Okay, that does it. I found my next car.
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,592
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, California, USA, Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Sol System, Spiral arm of the Milkey Way
Rep Power: 0 
. Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,592
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, California, USA, Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Sol System, Spiral arm of the Milkey Way
Rep Power: 0 Is ive ALWAYS said, my next car will HAVE to have itr drive wheels either at all 4 corners or in the rear. the SRT-4 still owns all FWD cars however. it changes nothing.
Registered!!
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,447
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA
Rep Power: 0 ANTIRICEST, i read somewhere that they'll be here in june. this was just one dealer's site, so i'm not sure that's true. but if it is, i can't wait to start seeing them on the road, though that probably won't be that often
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
From: union grove, wis
Rep Power: 0 30 grand you could buy 2 civics for that price, and yes i believe that civics are the only cars in the world so dont ask.
As far as the neon, its way overpriced compared to its N/A brother.
As far as the neon, its way overpriced compared to its N/A brother.
Registered!!
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: I hate this place.....
Rep Power: 0 Originally posted by HondaGuru
Is ive ALWAYS said, my next car will HAVE to have itr drive wheels either at all 4 corners or in the rear. the SRT-4 still owns all FWD cars however. it changes nothing.
Is ive ALWAYS said, my next car will HAVE to have itr drive wheels either at all 4 corners or in the rear. the SRT-4 still owns all FWD cars however. it changes nothing.
Remember a few from the late 80's? The LeBaron for starters. Not only did they have weak/pooly made turbos. They had very fragile heads that were prone to craking. The only decent Chrysler turbo in the 80's was the Conquest, and that was a DSM. If they got all the turbo issues under control, it will definately be interesting. I would be more prone to stick with a company with a proven history with turbos, like Mits, Subaru, or VW. Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,592
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, California, USA, Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Sol System, Spiral arm of the Milkey Way
Rep Power: 0 Oh plase. almost EVERY car made in the 80s sucked in quality.
Thats the worst areguement evAr. Please end your self for being so stupid.
Thats the worst areguement evAr. Please end your self for being so stupid.
Registered!!
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: I hate this place.....
Rep Power: 0 Originally posted by HondaGuru
Oh plase. almost EVERY car made in the 80s sucked in quality.
Thats the worst areguement evAr. Please end your self for being so stupid.
Oh plase. almost EVERY car made in the 80s sucked in quality.
Thats the worst areguement evAr. Please end your self for being so stupid.
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,592
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, California, USA, Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Sol System, Spiral arm of the Milkey Way
Rep Power: 0 Originally posted by askibum02
You're a tool. 90% of all Chrysler's built to this day are uninspired, underpoewred and worthless. The only noteable exceptions being the Viper and the new Dodge trucks. I know you are proud of you're new car which is cool, but face the facts.
You're a tool. 90% of all Chrysler's built to this day are uninspired, underpoewred and worthless. The only noteable exceptions being the Viper and the new Dodge trucks. I know you are proud of you're new car which is cool, but face the facts.
and
B) YOU CANT READ. I DONT OWN an SRT-4.
Reading comprehension > you.
As i said before, please bite the business end of a 12 gauge and pull.
The FACT is that the SRT4 is the fastest FWD production car... evAr, on top of that it undercuts every other turbo SCC in price by a LOT. Not to mention the fact that the engine is so overbuilt, upping boost is 100X safer then those turbo VWs and DSMs you mention.
End of story.
Again; shotgun:mouth:you
Last edited by HondaGuru; Apr 24, 2003 at 09:27 PM.
Registered!!
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: I hate this place.....
Rep Power: 0 Wow, Hondaguru, I'm really impressed with your intellignece.
lease: You have got to be about the most narrow minded person in the world. I never said I was ignoring the SRT-4 first of all. I'm not ready to sing it's praises though. It has been available for sale for 2.7 seconds now.(In case you are wondering, it is an exaggeration) I am more impressed by things like power to weight ratios, which will make more of a difference in every day driving. Or how about HP per liter. There are a lot of cars, natually aspirated cars mind you, that blow the SRT-4 away. Like the RSX-S for instance. 100hp per liter vs. 85hp per liter on the SRT-4. If you get into rwd cars the margin is even larger.
As far as an engine being over built. Have you ever seen a 1.8L engine with close to 300whp on stock internals and pump gas? I have and it's a VW. With race gas it is well over 300. I can provide dyno sheets if you don't believe me.
As far as the whole shot gun preoccupation.....seek help.
lease: You have got to be about the most narrow minded person in the world. I never said I was ignoring the SRT-4 first of all. I'm not ready to sing it's praises though. It has been available for sale for 2.7 seconds now.(In case you are wondering, it is an exaggeration) I am more impressed by things like power to weight ratios, which will make more of a difference in every day driving. Or how about HP per liter. There are a lot of cars, natually aspirated cars mind you, that blow the SRT-4 away. Like the RSX-S for instance. 100hp per liter vs. 85hp per liter on the SRT-4. If you get into rwd cars the margin is even larger.As far as an engine being over built. Have you ever seen a 1.8L engine with close to 300whp on stock internals and pump gas? I have and it's a VW. With race gas it is well over 300. I can provide dyno sheets if you don't believe me.
As far as the whole shot gun preoccupation.....seek help.
Registered!!
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
From: Ann Arbor, Michigan/Eugene, Oregon, US
Rep Power: 0 Originally posted by askibum02
Wow, Hondaguru, I'm really impressed with your intellignece.lease: You have got to be about the most narrow minded person in the world. I never said I was ignoring the SRT-4 first of all. I'm not ready to sing it's praises though. It has been available for sale for 2.7 seconds now.(In case you are wondering, it is an exaggeration) I am more impressed by things like power to weight ratios, which will make more of a difference in every day driving. Or how about HP per liter. There are a lot of cars, natually aspirated cars mind you, that blow the SRT-4 away. Like the RSX-S for instance. 100hp per liter vs. 85hp per liter on the SRT-4. If you get into rwd cars the margin is even larger.
As far as an engine being over built. Have you ever seen a 1.8L engine with close to 300whp on stock internals and pump gas? I have and it's a VW. With race gas it is well over 300. I can provide dyno sheets if you don't believe me.
As far as the whole shot gun preoccupation.....seek help.
Wow, Hondaguru, I'm really impressed with your intellignece.
lease: You have got to be about the most narrow minded person in the world. I never said I was ignoring the SRT-4 first of all. I'm not ready to sing it's praises though. It has been available for sale for 2.7 seconds now.(In case you are wondering, it is an exaggeration) I am more impressed by things like power to weight ratios, which will make more of a difference in every day driving. Or how about HP per liter. There are a lot of cars, natually aspirated cars mind you, that blow the SRT-4 away. Like the RSX-S for instance. 100hp per liter vs. 85hp per liter on the SRT-4. If you get into rwd cars the margin is even larger.As far as an engine being over built. Have you ever seen a 1.8L engine with close to 300whp on stock internals and pump gas? I have and it's a VW. With race gas it is well over 300. I can provide dyno sheets if you don't believe me.
As far as the whole shot gun preoccupation.....seek help.
lease: The SRT-4 has been putting down anywhere from 245 to 254 at the wheels, stock. That's 105 ft. of torque per liter at the wheels. Just something to think about. Oh... the whp is around 215 to 220. The RSX-S dynos at around 160 whp, right? 
2k1civic.com O. G.
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,165
Likes: 0
From: PhILLy, Pennsylvania, US
Rep Power: 334 Originally posted by askibum02
Wow, Hondaguru, I'm really impressed with your intellignece.lease: You have got to be about the most narrow minded person in the world. I never said I was ignoring the SRT-4 first of all. I'm not ready to sing it's praises though. It has been available for sale for 2.7 seconds now.(In case you are wondering, it is an exaggeration) I am more impressed by things like power to weight ratios, which will make more of a difference in every day driving. Or how about HP per liter. There are a lot of cars, natually aspirated cars mind you, that blow the SRT-4 away. Like the RSX-S for instance. 100hp per liter vs. 85hp per liter on the SRT-4. If you get into rwd cars the margin is even larger.
As far as an engine being over built. Have you ever seen a 1.8L engine with close to 300whp on stock internals and pump gas? I have and it's a VW. With race gas it is well over 300. I can provide dyno sheets if you don't believe me.
As far as the whole shot gun preoccupation.....seek help.
Wow, Hondaguru, I'm really impressed with your intellignece.
lease: You have got to be about the most narrow minded person in the world. I never said I was ignoring the SRT-4 first of all. I'm not ready to sing it's praises though. It has been available for sale for 2.7 seconds now.(In case you are wondering, it is an exaggeration) I am more impressed by things like power to weight ratios, which will make more of a difference in every day driving. Or how about HP per liter. There are a lot of cars, natually aspirated cars mind you, that blow the SRT-4 away. Like the RSX-S for instance. 100hp per liter vs. 85hp per liter on the SRT-4. If you get into rwd cars the margin is even larger.As far as an engine being over built. Have you ever seen a 1.8L engine with close to 300whp on stock internals and pump gas? I have and it's a VW. With race gas it is well over 300. I can provide dyno sheets if you don't believe me.
As far as the whole shot gun preoccupation.....seek help.
Tell me what you don't like about yourself....
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 12,576
Likes: 0
From: Columbia, SC, USA
Rep Power: 413 
askibum02, you need to stop flaming. Don't instigate Joe because he will own you all day long.
This is your warning askibum02. You are too new to be coming in here to start fights with senior members.
This is your warning askibum02. You are too new to be coming in here to start fights with senior members.
Registered!!
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: I hate this place.....
Rep Power: 0
What about the torque numbers? The SRT-4 has been putting down anywhere from 245 to 254 at the wheels, stock. That's 105 ft. of torque per liter at the wheels. Just something to think about. Oh... the whp is around 215 to 220. The RSX-S dynos at around 160 whp, right?
Every dyno is different, but if you figure about 15% driveline loss, the RSX-S would be closer to 170whp compared to 182 for the SRT-4. Torque number are usually smaller on Honda engines. This is a known fact. It doesn't seem to affect times in the 1/4 mile for all motor cars. Does the S2K sucks because it's torque is lower than it's hp? I don't care what world you come from, 125hp per liter is pretty dang impressive. It is engine design along the lines that most car manufactures could only hope to attain. Torque is good at lower rpm, but hp is every bit as important in higher rpm's. I'm not trying to defend Hondas or flame the SRT-4. I just stated my opinion that I wasn't impressed with it, and your boy joe started flaming. So if you want to talk to someone about flaming, talk to your almighty senior member.
lease: Last edited by askibum02; Apr 25, 2003 at 09:47 AM.
Registered!!
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Rep Power: 0 I don't care if your making 150hp per liter, if you don't have torque your screwed. The times of the S2000 and Type-S in my oppinion are not impressive at all. From a technology standpoint Honda is great. Atleast if you loose a race you can tell the guy your car didn't come with any torque.
Registered!!
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, CA
Rep Power: 0 srt-4 is ugly as hell... i was unlucky enough to see a couple at the local dodge dealer... yuck... it so hideous.
chrysler hasn't made a decent car besides the viper since the early 70's. don't even make me remind you that they made the PT Cruiser
chrysler hasn't made a decent car besides the viper since the early 70's. don't even make me remind you that they made the PT Cruiser
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Tempe, Arizona, US
Rep Power: 0
Every dyno is different, but if you figure about 15% driveline loss, the RSX-S would be closer to 170whp compared to 182 for the SRT-4. Torque number are usually smaller on Honda engines. This is a known fact
You can make a small engine breathe well up top, which will improve horsepower, but even Honda can't make a small engine with a low-end like a bigger one.
Aside from forced induction (which artificially increases displacement by forcing the engine to ingest more air than it normally would), there's still no replacement for displacement.
Registered!!
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: , Other, ZEBRA
Rep Power: 0 You're gay.
Originally posted by askibum02
I am more impressed by things like power to weight ratios, which will make more of a difference in every day driving. Or how about HP per liter. There are a lot of cars, natually aspirated cars mind you, that blow the SRT-4 away. Like the RSX-S for instance. 100hp per liter vs. 85hp per liter on the SRT-4. If you get into rwd cars the margin is even larger.
I am more impressed by things like power to weight ratios, which will make more of a difference in every day driving. Or how about HP per liter. There are a lot of cars, natually aspirated cars mind you, that blow the SRT-4 away. Like the RSX-S for instance. 100hp per liter vs. 85hp per liter on the SRT-4. If you get into rwd cars the margin is even larger.
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,592
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, California, USA, Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Sol System, Spiral arm of the Milkey Way
Rep Power: 0 Originally posted by askibum02
Your comparing apples to oranges. If you ant to be fair you need to compare crank hp to crank hp or whp to whp. You are comaring crank hp on the SRT-4 vs. whp on the RSX-S.
Every dyno is different, but if you figure about 15% driveline loss, the RSX-S would be closer to 170whp compared to 182 for the SRT-4. Torque number are usually smaller on Honda engines. This is a known fact. It doesn't seem to affect times in the 1/4 mile for all motor cars. Does the S2K sucks because it's torque is lower than it's hp? I don't care what world you come from, 125hp per liter is pretty dang impressive. It is engine design along the lines that most car manufactures could only hope to attain. Torque is good at lower rpm, but hp is every bit as important in higher rpm's. I'm not trying to defend Hondas or flame the SRT-4. I just stated my opinion that I wasn't impressed with it, and your boy joe started flaming. So if you want to talk to someone about flaming, talk to your almighty senior member.lease:
Your comparing apples to oranges. If you ant to be fair you need to compare crank hp to crank hp or whp to whp. You are comaring crank hp on the SRT-4 vs. whp on the RSX-S.
Every dyno is different, but if you figure about 15% driveline loss, the RSX-S would be closer to 170whp compared to 182 for the SRT-4. Torque number are usually smaller on Honda engines. This is a known fact. It doesn't seem to affect times in the 1/4 mile for all motor cars. Does the S2K sucks because it's torque is lower than it's hp? I don't care what world you come from, 125hp per liter is pretty dang impressive. It is engine design along the lines that most car manufactures could only hope to attain. Torque is good at lower rpm, but hp is every bit as important in higher rpm's. I'm not trying to defend Hondas or flame the SRT-4. I just stated my opinion that I wasn't impressed with it, and your boy joe started flaming. So if you want to talk to someone about flaming, talk to your almighty senior member.
lease: I would spend 10 minutes picking apart your moronic posts, but apparently having the entire internet laugh at your stupidity is good enough.
http://forums.clubsi.com/showflat.ph...b=5&o=&fpart=1
Last edited by HondaGuru; Apr 25, 2003 at 05:20 PM.
Registered!!
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Scruffolk County, New York, US
Rep Power: 0 Originally posted by askibum02
Those Dodge turbo cars really rock. Remember a few from the late 80's? The LeBaron for starters. Not only did they have weak/pooly made turbos. They had very fragile heads that were prone to craking. The only decent Chrysler turbo in the 80's was the Conquest, and that was a DSM. If they got all the turbo issues under control, it will definately be interesting. I would be more prone to stick with a company with a proven history with turbos, like Mits, Subaru, or VW.
Those Dodge turbo cars really rock.
Remember a few from the late 80's? The LeBaron for starters. Not only did they have weak/pooly made turbos. They had very fragile heads that were prone to craking. The only decent Chrysler turbo in the 80's was the Conquest, and that was a DSM. If they got all the turbo issues under control, it will definately be interesting. I would be more prone to stick with a company with a proven history with turbos, like Mits, Subaru, or VW. You obviously don't know anything about turbo Dodges, so here's a little lesson. Dodge has sold more factory-turbo cars than any automaker in the world. Many people have run them well over 200,000 miles on OEM engine AND turbo, and some of them were running well above stock boost (one guy on the SDML today said he runs 20psi daily on his stock engine/turbo, with 221,000 miles on the ticker). The turbos were made by Garrett and Mitsubishi, and neither of them are known to be "weak/poorly made." The only turbo Dodges prone to head cracking are the DOHC Turbo IIIs, and the head isn't even a Dodge part... it was made by Lotus. The Conquest/Starion is a reliability nightmare. Your HP/L argument (not quoted above) is retarded and pointless, just like your estimate of the SRT4's wheel horsepower... the SRT4 makes more HP at the wheels than the RSX-S makes at the crank. Any other rice myths you need me to debunk for you?
ps. now it's time to do the honorable thing and Remove Yourself From The Internet Altogether.
Last edited by nyisles; Apr 25, 2003 at 05:44 PM.
