I think it looks hot as hell , im trying to get the wifey to sell the EP for one . , she aint feelin it though

 

SRT-4

 

The SRT4 is impressive and here is why: 2.4 liters displacement. 8:1 CR, non interfear head, 4 valve, forged pistons, teflon coated skirts, full floating wrist pins, hardened ring lands, forged rods with cracked caps and strong rod bolts, piston oil squirters, cast crank with huge radiused journels (that already made over 1000hp Shaun Carlson), no main caps just a huge bedplate gurtle, steel block, DOHC, enlarged oil return galleys, efficient intake manifold, huge cast aluminum oil pan with heat sink fins, liquid cooled oil cooler, rubber pan gasket with built in crank scraper, internal balace shaft assembly with integraded windage tray, and the list goes on. To me this is very impressive. I don't doubt that this motor can make over 600hp with stock internals and we are going to find out. Judging from what I have seen, this motor is much more stout than a 4g63.

 

i wonder why they skimped on the crank.

My engine has almost all those features, and was engineered almost 15 years ago, plus it has a forged nitrided crank

i say its about time they domestics start realising the efficienties of 4 cylinder engines!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Unsung EM1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

How is the engine impressive? Just curious... It takes 2.4L and 14psi of boost to make around 215whp, and it's still under 100hp/L with 14 psi of boost. On the other hand, you can take a b16a, feed it 15psi of boost with the exact same turbo, and see upwards of 320whp, putting it at 200hp/L. Impressive? Not even slightly close. Is the car fast? Yes.


Definitely looks 100x better than your standard Neon too. </TD></TR></TABLE>
that is one of the most ignorant statements I heard. plus 14psi with a 16g wouldnt make 320whp on a b16a. you cant compare factory turbo cars to a NA car with boost. how about the guys makin over 400whp on stock internals AND clutch? try that in your b16a. keep your ricer comparisons to yourself.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rewsnaeht &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
that is one of the most ignorant statements I heard. plus 14psi with a 16g wouldnt make 320whp on a b16a. you cant compare factory turbo cars to a NA car with boost. how about the guys makin over 400whp on stock internals AND clutch? try that in your b16a. keep your ricer comparisons to yourself.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Go buy a Neon if you think I am wrong.

 

at least no one is going to steal it.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Unsung EM1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Go buy a Neon if you think I am wrong. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I didnt say the CAR is better, I said the motor is in STOCK form. I plan on making big power and its just easier/cheaper to do so with a B series. I think Hondas are much better balanced cars, but making HP/L comparisons and whatnot is just silly.

"ohhh well my engine smaller so I make more power per liter" WHO THE HELL CARES

 

you guys have neglegted torque, being HP is the derivitive OF torque, you must do a full comparison if one is to be made.

a 2.4L engine will not likely not make the "horsepower" of a smaller 1.6L from the factory (of course many variables here) because the 1.6L will almost always rev higher than the larger motor because it will use a shorter stroke most likely.

Anyway, im sure the neon is highly modifiable, but it doesen't quite contend with the other players in/around its class.. The Subaru WRX, STI and the Evo VIII i would consider "in its class" because the price difference really isn't all that big if you know where to look to buy cars, Anyway,

The evo comes with Active yaw control, all wheel drive, and a variable center differential, it makes more power out of the factory on a smaller motor, but does run more boost to do so.

The Subaru is a 2.4L, all wheel drive with a Variable center differential, it's also equipped with a 6 spd capable of handling up to 600 or so crank hp, and is faster in a straight line than an evo and a SRT-4.

I know this thread didn't start out as a debate or anything, but it seems to have geared towards that, im just trying to provide some information, and of course my opinion..

If it were me, i would definately use an EVO-8 as the base car, because it is faster in the turns than the competitors.. Top gear tested a euro spec version of the car (with a few more ponies) and it was faster on their circut than a LAMBORGHINI MERCIALAGO! (Only by one tenth, but for a car that competes in a supercar class and has 1/2 the horsepower, its really something)

I think theres something too, to be said about the evo 8, and also the subaru, because they are built after their own rally cars, they use heavily tested designs, and do well in terms of long lasting performance (Of course with every manufacturer, they have a problem somewhere to be fixed or addressed)

The bad thing i think with FWD performance vehicles is that streetable fun is diminished quite a bit because lack of traction in corners unless you spend money on drag radials and or a lsd (if not factory equipped) and even then, with 400 HP to the front wheels, you will spin them regardless (at least, in turns)

You can't just compare horsepower, or torque, or 1/4 mile times, its really IMO the complete package.. Drivetrain, engine, interior, exterior, reliability, upgradability, Etc.

Any car can be fast in a straight line, thats easy, especially in a honda now adays, but it takes a lot of effort to be fast in all areas. (Quick, Fast, High numbers on the skidpad, Slalom, Snow performance, dirt performance etc..)

Out of all the newer sport compacts/imports right now, i would definately go with an Evo First, then an STI, then a WRX.

I think from the factory, honda isn't even in the market yet for competition against theese new vehicles, and it really doesen't seem like they will be for a while.

Dodge has come along way with their 2.4L engine, but they really need to fit it to a RWD package, or all wheel drive package, but thats not possible without investing some pretty penies in developing a sound drivetrain, unless they buy someone elses.

Even to this day, i take friends of mine who have owned/own many different types of cars, still say the all wheel drive in my 14 year old isuzu impulse is better in the snow!

Another car to look at for comparison is the ford sierra cosworth, if ford wanted to get back into the scene, they should definately consider re-using that drivetrain in a sport compact, they would immediately stir up competition in the import/sport compact market, if they could release it reasonably priced...

Anyway...

The SRT-4 motor seems to be well built for power, but the overall package has yet to impress me, and probably wont untill they are able to make that power very streetable.

 

Isnt the STI a 2.5 liter?? Just wondering....not trying to be an ***. Anyway you made some good points. I dont plan on this car to be able to fly in and out of turns all that good. It would be nice but I dont have the money to even try to make it a handling beast (if i even could). I got it pretty much for straight line, ***** to the wall speed. My actual goal is 12's on 17's w/stree tires. Anyway i do wish soooo bad that it was rwd or even awd for that matter. I wanted a brand new car and this is what I got because I couldnt afford an sti or an evo. I even thought about a wrx but even then that would have been too much for me. I paid $20,650 for the srt-4. That includes EVERYTHING tax, tags, etc. I'm happy with the car so far. Hasnt given my any trouble so far at 2,000 miles. Oh yea and i'm ordering stage 1 friday

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by liveforphysics &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Another HT thread......

I am curious what makes the engine warrent praise. Many like to look at the output numbers. They are high, 230ish is a lot of hp. Now, there are pushrod 2v chev engines like the 454ss pickup that lay similar power to the neon. Why are its numbers not impressive??? Because it uses 7.44L of displacement to accomplish its 230whp. Not a very impressive engine to look at now is it?

Lets look at the neon. 2.4L, dohc, 16v, HUGE FMIC, Fair sized turbo, high flow exasut/"muffler", decent intake manifold, 14PSI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, and good ecu setup. We have many helpful tools being used to help this make power, YET we see HP/L numbers still below what a stock b16a produces without the liberty of 14psi. Now, sombody tell me how this makes an impressive engine, and if you feel it is impressive, why is the 230whp of the 7.44L 454ss pickup also not impressive. </TD></TR></TABLE>

small size, great top end AND low end torque?

 

people seem to neglect the fact that a SRT4 is 8.0:1 compression while a B16A is 10.2:1 (or 10.7:1). dodge didnt design a motor to make 350whp stock. they designed a motor that produces more power than any honda 4 banger puts out.

 

at first i was like "great a ricey neon."


then i drove one.


thems cars is one bad sombish, i tell you whut.

 

oops, yeah sti's are 2.5L, im thinking of the sleeved EJ25 that's been done to a close friends. my bad!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rewsnaeht &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">dodge didnt design a motor to make 350whp stock. they designed a motor that produces more power than any honda 4 banger puts out.</TD></TR></TABLE>

What about the s2k? It makes more power with .4l less displacement.

 

not torque, however!

 

Good post Lazerus, just a few little things.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by lazerus &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The evo comes with Active yaw control, all wheel drive, and a variable center differential, it makes more power out of the factory on a smaller motor, but does run more boost to do so.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not here in America, it doesn't. We get a regular drivetrain.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I think theres something too, to be said about the evo 8, and also the subaru, because they are built after their own rally cars, they use heavily tested designs, and do well in terms of long lasting performance (Of course with every manufacturer, they have a problem somewhere to be fixed or addressed)</TD></TR></TABLE>

The 2.5L is NOT the engine Subaru uses in the WRC cars.

 

looks good man

 

This is a back and forth argument. Basically what it boils down to is, what your preference for power is. Each has it's advantages, depending on what you consider advantages. I'll say this. The more you learn about engines, cars, and physics, the more you may change your opinions. There's a whole world outside what honda-tech tells you about cars. There is some great tech reading on this website that may start to get some of you thinking.

http://www.billzilla.org/

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by kpt4321 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Good post Lazerus, just a few little things.

Not here in America, it doesn't. We get a regular drivetrain.

The 2.5L is NOT the engine Subaru uses in the WRC cars.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

right, but the 2.5L subaru ej25 is based off the EJ20, also is the ej22. the 2.5L is basically a stroked ej20

And i think the new Evo-8 MR's will be coming with the SAYC in the US!

 

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;i wonder why they skimped on the crank.
My engine has almost all those features, and was engineered almost 15 years ago, plus it has a forged nitrided crank &lt;&lt;&lt;

Heck, my 90 Geo had a super crank, same forged and nitrated setup, built in
1991. When it came time to buy a new one it cost close to $700. A brand new
SRT crank cost me $90!!

Steve

 

i hate the rims on those , other than that looks nice

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Unsung EM1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

How is the engine impressive? Just curious... It takes 2.4L and 14psi of boost to make around 215whp, and it's still under 100hp/L with 14 psi of boost. On the other hand, you can take a b16a, feed it 15psi of boost with the exact same turbo, and see upwards of 320whp, putting it at 200hp/L. Impressive? Not even slightly close. Is the car fast? Yes.

Definitely looks 100x better than your standard Neon too. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Have you seen the inside of one?
That is one fricken stout lookin motor.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TrueNorthStar &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

What about the s2k? It makes more power with .4l less displacement.</TD></TR></TABLE>
well acually now the s2k has a 2.2 so its only .2l less displacement
my.02

 

I like it