Id highly doubt that dodge will make an awd car unless mitsubishi makes the same.

 

likely just a rumor but it got your attention though.

 

That rumor exists because the Neon's replacement is going to be built on the Mitsubishi Lancers frame, which as we all know can easily be AWD. It will have the Hyundai sourced engine to power it.[:'(]

 

The SRT-4 is expensive for being a Neon, but the WRX is far more expensive for being an Imprezza.

I see classic Dodges running everywhere everyday, I have yet to see a classic Honda or Toyota on the road. I know of several Mopars that are running well with over 300,000 miles on their untouched stock engines, one had almost 400,000 but the body was too far gone with rust (it was an early 70's wagon with a big block 400) and the engine is still going in another car.

I hate to break it to you, but the SRT-4 has the WRX beat in every single area, except 0-60 MPH. In the same tests from the same source (Sport Compact Car magazine) in their 8 Great Rides For Less Than $30,000 article, the SRT-4 has a slalom speed of 71.3 MPH (700ft.) and the WRX was 67.7 MPH (700ft.). They both turned .88g on the 200ft. skidpad. And the 60-0 MPH braking was 117 ft. for the SRT-4 and 122 ft. for the WRX. I guess these heavy Neons still have the WRX beat. The WRX is between $4,000 and $6,000+ more than the SRT-4. Don't get me wrong, I really like the WRX's, I even considered the STi before I bought my SRT-4, but the regular WRX seems to be held on a pedestal like it's an STi and it just isn't even in the same category, much like a regular SXT isn't in the same category as the SRT-4.

 

First, the cost thing. Since I bought a WRX, I know for a fact they're not between $4k and $6k+ more. That's the most obvious point where you're wrong, and I don't see how you can argue it. I paid $2k more for my WRX then my SRT-4.

Second, knowing a few cars with 300k miles on their engines isn't much of an accomplishment. Everyone has stories. There are no "classic" Hondas or Toyotas on the road in the US, because there are no Hondas or Toyotas that would be considered "classic". I see plenty of late 70s and early 80s econoboxes when I'm in no-salt areas that are still going.

Finally, you're a typical SRT-4 owner in that you think numbers are everything and your car is god. And owner's goggles are fine, but don't throw numbers out there just to throw them out there. I don't think I ever said the WRX "beat" the SRT-4. If I believed that, why would I have traded mine in for a SRT-4? What I said was, the WRX was AWD and had a better suspension. AWD is "in" right now, so that is a plus for the WRX. The WRX definitely, without any doubt, no arguments, had a better suspension. It may not have been as fast in a slalom, which is probably due to the fact that it comes with not-too-sticky all-seasons and is down 80hp, but the suspension is better tuned for handling AND comfort, both on-road and off. The SRT-4 suspension feels like it was thrown together pretty quickly. It's not well sorted out for a variety of conditions.

So, I hate to break it to YOU, but to reiterate my point, the WRX, with a better suspension, AWD, similar HP rating, and a long history, looks MUCH better to a prospective buyer.

The WRX was my comparison because I owned one, not because it was on a pedestal. See, what I did was stick to things I know.

 

I agree the SRT 4 does not get the credit. I have a 2004 SRT.

 

you realize Narcisse91 that being on a Dodge forum and arguing how we should respect your WRX is a losing battle. You aren't going to convince people that paid $19-23,000 for their cars that your car is better (whether you believe it, whether every WRX owner believes it, or what have you)... it's not going to happen... you can spread your propoganda, just be aware that you're not going to get respect in a Dodge forum while belittling a Dodge... I could care less, I am a typical SRT owner that saved $2000 according to your figures and put it into stage 2 and an exhaust... it's not all-wheel-drive... it's suspension isn't "Subaru quality"... but I don't care... it's fast... and cheap... and that's what I like... much like my women ha-ha... so as far as I care, you can take your AWD, better handling car, that didn't cost as much and drive it straight up your.... well... you get the idea... ha-ha... Make sure you spell my name right when you tell me I'm an idiot

 

foflmao[sm=funnypostabove.gif][sm=funnypostabove.gif][sm=funnypostabove.gif]

 

my boss has a WRX. before i got my SRT, he was telling me that SRT's arn't that good. now , i love the WRX, it's a great rally car. it was always my first pick in GT1-3. in GT4 i went with the SRT for obvious reasons. i think they are both great cars. but,(stupid commet sarting), the SRT is way better, cause when we leave work, you can't hear his car over mine. yes, the SRT is better simply cause it's louder. (stupid comment ending) lol


Stop the hate, both cars are good.they are different, and thats good. just enjoy the drive and have fun.

 

OK, lets try this again. Where do you get that the WRX is only $2,000 more than an SRT-4? I have never found a new WRX for as little as your claiming. In the exact same article I quoted before, here are their prices:

SRT-4
Base Price: $20,450
Price As Tested: $21,335

WRX
Base Price: $25,995
Price As Tested: $27,332

That is far from being a $2,000 difference, especially when you add other options into it.

Secondly, any car over 20-25 years old is considered a classic regardless of their manufacturer. I would love to know where you get that Hondas and Toyotas last longer than Dodges. My stepfather and my sister have had several Hondas and one or two Toyotas all of which didn't last and are complete junk. I have never seen any proof of any Hondas or Toyotas being any good at all, let alone longer lasting than any other brands.

Finally, where have I ever claimed the SRT-4 to be God? You said that the WRX has a better suspension than the SRT-4, but how can you tell which has the better suspension, by putting them through a battery of tests to measure their suspensions ability to handle these different tasks. How is this translated, in numbers. And these numbers prove that the SRT-4 has the better suspension. Where do you get that I just throw numbers out there, I looked them up in the magazine that I had and I made sure it was one in which they tested both of the cars in question at the same time. You were comparing the SRT-4 to the WRX and stated how much better the WRX was than the SRT-4 with the exception of the "fun factor" part. Your right about AWD being "in" right now and it is a great feature to have, it's one of the reasons I considered the STi. You may feel that the WRX has a better suspension than the SRT-4, but the facts show that the SRT-4 has the better suspension. The SRT-4 may have stickier tires, but they are both overpowered being 2WD and very narrow which hurts it's slalom ability where the WRX may not have as sticky a tire, they do have AWD and wider tires which help out in the slalom. I have no idea where you get that the SRT-4 has an 80 HP advantage over the WRX. The same article has the dyno results as well and the SRT-4 only has 45 WHP and 47 LB-FT WTQ more than the WRX. I'm sure that the WRX does have a more comfortable suspension both on road and off, but it does not have a better performing suspension.

I'm not going to go over the suspension differences again here. What is this long history the WRX has that you keep refering to? The SRT-4 doesn't have a long history since it is only 3 years in the making, but the Neon has a long history, some of which is great and some of which is bad. They only bad history of the Neon was the first generations head gaskets, other than that they have been very reliable and have also dominated in SCCA giving them a very successful and great racing history. Both cars have their selling points, the WRX has a huge advantage since people know what they are and the AWD is a great selling point as well. The WRX is made for daily use in all conditions, the SRT-4 is not and it is obvious since they come with 3 season tires instead of all seasons.

I'm glad that you have used a car you've owned as a comparison. This is probably why you feel that the WRX has a better performing suspension even though the tests prove otherwise, your probably use to the safer feeling of the AWD and have felt safer pushing it closer to it's limits than you have in your SRT-4. The SRT-4 is a completely different car that will react different as well as feeling different, most are not confident enough or feel safe enough when pushing the SRT-4 to it's limits, especially when coming out of an AWD car to this car. An AWD car doesn't require much from the driver which is why they feel like they handle better. A high powered FWD like the SRT-4 requires a lot from the driver, you have to learn how to control it's power and balance it with it's handling because a little too much on the throttle and your going to loose traction and slide, you don't have to worry about this with an AWD. If you take your SRT-4 out and learn how to drive it to it's limit you might change your mind on which handles better, but then again it still won't give you that safe and secure feeling you had in the WRX.