I"ve seen some dyno numbers on these bad boys. They are quick but can be modded to be very quick. They put down about 230 to 240 wheel HP. Oh baby. I would like to get one and mod it just for fun.
Years back before the ricer craze, I modded a small FWD pocket rocket. I picked up a new '84 Colt Turbo marketed by Dodge before Mitsubishi sold the thing with a redesign and another 300 lbs of weight. It came stock with a turbo, 3 valve head and a twin stick 8 speed. Ironically it was a heck of a rally car. I modded the thing with intercooler, injectors, pump, exhaust, wheels, tires, computer tweaks and ended up with 205 FWHP in an 1800 lb. FWD car. In the dry, it would embarass the heck out of stock stuff like 944 turbos, Vettes, Buick GNs etc... right up to 125 mph. That was all it was geared for. It made for blistering acceleration, but limited top speed. Even with a limited slip transaxle and equal length half-shafts, you had to have a firm hand on the wheel when it came into boost or you were going to take a right hand turn whether you wanted to or not. You could easily roast the front tires on a launch in the first 4 gears, bark a gearshift in the next 2. In anything other than dry, it was totally frustrating. You couldn't even keep pace with traffic with the wheelspin. The front tires would spin at the slightest squeeze of the throttle. Not to mention when the driven wheels start to spin and they also happen to be the wheels that also steer the car, you got problems. I remember one episode on a major highway running through Orlando. It was raining while I am going over a concrete portion of an overpass. In top gear I squeeze the throttle and the car's tach jumps to double, the speedo shows an instant 120 mph and the car is still drifting ever so slightly to the right lane and never increases speed. It was that seriously traction handicapped. It was a very bittersweet car. Enough power to outmuscle many other performance cars, but the at times manners of the Hurst Hairy Olds.
No doubt the SRT-4 will be a potent little package, hopefully it won't kill it's owners. FWD cars can be made to hook and accelerate at the strip, but it is a different animal on the street.
so if this car was rwd or awd it would be a better product
Picky, picky....
For the price it's not a bad ride. This is cheap speed. I had a Turbo 2.5 Sundance in the 80's and it was a blast to drive. That was 150hp in a 2700lb car. SRT4 is about the same with 75 more hp!!!
If the engine can handle more boost and I was on a tight budget looking for fun I'd definitely test drive it....how could you not?
Joe K.
'11 BMW 328i
'10 Matrix S AWD
Previously: '89 Plymouth Sundance Turbo, '98 Camaro V6, '96 Camaro Z28, '99 Camaro Z28, '04 Grand Prix GTP
Every write-up I have seen on it puts it in the mid to low 14's. That is impressive theless... and I know a lot of articles say SS's and WS6's run 13.7's or 13.8's stock... but seriously, can this thing really break into the 13's????
Former Ride: 2002 Pontiac Trans Am WS6 - 345 rwhp, 360 rwtq... stock internally.
Current Ride: 2006 Subaru Legacy GT Limited - spec.B #312 of 500
I've seen road tests that produced 101MPG trap speeds.... and that makes it a potential sub-14 second car in stock trim. These are road tests from the same people that ran 13.8@103 to 105 in the LS1 F-Bodys. They are not realizing the full potential of the cars when they test. MPG is a measure of HP... ET is a matter of how hard they are willing to flog the car and how well they can drive.
Fred
381ci all-forged stroker - 10.8:1 - CNC LT4 heads/intake - CC solid roller - MoTeC engine management - 8 LS1 coils - 58mm TB - 78# injectors - 300-shot dry nitrous - TH400 - Gear Vendor O/D - Strange 12-bolt - 4.11's - AS&M headers - duals - Corbeau seat - AutoMeter gauges - roll bar - Spohn suspension - QA1 shocks - a few other odds 'n ends. 800HP/800lb-ft at the flywheel, on a 300-shot. 11.5 @ 117MPH straight motor
Walking to my car from work last week, I saw a Neon smacked going through an intersection by an old Ford Torino (sp). The Ford remain, in all it "glory", unscratched. However, the Neon was thrown in the air, did a 180, hit the curb, and rested snuggly against a tree. For all of those driving such a vehicle, remember to include life insurance...
'77 K5 rock-crawler project
'79 T/A: WS6, 400 4sp, 40K miles; Completely stock and original
'87 Lifted 3/4 ton Suburban (Big Blue) plow truck
'94 Roadmaster Wagon (The Roadmonster) 200,000 miles and still going
'97 T/A: (SLP 1LE Suspension, SB, & sfc(s), Loudmouth); 4.10s; B&M Ripper; R/A Hood; ZR1s
My daily drivers: '06 Jeep Liberty CRD (wife); '01 Yukon Denali XL (me); '03 Stratus Coupe (me)
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
Actually, the test runs that I saw for the STi and Evo were quicker than the 13.2 and 13.6 that you show. The numbers I saw put them both at 13.0 -- with the Evo being SLIGHTLY faster. I think their trap speeds were about 106 or 107. These are the real beasts, and they WILL beat a stock WS6 or SS if driven well. I believe I saw these numbers in Motor Trend, I'll have to check again. But, yes, the STi and Evo are both the real deal. How could they not be with 300 ft-lbs of torque in those tiny cars?
Former Ride: 2002 Pontiac Trans Am WS6 - 345 rwhp, 360 rwtq... stock internally.
Current Ride: 2006 Subaru Legacy GT Limited - spec.B #312 of 500
Comment