99 GS-T vs. SRT-4

[OwN1GST]

I have a 99 Gs-t w/ a couple of mods wich are (apexi down pipe, thermal catback, greddy-s BOV, Injen intake, msd wires, ngk plugs, b&m shifter, ACT 2600 w/ xtreme pressure plate & hks turbo timer) I am running with stock tires. I have never timed my 1/4 mile. The new neon runs the 1/4 mile in 14.2. Do tyou think I can take it

 

[2GeNTSi]

oh yeah I have a VCD of the new STi running a 12.9 in the 1/4 really nice but I dunno if the Japanese spec is the same as the U.S., all I know is that the new STi will have 300hp and 300ft lb of torque.

 

[turbobird92]

The SRT-4 is a desendent of your very gst the engine was a mitsu-chrysler design a 16g a front mout sound familiar evo!!! th onlt draw back I saw with this engine was the turbo and exhaust mani is a one piece unit expensive to upgrade. And as for it being a Neon yeah and when you girl is in your passenger seat and you get owned by one won't it be a little embarassing.

 

[WhipmastaFlex]

Originally posted by xjarayax
Too bad it's a neon.

I always liked the DSMs... never a Neon.

^^^ that comment has gotten really old really fast. "it's a neon", or a neon is "a girls car"? like i don't get sh*t for owning a 2g eclipse which ISN'T labeled as "a girls car"?

plus, being made by DaimlerChrysler, these neons and DSMs are cousins

anywho, that's 223HP/250ft-lbs at the WHEELS. all for under $20K. if you ask me that's pretty f0ckin good. granted, it's no 4g63, i'm sure it doesn't have the reliability issues our (and especially my) car has... but there's a warrenty for that. pretty damn good for "a girls car"

Adam

 

[greyGS-T]

For those people who say they would never drive it because its a Neon well think about this. Would you drive an EVO? If you said yes then you must realize that it is just a Lancer which in my opinion is a rather fugly car. An Evo is just a Lancer with a bad @ss engine and a few other things just like the SRT-4 is just a neon with a bad @ss engine and a few other things. Either way you look at these two they are still tuned 4 door cars.

 

[midnght]

For the guy asking the HP of the New Evo and the 1/4 mile time....
2003 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution
Obtained from R&T March, 2003
0-60: 5.1
Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 13.8
1/4 Speed: 102



WhipmastaFlex....."That's 223HP/250ft-lbs at the WHEELS. all for under $20K"

That is not the real numbers!

Horsepower : 215 hp @ 5400 rpm
Torque : 245 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm
Redline : 6750 rpm
Top speed : 153 mph
0-60 mph : 5.6 sec.
0-¼ mile : 14.2 sec @ 102.0 mph

 

[Dallas J]

Originally posted by turbobird92
The SRT-4 is a desendent of your very gst the engine was a mitsu-chrysler design a 16g a front mout sound familiar evo!!! th onlt draw back I saw with this engine was the turbo and exhaust mani is a one piece unit expensive to upgrade. And as for it being a Neon yeah and when you girl is in your passenger seat and you get owned by one won't it be a little embarassing.

The SRT-4 isnt a direct desendant of the 4G63. It really has nothing in common with it actually. The engine is based off of the Mexican stratus turbo motor thats been down there for several years. The fact that it happens to use a mitsubishi turbo has nothing to do with a DSM. They just happend to pick a decent turbo that would get them the power they wanted. The manifold design helps with spool time. Its a better design than the mitsu exhaust housing.

-Dallas J

 

[WhipmastaFlex]

Originally posted by midnght
For the guy asking the HP of the New Evo and the 1/4 mile time....
2003 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution
Obtained from R&T March, 2003
0-60: 5.1
Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 13.8
1/4 Speed: 102



WhipmastaFlex....."That's 223HP/250ft-lbs at the WHEELS. all for under $20K"

That is not the real numbers!

Horsepower : 215 hp @ 5400 rpm
Torque : 245 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm
Redline : 6750 rpm
Top speed : 153 mph
0-60 mph : 5.6 sec.
0-¼ mile : 14.2 sec @ 102.0 mph

Those are manufacturer's claimed numbers... go get the february issue of SCC where they measured at the wheels (as i said): 223HP/250ft-lbs.

And as for it being related to the DSM, no one said it was a DSM or remotely close, but it was said the SRT-4 is made by the same company that took part in making the DSM, which is DaimlerChrysler

 

[inferno9898]

What is with all of the "it's still just a neon" crap. Head over to a Corvette board and all their posts will say "I got beat by a turbo Eclipse, but at the end of the day it's still a girl's car."

Ok, so the neon is a girls car. Eclipses aren't much higher on the macho scale than neons and v6 AT mustangs. Everyone will have something to say when they get beat... "yea, so what, their car is still ###." If you buy a car to race it, or because it's fast, then lose those dumb excuses. Yea, it's still a neon, but you're still an eclipse, and you still got owned.

-Scott

P.S. - I dont have a dsm, but I will soon. I do think they're girls cars, but don't give a flying sh!t because I wanna go fast. I just hate people making dumb excuses about stupid crap.

 

[2GeNTSi]

For those people who say they would never drive it because its a Neon well think about this. Would you drive an EVO? If you said yes then you must realize that it is just a Lancer which in my opinion is a rather fugly car. An Evo is just a Lancer with a bad @ss engine and a few other things just like the SRT-4 is just a neon with a bad @ss engine and a few other things. Either way you look at these two they are still tuned 4 door cars.

They released the Lancer so that people would recognize the name "Lancer." Now that they are releasing the Evo, people will already know the name of the car and also they've been making the Evo's longer then they have been making the Lancer so it's not really the same situation as the Neon and the SRT-4. Also the fact that the Evo has many rally championships also makes it popular, I don't know anything really about Neon's but I don't see them dominating at any level. Oh yeah the SRT-4 is still FWD, unlike the Evo which is AWD, which you probably already know.

Too bad the Neon really is FUGLIER then the last generation with its trademark dodge front end which just makes the car look worse. But the Evo that is being released isn't that ugly compared to it, it's not all that great either but one thing I noticed they changed from the JDM one is the front grill, it has the same one as the Galant. I'd take the Evo or even the new STi which won't have any problem owning both of these cars.

P.S. - I dont have a dsm, but I will soon. I do think they're girls cars, but don't give a flying sh!t because I wanna go fast. I just hate people making dumb excuses about stupid crap.

You think the Eclipse is a girls car??? Well you better stop thinking that way because you are in a place with many MANY eclipse/talon owners. I'm not really offended by this but don't say they are girls car in here, this is the last place you want to say that. who cares about V6 Mustangs, especially an auto my friend has one and it's too damn slow. Also why don't you decide to get something else like a 2g RX-7 or any gen 240sx and drop a SR20 or something then you can be a "drifter."

 

[krott5333]

Who cares if you can take it or not.. ITS A NEON!!! it may be fast, but its still a small cheap hunk of aluminum foil.

 

[inferno9898]

Originally posted by 2GeNTSi

You think the Eclipse is a girls car??? Well you better stop thinking that way because you are in a place with many MANY eclipse/talon owners. I'm not really offended by this but don't say they are girls car in here, this is the last place you want to say that. who cares about V6 Mustangs, especially an auto my friend has one and it's too damn slow. Also why don't you decide to get something else like a 2g RX-7 or any gen 240sx and drop a SR20 or something then you can be a "drifter."

Sorry, let me rephrase...I don't think its like a sissy car or anything, I just think a LOT of girls drive them. When I look around my old high school parking lot, the girls all had sunfires, mustangs, and eclipses. Thats what I'm talkin about. I think they're bad ass cars, dont get me wrong.

 

[CornerHard]

Every girl who's ridden in my car has loved it, and complemented me on how it looks. Is this a bad thing? Hmm...No! Feel free to go drive some ugly car if it makes you feel more manly - I'll drive what I want, and if girls like it, that's an extra bonus. I really couldn't care less if people think I drive a girlie car.

Personally, I think the SRT-4 looks better than a WRX, and if it had RWD, I'd be eyeing it as a potential future car for me

 

[truwarrior]

My sister has a neon.

I have a GST

Convertable eclipses are for girls or guys with girl friends. If your a guy, single, and owen an eclipse convertable...

There is no way in hell I'd drive a convertable if I was single, why I don't know, I think convertables are fun I just wouldn't want the attention. That's what the sound system and exhuast is for if I wanna show off.

 

[turbobird92]

Originally posted by Dallas J


The SRT-4 isnt a direct desendant of the 4G63. It really has nothing in common with it actually. The engine is based off of the Mexican stratus turbo motor thats been down there for several years. The fact that it happens to use a mitsubishi turbo has nothing to do with a DSM. They just happend to pick a decent turbo that would get them the power they wanted. The manifold design helps with spool time. Its a better design than the mitsu exhaust housing.

-Dallas J

look at the engine it is mitsubishi chrysler co-design hence the desendent of 4g63 as in a cousin.So the 2g n/a guys cars a chrysler products? no i don't think so it was a joint venture just like the srt-4 has mitsubishi input because the neon is due to be phased out in 2005-06 to a lancer variant.

 

[greyGS-T]

I was at a Mitsubishi dealer last week and they had an EVO in their garage so I took a look at it. It really doesn't look to much like a Lancer until you see it from the side and even then they dont look too much alike. But I still think my eclipse looks better than it and hopefully one day should be faster too and I didn't have to spend 10 g's over the sticker price like some fool around here did. I cant remeber the exact price.

 

[99GSBBTurbo]

Look at it this way... Compairing motors is always what it comes down to. If you want to compair the SRT-4 to the 4G63, the SRT-4 is a 2.4L!!!! That's .1L away from being a small V6. Ford's small V6 is a 2.5L!!! The 4G63 is a 2.0, as is the WRX and the EVO.

Personally, I think 223hp out of a 2.4L TURBO, is like 160hp out of a V6. That's weak, only 13hp more then the GS-T/X, and it's a MUCH bigger engine. Now, it is a fast little car. I like how it comes with a 16G and a FMIC, and once they get into the car world more, I think they will get MUCH more respect.

 

[WhipmastaFlex]

Originally posted by 99GSBBTurbo
Look at it this way... Compairing motors is always what it comes down to. If you want to compair the SRT-4 to the 4G63, the SRT-4 is a 2.4L!!!! That's .1L away from being a small V6. Ford's small V6 is a 2.5L!!! The 4G63 is a 2.0, as is the WRX and the EVO.

Personally, I think 223hp out of a 2.4L TURBO, is like 160hp out of a V6. That's weak, only 13hp more then the GS-T/X, and it's a MUCH bigger engine. Now, it is a fast little car. I like how it comes with a 16G and a FMIC, and once they get into the car world more, I think they will get MUCH more respect.

errr... only 13 more HP? that 223 was measured at the wheels. our 210HP is measured at the crank... it's a bit less than 210 at the wheels buddy

and for the d*ckless f*ck who said something about owning a convertible eclipse for attention, do me a favor and kindly shit the f0ck up my "girly" convertible (or was it convertable... ) has more balls than you can ever dream of having

thank you

 

[dsmturboawd]

Originally posted by EcLiPsESk8PuNk
the srt-4 0-60 is around 4 seconds I believe.

yeah, i hope youre talking about the 60 foot.

 

[vertGST]

Originally posted by WhipmastaFlex

and for the d*ckless f*ck who said something about owning a convertible eclipse for attention, do me a favor and kindly shit the f0ck up my "girly" convertible (or was it convertable... ) has more balls than you can ever dream of having

thank you

Brendon

 

[truwarrior]

Sorry if the truth hurts

Atleast your car does have some power though...

 

[vertGST]

Originally posted by truwarrior
Sorry if the truth hurts

Atleast your car does have some power though...

ummmmmm no. sorry

Brendon

 

[MooseTSI]

Originally posted by DSMNinja
Everything everybody is basing the SRT-4 Times off of is completely incorrect. Those times were derived from a SRT-4 that is not street legal, running mufflerless and without some of the emissions things located on the car. The real SRT-4 will be a little slow once these parts are built into the actual car, and not a prototype. Having said that, it will still be a close race, you will need to launch hard, and drive like ya stole the car, and even then he may catch you and beat you. Problem is on the T25 you lose power after 5Krpm, and those 1500-2500 RPM are enough to drop you behind. OH yeah, and you may want to lose the ACT Clutch until you build up the bottom end of your engine so your crank doesn't walk on you because crankwalk really sucks ass, and runs your wallet really lean...

The street legal SRT-4 has a mufflerless exhaust system, due to some fancy emissions thingy. just thought i'd fix that for ya.

 

[WhipmastaFlex]

Originally posted by MooseTSI


The street legal SRT-4 has a mufflerless exhaust system, due to some fancy emissions thingy. just thought i'd fix that for ya.

^^^ exactly, which is why, once again, if someone wants to respond to my posts, do some research

 

[midnght]

The issue of consumer reports car report for 2003(pretty reputible s/p) says 2.4L turbo 215hp. I am almost positive that is at the CRANK. I could be wrong and I am not going to beat a dead horse (or neon). The car is OK and will be a nice addition to the 'cars to play with' list.

 

[CornerHard]

Originally posted by midnght
The issue of consumer reports car report for 2003(pretty reputible s/p) says 2.4L turbo 215hp. I am almost positive that is at the CRANK. I could be wrong and I am not going to beat a dead horse (or neon). The car is OK and will be a nice addition to the 'cars to play with' list.

That's Chrysler's claimed bhp, but if you look at the people dynoing their new SRT-4s, they're putting down around 250whp. Chrysler really underrated the car, perhaps for insurance reasons.