Another reason to hate the SRT-4 [Archive]

Prince Valiant

02-03-2004, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Yooformula
Very impressive but how long do you really think that bottm end will hold out?:3gears: :3gears: :3gears: BOOM I wouldn't worry too much about the bottom end...it is one of the most overbuilt 4's that ever been produced and is currently approaching the toughness of the legendary 4g63 and sr20DET from mitsu and nissan respectively, and yet it is only very early in the game. Lets not forget...there are enough 400+hp 2.2 to vouch for the pedigree of the 2.4 turbo (the two have very similiar and actually almost identical shortblocks...but the 2.4 is far heavier duty)

Yes, you were seeing then spray NO2 or CO2 (more likely CO2) over the intecooler...just to eek out a few more HP. I think they were just trying to give it enough to surpass 500hp when they could only get it *close enough* w/o...which as keith points out, lends to the dyno queen nature of it.

Personally what I DON'T like about the dyno is the relatively narrow torque band...due primarily to the amount of time it takes to spool that particular turbo...first and second might not be too bad as it probably wouldn't reach the full boost before one had to shift. And of course, full boost wouldn't be realized till third gear or so...when your half-way down the track.

BUT one of the impressive thing about that dyno was that they were boosting at only 23psi....many of the ubber powerful 2.2's are in the 28-35psi range :wow

Lets see them hook it up...Then shift it..... I would love to try :D. When he runs it with slicks (soon) I'll post an update.

And btw...I'd rather be seen in a neon than any production J-body :nutkick :D :goof

PB86MCSS

02-03-2004, 03:26 AM

I like the SRT-4 because its domestic and is a rice eater. Maybe it will motivate GM to do something for actual performance in the j-body platform. Reason I don't like it personally for performance is its FWD and a 4 cylinder, but hey, whatever floats your boat. I'd rather see the companies put that R&R and backing into a RWD platform :D.

MY FYN 79

02-03-2004, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Prince Valiant

And btw...I'd rather be seen in a neon than any production J-body :nutkick :D :goof

*Ouch*, I really like my Cavaliers, including my 01 Z24! :(

BAD LS1

02-03-2004, 09:02 AM

That f-ucker aint long for this world making that kinda specific output!!!!;) Thats gotta be one highly pissed off 2.4!!!

JR HAWK 9

02-03-2004, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by JC00SS
No.....another reason to hate a NEON. It will always be a neon. I don't care what numbers it makes I would never drive it.

you sound like a stuck-up Vette owner....ever heard this before?? I have....
"It will always be an fbody. I don't care what numbers it makes I would never drive it."

jbiscuit

02-03-2004, 10:20 AM

those are impressive numbers no doubt but the cars are snapping axle shafts like pretzel rods. The motor is definetely "de-tuned" from chrysler stock. Guys were slapping on a boost controller and a downpipe and they were running high 12's with the car months ago. 500hp will test the durability of the motor you can be sure of that. I would guess that at that high of output, it won't last too long. I have read several articles about the motor having issues delivering the right amount of oil to the top of the motor at high RPMs so we'll see.

This motor will never be a 4G63... The 4G63 is one of the best designed turbo 4 cylinders (minus the use of the 2 piece crank for a few years) that has ever cruised the planet. There is HUGE power potential with the motor as well as bulletproof durability. I don't think Chrysler will achieve that standing with this motor but we'll see. I am impressed regardless though of it power output but then again any car can put down 400-500hp with enough dyno time and a blank check :thumbsup

Prince Valiant

02-03-2004, 12:12 PM

Evidence? Of anything you just posted :confused

this would ALL be news to me.

jbiscuit

02-03-2004, 12:30 PM

I had read the oil delivery issues on www.srtforums.com and the axle shaft issues were published a few months ago in Sport Compact Car when they produced 360 whp in their test car...they snapped the passenger half shaft CV Joint twice within one month.

Its a potent motor no doubt, but I think its not as beefy as the 4G63. Thats all I am saying. But still for $19K you can't complain/. Chris I think you should consider buying one and building a potent steetable version of the SRT-4. They have proven that it is quite easy to make horsepower with the car.

J

Prince Valiant

02-03-2004, 12:46 PM

Show the evidence of the 4G63 and 2.4 being significantly diferent...I think you'll find a remarkable similarity there.

But the high RPM oil delivery thing I can't see...The 2.4 is just a tall deck version of the DOHC 2.0 wich has a 1000rpm higher redline and many with swapped cams/ECU's run even higher rpms...the valvetrain and virtually everything else is the same.

I know that the rocker arms tend to have issues on the 2.0's with excessive wear, but that actually isn't a result of an oiling issue more than it was poor metal...there is an easy aftermarket fix for those.

One car snapping a half-shaft twice in a month is hardly indicative of srt-4's snapping halfshafts left and right. Normally the same car doing that twice so close together is indicative of something more insidious...and in the case of a daytona I had, it proved to be a bad motor mount.

But I wouldn't buy an srt-4 personally...I've got a project sport compact. This: (this one is not mine...)
http://www.roadgems.com/membcars/ShawnH-Shelby-frnt1L.jpg

jbiscuit

02-03-2004, 02:01 PM

Chris, I could careless personally about the problems that surface with either motor for that matter. I was stating what I read. Take it or leave it, nor do I have time to try and find the posts that I read on srtforums. I posted the link where I found the info, if you are curious, then you can try and find it.

I was stating that the motor is HARDLY in the same class as the 4G63 or even farther of a stretch the SR20DET! Thats a HUGE statement to make. Both of those motors ARE PROVEN to hold up on the track (no matter what the use, circuit, endurance, drag, drift, etc...). Where has the Chrysler motor proved that is has that same durability? Has it been tried and tested under similar track conditions? Ok so you post a SRT-4 that made 500hp, that doesn't mean it is the same quality, etc that the others are. Thats all I am saying. The example you have posted is a dyno queen to show that the car can put down 500hp. OK cool. Lets see how it performs on a track running at redline out of a turn during lap 25. The Signal Auto Nissan Silvia has done this and it is a 540whp motor....thats all I am saying. You posted a big claim and I posted that I have read about issues with it. Thats all.

Now I'm bored with this.:thumbsup

BAD LS1

02-03-2004, 03:08 PM

Nice power curve man !!!:thumbsup Yeah it shoots straight up at like 2500 its done making power by 4500... Kinda useless.... makes for NO traction, broke drive line parts, and coming to a dodge warranty dealer near you, 1 SMOKED 2.4 LOL

If it was a little more useful powerband that streteched from 2500-6K and just kept pulling steady all the way up which would mean this pickle would hump some serious leg on the street, then maybe i wouldnt call it a dyno queen....

Flame away!

jbiscuit

02-03-2004, 03:18 PM

thats a good point Tom...4500 in a sport compact is VERY low nowadays. This car has to bog REALLY bad as that turbo runs out of breath higher in the RPMs.

BAD LS1

02-03-2004, 03:32 PM

Yeah it kinda peaks out @ 4500-5K leads me to believe that the turbo choice might have gone as such: My other brother darrell asks billy-bob, Well do we have any CAT diesel turbo's laying around?? SURE DO!!! says billy-bob, make that b-itch fit!!! says my other brother darrell. More is good alot is better says billy-bob!!

lotsals1

02-03-2004, 08:00 PM

Well ya "CANT POLISH A TURD" Anything will put up big numbers
when you dump a butload of boost into it --If I was going to boost the livin **** out of something it sure the hell wouldnt be a
NEON -- And you say 19k with the mods listed and dyno time and tuneing i bet you can add another 10k+ so thats 29k and what do you get for 29k --not only are you getting a neon, you now have a unreliable neon --never the less its always gonna be a Neon--and the rest of the driveline will not support the hp's
"AKA you cant polish a turd"
Neons are GHAY;) AndI would have to see the dyno run in real Time to buy it--The dyno graph looks a lil to perfect IMO --no peaks and valleys
And not much diagnostic info

jbiscuit

02-04-2004, 09:29 AM

19K starting price is what I meant in my post but yes for sure this car has a TON of dyno time and tuning under its belt to put down these numbers. It has a small fortune invested into it to make it put down these numbers.

BAD LS1

02-04-2004, 10:28 AM

Hahahahah ill just stick to my nice FAT powerband:devil

Yeah this car is just a BIG SHINEY ****...Imo with the peak 500 hp its just something for the SRT guys to jack off over at night.

Prince Valiant

02-04-2004, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by yellow wagon
thats a good point Tom...4500 in a sport compact is VERY low nowadays. This car has to bog REALLY bad as that turbo runs out of breath higher in the RPMs. actually on the dyno the drop off you see isn't the turbo giving up, but the clutch giving up.

And BTW J...here in this very post in this very thread, i give a brief synopsis of why I believe that the 2.4T is stout enough to take this kind of power

there are enough 400+hp 2.2 to vouch for the pedigree of the 2.4 turbo (the two have very similar and actually almost identical short blocks...but the 2.4 is far heavier duty block) and I know that this isn't proof positive that indeed the 2.4T is ubber stout, but it does show that there is probably more history to the 2.4 than you are aware.

It is perfectly reasonable to deduct that past examples of a given motor can indicate future performance potential/strength. In this case the proven durability of the 2.2 turbododges, I reason, is in fact a good indicator of strength of the short block for the 2.4t.

You point to the "proven durability" of the sr20det and 4g63 motors as reason which these two motors are highly regarded on the street...and that is great. They ARE in fact very strong, durable motors.

But that didn't happen by accident...they were very purposely designed that way to tolerate those loads. Sure, maybe they had to "prove" themselves in order to garner a reputation on the street. However, their durability and capabilities were never second guessed by those who designed those motors. As I have stated previously, much of the same approach to overbuilding has been taken with the 2.4T and I have found scant little evidence either on my own nor offered by you that it hasn’t.

So, what disappoints me, I guess, is that you've refused to look at this subject in an objective manner and to consider all the facts (which of course, I don't dispute is your right). Instead you wish to base your opinion on a "guess". And when evidence has been presented both on the internet and in your (apparently) favorite rag, "Sports Compact Car", as well as in evidence gleaned from a very similar motor from the same manufacturer about its capability, you have chosen to ignore.

continued

Prince Valiant

02-04-2004, 06:21 PM

Instead you appear to be falling on your own personal bias in pointing out in your (apparently) uneducated "guess" about the 2.4T's durability. As well, you use anecdotal evidence of ONE car breaking its half shafts twice to exclaim that it is indicative of SRT-4's across the country breaking their half-shafts left and right as if it was an inherent design flaw.

And why this is disappointing, is that it's now strikes me as hypocritical then, when you get on your high horse and lecture others on this board about "Rice" and the correct use of the terminology "bling, bling". Much of what you seem to have said is ANY car deserves respect if it is in fact, a good car...regardless of make/model/foreign or domestic and that defaming a car with derogatory terms shouldn’t be administered on something in general terms.

Yet this is exactly what you’ve seemed to have done here. You read something, somewhere, that was negative and have chosen to disregard any other evidence to the contrary to satisfy and opinion that you only WANT to be true. When challenged on that opinion you say something to the effect of “pshh. Why should I do that? This is boring…let’s move on”, and then continue to post more misinformation. Sorry, but THAT, I do not appreciate. I could care less about fun banter about whose car is this or that and why…but to just spout off unreasoned bias and misinformation as if it were fact, I take exception to. I would certainly like to think there are those on this board who respect a car for what it is or its capability regardless if they would own one or not, whether they like its looks or not, whether it comes from a country they like or not.

And of course, it is fine if you don’t. That will only mean that I get to have more fun myself.
:thumbsup

lotsals1

02-04-2004, 07:54 PM

Dont matter its still a T U R D

Rocket Power

02-04-2004, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by lotsals1
Well ya "CANT POLISH A TURD"

Yes you can...:goof

http://www.zx2.org/riceboard/turdpolish.jpg

Prince Valiant

02-04-2004, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by lotsals1
Dont matter its still a F A S T T U R D Corrected it for ya tim :goof

jbiscuit

02-05-2004, 09:50 AM

HOLY CR@P CHRIS, I haven't read that much jibberish since Rhetorical Theory my junior year at Whitewater..... SHHHESH

Let me clarify AGAIN. I have stated on this board before in the past that I think its great what Dodge did with the SRT-4...ITS GREAT. They are trying to earn marketshare from Honda, the #1 choice import manufacturer to those under the age of 24-25. There are more Si Civics, hatchbacks and del sols sold and resold that Honda never imagined it would have this sort of marketshare. the problem I have with your above post is you discredit that I stated where I got my information from so it was not a GUESS as you stated. It was FACT. I read the information and posted it. The post is now defending what I wrote instead of questioning the reliability of the 2.4L motor Chysler is building in this application. You are taking what I posted out of context. Reread what I posted from the beginning and you will see that I first stated that OI had read of a few issues with the motor. #1..... #2 you asked for evidence of this so I posted where I got my information from..... #3 after I did what you asked, you say I am close minded...uncalled for. I have never been close minded to any sort of technology that is put into a vehicle. I read about it, study the pluses and minuses and form my own opinion. Do I think the 2.4L is the best 4 cylinder ever? No. Why? Because I haven't seen the motor excell in all the above racing types that I listed in my last post like the SR20DET has....it has won Japanese Drift Challenges, it has made serious horsepower for drag applications and it has survived grueling endurance races. The motor has PROVEN that it is a leader. IT HAS PROVEN IT. Can the 2.4L dodge turbo motor achieve the same standing? Possibly but its too early to tell. Just because this one example you posted made 500hp, doesn't mean the car is "streetable" or reliable in any way....it might be, but nothing was said about it. I read an article on the Net about a 450 AWHP WRX...what you didn't know is that the guy had been through 3 clutches and 2 trannies.....

continued

jbiscuit

02-05-2004, 09:51 AM

All I am trying to say is don't ever say that my relies are "uneducated" of guesses of what I WANT to believe.....I think is awesome that this motor is putting down serious horsepower. I am a skeptic though and need to see proof that the motor holds up long term or that it can hang with the big dog SR20's and 4G63's....I haven't seen that yet. But when I do I have no problem admitting that the motor is excellent. There may be similarities from the 4G63 to the 2.4L but SUBTLE difference can make all the world....ask any 4G63 owner that has experienced crank walk....Subtle difference, big effect long term.

I think you need to be more cautious with your posts when you write them cuz I am the most open-minded "ricer" you know. I like all sorts of horsepower. Show me a 700hp Daewoo and I will think that thing is badass! To end this post I will say this: You wanted evidence, so I gave you evidence. I posted that I was getting bored because I made my comments and you are bashing me for them. To me that is worst of all. I never said I hated the car, I just question its durability.

NUFF

Prince Valiant

02-05-2004, 12:51 PM

What's funny is that you say you read my " jibberish" and yet to proceed to regurgitate the EXACT same **** though.

First off lets look at you number one point:
They are trying to earn marketshare from Honda, the #1 choice import manufacturer to those under the age of 24-25 What does this have anything to do with...well, anything?

Then lets examine this:
you discredit that I stated where I got my information from so it was not a GUESS The reason I used "-" every time was that you in fact stated "guess" here and elsewhere:
I would guess that at that high of output, it won't last too long

You then proceed to "guess" that the motor won't live long at this HP level because of these assorted "oiling issues" at high rpm's (notice this motor isn't spinning super high rpm's, nor does it need to live there) snapping axle shaft from ONE car you read about (again, how do you defend uses an example of ONE car as indicative of "the cars are snapping axle shafts like pretzel rods" clearly implying this is a common problem, if you are trying to state that you are open minded/objective/and not lazily using personal bias?)

If you are defending your post then, and state that "There may be similarities from the 4G63 to the 2.4L but SUBTLE difference can make all the world...." but you haven't produced the “subtle” difference(s) and reasoned why those would "make all the difference in the world". How about what "subtle" differences b/w the 2.2 and the 2.4 and/or why the 2.2’s pedigree can’t be considered as indicative?

See? I am asking for REASONS. You have yet to offer these. An open minded (and really, the word I used was "objective") can identify reasons for there position, and when they don't know or are presented with NEW arguments to the contrary, they acknowledge that and thus reason with this NEW information and how it affects their previous position. They are not above sharing this process in an open manner so that their reasons may be scrutinized, not only by themselves but by others as well. You have poorly

cont'd...

Prince Valiant

02-05-2004, 12:52 PM

Here is a good one:
#3 after I did what you asked, you say I am close minded...uncalled for. I have never been close minded to any sort of technology that is put into a vehicle That's all and well, but that has nothing to do with what I was “accusing” you of being close minded about.

You and I are aware of the histories of the 4g63 and sr20DET's...but I would defy you to point out WHERE I stated that the 2.4T is better? I wouldn't argue that because I don't believe that…however I will continue to argue the durability "approaches" that. You continue to talk about “proven” durability without addressing the point that it wasn’t by accident. I mean, where did you learn that it’s effective to argue ceded points? You and I know their “proven” capabilities…however I argue that the 2.4t design will allow it to approach that and you close-mindedly refuse to consider those points or dissect why I may be wrong. You stubbornly stick to saying it needs to be “proven” with time (I fail to see this as open-minded).

In fact I would argue that it COULDN’T have the same ultimate POWER potential (notice this isn’t blind fan-boi’ism that dictates I just blindly say the 2.4t would in the absence of reasons)…but notice that I specified power, however for the purposes of my statement it was the durability of the stock short-block that I concerned myself with and used reason to argue with.

Lastly, where do you get off stating “I think you need to be more cautious with your posts when you write them cuz I am the most open-minded "ricer" you know”? You neither know whom I know, nor are you aware of their levels of “open-minded”-ness. That is a pretty presumptuous (read: close-minded) statement don’t you think? Plus why do you quote ricer? Those are your words, and not ones I ascribed to you, so do not even TRY to begin to imply that you know what I think of you

jbiscuit

02-05-2004, 01:46 PM

OMG Chris I seriously think you like to hear yourself talk. You and I are going to butt heads on this issue until our graves are dug I think. You are reading so deep into my posts and trying to keep a dead horse walking man.....give it the F$(K UP MAN! I don't need to PROVIDE REASONS for sh1t because I stated my resources....thats English Paper writing 101 right there. I read the information and provide my comments on it and even stated the source for my opinions yet you continue to blast me and my comments. I won't stand for it. If you want an argument then I'm not your guys cuz I have better things to do rather than sit and argue about the SRT-4's powerplant, its reliability and its potential down the road.

PLEASE reread what I wrote several times. I scripted my last post to be very concise and I feel it achieved that. I stated that I a a skeptic and I need to see a motor earn its status as being a "hero." The 2.4L has not done that to date. REREAD what I wrote and you will see that. You don't impress me by dissecting my posts and trying to interpret what I am saying from angles other that which they were written. I don't have underlying meanings in any post nor am I bashing you or the PRECIOUS 2.4L.

To tell you the truth this post has now become personal with me because you are questioning evidence that you yourself asked for, I provided and now you point fingers at me. I merely stated (I will say it again) that I had read of issues concerning this motor and call it a bug or whatever but that hasn't earned its keep on the plateau of the 4G63 of the SR20's. You don't recognize my opinions and you continually say I am close-minded but your character assessment is quite off my friend. Maybe its a good thing you deal with physical therapy versus Psychological Profiling cuz if that was your career choice, you would be out of a job my man.

Enough on the subject now...think what you wish about the 2.4L...I could careless...you can't sway an opinion I have about the motor. I haven't discredited its potential, I am just waiting for it to impress me on a grander scale. That isn't a close minded concept, just a patient one.

J

jbiscuit

02-05-2004, 01:55 PM

Oh and to clarify my comment about marketshare in relationship to Honda, Chrysler developed the SRT-4 to go after the loyal repeat Honda buyers. The SRT-4 was supposed to be a car that was attractive at under $20K that would lure loyal import buyers (mainly Honda buyers) to look locally at a domestic that puts up serious performance features, advantages and benefits over the almighty Honda Civic. My comment about marketshare was to commend Dodge with their efforts and they have succeeded in creating a vehicle that attracts a lot of attention even amonst a loyal import owner as myself. The comment was aimed at the 500hp the car put down, but rather it was a general statement commending Dodge for their effort in creating excitement with the SRT-4. the car has created quite the melting pot for conversation on many web boards including the Subaru forums that I am a member of. The comment was also made in a rebuttal blow to you once you said that I am close-minded and I don't recognize the srt-4 as being capable.

I will say it once more....I am open-minded. I am open to see the SRT-4 wow me. Until that does, I am a skeptic to its achievement of reaching 4G63 and SR20 standing.

Prince Valiant

02-05-2004, 07:20 PM

My goodness J...you accuse me of not reading your post, yet if you actually look at my post it seems almost half of the words are comments that I quote you verbatim and address your points in each and every one(which hardly qualifies as "discounting")...I have found scant little evidence of your puported "rebuttals" to any of mine (you know, how valvetrain oiling doesn't reflect long block strength, nor how half-shafts have nothing to do with engine strength, the 2.2-2.4 plus improvements connection I presented, nor the questions of WHAT "sutble" differences of all the motors makes the 2.4 unlikely to live up to the strength of the others...ALL of these and more are STILL unanswered).

It is funny that you would say that "nor am I bashing you..." then follow by "...its a good thing you deal with physical therapy versus Psychological Profiling cuz if that was your career choice, you would be out of a job my man." I mean, WTF? I at least didn't even TRY to say that I wasn't questioning your objectivity as it relates to CARS because I most certianly was...and I even stated reasons why. I mean, fVck...I am pretty open in calling myself a mopar nazi (but I can always support my bias with reason and never close my eyes to all the facts) and I am okay with that.

and what the hell does pyschological profiling have anything to do with indentifying clear flaws in your logic and recognizing your evasion to both my answers to your points, and refuting new points that I offer?

But "personal"? :rolleyes: Your thin skin is more sensitive than most.

What is funny is that if you were and objective person in this matter, this is what I would have expected to hear from you:

"it appears that the 2.4t may be extraordinarly strong from the AMPLE evidence provided by not one, but TWO magazine tear-downs and both cry "overbuilt!!!" As well as the other chrysler turbo motors to which the 2.4t is nearly identical but otherwise the bigger and steroid injected younger brother of, and that the history of which has only recently been brought to my attention. This gives me SOME reason to believe that this motor could in fact, be very capable of living at such high hp and more importantly, high torque levels...and that this might someday help it approach the legendary status afforded of the 4g63 and SR20DET...both of which experienced minor to moderate issues along their respective lifecycles."

know what? that is essentially what I said from the get go without pointing out the issues of both motors. But see? then you had to "guess" despite all the facts for you to contend with.

What you seem to be pleading J, is that you haven't seen enough of the 2.4t to accurately comment on its strength, right? Guess what?

THEN DON'T ACT LIKE YOU DO!!!

lotsals1

02-06-2004, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Prince Valiant
Corrected it for ya tim :goof Dont start fukin with my replys with the faggy admin crap

Prince Valiant

02-06-2004, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by lotsals1
Dont start fukin with my replys with the faggy admin crap um, it wasn't. Just the good ol fashion qoute function. Check out your original post.

jbiscuit

02-06-2004, 10:34 AM

I question your evaluation of psychological profiling because you are obviously not a good judge of character Chris. I have said MULTIPLE times that I could careless about this motor or its achievements or even lack of achievements to this point....yet you STILL continue to try and make a point of dissecting my posts and reading into them as if there is Pulp Fictionesque meaning...which there isn't.

Here is why I keep saying to READ my posts....you appear to be trigger happy with the quote button but you aren't READING WHAT I WROTE. My comments were valid and also backed up by hard evidence of where I got my information from. The rest of my comments were opinionated and based off my skepticism. You can't change that logic, sorry. So I retaliate to your posts questioning my lack of intelligence here....you are asking me to embrace a motor that I don't know a lot about other than what I have read. I have not torn one down nor witnessed a teardown. I haven't seen a, exploded-view drawing of the motor nor do I possess technical specs of it. I have read about the ORIGINAL posted issues that I clearly stated I READ ABOUT and yet you continue to flame me and my comments...why is that? for something to do or is it to hear yourself talk Chris? I myself am disappointed that you are trying to convince a skeptic solely on "similarity" between 2 motors.....that is a weak defense Chris. Similarity doesn't win races....similarity doesn't extend the life expectancy of an engine....you should know that.

I can also COMMENT ON ITS STRENGTH (or lack thereof) becaus of articles that I have read....I do now own an SRT-4 so I cannot speak from my own experience with the motor....but if thats the case, you don't own one either so where does your right to stick up for it stem? OH THATS RIGHT, from the same source that I have made my opinions....you READ about it. You can't shut the door on opinion and skepticism. It is here to stay my man. To tell you the truth I am perplexed as to why you have gone to these great lengths to defend a motor that you don't own nor have ANY experience with. I think its for the sake of arguments personally. Whatever the reason, I respect the SRT-4 as a good car for the money. Yor original post was about a HIGH OUTPUT version of the car which I question its reliability DUE to what I have read about it to date. To enlighten you Chris, I will keep an OPEN MIND and read more about the car and post ANY AND EVERY issue I hear about it including the writer's name, address, age, shoe size and favorite Latte flavor to make sure it suits your needs as a resource.:thumbsup

Yooformula

02-06-2004, 11:07 AM

Is everyone still talking about the SRT-4?:goof

Whats up Tim!:party: :flipoff:

animal

02-06-2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by yellow wagon
and post ANY AND EVERY issue I hear about it including the writer's name, address, age, shoe size and favorite Latte flavor to make sure it suits your needs as a resource.

Don't worry. It won't be good enough anyways. Easiest way is to just avoid arguing with him since it will never end. There's a reason he's involved in just about every argument.

jbiscuit

02-06-2004, 12:54 PM

thanks for the advice man, I was beginning to realize that he likes to hear himself talk:nutkick

BAD LS1

02-06-2004, 01:22 PM

Its JUST a dyno queen fellas.... Nothing more... Nothing less, it makes a nice Shiny D!ck® With #'s like that thing laid down its more at home on the good ole' DYNO-JET then on a race track anyhow.

animal

02-06-2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by BADDLS1SS
Its JUST a dyno queen fellas.... Nothing more... Nothing less, it makes a nice Shiny D!ck® With #'s like that thing laid down its more at home on the good ole' DYNO-JET then on a race track anyhow.

This I know and agree with :)

Prince Valiant

02-06-2004, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by yellow wagon
thanks for the advice man, I was beginning to realize that he likes to hear himself talk:nutkick Well, no. I say if if your going to take a wait and see approach, then wait and see. Don't offer ill-informed opinions in the meantime.

same goes for animal. He likes to talk about how an engine produces torque/power without actually having a clue, and doesn't like it very much if someone calls him out on it or doesn't back down from his ignorance on the subject.

JohnnyT

02-06-2004, 04:14 PM

Thanks Chris.

You have single handedly reinforced to me the reason that I have stayed away from posting on this site. Ya know, it is wonderful that you have done ALL the research and have all the knowledge and buy-in you do for this car, but in the whole scheme of things, IT'S JUST A CAR. There is NO NEED for you to start throwing out insults to people just because they don't happen to share the same love you do for the SRT-4 and it's 2.4T. Everybody has their own opinions on things and, sometimes, they don't agree with each other. I realize that there are no mods on this site anymore and that we are supposed to "police" ourselves, but this is just getting out of hand. OK, we have established that you CAN get 500HP out of a 2.4T, impressive. We have also established that the motor, no matter HOW similar it is to the 2.2T, is still relatively new and unproven for LONG TERM durability. I think everyone on this thread has in one way or another agreed with you about about the impressive points of this car. Let's leave it at that and MOVE ON! There are MUCH more important things in life! Let's END THIS HERE!

Back to retirement I go...