>>14329196 I think you havent done a single bit of research I think you're talking about your ass I think you're hating for no reason. Until you prove me wrong. You're just a dumbass shit posting child and the cancer killing /o/
>>14329255 My main concern is that >don't know stick yet >don't want to kill myself The MS3 is like $10k cheaper for like 80 more horses though. And for some reason I really like the psychopathic idiot grin.
>>14329261 The clutch is an on/off sort of clutch. You can slip it but you have to know the exact bite point. You wont kill yourself. You can drive it like a normal car and never touch boost. But when you need it or want it, its available.
>>14329275 >>14329278 Fuck it, I guess I'll just have to look for the least riced out one in my area And fork over $250 for a 6 hour stickshift driving lesson since none of my friends know how to drive stick either
>>14329101 >most overrated Dodge by far. Their trucks are sub-par, their cars have been sub-par until the Hellcat duos, and even then, they have more of a cult following than should be healthy. Neons are "best bang for your buck" but finding an example for under 5k is hilariously hard. Calibers and Avengers are shit. I won't talk bad on the Intrepid - That was my mom's car, was a good one. And I kind of like them. But still, the battery did blow up one day.
>>14329914 >SRT-4 >1g MS3 Because they're practically the same car. Only the SRT-4 came with a LSD after the first year, was lighter, and wasn't DI so it was much easier to mod and more reliable while making power (no HPFP woes).
Also the SRT-4 trannys were stronger and it was a better handling chassis.
>>14330021 >shows how much you know Nothing because once again, despite them being "economy car based performance cars", SRT-4's are priced higher than the average WRX in my area. As I said, I could (And did) go buy a 1st gen MS3 and a new fuel pump, taking away half my potential problems. I still had 1500 left to play with. This car was 6,400, the cheapest neon was over 10k.
>more reliable personal experience at drag strips tells me that Neons break down more often than any other car that comes out.
>>14330047 >Nothing because once again, despite them being "economy car based performance cars", SRT-4's are priced higher than the average WRX in my area.
I explained why, the SRT-4 is the better performance car. Easier to make power and the better option unless you want to spend more money and get an Evo. They are pricing themselves due to market demand, they are fantastic budget performance cars. (and don't suffer the glass tranny or modability issues of the WRX)
>As I said, I could (And did) go buy a 1st gen MS3 and a new fuel pump, taking away half my potential problems. I still had 1500 left to play with. Even with an aftermarket HPFP the MS3's DI issues aren't cured. They are simply harder cars to pull power out of than the SRT-4. Good cars no doubt, but simply not as modable as the SRT-4. Hell, Mopar even made factory kits that could push the car to 350+whp.
>personal experience at drag strips tells me that Neons break down more often than any other car that comes out. The A8xx motors are bulletproof. They have 420A/4g64 DNA. The stock turbos can fail if pushed too hard for too long, but this is the same issue with the high boost MS3's.
>>14330062 Literally nothing Mazda made in the 80's or 90's is equivalent to the SRT-4 or MS3.
The Neon SRT-4 was a mad car when it came out and demolished the likes of gutless RSX's and Celicas/TC's with a big torquey turbo motor, great brakes, and tons of handling chops. SRT-4's could pull on Evo 8's and STI's from a roll.
The SRT-4 Caliber was shit, but the MS3 came out and was the spiritual successor to the Neon SRT-4. Big torquey turbo motor. Pretty cheap, pretty easy to mod, lots of power potential, etc.
The MS3 was literally the spiritual successor to the SRT-4 Neon. The SRT-4 Neon was literally a game changer when it came to cheap FWD based performance.
>>14330100 I didn't get a WRX, I got an MS3. I used a WRX as an example of a car that's cheaper.
>they are simply harder cars to pull power of of than an SRT-4 Great for dyno-queens, and dragkiddies. I was looking for something reliable I could have fun in, with potential down the road. I got that.
>daily dodge shill Once again, what I've seen at a spectator at the drag strips tells me that either a -lot- of people run bad setups on Neons and only neons, or they happen to break a lot under pressure. There's nothing wrong with that mind you, driving your car near the limits and expecting nothing to ever break is a good example of delusion.
>>14330122 MS3 did not change anything though, and unlike the "madman tier SRT-4 that was so great it only ran for a 2 year production run", the MS3 managed to stick around for atleast 6. Should tell you enough.
>>14330131 >in your mind >they are two different cars from two different companies and are nothing alike other than being FWD turbos
Name any other FWD performance compacts with big torquey turbo motors other than the MS3 and the SRT-4 (protip, you can't)
The SRT-4 was the best performance compact of the time. After it was cancelled it wasn't until the MS3 came out that something equivalent was offered, thus spiritual successor.
>>14330140 >I didn't get a WRX, I got an MS3. There was no miscommunication here.
>Great for dyno-queens, and dragkiddies. I was looking for something reliable I could have fun in, with potential down the road. >I got that. The SRT-4's are no more "dyno queens" or "drag kiddies" than the MS3's were. I fail to see your point. In fact the SRT-4 was a better handling car than the MS3 in pretty much all regards, especially the ACR version.
It seems the fact that the SRT-4 was an easier car to mod somehow upsets you.
>>daily dodge shill Wrong, I think dodges are shitty cars (and Mazdas). But I'm not a retard. I know what kind of performance bargain the ST-4 was and what it was/is capable of. As well as the MS3.
>what I've seen I really cannot take your internet anecdotes seriously. I have experience with the cars and know their strengths and their failings.
>MS3 did not change anything though It didn't. Mazda did what dodge had done years earlier in that they put a big torquey turbo 4 cylinder in a FWD economy car and made a performance bargain with tons of aftermarket potential.
>unlike the "madman tier SRT-4 that was so great it only ran for a 2 year production run" Wrong, The Neon SRT-4 ran for 3 years. The Caliber SRT-4 ran for another 2 years in 08-09 and was even more powerful and modable than the Neon before it, but it was also a larger heavier car that didn't handle like the SRT-4.
Dodge discontinued the Neon model and replaced it with a mini-crossover. Performance versions of mini-crossovers don't work, and as it turns out mini crossovers don't make good replacements for compact economy cars. So dodge killed the SRT-4's by killing the Neon and with their whole failed Caliber experiment.
Now that they learned their lesson they ahve the Dart and supposedly a 300hp SRT-4 version on it's way.
Considering the Neon SRT-4 was rated at 220hp and actually put out 23hp+ to the wheels, the Caliber was rated at 285hp and actually put out ~285hp to the wheels. One can only imagine what Dodge is going to put out with a 300hp "rated" SRT-4 Dart.
>>14330195 >an easier car to mod somehow upsets me there was miscommunication here, you seem to think that I'm buying a car for boyracer feels and sick mods yo.
I feel the need to repeat myself a bit more clearly. I bought something reliable I could have fun in (ie, a DD) with potential down the road.
As such, just pushing more power out of the thing is not even on my top 5 lists of concerns. They are for dyno-queens, dragkiddies, and boyracers.
If you can't take my experience seriously, how do you expect me to give you any time of day? You seem to be getting upset that I told you that Neon SRT-4's at a drag strip (you know, not stock) break down exceedingly often. Tell me anon, do you know anybody who runs cars at a drag that has -never- had it break?
>>14330225 I don't care what you bought your car for. It was inquired about why SRT-4's command the prices they do. I elaborated why, one of those reasons is that they have high performance potential and are easy to mod.
No, I cannot take your internet anecdotes seriously. I ahve personal experience that I hold higher than shit people claim on the intenret.
All cars break at the drag slip, especially when people put real tires on economy cars and try to launch them. I have not seen this happen a disproportionally large amount to SRT-4's. In fact I've seen and heard of more MS3's with blown trannies than SRT's. As I said, the main thing I see fail is people pushing too much boost on a stock turbo and blowing it.
>I ahve personal experience that I hold higher than shit people claim on the intenret.
at that point you ended the conversation, mopar man. if you can't accept that neon srt-4's break down at my local drag strip more often than the usual competitors, I don't see why I have to accept your anecdotal evidence that you've "worked on them". in all reality, we really look like brand shills, maybe we'll just agree our shitboxes are shitboxes?
>>14330248 I don't own any 'performance shitboxes' Though.
I have a turbo shitbox for work (turbo Cruz) which is neat I guess, but for performance cars I don't see the point in FWD considering the plethora of AWD/RWD options out there for not a lot of money.
You just seem upset by the fact that Dodge hit a (rare) home run with the SRT-4's and made a mad performance car for a bargain that is cheap and easy to mod and has tons of potential compared to your MS3.
Keep in mind I never said the MS3 was a bad car. It's just a heavier SRT-4 with a harder motor to work on. Still plenty fast as far as FWD shitboxes go. Untwist your panties.
>>14330269 Except the MS3 was literally only possible because of the ground paved by the SRT-4. It was Mazda's entry into the segment created by the SRT-4.
The segment of "not a shitbox honda with a joke motor fwd performance car". That segment was literally created by the SRT-4 and slotted in just below the WRX and then STI/Evo.
Nobody was making high performance budget turbo FWD economy cars before the SRT-4. The Japs had started bringing the WRX and Evo but at higher price points, but nothing along the lines of the SRT-4 before the SRT-4 was introduced in 2003.
The closest things from around that vintage, segment, and price point were cars like the Civic Si, RSX, TC, Celica, MSP, etc. All of which were jokes by comparison in performance.
Hell Mazda's answer to the SRT-4 at the time was initially the MSP which was trash (other than the fact that it handled decent). After they got stomped by the SRT-4 with what was essentially an MP3 with an aftermarket turbo kit, they got serious and copied Dodges formula in putting a big torquey turbo 4 cylinder in their compact economy car. And it worked.
>>14330295 The SRT4 and mazdaspeed are nothing more than hotted up econoboxes. During the 80s and 90s almost every jap manufacturer were making hotted up versions of fwd econoboxes. Mazda made turbo awd of an econobox in the 80s.
The srt4 might be a good car or whatever. But it isnt some groundbreaking god machine that created the market of hotted up fwd econoboxes. Stop being a delusional fanboy.
>>14330339 Look at the cars of the mid-late 90's and early 2000's before the SRT-4.
Then look at the SRT-4.
Yes, there were hopped up shitboxes before the SRT-4. But you cannot say that the SRT-4 wasn't a giant leap in shitbox performance. (230+hp at the wheels. 13's stock with decent tires)
Even the highly modded DSM's (probably the highest performance FWD shitboxes up to 2003) had substantially less power and performance then the SRT-4.
The SRT-4 was a revelation that made the American performance shitbox market what it is today with cars like the Turbalt SS, MS3, Focus ST, Turbo Type R, etc. following after in the SRT-4's footsteps..
>>14330509 Your willful ignorance of the sport compact shitbox revolution spurred in part by the release of the SRT-4 reveals your blatant bias.
Just because a Dodge did what the Japanese couldn't do in the segment doesn't mean you have to get all butthurt about it anon.
There was literally no equivalent car to the SRT-4 before the SRT-4 was released. After the SRT-4 was released several cars popped up with similar specs (mid 200's horsepower, 1/4 mile in the high 13-low 14 second range, good handling, etc).
Before that all we had were 160hp civics and Celicas with an overpriced RSX.
It's taken almost 15 years but Honda finally got the memo it seems. Mazda got it only 4 years after Dodge sent it out.
>>14329101 >not liking the only company to give rotary's a chance since Mercedes Benz all the way back in the fucking sixties I'd say Mazda, along with Mitsubishi and Subaru, are really the only companies who care about drivers >inb4 someone say BMW, who hasn't cared about driving since the E46
>Ctrl+F >no mention of Nissan >not mentioning the brand that made the Skyline, Silvia, 240SX, Z cars, GTR, Juke, and many other cars usually associated with JDM fanboys or normies who pretend they know anything about cars
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.