factory. It's got all sorts of turbo friendly goodies done to it. It's by no means a standard 4 cylinder with a turbo slapped on.

And Dodge/Chrysler have been making sporty compacts since the eary 80s with the Omni GLH and other such random oddities.

When Mopar gets its shit together, they tend to make cool cars. Like the Viper, Omni GLH, and SRT-4.

Well, if you knew the whole story about the SRT-4.. you'd know that the motor was completely redesigned to take boost from the factory. It's got all sorts of turbo friendly goodies done to it. It's by no means a standard 4 cylinder with a turbo slapped on.

And Dodge/Chrysler have been making sporty compacts since the eary 80s with the Omni GLH and other such random oddities.

When Mopar gets its shit together, they tend to make cool cars. Like the Viper, Omni GLH, and SRT-4.



excelent point polygon....ummm i meant redneck;)




on a serious note....redneck is right...that srt4 engine is ridiculously strong...and mopar has a great history making some insane cars

excelent point polygon....ummm i meant redneck;)




on a serious note....redneck is right...that srt4 engine is ridiculously strong...and mopar has a great history making some insane cars

lol..... yea i almost thought that was polygon talking hahaha, but i did think of polygon when i read rednecks post.

Well, if you knew the whole story about the SRT-4.. you'd know that the motor was completely redesigned to take boost from the factory. It's got all sorts of turbo friendly goodies done to it. It's by no means a standard 4 cylinder with a turbo slapped on.

And Dodge/Chrysler have been making sporty compacts since the eary 80s with the Omni GLH and other such random oddities.

When Mopar gets its shit together, they tend to make cool cars. Like the Viper, Omni GLH, and SRT-4.

Didnt say it was a bad motor. I said I didnt trust it as much as the Subaru motor. And yes Dodge has made some great sport compacts but what have they been doing the past 10yrs? Other than the Viper because the Viper is not really a sport compact and its why out of the WRX's or STI's league. The way it seems to me is Dodge just jumped back in the game wheres Subaru has been doing this almost non stop. So I just want to wait and see. With me I think its just a loyalty issue. I just need some time to come around to Neon=fast car thing. My only legit gripe is that its FWD. I just dont get why car companies do that? It seems to be the trend in a lot of car companies, making FWD sports cars. Is it cheaper or something?

A neon is a neon and a lancer is a lancer. There in different states of tune but they are the same vehicles, despite modificatins to there apperance and mechanicals:)

Tim

No they aren't. They sahre very little with the base models besides a little sheet metal and a few interior bits. The Evo 8, WRX STi, and SRT-4 are over 70% different from the base models. They are not the same.

excelent point polygon....ummm i meant redneck;)




on a serious note....redneck is right...that srt4 engine is ridiculously strong...and mopar has a great history making some insane cars

:biggrin2:

Good one Kojak.

I like all fast cars, but I can only afford to own one at a time...that why I got the SRT-4. It's not exactly the Stanley Cup or the Heisman Trophy, but the SRT-4 gets the award for being the fastest production FWD car ever. I know many people will say that's about as significant as winning a gold medal in the special olympics, but there have been some quick FWD cars made over the last 15-20 years.

As far as the SRT-4 engine...the 2.4L turbo was more or less an answer to Dodge's last minute request for a more powerfull option for the '03 PT Cruiser...a vehicle with the power of a Neon and the handling of a Caravan...woo hoo. :(

PVO was given the 2.4L turbo as the power plant for the SRT-4 but, because of their short deadline, they didn't have months of tests to nickel and dime the engine to death for Dodge. My understanding, based on some of the things I've read, is that DCX marketing recognized the goldmine of revenue in the Mopar aftermarket for this car. PVO knew the engine had to be strong to take well to the mods DCX & Mopar would developing so they more or less overbuilt it. Last I heard there was an SRT-4 with stock internals and the factory turbo running in the low 12's. There is also a 600hp modified SRT-4 with a bigger turbo doing 200mph top speed runs on the salt flats.

Time will tell how well the rest of the car holds up, but the engine (at least on paper) should be the least of concerns.

Hmmm, last 10 years? Well, the Neon's been storming around in the SCCA Showroom Stock ranks. Where've you been?

The ACR package Neon, with it's 160hp 2.0L DOHC four, Koni adjustable struts, great shifting 5speed, and four wheel disc brakes will and consistently has beat on Civic Si's, Nissan Sentra SE-R's, and Golf GTi's. The street version, the Neon Sport Coupe, had 150hp (different computer, the ACR comp being available through Mopar) and lacked the Konis and the rear discs. However, speaking from personal experience, it'll still walk comparable Hondas and Volkswagens.

The Sentra is a bit of another story. It's a wee bit lighter than the street spec Neon Sport Coupe.

Of course, you could also look at the DSM cars and the V6 and turbo 4 Daytonas, but that would make too much sense.

Bottom line: Hot compacts have always been a part of the Chryco product line, they just haven't always been as flamboyant about it as they are now.

Hmmm, last 10 years? Well, the Neon's been storming around in the SCCA Showroom Stock ranks. Where've you been?

The ACR package Neon, with it's 160hp 2.0L DOHC four, Koni adjustable struts, great shifting 5speed, and four wheel disc brakes will and consistently has beat on Civic Si's, Nissan Sentra SE-R's, and Golf GTi's. The street version, the Neon Sport Coupe, had 150hp (different computer, the ACR comp being available through Mopar) and lacked the Konis and the rear discs. However, speaking from personal experience, it'll still walk comparable Hondas and Volkswagens.

The Sentra is a bit of another story. It's a wee bit lighter than the street spec Neon Sport Coupe.

Of course, you could also look at the DSM cars and the V6 and turbo 4 Daytonas, but that would make too much sense.

Bottom line: Hot compacts have always been a part of the Chryco product line, they just haven't always been as flamboyant about it as they are now.

I was saying besides the Neon. Im not talking about race tuned cars or special package ones. And even with ACR package the Neon only made 160hp? That’s a joke. And the Daytona really was not fast at all unless you were lucky enough to have a turbo model and even that was only a 15sec car no? And I said the past 10yrs and Dodge stopped making the Daytona in 93 so yes it is in the past 10yrs but come on it barley makes it. Also true the DSM's were probably the best Sport Compacts Dodge made but you can’t give them all the credit. I would only give them partial credit for them.

So the only good example you gave me was the DSM. And even they were rather problem stricken. So hey Subaru has been making the Impreza in the US sense 93 and its been making fast ones pretty much the whole time (over seas). And what? Dodge just started making a fast Neon in 03. So I say again “I” would take the WRX any day over the SRT4 because it comes from a long line fast reliable sport compacts. However this is just my opinion. But I guess I don't make any sense?

The best thing is to drive them side by side....I've done it and while there are some things i like better about the wrx i would still take the srt4 in a heartbeat

Only 160hp? How much more do you need in a sub 2,600lb FF coupe?

Not to mention, few NA 2.0L fours respond better to baisc tweaks than the Neon twin-cam. My Dad's '96 Sport Coupe received a set of custom ground cams, Mopar header, larger throttle body and injectors from a junkyard Caravan 2.4, Borla muffler, and polished intake manifold.

End result; 240hp NA four cylinder.

Problem, Neon Sport Coupes weigh in at somewhere around 2,900-3,100lbs. Hence, it wasn't the quickest thing out of the hole, but it still had enough to walk the local 5.0 Mustang crowd.

Let's take a look at some other power numbers in the Neon Sport Coupe's class. Off the top of my head, Civic Si's made about 138hp, Sentra SE-R's were 140-150hp, Hyundai Tiburons made 140-150hp, and Escort ZX2's made 130hp.

The Neon Sport Coupe was an incredible bargain in performance, and is highly credible in amongst its peers. To deny that is to be oblivious to a real performer.

Only 160hp? How much more do you need in a sub 2,600lb FF coupe?

Not to mention, few NA 2.0L fours respond better to baisc tweaks than the Neon twin-cam. My Dad's '96 Sport Coupe received a set of custom ground cams, Mopar header, larger throttle body and injectors from a junkyard Caravan 2.4, Borla muffler, and polished intake manifold.

End result; 240hp NA four cylinder.

Problem, Neon Sport Coupes weigh in at somewhere around 2,900-3,100lbs. Hence, it wasn't the quickest thing out of the hole, but it still had enough to walk the local 5.0 Mustang crowd.

Let's take a look at some other power numbers in the Neon Sport Coupe's class. Off the top of my head, Civic Si's made about 138hp, Sentra SE-R's were 140-150hp, Hyundai Tiburons made 140-150hp, and Escort ZX2's made 130hp.

The Neon Sport Coupe was an incredible bargain in performance, and is highly credible in amongst its peers. To deny that is to be oblivious to a real performer.


Ok that is true I didnt think about the power to weight
ratio. And 240hp is pretty impressive with just those mods. Like I said though Im not saying SRT's motor is crap. I just want to see how these cars hold up as a whole in a few years. The other reason why I would take a WRX over the SRT is I would plan on modding the cars. Seeing as this is the streat racing forum I think most people here would too. Now I would go for numbers in the 300+hp range. I just cant see the SRT putting down that kind of power that easily with out compromising the handling.

240hp, do you have the dyno sheet?

Wish I did. It was in amongst my dad's files which are still at the old house.

For the record, that's not brake. And the dyno pulls were made at the RaceRace America team shop, which was part of USIC, a tool and die shop owned by my dad's late friend Ken Boldman.

Mr. Boldman was at one point an off-shore powerboat racer and was the owner of the RaceRace America Supermodified team, which fielded two 1996 Bodnar chassis Supers (two chassis commissioned by Mr. Boldman) with, in their last season, Kevin Enders engines. The crew consisted of Jim Bodnar himself as chief, DJ Shullick as shop b*tch, and Dick Lavati as tire man. The driver was Dave Shullick, Ohio's winningest Supermodified driver, who retired two seasons after Mr. Boldman's death.

I will admit, it's a high number for a 2.0L engine, and I will also admit to never having personally seen the dyno sheet (this was, after all, my dad's car) but for the mods done (no doubt with some milling for compression and airflow) it sounds reasonable.

Guess I'll have to dig it out of my dad's files next time I go back to the old place for more of my stuff.

And yes, I know that this sounds like a cop out. But I really have no good reason to make this up. Hell, the car doesn't even exist anymore. All that we have now is a front clip, mostly because the car's unibody got thrashed after Dad spun into a pole last winter.

We actually thought long and hard about how to get the Neon engine into Layla. :biggrin:

The other reason why I would take a WRX over the SRT is I would plan on modding the cars. Seeing as this is the streat racing forum I think most people here would too. Now I would go for numbers in the 300+hp range. I just cant see the SRT putting down that kind of power that easily with out compromising the handling.


The SRT4 already puts down more horse power than the WRX in stock form...

Whats average numbers for a stock 04 srt4? 230ish? And for a WRX? isn't it like around 170ish? See, the SRT4 is already at an advantage. And ontop of that, the WRX's gear box will grenade once you hit the 300hp mark... and thats 300hp at the crank :icon16:

Here's a thread with a graph(near the bottom of page 2) showing 330hp on 100 octane. It makes 297 on 93 Octane. The mods are shown on the first post of the thread. http://www.srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25216&perpage=15&highlight=300%20horsepower&pagenumber=2




How does putting down a lot of power compromise handling anyways?

The SRT4 already puts down more horse power than the WRX in stock form...

And yet it's not any faster... at least not through the 1/4

the WRX's gear box will grenade once you hit the 300hp mark...

Au contraire, many people make more power than that on the stock trans with no problems... I've be one of them soon :biggrin:

How does putting down a lot of power compromise handling anyways?

Because it's FWD, if you have a lot of power in a FWD, when you try to accelerate out of the corner it can overpower the wheels and understeer off the corner. If you have a really steep power curve (like most turbo 4 cylinders) it makes it that much harder to get power down without breaking the tires loose.

And yet it's not any faster... at least not through the 1/4



Au contraire, many people make more power than that on the stock trans with no problems... I've be one of them soon :biggrin:



Because it's FWD, if you have a lot of power in a FWD, when you try to accelerate out of the corner it can overpower the wheels and understeer off the corner. If you have a really steep power curve (like most turbo 4 cylinders) it makes it that much harder to get power down without breaking the tires loose.

Stock SRT-4's have been regularly clocked as low as 13.8 seconds in the 1/4 mile. I've never heard of stock WRX's even going under 14 when I was researching which of the 2 cars to buy. Most 1/4 mile times I saw for the WRX were around 14.3-14.4.

As far as breaking the tires loose out of turns...that was a problem on the 2003 SRT-4's so they added a Qualfe LSD for '04.

plus don't forget how high the trap speeds are for those srts'

And the Daytona really was not fast at all unless you were lucky enough to have a turbo model and even that was only a 15sec car no?

The N/A Daytonas were faster than the Hondas of their day. If you did get a Turbo model then depending on which one you got you could be running low 14s to high 15s in the 1/4. My personal best in the LeBaron, which is the same car just a little heavier, was 14.6 @ 98 MPH.

And yet it's not any faster... at least not through the 1/4

Because it's FWD, if you have a lot of power in a FWD, when you try to accelerate out of the corner it can overpower the wheels and understeer off the corner. If you have a really steep power curve (like most turbo 4 cylinders) it makes it that much harder to get power down without breaking the tires loose.

1. A stock WRX can't keep up with the SRT-4 down the 1/4. The STi, now that’s a different story.

2. I fully agree that front wheel drive is one of the worst drive-trains for performance. On the drag strip when you accelerate the weight of the car shifts to the rear and the front of the car begins to lift. This takes traction from the front wheels. This is why rear wheel drive is the ultimate drive-train for drag racing. Another problem is wheel hop. This isn't only a problem for front wheel drive vehicles either. Any car with half-shafts can be hurt by wheel hop and any form of drive-train can produce it. The problem is that half-shafts aren't even close to as strong as a solid rear axle and wheel hop can snap CV joints and even tear the end right off the axle and in some cases even damage the gearbox. This can be circumvented with using slicks, however. On the other hand a solid rear axle is horrible when it comes to handling. Now, if you have a front wheel drive or all wheel drive vehicle then you have half shafts which is one of a few reasons that all wheel drive and front wheel drive is not meant for the drag strip. However; there are a lot of rear wheel drive cars that don't have solid rear axles. There also is the problem of torque steer. This is a problem on the strip and on the track. This can be circumvented by using an LSD which the 2004 SRT-4 already has from the factory, and it is a Quafi at that.

Because it's FWD, if you have a lot of power in a FWD, when you try to accelerate out of the corner it can overpower the wheels and understeer off the corner. If you have a really steep power curve (like most turbo 4 cylinders) it makes it that much harder to get power down without breaking the tires loose.

I do agree that FWD is the worst out of the three drivetrains. But I don't think a srt4 with about 300hp would have that steep of a power curve for it to be a big problem anyways. The engine is pretty big for a 4 cylinder(2.4L), and the turbo just needs an upgraded compressor to make 300+hp. No huge turbo needed here, so combined with the displacement, I would assume that the turbo should spool quickly have have a pretty steady power curve. Just my assumption though.

Stock SRT-4's have been regularly clocked as low as 13.8 seconds in the 1/4 mile. I've never heard of stock WRX's even going under 14 when I was researching which of the 2 cars to buy. Most 1/4 mile times I saw for the WRX were around 14.3-14.4.

There are many people who get 14.0-14.2 in stock WRX's. There are even a few that have gotten into 13's and one I remember that did a 13.89 stock. The average person probably won't get quicker than a 14.3, but what's the average person get in an SRT4? I know I've only seen 3 SRT4's at the track here, one is modded and the stock 2 are more competition for lightly modded Civic SI's than a WRX :lol:

Regardless, 2 cars with times within 2-3 tenths of each other are equal for all practical purposes. Too many other factors come into play, including the skill of the drivers in the real world, for 3 tenths to be considered a significant amount.

As far as breaking the tires loose out of turns...that was a problem on the 2003 SRT-4's so they added a Qualfe LSD for '04.

You don't understand...

P.S. I think you guys might think I'm bashing SRT4's... If you'll look back on page 1 of this thread you'll see I was the 2nd person to step in and defend them, oh, 9 months and 2 days ago was it? Plus there were other threads, both on AF and on other forums, before this, plus a few PM's with the starter of this thread where I've also defended them. My feelings haven't changed since then.

Great little cars, I'll buy one when hell freezes over :biggrin:

i seriously think the 03 WRX would win 1/4... on the highway, the SRT-4. the Evo 8 will win both...jus bcuz i like the Evo 8!

There are many people who get 14.0-14.2 in stock WRX's. There are even a few that have gotten into 13's and one I remember that did a 13.89 stock.
Please document this for me, as I browse various car-forums most of the time including Subaru ones, and MOST are running MID-14's stock, while SRT-4 are MOSTLY running LOW-14's and high-13's. No drive-train-pounding launch or high-skill-dependent precision clutch-slip launches either.

Here's a 13.7 @ 100mph run from a stock 2003: http://www.srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22064&highlight=fastest+stock

We all know that the 2004's have bit more power, and better ability to hook with the LSD's.

Those times are more common for SRT-4's than for WRXs. Here's an almost-stock one with a bad '60: http://www.srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20849

I don't know why you can't accept what even the WRX guys themselves have accepted: http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=46765

Here's a discussion about average WRX times: http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=34579&highlight=stock

Let's not even get into trap-speeds, as the SRT averages between 7-10mph FASTER than the WRX at the end of the track.

I'm not biased towards either car, and I'd be hard-pressed to choose if I ever had to between the two (if it was free, I'd pick the WRX because it's more expensive, and sell it for an STi), but c'mon...you just GOTTA accept when the other car is faster, plain-and-simple.

No drive-train-pounding launch or high-skill-dependent precision clutch-slip launches either.

Well hell, if I can't quote times from skilled WRX drivers, then why can you quote times from skilled SRT4 drivers? Cuz I've seen what the "average" new SRT4 owner is capable of at my local strip, and lemme tell ya, I'm not afraid, and neither am I afraid of the average new WRX owner.

"my stock WRX ran a 14.2 at 92 (or something) MPH on a hot day" - from the last link you posted. Now was that guy the best driver in the world, or is it reasonable to assume people are quicker than him? Especially since he mentioned he ran in heat. IIRC even Car and Driver got 14.1

Anyways, I don't doubt that the quickest time a stock SRT4 has ever ran is quicker than the quickest time a stock WRX has ever ran, the point is they're so close they're even in all practical purposes.

I also just saw a guy that went 12.8 in a stock STi :eek: but I still say STis and EVOs are even.

And about the trap speeds, I said this 9 months, 2 days, 9 hours, and 3 minutes ago, and I'll say it again:

the srt4 has a 100mph trap speed stock, much faster than any stock wrx. any idiot who knows how to shift should be able to waste a stock wrx in a stock srt4 anywhere above 30mph.

So when did a total car's worth come down to what it can do in the 1/4mile?

Both cars are very quick, and modable. If I had to chose, I would want the EVO, but I could very easly see why someone would want the SRT-4, or the STi.

The way I see it is the SRT4 is a good car if you want to keep it stock. Any thing over 300hp and I just don't see the SRT putting it down effectively at all. It would need something like slicks and who wants to drive a car around like that? The SRT4 may have more HP potential but the WRX will always be fast in the long. The SRT is still a great car though and yes I agree it is faster than a WRX stock for stock, but hey like ldelaysionl said their so close its a drivers race.

like ldelaysionl said their so close its a drivers race.

Therein lies my point: Saying that the two is a driver's race is like saying a 13-second LS1 is a driver's race against a 14-second Mustang GT...we both know each car is fast in their own rights, and a mistake by the LS1-driver compared to good driving by the Mustang might result in the 'Stang winning but, we all know and admit which one is the faster car...which you guys can't seem to admit about the SRT-4.

Let's quote |delaysion|'s quote of himself:

any idiot who knows how to shift should be able to waste a stock wrx in a stock srt4 anywhere above 30mph.

Last I checked, even a quarter-mile went WAY past 30mph?

And before you guys talk about turns, Neon ACRs have been wasting WRXs long before the SRT came out, and PVO used whatever Dodge has learned with that car on the SRT.

An SRT-4 also wasted all the AWD-class cars at Pikes Peak, except one: http://www.srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21290

Just admit it. Especially in straight-line speed: STi > SRT-4 > WRX...plain and simple.

Just as I go to SRTforums and challenge the SRT fanb0is, I am on here doing the same to the opposite side.

ANd lastly, RACER D12: The SRTs are doing JUST fine over 300HP: http://fastattack.org/srtgurl/Fastest%20Times%20List.htm

Have you read the article in SCC about how strong the 2.4 motor is?

Therein lies my point: Saying that the two is a driver's race is like saying a 13-second LS1 is a driver's race against a 14-second Mustang GT...

But it's not like there's a full second difference between them, it's a couple tenths. My runs vary by more than a few tenths in a night when I go to the strip, and that's the same car, same driver, same conditions. My point is that even with equal drivers, nobody is perfect and nobody can make a perfect run every time, and their times are so close one could win 1 race, then they line up again 5 minutes later and the other could win. Or maybe it's hot out, and 1 is more affected by it than the other, so with equal drivers the SRT4 might win in hot weather and the WRX in cold. There's just not enough of a difference to give an SRT4 owner an assured victory every time he comes up against a stock WRX, even if he is one of those guys who can pull a 13.8.

Last I checked, even a quarter-mile went WAY past 30mph?

I was talking about going from a 30 mph roll.

carnutt its right...the srt4 can do pretty good even from a stand still despite being FF...srtgurl's still has an open diff and pulled a 12.6

the 04 will do much better with the quaifee though

and about its handling...its very good...as i said just testdrive one and you'll be hooked

the srt4 was very nimble its brakes were fenomenal and the engine pulled like a V8

ANd lastly, RACER D12: The SRTs are doing JUST fine over 300HP: http://fastattack.org/srtgurl/Fastest%20Times%20List.htm

If you read my post again you will see that I said the SRT can make over 300hp. What I was saying though was good luck driving that on the street. Think of what a bitch that would be driving around town and maybe racing here or there. All the the SRTs toward the top of that list had some kind of slicks. Are you going to use slicks on the street? However a 300hp WRX would be very streetable and put its power down on and off the track with out slicks.

This is one of the longest threads I have seen that has not broke out into a flame war :comprage1

If you read my post again you will see that I said the SRT can make over 300hp. What I was saying though was good luck driving that on the street. Think of what a bitch that would be driving around town and maybe racing here or there. All the the SRTs toward the top of that list had some kind of slicks. Are you going to use slicks on the street? However a 300hp WRX would be very streetable and put its power down on and off the track with out slicks.

This is one of the longest threads I have seen that has not broke out into a flame war :comprage1

I think I see what your saying, but using that logic you would have to say that any 300hp non AWD car would be a bitch to drive around town. Why would driving a 300hp 3000lb FWD car to the liquor store be any more difficult than driving a 400hp 3500lb RWD car to the grocery store? A slip of the foot on either car and you can lose control.

If you're talking about daily driveable SRT-4's that can run sub 13 second 1/4 miles...yes you're probably right. A 12 second WRX can do it on the factory tires because of AWD, but the SRT-4 has to stop at the garage and swap out the street tires for some slicks if they wanna get the best times possible.

True but RWD is set up to get a lot better traction than FWD. However we are comparing the WRX vs the SRT so I was just making my case for those two. The second half of your post is what I was saying once you start going over that 300hp mark any FWD car is going to start having traction issues. Which is why the WRX will always be the fastest on the street. The SRT can only go so far on the street before it becomes "nose happy".


Edit:I mean in the end if you mod both, the WRX will be faster because the SRT can only go so far before it needs slicks

I think you just have feather the clutch a little more w/FWD. Once you get moving it won't be an issue. We're talking 300hp not 800hp. I've heard SRT-4 drivers are pulling low 13 second and high 12 second times on street tires. Of course w/slicks the 60ft times are better, but the traps speeds are comparable.

and if i'm not wrong the ecu is programed for less boost in 1st gear so peeling out will not be a problem

even if you get over 300hp you can get a profec b and run very low boost in 1st then use the remote button to switch to high boost in second

Just in case everyone has forgotten...Torque spins wheels, not horsepower. A 300hp fwd car isn't that big of a deal people. Especially not coming from a smaller motor with not all that much torque. You can have 900hp and 100lbs of tq and not spin the wheels. I don't think that 300hp in an srt would really be that hard to drive around on a daily basis(at least not as far as tires go). I mean, give it a couple years and that's what the Accord will be putting down.

Self has a good point, but then again he knows whats up :iceslolan

There are so many variables, as well.

Yes Self I did not forget that tq is what makes wheels spin. The SRT motor though makes simular tq and hp numbers.

Steiner and Neutrino ya you can feather clutch reprogram the ECU like you said, but while your doing that the guy in the WRX can be going balls out. Plus then when you take into consideration the the road conditions and what not its just going to cause more problems for the SRT. So IMO WRX is the the better street racer.

and its a true an AWD car will always win the launch...but you forget one thing....AWD hard launches are murder on your transmission and clutch....why do you think everyone keeps saying that the evo and sti are not drag racers

If you read my post again you will see that I said the SRT can make over 300hp. What I was saying though was good luck driving that on the street. Think of what a bitch that would be driving around town and maybe racing here or there.

For daily driving applications, you can use an electronic boost controller to turn down the boost.. you wont be needing 300hp if you're just driving to the grocery store 5 minutes away anyways.

And a high powered FWD doesnt ALWAYS need slicks to go fast when drag racing..... example: Hybrid & DohcCam's CRX.

Yes Self I did not forget that tq is what makes wheels spin. The SRT motor though makes simular tq and hp numbers.

Steiner and Neutrino ya you can feather clutch reprogram the ECU like you said, but while your doing that the guy in the WRX can be going balls out. Plus then when you take into consideration the the road conditions and what not its just going to cause more problems for the SRT. So IMO WRX is the the better street racer.

In theory that makes sense, but in reality the SRT-4 starts pulling on the WRX big time at about 30mph. If you're talking about a street race to 30mph ;)...well then the WRX will win every time...but so will an AWD Toyota Matrix and an AWD Volvo Cross Country wagon if you drop the clutch as 5k.

I've seen a couple videos of "SRT-4 vs. WRX" races. From a roll the SRT-4 pulls from the 3rd beep of the horn and doesn't stop until the race is over. From a dig the WRX hooks up impressively, but the SRT-4 pulls like a mutha once the driver shifts into 2nd gear.

If you guys are questioning driveability of a high powered car of any type. You got to remember it's your right foot that controls the throttle. The car will only go as fast as you want it to.

I learned that when I learned how to ride my motorcycle. It'll only go as fast as I let it.

If you guys are questioning driveability of a high powered car of any type. You got to remember it's your right foot that controls the throttle. The car will only go as fast as you want it to.

I learned that when I learned how to ride my motorcycle. It'll only go as fast as I let it.


Your right foot controlled the throttle on your motorcycle? hahahahhahahaa.... j/k j/k :icon16:



But ya.. RN is right. 300 street hp isn't that much for a street car anyways. Crap.. Using Hybrid as an example again... his FWD Del Sol has to got to push around 300hp... and it's daily driven.

Maybe Im mistaken but isnt the Del Sol RWD? And yes 300hp is not alot for most cars but for a FWD sub 3000lb car it is.

A Del Sol is a shortened two seat Civic targa. Simple as that. The only RWD vehicles to enter into the stateside Honda inventory in the past 13 years are the NSX and the S2000.

And yes, 300hp is a lot for an FF chassis. Just ask anyone with a Cadillac STS or Eldorado. Those are 300hp Northstars turned sideways in those engine bays.

Scary, isn't it?

But, as it has been said, high powered FF cars tend towards understeer when you get on the throttle, and turbo FF cars mostly have erratic understeer. Also, torque steer is always a fun item. Just ask any GLH Turbo Omni driver who had the wheel practically wrenched from his hands the first time he jumped on it.

However, it's easy to learn how to get around this. Trailbraking into corners and not accelerating until the tail has rotated around the apex is the simplest way to deal with throttle-on understeer in a high powered FF car. Torque steer can be anticipated and even used to one's advantage in tight corners. (the aforementioned GLH Turbo Omni could actually powerslide around tight right hand hairpins, thanks to it's wicked torque steer)

A knowledgable driver can overcome any chassis weak point.

A Del Sol is a shortened two seat Civic targa. Simple as that. The only RWD vehicles to enter into the stateside Honda inventory in the past 13 years are the NSX and the S2000.

And yes, 300hp is a lot for an FF chassis. Just ask anyone with a Cadillac STS or Eldorado. Those are 300hp Northstars turned sideways in those engine bays.

Scary, isn't it?

But, as it has been said, high powered FF cars tend towards understeer when you get on the throttle, and turbo FF cars mostly have erratic understeer. Also, torque steer is always a fun item. Just ask any GLH Turbo Omni driver who had the wheel practically wrenched from his hands the first time he jumped on it.

However, it's easy to learn how to get around this. Trailbraking into corners and not accelerating until the tail has rotated around the apex is the simplest way to deal with throttle-on understeer in a high powered FF car. Torque steer can be anticipated and even used to one's advantage in tight corners. (the aforementioned GLH Turbo Omni could actually powerslide around tight right hand hairpins, thanks to it's wicked torque steer)

A knowledgable driver can overcome any chassis weak point.

Ok which one would you pick though? WRX or SRT. Everyone is posting but no one is saying which one they would take.



And thats my point "A knowledgable driver" theirs more room for error in the SRT and more things to compensate for. Most people are not that knowledgable and will mess something up, more often I think then if they where in a WRX. I will concede that more times than not the SRT4 will beat the WRX in a straight line but take it to the track and the WRX should beat the SRT.

Ok which one would you pick though? WRX or SRT. Everyone is posting but no one is saying which one they would take.



And thats my point "A knowledgable driver" theirs more room for error in the SRT and more things to compensate for. Most people are not that knowledgable and will mess something up, more often I think then if they where in a WRX. I will concede that more times than not the SRT4 will beat the WRX in a straight line but take it to the track and the WRX should beat the SRT.

Your right, the WRX is better suited for stupid people that can't control their car very well. IN the hands of someone that knows what they are doing I think the SRT-4 will take down the WRX in the turns. The WRX just seems more suited for going to the store than taking a jaunt around the track. Let's also not forget the turbo doesn't even spool up on the WRX until about 3,000 RPM!! The SRT-4 you get it just above idle. The SRT-4 is just a better race car from my experience.

With the Awd though shouldn't the WRX be able to accelerate sooner out of a turn? And the WRX has nice short rally gears isnt that a good thing for track too?

I'll take the SRT-4 anyday, what with its massive Michelin Pilot tires, huge sway bars, and big all wheel disc brakes.

Yes, the WRX is more forgiving and easier to drive. Guess what, Chevy Malibus and Ford Tauruses are also easy to drive and forgiving. At the limit, the WRX has been known to do the following;

1: Plow like a farm horse.
2: Lean over like the Tower of Pisa.
3: Dive down on the outside front like a Gato class submarine.

The WRX is a spirited family car. It's in fair company being compared to hot Nissan Maximas and BMW 325i's. The SRT-4 is a track special with a bit of streetability. No, no it's not easy to drive. In fact, it's not very fun to drive day to day. Just like its GLH forebears, the ride is buckboard stiff, there's tons of torque steer, the wide tires hate rain with a vengeance, and you do get tired of the exhaust barking in your ear all day long.

However, when my helmet's strapped on and the flag drops, I thank Mopar for that stiff ride, loud exhaust, and those wide tires because they'll keep me in front of those comfortable hot family sedans.

A knowledgable driver can overcome any chassis weak point.


Damn.. I've been trying to say that this whole time... arg.. I'm dumb.



And don't AWD cars tend to understeer even more than FWD cars??

Yes, the WRX is more forgiving and easier to drive. Guess what, Chevy Malibus and Ford Tauruses are also easy to drive and forgiving. At the limit, the WRX has been known to do the following;

1: Plow like a farm horse.
2: Lean over like the Tower of Pisa.
3: Dive down on the outside front like a Gato class submarine.

It's also an extremely well designed chassis that has a decade of racing experience in some of the harshest conditions in the world to build off. Simple sway bars will eliminate body roll and understeer. No matter how you slice it, no matter how skilled the drivers, no matter how careful you are, the fact is with 4 drive wheels you can put more power down than with 2, for the simple matter that you're putting it through twice as much rubber. Not to mention the actual acceleration force is equally distributed on both ends of the chassis, instead of all on one end.

The WRX is a spirited family car. It's in fair company being compared to hot Nissan Maximas and BMW 325i's. The SRT-4 is a track special with a bit of streetability.

I'll take the "spirited family car" with multiple world championships in arguably the most grueling form of motorsports backing it over the "track special" economy-car-with-more-power.

You bring up a good point about the SRT4 having better tires, better sway bars, etc. All that and the WRX is still comparable in handling, now which one leaves further room for improvement? Especially since tires and sway bars are possibly the absolute easiest mods you can do, one of the cheapest, and will not affect the warranty. Truly mods accesible to anyone.

Good point indeed...

So, is anyone going to change their minds on which car they would buy between the two?

My choice would be a WRX, but the Neon is a good buy as well.

I like them both, but to be honest I like four doors... I'd take the WRX personally.

SRT-4... has a bit too much boy racer looks to me. And the ass end sticks too high up for my tastes. Other than some small asthetics about it that I dislike, I do like the car alot.

I just prefer the 'practicality' of the Subaru better.

I'm with layla's keeper on this one...i would take the srt4

as i said before i testdrove both of them back to back at a subaru/chrysler dealership...polygon knew a salesman pretty well so he let me push them pretty good

the srt felt very nimble..it would answer stering input instantly...the engine was extremelly responsive...it literally felt like i had to hold down the car from smacking into the cars in front of me when the light went green...the engine is that responsive...and the brakes seem nothing special when you look at them but they stop ridiculously good


the wrx on the other hand was much more comfortable as a daily driver...more composed on the road...it wold not jump at the smallest steering imput...the engine was the same way, you had to tell it to go fast very unlike the srt which wanted to jump ahead all the time...and braking was slower...what really turned me off was the feeling of weight though..it felt a bit ponderous...anyway the wrx is by far the more comfortable car and because of that better as a daily driver


but being the autox nut that i am i would take the srt4

after mods i don't know which would be faster...i would have to mod them first and then drive them and then i could have an opinion


i took this testdrive to see what all the srt4 hype was about...i was expecting the car to be overated...well i was wrong the srt4 just blew me away

so honestly go and take a test drive you'll be surprised

- This thread will nevAr end

I might take the WRX as well, and screw drag racing I'd be throwing that bitch around in good old Virginia red clay at our various construction sites. Plus for a 4-Cylinder the WRX sounds so much tougher, its hard to describe but with just a cat-back the thing doesn't sound like your average 4-banger honda, toyota, or neon.

...The SRT-4 is a track special with a bit of streetability. No, no it's not easy to drive. In fact, it's not very fun to drive day to day. Just like its GLH forebears, the ride is buckboard stiff, there's tons of torque steer, the wide tires hate rain with a vengeance, and you do get tired of the exhaust barking in your ear all day long.

The thread that never dies...

Torque steer on an SRT-4 is very minor and very manageable because of the equal length half shafts...or something like that. My 160whp Spec V torque steered like a mutha though! It was ridiculous really. 2 hands on the wheel or you were gonna take out a row of mailboxes.

When my Spec V was totalled I had less than 3 weeks to decide which car to buy before my rental car coverage was up.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=131968

It really only came down to 2 cars...WRX or SRT-4. The EVO 8 and STi were also nice, but a little too expensive considering I hadn't been given any time to save up for a down payment. I test drove each model...an '03 WRX and both an '03 SRT-4 and '04 SRT-4...multiple times. The Subaru dealership I went to even had a special "test drive only" WRX on their lot which was more than willing to be raped. I LOVED how both cars drove compared to my old Spec V. The WRX felt very stable and the 0-100mph acceleration was so smooth. Then I went to a Dodge dealership and test drove a repo'd '03 SRT-4 with about 12k miles on it. I had no intention of buying it because it was yellow and didn't have side-airbags, but the sales rep didn't know that. He kept telling me to punch it. I was blown away. The torque made low RPM driving effortless compared to the WRX. The car also felt much lighter and nimbler, but that high ass end gave the feeling of body roll while cornering hard. The exaust note didn't exactly sound V8-ish, but it was a distinctly non-riced out sound too. I liked everything about it...especially the price. That was the first of 3 SRT-4 test drives...the latter 2 being on the '04 model. I also took one more test drive in a WRX just to make sure it wasn't just a good cup of coffee that made me like the SRT-4 so much that one morning. It wasn't! Both models are so much more car than I thought I could afford, but the Dodge just felt like it was designed to go fast above all else, whereas the Subaru is a well built all weather, AWD sedan that just happens to haul ass if you ask it to.

BTW...after less than $300 in suspension parts my SRT-4 handles like it's on rails. No more body roll at all. I bought an Eibach Pro-Kit, stiffer polyeurothane bushings up front, and shorter end links for the rear. The install was about 3 hours with spring compressors. The drop was very moderate...1.8 in back and 1.6 up front...and the "raked" look has been dumbed down dramatically.

Steiner,

Good post.

look, this needs to end. first off, the srt-4 is faster stock than the wrx. woo hoo. (it also has .4 more litres than the wrx, and when were talking 2.0 v 2.4, it makes quite a difference.) The wrx will take it for a run anywhere else though.

i set up a street race, over about 3 miles of roads, mostly unused ones. i drove my 02 wrx WAGON, which has header back and an intake, against a srt-4 with mopar stage 2 . in the first part, it was all straight. i started to get my ass kicked pretty bad, but as soon as the roads started winding, and eventually our corse had some turns in it, i not only caught up, but i passed, and finished atleast 5 seconds before the srt-4. lets face it, the srt-4 just cant handle anything thats not straight, completely dry, and clean.

i can race my wrx in the rain, snow, and on gravel roads. id like to see an srt-4 owner who will challenge a wrx owner when it isnt 80 and sunny on fresh asphalt.

when it comes to unlocking more power from your cars engine, the wrx wins hands down. i know several people who drive wrx's with 400+ hp as their daily drivers. a neons engine will not take that very well, atleast without serious work.

not only is the srt-4 extremely tempermental when it comes to mods, it has no ability to get the added horse power to the ground. the subaru on the other hand, despite a little wheel slip from high horse power, will ground almost every ounce of what it has.

the srt-4 comes faster than the wrx, but who cares. no one who buys one, and is worried enough to read this forum, leaves their car stock anyways.

driving doesnt take place in straigh lines, it happens on roads that twist and turn. and in those turns, the wrx will ground its power and win over the srt-4 any day. when mopar comes out with a handy upgrade to make the neon AWD, let me know and ill be interested, but untill that day, in my own opinion, subaru has engineered a much more capable, mod friendly, and overall greater car.

in the end, the srt-4 is still a NEON made by lazy american workers (lets face it people, we cant wait till the end of the day so we can leave work). when straight line stock vs stock racing is all you care about, get the neon. but if you want a car that can actually use its horse power anytime, buy the wrx.

It did end, over a year ago! Close this thread. Noob be warned "Don't Bring Back Old Threads". Check the dates. There should be something about this in the rules and regulations. Late...

i set up a street race, over about 3 miles of roads, mostly unused ones. i drove my 02 wrx WAGON, which has header back and an intake,


first of all before you start BSing you might want to study that terminology of yours. In case of turbo cars a full exaust is generally refered to as turbo back and not header back.

Second you might want to avoid resurecting ancient posts. Closed