at the CC event 2 weeks ago. there was a stage one SRT that ran 12.95. the only thinb he did was put low pro tires on 15 inch rims, and remove al of the inteior, except for the front seats.

im not a fan of 0-60 times, too many variables. 03, where did you make those test passes?

 

I've personally watched dead stock SRT-4's run everywhere from a 13.7-14.7, the only difference was the driver. Some knew what they were doing and others seemed absolutely clueless. But the facts are what they are and a WRX cannot beat an SRT-4, unless the driver of the SRT-4 died behind the wheel first. A friend of mine who is buying a WRX knows damn good and well that a WRX can't beat an SRT-4 unless something happens to the SRT-4 or it's driver. The only Subaru that can beat an SRT-4 is an STi, end of the story.[sm=smiley2.gif]

 

I know and feel differently, to each his own opinion. But nobody has seemed to race one, so no one REALLY knows that an SRT can beat it. A stock SRT-4 has 215hp correct? Front wheel drive, and no LSD(correct?), how can they beat a WRX with 227 and AWD?? I believe they areclose to the same weight. BadStrat- removing the interior can make the car much ligher than stock, along with lighter 15's. Can somebody send me a link of them beating a manual WRX stock??

http://www.car-videos.com/performanc...D1=227&ID2=286

 

Car and Driver: "I could never criticize a $20,000 car that can scoot to 60 mph in just 5.6 seconds. Sure, the SRT-4 is rough in places. There are buckets of turbo lag, and if the front wheels aren't pointed straight when the boost comes in, it's Wheelspin City."

Car and Driver: "The quickest WRX we'd tested hit 60 mph in a stunning 5.4"

But you know it doesn't matter, I love the SRT-4 as well as the subie, both are very quick and cheap cars. I know this is a dodge forum, just defending a good car.

 

[Deleted by Admins]

 

i also am pro-awds. ill have to keep my eye out for the srt/wrx race, because i know at my local track there is at east one of each that is fairly stock. the SRT is an 04, with stage 1. the WRX is mostly stock, and i dont think he runs in the 13s, while i know the SRT runs 13s. but ill keep watching for a run between the two.

but once again, if the driver in the WRX sucks, the srt will always crush it.

 

Since you have not been on this forum long you may not have seen this video that has been posted in the Sights & Sounds forum, it is of an SRT-4 beating down a WRX from the WRX itself. Here it is: http://staff.tcu.edu/jaltschul/SRT-4vsWRX_vs_Talon.WMV

There are SRT-4 owners on here that have beaten WRX's stock to stock, however I have never had the pleasure or the opportunity to do so myself. There is a difference between opinion and fact, you cannot dispute the facts and the facts prove that with equally skilled drivers a stock SRT-4 will always beat a stock WRX hands down.

Now it's time for a few lessons:

Lesson 1: The '03 SRT-4 is rated at 215 horsepower at the crank by Dodge, however when they are dynoed at the wheels they put out 223-226 horsepower at the wheels. The '04 SRT-4 is rated at 230 horsepower at the crank by Dodge, however when they are dynoed at the wheels they put out 225-235 horsepower at the wheels. Chrysler/Plymouth/Dodge have been well known to under rate their engines' power output. The SRT-4 is a perfect example of this, just like the 426 Hemi's of the 60's and early 70's. The '03 SRT-4's did not have a LSD, the '04 SRT-4's do have a LSD.

Lesson 2: The WRX is rated at 227 horsepower at the crank by Subaru, they are not under rated. They are also AWD which gives them the ability to launch at full throttle with little to no traction loss. However, the AWD system adds weight to them as well as causing more parasitic horsepower losses from having to split the 227 horsepower four ways instead of two. When dynoed at the wheels the WRX puts out 160-168 horsepower at the wheels.

Lesson 3: The SRT-4 weighs in at between 2,800-2,900 LBS and the WRX weighs in at between 3,100-3,300 LBS. With the SRT-4 putting as much, and in some cases more, horsepower to the wheels than the WRX at the crank and weighing less, it is obvious which will beat which, AWD or not. And this is how a 215 horsepower SRT-4 without a LSD can beat a 227 horsepower WRX with AWD.[sm=smiley2.gif]

FYI: The WRX info above is straight from sites devoted to the WRX's. And as far as torque goes, the '04 SRT-4 is rated at 250 lb-ft and the '04 WRX is rated at 217 lb-ft. This is another reason why the SRT-4's beat the WRX's. Here are the most common and average performance numbers that I have found on both of these cars:

'04 Dodge SRT-4
0-60 MPH: 5.3 sec.
1/4 mile: 13.9 sec. @ 103 MPH
Braking 60-0 MPH: 112 ft.
Skidpad: .86 G

'04 Subaru WRX
0-60 MPH: 6.1 sec.
1/4 mile: 14.52 sec. @ 92.86 MPH
Braking 60-0 MPH: 123 ft.
Skidpad: .81 G

These are the most common and average times and numbers that I have seen for both cars, but I have seen numbers and times that fall both above and below these for both cars. There are always going to be variables that will change the performance of a vehicle, but even using the best or worst times that I have found/seen for each car, the overall outcome is still the same with the SRT-4 besting the WRX. These are the FACTS and opinions mean nothing when the facts prove what actually is, not what one thinks or feels.[sm=smiley2.gif]

 

Where does Car and Driver get these morons that "test" these cars. My Shelby Z had some turbo lag, my SRT-4 has no turbo lag whatsoever unless I'm in 5th gear at 1,500 RPM's where all gasoline turbos will have "buckets of turbo lag". The SRT-4 uses the small Mitsubishi turbocharger to make sure that turbo lag is none existent, which it does perfectly.

I am looking at the April 2004 issue of Car and Driver where they do a Short Take on the '04 SRT-4 on page 100 (this is what I used for the numbers above in my previous post) as I type this and they never once mention lag being an issue. Here are a few of their words from this article:

"There is a light pull at the wheel when you floor it in first or second, but compared with the Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V and Acura TL Type-S (both cars have the high-powered front-drive, limited-slip recipe), the SRT-4 is a revelation."

"It's hard to criticize a well-priced car that can smoke a number of higher-priced sports cars (the Honda S2000 and Nissan 350Z come to mind)."

Isn't it odd how their opinion changed so greatly, they never once mentioned anything about turbo lag in this article and the only thing they really changed about the car from the '03 to the '04 was the LSD. Why wasn't turbo lag still an issue then, kinda makes you wonder about their "testers".

 

one other thing...if im not mistaken, arent the WRXs, and especially the STis, alot more than the SRT4s?

 

Yes. Here are the current base prices for them: WRX Sedan MSRP $24,795 WRX STi Sedan MSRP $32,195.