I when I saw this.. XDD I espically love the part when the shift **** comes off.. even though it was probaly some aftermarket one..


such an unfair race, the cobra should have been going in reverse to make it more fair.
here's the dumbastic stomping on the SRT-4
http://videos.streetfire.net/search/...8c3c85cc05.htm

if that ain't quality right there baby, idk what is.

 

Not really much of a kill. FWD econobox VS a Mustang with a supercharged V8. I guess the guy in the Neon was a glutton for punishment or something.

The guy in the mustang oughtta be racing GTOs and ****, not claiming victory over little FWD neons.

 

ACTUALLY, a SRT-4 is a plenty good match for a GT Mustang.....similar hp and weight numbers...usually stock for stock a GT will kill an SRT-4, but it's just too easy to get big power gains modding the SRT-4...

A supercharged GT is a different story though....

 

especially from a roll

 

shaddup.


seriously though, only ******* race from a roll.

ever seen John Force "from a roll" drag race ?

 

True dat!

 

The power to weight ratios of a stock GT Mustang (last gen) and a stock SRT-4 are nearly identical (11.8 vs 11.9:1), with the advantage going to the GT. Now the 390 hp S/Ced Cobra that came out around '03 should demolish it no matter what (~7.8:1). Those are mean cars. But hey, you have to look at the price point of an SRT-4 (at about $20-21k new) versus a then new GT (idk? ~$25k?), and about $36k for a Cobra when it was new then.

I don't care if it's a Neon. I don't need a nice interior to go fast. The SRT-4 seats suck for me because I'm 6'5" and they hunch me over, so I'd swap those out for some decent Recaros or something. But otherwise, I think it'd be a fun car to own.

Anyways, just my thoughts.

 

first of all, only ricers talk about power to weight ratios

and if you're talking a NEW GT...a new GT will DEMOLISH a SRT-4 stock for stock...hell a new edge GT(99-04) will take an SRT-4 stock for stock...and if you want to talk money you can get a new edge GT for roughly $12K, depending on years and mileage..I dare you to find and SRT-4 for $12K that isnt either ragged to hell, or wrecked

power to weight doesnt mean ****, especially when your talking peak numbers...

you are only considering horsepower...not TORQUE

torque wins races, horsepower just sells cars....

 

bwahahaha!!!

Hell yeeahh!!

 

Well, I'm glad I'm not a ricer... I did torque to weight ratios as well (if that matters to you at this point)--I just didn't post them--and the GT is at a big advantage. I am well aware of "torque wins races, horsepower just sells cars" saying. It goes along with one of my favorite quotes by whomever said it first: "There is no replacement for displacement."

I knew the new GT was going to do much better, so that's why I didn't bother with that comparison, even though it would have been relavent for an '05 to '05 comparison...I was more referring to 2003 when the SRT-4 came out. Anyways. I know I can't find a decent SRT-4 for anywhere close to $12k, so I'm not going to try.

I chucked the power to weight numbers out to show an indication (read: not final result) of performance in a comparable way. Of course there are the factors of torque (as you mentioned), power/torque curves, driver skill, drivetrain layout (in which the SRT-4 will spin it's fronts because of the weight transfer), differentials (if installed), tires, suspension, etc--that can and will vary the final result.

Maybe ricers talk about power to weight because their cars have no torque to speak of...

 

sure you dont need a nice interior to go fast, lambo wont argue with that. but you plop down a good chunk of your income for a car, i'd expect the insides (the part youre gonna interact with the most) to stay together over the years. ive been in my fair share of dodge/chryslers, and those interior squeeks and shakes bother the heck out of me.

 

/\ /\ /\
Yeah like you would expect some of the cost of the nice car to go towards something other than econo-car like interior!!

 

Good point. I'm used to hearing people slam the SRT-4's interior like that was what was holding them up from what was otherwise a performance bargain. I personally don't think it's that bad--which is to say that it's typical Chrysler Corp. fare. So my initial response regarding the interior was an overreaction. Sorry, guys.

Anyways...

 

Pretty sure Dodge was attemting to save weight with the bland interior...






[/comic relief]

 

/\ /\ /\ Aw... look at da kittyyyyyy!