230 hp dogde srt-4 for '04
11-07-2003, 01:50 AM
#32
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,370
Car Info: Viper ACR & H1
SRT is close to its max unlilke the WRX or STi. Check out the turbo buick forum for this. www.turbobuick.com
Nick
Nick
11-07-2003, 10:17 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 128
Car Info: 03 RS- aspen white, 5 speed
Originally posted by DoomE.Q.
Some of the attitude on here is driving me crazy. It seems that we have assumed the role of our old musclehead bullies, detracting from all that is american much like they detracted from all that is japanese. Cars are cars. They are different. Some do some things better, and others do other things better. But this double sided auto-talk has to be contested...lest we all end up like the niched in Mustang/Chevy die hards, or the honda ones for that matter.
...obviously not of a neon.. at least an ACR. Anyone who autocrosses knows that the Dodge Neon ACR held stock classes in a headlock with it's factory equipped adjustable camber and it's deceptivly good handling. If anything the neon was touted as a handler with less then astonishing power. I know a couple of SCC articles throwing around the 're-invention of the musclecar' term have given you WRX owners a 'holier then thou' attitude in the corners and while AWD offers supeior traction in less then ideal conditions remember that RT and ACR neons were crushing RS's into pulp at smooth pavement autocrosses when a WRX was a JDM only dream. AWD is of course the only way i'd want to go but it still isn't the apex drivetrain in all situations... which brings me to:
This is a true statement, just as RWD is better on a perfectly dry smooth road course. AWD is excess weight and unnesicarry in some situations but still offers advantages in some other situations.
But the point of it is this...BoOm who posted the above was most likely using that fact to take away from the other fact posted... that the SRT-4 out slaloms the WRX stock for stock. So what? are us Subaru owners going to take to the grave the polar opposite of what the old addage used to be? Now is going faster in a straight line with an STi over an EVO more important then the slalom numbers? Are those slalom numbers rubbish when the WRX lacks the straight line superiority? If the WRX out slalomed the SRT-4 it would just lend justification to all of the now unfounded 'yeah if you only wanna drag race' crap talking. Please stop talking out of both sides of the mouth. Our cars are what they are: A compromise. Deal. Quit hearing what you want and descrediting what isn't convenient to your own choices. Just because you own a Subaru doesn't mean that the answer to a faster 1/4 mile time is 'my car handles better' and the answer to a spanking round the bends is 'got AWD?' or 'Lets take it to the snow'.... please give credit where it's due.
Since SCC seems to be the bible why don't you check out their article going inside the SRT-4's engine.... seems pretty robust. I wish my car had piston oil squirters.... But believe what you want only time will tell.
If you leave the SRT-4 stock...
Besides Mods Vs. Mods is a ridiculous comparison... one needs look no further then the 2 WRX tuner challenges SCC has had... A Vishnu tuned WRX would probably kill a fairly modded SRT-4. But throw a Mopar engineered version at say an SPI car like the one that took on the STi and see what happens. It all boils down to the parts used and their execution. Thats why STOCK Vs. STOCK is the true benchmark because it is what is offered... not what is possible. Anything is possible with means (read money) and method. If you shod a new Civic SI with race rubber it just may outskidpad (another area where AWD is at a gross disadvantage i might add) and slalom a WRX but does that mean 'A modded SI will own a WRX' ? Please
... We all can laugh at that crap...
All i'm trying to say is this. It's just cars... It's all relative. If a SRT-4 was an AWD turbo rally winner and the WRX was FWD would it still be a gung ho american pile of junk? Is a Ford Focus RS lamer then a Subaru RS just because of lineage? Obviously not. A car is more then where it's built.
Also a car is more then numbers. But that doesn't stop the numbers from being fact. A car that runs 10 seconds is still faster then 11 no matter how you slice it (or 14.0 and 14.6 for that matter) but that only matters for what it is, a quarter mile E/T. Handling numbers are the same. But thats all they are.... numbers. Let your heart drive you, not 0-60 times, and we all will get shorter geared cars. It's when we start playing 'my oranges are more sour then your apples but your limes aren't sweet enough...' that we all start sounding like muscleheads or honda jackasses... And as subaru owners i'd like to hope you are all above it.
-DE
Some of the attitude on here is driving me crazy. It seems that we have assumed the role of our old musclehead bullies, detracting from all that is american much like they detracted from all that is japanese. Cars are cars. They are different. Some do some things better, and others do other things better. But this double sided auto-talk has to be contested...lest we all end up like the niched in Mustang/Chevy die hards, or the honda ones for that matter.
...obviously not of a neon.. at least an ACR. Anyone who autocrosses knows that the Dodge Neon ACR held stock classes in a headlock with it's factory equipped adjustable camber and it's deceptivly good handling. If anything the neon was touted as a handler with less then astonishing power. I know a couple of SCC articles throwing around the 're-invention of the musclecar' term have given you WRX owners a 'holier then thou' attitude in the corners and while AWD offers supeior traction in less then ideal conditions remember that RT and ACR neons were crushing RS's into pulp at smooth pavement autocrosses when a WRX was a JDM only dream. AWD is of course the only way i'd want to go but it still isn't the apex drivetrain in all situations... which brings me to:
This is a true statement, just as RWD is better on a perfectly dry smooth road course. AWD is excess weight and unnesicarry in some situations but still offers advantages in some other situations.
But the point of it is this...BoOm who posted the above was most likely using that fact to take away from the other fact posted... that the SRT-4 out slaloms the WRX stock for stock. So what? are us Subaru owners going to take to the grave the polar opposite of what the old addage used to be? Now is going faster in a straight line with an STi over an EVO more important then the slalom numbers? Are those slalom numbers rubbish when the WRX lacks the straight line superiority? If the WRX out slalomed the SRT-4 it would just lend justification to all of the now unfounded 'yeah if you only wanna drag race' crap talking. Please stop talking out of both sides of the mouth. Our cars are what they are: A compromise. Deal. Quit hearing what you want and descrediting what isn't convenient to your own choices. Just because you own a Subaru doesn't mean that the answer to a faster 1/4 mile time is 'my car handles better' and the answer to a spanking round the bends is 'got AWD?' or 'Lets take it to the snow'.... please give credit where it's due.
Since SCC seems to be the bible why don't you check out their article going inside the SRT-4's engine.... seems pretty robust. I wish my car had piston oil squirters.... But believe what you want only time will tell.
If you leave the SRT-4 stock...
Besides Mods Vs. Mods is a ridiculous comparison... one needs look no further then the 2 WRX tuner challenges SCC has had... A Vishnu tuned WRX would probably kill a fairly modded SRT-4. But throw a Mopar engineered version at say an SPI car like the one that took on the STi and see what happens. It all boils down to the parts used and their execution. Thats why STOCK Vs. STOCK is the true benchmark because it is what is offered... not what is possible. Anything is possible with means (read money) and method. If you shod a new Civic SI with race rubber it just may outskidpad (another area where AWD is at a gross disadvantage i might add) and slalom a WRX but does that mean 'A modded SI will own a WRX' ? Please
... We all can laugh at that crap...All i'm trying to say is this. It's just cars... It's all relative. If a SRT-4 was an AWD turbo rally winner and the WRX was FWD would it still be a gung ho american pile of junk? Is a Ford Focus RS lamer then a Subaru RS just because of lineage? Obviously not. A car is more then where it's built.
Also a car is more then numbers. But that doesn't stop the numbers from being fact. A car that runs 10 seconds is still faster then 11 no matter how you slice it (or 14.0 and 14.6 for that matter) but that only matters for what it is, a quarter mile E/T. Handling numbers are the same. But thats all they are.... numbers. Let your heart drive you, not 0-60 times, and we all will get shorter geared cars. It's when we start playing 'my oranges are more sour then your apples but your limes aren't sweet enough...' that we all start sounding like muscleheads or honda jackasses... And as subaru owners i'd like to hope you are all above it.
-DE
what i can't understand is how this thread can go one a page and a half after this has been posted. he's said all that's to be said.
11-12-2003, 12:33 PM
#34
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Rockland County...NY
Posts: 4,568
Car Info: want a WRX
honestly most of DE's posts deserve standing ovations. hes probably one of the most sensible and intelligent people on earth...but i have to just say i slightly disagree on one thing...how a car reacts to mods does matter for some people....say you're comparing an wrx and a n/a equivalent(in all aspects-hp, torque,skidpad gs, 1/4, etc) whatever that equilvalent may be...with 2000$ in power mods for each...the turbo'd(rex) car will probably have more noticable gains...for some that matters so it should be taken into account IMO..also some cars are built to the max potential of the drivetrain so its a big thing for some people i guess...wouldnt you say?
11-12-2003, 06:59 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by awns729
honestly most of DE's posts deserve standing ovations. hes probably one of the most sensible and intelligent people on earth...but i have to just say i slightly disagree on one thing...how a car reacts to mods does matter for some people....say you're comparing an wrx and a n/a equivalent(in all aspects-hp, torque,skidpad gs, 1/4, etc) whatever that equilvalent may be...with 2000$ in power mods for each...the turbo'd(rex) car will probably have more noticable gains...for some that matters so it should be taken into account IMO..also some cars are built to the max potential of the drivetrain so its a big thing for some people i guess...wouldnt you say?
honestly most of DE's posts deserve standing ovations. hes probably one of the most sensible and intelligent people on earth...but i have to just say i slightly disagree on one thing...how a car reacts to mods does matter for some people....say you're comparing an wrx and a n/a equivalent(in all aspects-hp, torque,skidpad gs, 1/4, etc) whatever that equilvalent may be...with 2000$ in power mods for each...the turbo'd(rex) car will probably have more noticable gains...for some that matters so it should be taken into account IMO..also some cars are built to the max potential of the drivetrain so its a big thing for some people i guess...wouldnt you say?
What I was saying about mods is that even if you limit mods to only one area (i.e. powertrain suspension etc) or limit price. Mods perform differently depending on the company and tuning strategy. The point was that depending on which mods you compare in these two cars it's as much a battle between the tuning abilities as the cars. From stock... Even with N/A cars. It is all relative. Your example of an NA car Vs. a WRX is a good example. $2000 worth of mods on a WRX could either produce a incredibly fast machine with a good torque curve... Or used on the wrong mods a laggy unresponsive high boost top end monster that could be spanked by the throttle response and linear powerband of the NA car... See what I mean? No doubt a turbo car will make more power then an N/A car but like I said before HP is only a #. Throw an oversized turbo WRX against a well tuned N/A powered car and the N/A could easily beat it around a roadcourse, around the skidpad, through the slalom, Loosing ground only in the 0-60 and 1/4. Anyone with a streetbike Or a race prepped N/A Honda for that matter
can tell you that you don't need a huge HP # to be fast. I was just saying that stock for stock is a good comparison. Since unless you just want the argument to turn into:
"Well if you use this tuners parts instead of that tuners the WRX/SRT-4 would own the WRX/SRT-4"
Stock Vs. Stock Is as good as it gets.
-DE
Last edited by DoomE.Q.; 11-12-2003 at 07:15 PM.
11-14-2003, 06:54 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Glen Rock, PA
Posts: 527
Car Info: 95 Impreza coup, green, 5speed 1.8l awd
the SRT-4 exhibites many of the same qualities as a Rex.
but how easy are they to work on by yourself?
because everyone i know that owns a dodge has problems working on them because they have to remove five or more parts most of the time to get to what they want to replace or fix or spend a butt load of money in labor
but then thats me because i have put a flywheel and clutch in my sooby at home and not everyone can do that
(wonder how long a turbo swap is on them?)
but how easy are they to work on by yourself?
because everyone i know that owns a dodge has problems working on them because they have to remove five or more parts most of the time to get to what they want to replace or fix or spend a butt load of money in labor
but then thats me because i have put a flywheel and clutch in my sooby at home and not everyone can do that
(wonder how long a turbo swap is on them?)
11-15-2003, 01:36 AM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by downshift
stock for stock yes... but its really about better performance at the end..
stock for stock yes... but its really about better performance at the end..
Because the FWD SRT-4 rally car beat the group N AWD Subaurs up pikes peak does this mean that the SRT-4 is a better 'car' at the 'end'?
What 'end'?
You are not getting the point here....
-DE
11-15-2003, 08:35 AM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
the srt-4 is a fast car. stock for stock, it is faster than a wrx. closed book. end of speech. end of debate.
maybe we should put it up on the club rules that we admit that the srt-4 is faster, like clubrsx does with the wrx.
and the villagers rejoice.
maybe we should put it up on the club rules that we admit that the srt-4 is faster, like clubrsx does with the wrx.
and the villagers rejoice.
11-19-2003, 09:50 PM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Northern Bay Area: Larkspur
Posts: 1,004
Car Info: 02 Silver WRX sedan. Eibach springs, Blitz NUR cat back, Rota 17" Attacks, Cobb AccessPort/DP
Stock WRX tires
For the love of God, you have to realize that the stock tires SUCK really bad on the WRX. When I switched to my 225/45-17's, it made the car feel completely different. It stuck to the road like it was glued to it.
11-19-2003, 10:36 PM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
yup up both counts (tho i'm not too sure about pike's peak). but we can't really say anything about million dollar rally cars. just because solberg is the WRC champ doesn't make a stock STI "better" than, say, a stock EVO. just take pride in subaru's achievement and let's just enjoy a piece of that achievement in our cars.
11-19-2003, 10:45 PM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by downshift
the srt4 beat a wrx up pikes peak? where ? show me the video. cause i thought the 2003 championship goes to the AWD subaru driver, solberg?
the srt4 beat a wrx up pikes peak? where ? show me the video. cause i thought the 2003 championship goes to the AWD subaru driver, solberg?
A. Pikes peak is part of the SCCA US Prorally series... not part of WRC. (although in ProRally it's run as a special stage and no points were awarded this year.)
B. Mark Lovell did win the 'open class' in his WRX, Almost finishing first overall. Petter Solberg was nowhere near the Pikes Peak hillclimb. Probably preparing for a WRC rally somewhere half way across the world...
C. The open class has nothing to do with my statement in my earlier post. As I said before a 'Group 5' FWD Srt-4 rally car beat all the AWD 'Group N' Cars (which just in the top 5 contains one EVO, 3 WRX's, and a regular Impreza some factory Subaru efforts, all of ...) Which are built to a similar spec, up the hillclimb.
D. You don't need a 'video' go buy the November 2003 Sport Compact Car. The results are in there. Along with the part on p.109 where it says:
p.109 Sport Compact Car November 2003
Doug Shepard, with Cindy Krolikowski co-driving, was back for his seventh attempt at the hill, running in Exhibition with his two-wheel-drive Group 5 Dodge SRT-4. "A Group 5 car beat all the four-wheel-drive N cars. I guess that shows the potential of the class," he says.
Doug Shepard, with Cindy Krolikowski co-driving, was back for his seventh attempt at the hill, running in Exhibition with his two-wheel-drive Group 5 Dodge SRT-4. "A Group 5 car beat all the four-wheel-drive N cars. I guess that shows the potential of the class," he says.
E. Who said anything about Solberg and the WRC drivers championship? WRC cars are built to a spec far more outlandish then Group N or Group 5 cars ever can be... and while being slightly less powerful are also more technically advanced then even the Open class USA ProRally cars... But again who said anything about WRC? I know I didn't...
-DE
11-19-2003, 11:46 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: california, LOS ANGELES
Posts: 1,013
Car Info: dream car Subaru STi
yes evo, sti s srt4's etc...all is great as u said nick van axel, its upon the driver in the cars as well to achieve the best times. in that case, the driver in the srt4 going up pikes peak got the better time in its class.. so what. that shows the potential of its class, every car has potential.
at the end, WORLD RALLY CHAMPIONSHIP solberg owned, in the OPEN class, YES lovell DID win first. yes i was confused. but i get it now. there is no end. but there is. IN THE END its up to the best time and thats the Subaru. yes the srt4 is faster stock for stock.. or so it says, every time i read the results, the WRX gets a range from 14.2-14.6 factors such as weather and ddriver make a big difference, at the end its up to the driver.. enough talkin about oh a evo is faster than a srt4, oh an srt4 is faster than a wrx, oh a turbo b18 is faster than a VW1.8T, oh STi is faster than this, oh ferrari is faster than ur sti, oh my sti is faster than ur ferrari. oh my ferrari is faster than ur boxster. blah blah blah performance is great in both cars, lets see how one puts performance to use. stop talking about wat will smoke wat, start showing videos or time slips. all this my car is faster than urs is just stupid. every time posted on the magazines is usually quite accurate, or is it? goto know by actually driving the stock wrx or stock srt4 and running it at the strips. i agree, because the srt4 got the better time compared to the awd class, doesnt mean its the better car, just because lovell got 1st place in open class beating everyones time, doesnt mean its the better car, doesnt mean since solberg won the WRC, means his car is the best. it would be more meaningful talking about other things more related to how u did at the tracks or drags, cause comparing facts and info from magazines aint shiet. and yes it is about better performance in the end.. and the end is the end of the 2003 WRC which the better performance was the Subaru driven by Solberg. in the end, its lovells subaru at pikes peak that took the best time. its only the end of that event, until next time.. more opportunities for potential champs. yes this supposed car is faster, so what, whos driving? a ford focus got a better time than the srt4, i agree, that doesnt mean the focus is better. at the end, its pure skills.
at the end, WORLD RALLY CHAMPIONSHIP solberg owned, in the OPEN class, YES lovell DID win first. yes i was confused. but i get it now. there is no end. but there is. IN THE END its up to the best time and thats the Subaru. yes the srt4 is faster stock for stock.. or so it says, every time i read the results, the WRX gets a range from 14.2-14.6 factors such as weather and ddriver make a big difference, at the end its up to the driver.. enough talkin about oh a evo is faster than a srt4, oh an srt4 is faster than a wrx, oh a turbo b18 is faster than a VW1.8T, oh STi is faster than this, oh ferrari is faster than ur sti, oh my sti is faster than ur ferrari. oh my ferrari is faster than ur boxster. blah blah blah performance is great in both cars, lets see how one puts performance to use. stop talking about wat will smoke wat, start showing videos or time slips. all this my car is faster than urs is just stupid. every time posted on the magazines is usually quite accurate, or is it? goto know by actually driving the stock wrx or stock srt4 and running it at the strips. i agree, because the srt4 got the better time compared to the awd class, doesnt mean its the better car, just because lovell got 1st place in open class beating everyones time, doesnt mean its the better car, doesnt mean since solberg won the WRC, means his car is the best. it would be more meaningful talking about other things more related to how u did at the tracks or drags, cause comparing facts and info from magazines aint shiet. and yes it is about better performance in the end.. and the end is the end of the 2003 WRC which the better performance was the Subaru driven by Solberg. in the end, its lovells subaru at pikes peak that took the best time. its only the end of that event, until next time.. more opportunities for potential champs. yes this supposed car is faster, so what, whos driving? a ford focus got a better time than the srt4, i agree, that doesnt mean the focus is better. at the end, its pure skills.