Well, we don't know what these mods will cost yet. But if you could have a mid 12 second car for about mid $20s....that's still pretty impressive.

BTW, Dodge didn't just to break into this market. There is HUGE turbo Dodge movement that has evolved over the past 15 years. Dodge is just smart enough to tap into it.

 

OK guys,
Just some info on the Neon SRT-4s seeing as I drive them every day.

The half-shafts are equal length. And the torque steer is prodigious if the steering wheel is turned AT ALL. If the front wheels aren't pointed straight ahead when you get on the gas, the car will want to pull you into a ditch.

There is PLENTY of wheelspin when you get on the gas hard. And if you keep your foot in it, you'll get a ton of wheelhop.

It's loud. Annoyingly loud.

And the car is not called the Neon SRT-4. It's just the SRT-4. The Neon name is nowhere to be found on the car.

My guess for 1/4 mile time is somewhere between 14.2 and 14.5.



And as a footnote, we all prefer the Stratus R/T sedan. With it's 200 hp 2.7 V-6, it's not as powerful as the SRT-4, but it's a much better balanced car. It's quieter and more comfortable, too.

 

there is a guy in chicago i think that has a neon running 10s the internals are stock so is the tranny and axels he put a big turbo and intercooler so slicks and runs 10s and still gets better mpg than my z28 it was in hotrodi dont like fwd but damn

 

I think it was Sport Compact Car that tested one and ran a 14.1 in it. They also dyno 215hp to the wheels.

Cool little cars. I'd look long and hard at one if I was buying a new car.

 

That's exactly what they did. It isn't called a Neon. Just SRT-4. The only thing that bothers me about the car is the silly spoiler on the back. I'd have to remove it. Then it would make a great daily driver

 

I'd have to see that to believe it. No work done to the trans or axles??

 

I don't like the look of the spoiler either. But this is one of those rare cases, (according to OSV, anyway), where the spoiler is actually functional. At top speed, the SRT-4 needs the downforce.

 

Who cares? Everyone acts like a car's quarter mile time is the only measure of how good a car is. So a hopped-up Neon can go 13's....or even 12's, that doesn't change the fact that it's still a small, rather goofy-looking compact car meant for daily driving.

I'm sure you could put nitrous on a Mazda Miata and have that car (go-kart) running pretty fast. Zoom Zoom! Give me a freakin break. A drag race demon Neon....whats next, drag race SUVs?

 

They did it with a Subaru Impraza and a Mitsu Lancer, so why not a neon.

I'm holding out for the hot rod Kia Rio

 

Cavalier is replaced in MY2005 by a DELTA platform car to be assembled at Lordstown (Ohio) Assembly...

They are building pilot cars right now, and actually have a test line set up... running simulateously with the J-Car line, from what I've been told.

 

I guess I just don't get the point of a FWD car with more than 250 HP on tap. The main reason for the FWD thing is that it's easier to drive for the average joe in poor weather conditions. It certainly has nothing to do with higher performance. That grip required for acceleration is grip that is not available for cornering (and vice-versa), when talking about FWD. Not to mention weight transfer issues.

So it seems like a waste of a good motor to me to stuff 300HP into a neon. I'm all for nimble, relatively compact cars packing high-hp and good power to weight ratios, but if you're gonna lay that power down properly, it has to be AWD or RWD. E.g the old 70s and 80s Nissan turbo Z cars, today's Imprezza, EVO, Nissan Silvia s-14, s-15.

I mean what use is 300HP and FWD in the snow anway? Esp. when the power comes on in a less than linear fashion in a turbo charged motor - esp. a small disp. 4 banger like the Neon's. Torque steer, turbo lag and AND poor traction are not really any better than rear wheel drive in bad weather.

 

who cares???everyone acts like a car's quarter mile time is the only measure of how good a car is.so a hopped-up '64 tempest can go 15's....or even 14's,that doesn't change the fact that it's still a midsize,rather boring looking car meant for daily driving.

 

well I like the fact that cars are getting quicker, and lighter, but they should have made it a rear wheel drive. In its defense, it probably is pretty fun to drive, my friend had a chevy lumina which he would nuetral slam into first, and that thing would torque all over the road, it just felt different than a rear wheel fishtailing, of course he went through cv joints every week, but it was fun. Sometimes I wish my big Firebird was smaller, cause it would feel more nimble and quicker. I think many of those Honda lovers think their car is fast cause its so small, it gives the impression that corners can be taken at any speed. Even though my car is pretty quick it just feels big and clumsy, I hope GM takes note that big cars are a dying breed. I was watching some musclecar tv show and I couldn't help think that those cars are just as heavy as our cars. My 95 convertible has got to be around 3600 pounds, that neon is probably 2800--big difference

 

Good way to break stuff.

The SRT-4 isn't my cup o' tea but I don't think it's necessarily fair to criticise something that does bring the goods performance-wise, even though it isn't packaged like "we" would like. I'd much rather see a Neon that's actually fast instead of the same old riced out crap that runs 16's on a good day.

 

Well, my OTHER car is a Neon... I'm personally hoping that I'll come across one of the SRT-4s that's totalled out body wise so I can snag the motor, tranny, turbo, intercooler, etc...

Of course I could also snag it all out of a PT since it's the same motor and tranny.. The only difference is the intercooler (it's bigger on the SRT-4).

And the best part of all of it is that it's all direct bolt in...