new srt-4

[ccann26]

Any new news about this out yet I'm anxious to see if its going to dethrone the speed3 in the sport compact market in terms of performance . It sure is ugly and last i hear they didn't hit the 300hp mark like they said ... maybe to leave some room for the tuners ?

[Captain KRM P5]

http://www.drivesrt.com/en/dodge_caliber/overview/index.html

the only way it will dethrone the ms3 is on price. end of story.

[CX-7owner]

All of that cheap cost cutting black plastic makes me want to gag, looks worse on the website too.

[NCZ13]

i cant imagine being surrounded by that much plastic.

not even the p5 looks that cheap on the inside. ands its significantly cheaper

[xtrememps]

(pukey)

[voiceKoil]

http://www.drivesrt.com/en/dodge_caliber/overview/index.html

the only way it will dethrone the ms3 is on price. end of story.


It appears that 300hp was too far off for them? 285hp 265tq, Im not impressed, and its basically a jeep....

[CX-7owner]

Driving the new neon w/turbo
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=122412?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 .*

[CX-7owner]

Dodge Boys Drive Bad Toys
The 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT-4 will clearly not be to everyone's taste. Although it's enormously powerful, it's heavy at 3,189 pounds and Dodge admits it isn't any faster than the lighter and less powerful Neon SRT-4 of several years ago. It's also unusual-looking, and by unusual we mean fugly.
LOL.

[terbow]

uuuuuuggggggggggggggggggglyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[S.A.MSP]

fffffffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggg ggggggggggggggggllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[ZooMIN3]

Any new news about this out yet I'm anxious to see if its going to dethrone the speed3 in the sport compact market in terms of performance . It sure is ugly and last i hear they didn't hit the 300hp mark like they said ... maybe to leave some room for the tuners ?



Does this answer your question?But I'm sure you already knew that! lol

Dodge Boys Drive Bad Toys
The 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT-4 will clearly not be to everyone's taste. Although it's enormously powerful, it's heavy at 3,189 pounds and Dodge admits it isn't any faster than the lighter and less powerful Neon SRT-4 of several years ago. It's also unusual-looking, and by unusual we mean fugly.

[ccann26]

I want to see a comparison ! i think the speed will win........

[MS3ICA]

It appears that 300hp was too far off for them? 285hp 265tq, Im not impressed, and its basically a jeep....

hey how ya been man!, i finally got my boost guage installed, its on the steering collum it perfect! remeber you helped me figur out where to go through the fire wall.. hope your doing well!!, i got the standback on the way

[Babyface13]

I wonder if it comes with the lifetime powertrain warranty they hade been advertising???

[CX-7owner]

No.

[JoseProte83]

did you guys noticed the MazdaSpeed3 2? lol Mazdaspeed3 by Mazdaspeed Accessories.

anyway back to topic this is one hell of a fugly car...

[stevekt]

I kind of like it. I won't trade my MS3 for it but I'm sure the car will have it's own dedicated group of supporters who are just as passionate about their SRT4's as we are about our MS3's.

[MakeMeGoFast]

Yeah the blind.................
I mean it looks better than the base version. But its still just the lovechild of a charger and durango, and unfortunately the durango geans won out.

[MS3-oholic]

I hate when critics state lower 0-60 times for the MS3 than it is capable of. Car and Driver got a time of 5.8 on their first review back in November before anyone knew how to launch the car. I recall reading a review where they achieved a 5.4 sec. 0-60. There are even a couple of people who have run thier stock MS3s into the high 13's. The Caliber SRT4 will be no competition to the MS3. I don't think they will sale very well either. The kind of market they are trying to appeal to will not accept such an ugly, SUV-ish piece of crap.

[Donas64]

It appears that 300hp was too far off for them? 285hp 265tq, Im not impressed, and its basically a jeep....

I"m not impressed with the interior but its hard not to be impressed with those numbers. Lets not be cynical here, they have built a pretty good machine for the money. I'd still rather have a mazdaspeed3 but the SRT4 will be a competitor.

And its almost guaranteed to have a much bigger aftermarket.

I still like the old SRT4 neon better though.

[Parad0x01]

Yeah the caliber was ugly to start. SRT doesn't help much. Chrysler has some of the cheapest interior plastics of any manufacturer.

And the SRT4 neon did look much better than this, but it was still a neon.

[Donas64]

Yeah the caliber was ugly to start. SRT doesn't help much. Chrysler has some of the cheapest interior plastics of any manufacturer.

And the SRT4 neon did look much better than this, but it was still a neon.

Low Blow! I'm getting outta this thread before things get ugly!!!! (inout) (drive2)

[CHICO2003]

4 years ago, Dodge came out with the original SRT-4 Look-wise... the car was just downright weird. Even though it wasn't a blatant rip-off (afterall, I think the Neon actually had them first) the buy-eyed look did seem a bit too similar to the 1st gen WRX. Unlike the WRX (with it's large and in your face hood scoop) this car had a tiny little slot... that went well with the hundreds of other air inlets it had scattered across its face. The sides were pure Neon garbage... and the wheels were as fugly as can be. The spoiler (though they claim it was functional) resembled a basket handle more than anything else. In short... the car looked like shit. The inside was also a disaster. Cheap plastic craptastic abounds... The seats were supportive and the boost gauge was a first... and a nice touch. In the end, despite all of these drawbacks, the car flew off the lots. Priced about the same as the MSP at the time, this car offered WRX performance. On top of that, Dodge promised to offer a ton of factory aftermarket parts.

Despite the fact that this car matched up well with the WRX in terms of performance, because of it's pricepoint, I feel it actually competed more with the MSP. Because of this, MSP owners/Mazda fans got quite defensive and started honing in on the SRT's shortcomings. Since the original didn't have a LSD, that was an obvious target. It also lacked rear electric windows. (I'll never understand why so many people made a big deal about this. I think someone has rode in my backseat once. Most people who buy cars like this don't have family to lug around. The backseat is nothing more than a padded shelf.) But I digress. Obviously its awkward styling, cheap interior bits and notoriously bad reliability were also key targets.

Fast forward a few years and... my oh my, how things have changed. Or... have they? The MSP has grown up to become the MS3 while the Neon SRT has become the Caliber SRT. Powerwise, the 2 cars are about equal. Weight and dimensions? Despite what everyone is saying, the 2 cars are pretty equal here as well. (They both weigh in about the same while the SRT is about 2 inches taller.) 2 inches... I mean really people!! This isn't a truck... it's a tall wagon.

Looks? Obviously looks are subjective. Most of the car magazines are actually praising Dodge for the exterior styling. I personally agree. I think it looks badass. Certainly a HUGE improvement over the Neon. Unlike the MS3, this car cannot be mistaken for anything else. For some, that's a good thing. But again, looks are subjective.

Interior? Maybe Dodge is superstitious. Afterall, the cheapo interior of the last gen didn't seem to slow down sales one bit. Why mess with what works? Clearly Mazda continues to have an advantage here.

I guess my main point is... Despite all the negativity, if the past is any indicator, Dodge is going to sell a ton of these cars. It may not be perfect... but if you're a young buc with aspirations of going really fast (preferably in a straight line) and have a budget around $22k... there are worse cars you can buy.

[Donas64]

4 years ago, Dodge came out with the original SRT-4 Look-wise... the car was just downright weird. Even though it wasn't a blatant rip-off (afterall, I think the Neon actually had them first) the buy-eyed look did seem a bit too similar to the 1st gen WRX. Unlike the WRX (with it's large and in your face hood scoop) this car had a tiny little slot... that went well with the hundreds of other air inlets it had scattered across its face. The sides were pure Neon garbage... and the wheels were as fugly as can be. The spoiler (though they claim it was functional) resembled a basket handle more than anything else. In short... the car looked like shit. The inside was also a disaster. Cheap plastic craptastic abounds... The seats were supportive and the boost gauge was a first... and a nice touch. In the end, despite all of these drawbacks, the car flew off the lots. Priced about the same as the MSP at the time, this car offered WRX performance. On top of that, Dodge promised to offer a ton of factory aftermarket parts.

Despite the fact that this car matched up well with the WRX in terms of performance, because of it's pricepoint, I feel it actually competed more with the MSP. Because of this, MSP owners/Mazda fans got quite defensive and started honing in on the SRT's shortcomings. Since the original didn't have a LSD, that was an obvious target. It also lacked rear electric windows. (I'll never understand why so many people made a big deal about this. I think someone has rode in my backseat once. Most people who buy cars like this don't have family to lug around. The backseat is nothing more than a padded shelf.) But I digress. Obviously its awkward styling, cheap interior bits and notoriously bad reliability were also key targets.

Fast forward a few years and... my oh my, how things have changed. Or... have they? The MSP has grown up to become the MS3 while the Neon SRT has become the Caliber SRT. Powerwise, the 2 cars are about equal. Weight and dimensions? Despite what everyone is saying, the 2 cars are pretty equal here as well. (They both weigh in about the same while the SRT is about 2 inches taller.) 2 inches... I mean really people!! This isn't a truck... it's a tall wagon.

Looks? Obviously looks are subjective. Most of the car magazines are actually praising Dodge for the exterior styling. I personally agree. I think it looks badass. Certainly a HUGE improvement over the Neon. Unlike the MS3, this car cannot be mistaken for anything else. For some, that's a good thing. But again, looks are subjective.

Interior? Maybe Dodge is superstitious. Afterall, the cheapo interior of the last gen didn't seem to slow down sales one bit. Why mess with what works? Clearly Mazda continues to have an advantage here.

I guess my main point is... Despite all the negativity, if the past is any indicator, Dodge is going to sell a ton of these cars. It may not be perfect... but if you're a young buc with aspirations of going really fast (preferably in a straight line) and have a budget around $22k... there are worse cars you can buy.

Excellent post.

I only disagree with one thing:

Was I the only one who actually liked the SRT-4 wheels and the front fascia?

[clos561]

The solution? A big ol' Mitsubishi TD04 turbocharger. The turbocharger, along with a freer-flowing intake, an intercooler and a fat 3-inch exhaust system bring an additional 113 hp to the table. The original Omni GLH (non-turbo) made a whopping 110 peak hp.



- they get 3inch exhaust out the box..we have 2.5 inch..thats where they get some extra numbers as well..... im sure it has a 3 inch downpipe too which leaves no room for improvement unless ur gonna run 4inch and push like 40 psi

[Haltech]

Well no doubt it isnt a good looking vehicle for many reasons, but to many, only thing that matters is whats under the hood. This thing will get a hell of a lot of aftermarket support. Be prepared to see them everywhere!

[Donas64]

Well no doubt it isnt a good looking vehicle for many reasons, but to many, only thing that matters is whats under the hood. This thing will get a hell of a lot of aftermarket support. Be prepared to see them everywhere!

This time the MS3 is prepared to answer the call! There will be no free lunch!

[WildChild]

I am rather disappointed with the new SRT-4. With it's late arrival in the hot hatch catagory. I suspected it would produce alot more power than it's nearest rival. The first gen SRT-4 made more power by a wide margin over anything in it's class. Today the folks at dodge settled for the status qou. Deciding to only "match" the performance of the Mazda. The MS3 will only be in production for roughly another 10 months. The cobalt SS supercharged is already gone. Dodge will soon have the last car available for the entry level enthusiast. How can dodge NOT sell alot of these?

BTW: the MS3 is 57.7 inches high, the Caliber comes in at 60.4 inches. The Chevy HHR is only 65.2 and is classified an SUV. The caliber might be closer to a truck than you think.

[misbehave]

Guess it's time for me to post this once again:
http://i8.tinypic.com/4zjm836.jpg

[GirlieGurl]

i have yet to see any car that can compete with the speed3 when it comes to price AND performance. Hell the one person I knew that had an SRT got rid of it...too much trouble.

[redspeed]

Certainly a HUGE improvement over the Neon.

Gota agree with you there. The neon srt4 was just that, a neon with a good engine. At think this is less nauseous.

[Kosh]

This car will be all over the place in the US for 1 reason... Patriotic shit heads will buy American cars just because they are American cars. Only thing I can say about the look of this car is at least it isn't an HHR (sad2)

[Donas64]

This car will be all over the place in the US for 1 reason... Patriotic shit heads will buy American cars just because they are American cars. Only thing I can say about the look of this car is at least it isn't an HHR (sad2)

Man I've got no beef with you but that comment seems a little ignorant. If someone wants to buy American because they believe in this country and want to support an industry that once helped build this nation, then more power to them. It's their money and they can spend it as they wish!

I for one am really hoping the Pontiac G8 (yes I know its a rebadged holden but Austrailia is a great place and they are an ally so there!) is a huge hit so I can someday own a high quality 400hp rip snortin RWD american sedan!

I love imports, but I think its kinda harsh to use the term "Patriotic shit head" to describe someone who wants to buy products made in the country where they were born.

some people will only buy imported brands, what does that make them?

People will buy what they want. Period.


I do agree that the HHR is ugly no no amount of SS badging will ever make me want to buy that thing.

[chaosProtege]

I think i just puked a little in my mouth...... It looks like a truck.

[///M Compact]

People will buy what they want. Period.

I agree, but I do think that it's a bit moronic to buy an inferior product just because it is-or isn't-built in a particular country.

[Betelgeuse]

I don't know what they were thinking when they designed the caliber. Such horrible lines all over. No grace whatsoever. And that dreaded dodge grill. Judging from the general response on the srt forums, I don't think this thing will have the same following the neon did. It's too much of a departure from the previous design. I could be wrong though and I agree competition is good but.......

[Donas64]

I agree, but I do think that it's a bit moronic to buy an inferior product just because it is-or isn't-built in a particular country.

maybe you just really prefer that product? (shrug)

[Parad0x01]

Man I've got no beef with you but that comment seems a little ignorant. If someone wants to buy American because they believe in this country and want to support an industry that once helped build this nation, then more power to them. It's their money and they can spend it as they wish!

I for one am really hoping the Pontiac G8 (yes I know its a rebadged holden but Austrailia is a great place and they are an ally so there!) is a huge hit so I can someday own a high quality 400hp rip snortin RWD american sedan!

I love imports, but I think its kinda harsh to use the term "Patriotic shit head" to describe someone who wants to buy products made in the country where they were born.

some people will only buy imported brands, what does that make them?

People will buy what they want. Period.


I do agree that the HHR is ugly no no amount of SS badging will ever make me want to buy that thing.

Woot another G8 fan, personally I think that thing is one of the sexiest cars around.

Oh and when i do run into a new SRT4 at a light I'll certainly answer the call. My MS6 may be fat, but shes always ready.

[CHICO2003]

Guess it's time for me to post this once again:
http://i8.tinypic.com/4zjm836.jpg

While I appreciate the time/effort that went into creating this... it's patently ridiculous! Simply change the gender of the people pictured above and your argument holds no water. Let's see... do I want to drive a car that looks like a wimpy, albeit good-looking guy or some jacked-up dude with roid-rage?

All I know is, the new SRT may not have the clean lines of an exotic sports car. But so what? Not every car has to be drop-dead gorgeous. In fact, some (myself included) actually prefer cars (like the Element, last gen WRX and even Hummer) which certainly would never win a beauty contest... but are at least different and "cool" in their own unique way.

Most of us are obviously fans of imports. Why else would we own a Mazda (or belong to a Mazda board) At the same time, I seriously doubt any of us would kick a Corvette, Viper or Mustang GT out of bed. While this new SRT obviously isn't in the same league as those cars, I feel we should still appreciate it for what it is... just like we do with those cars. Until recently, the Vettes interior was pure crap. Did anyone give a shit? Not really... the car still drove about as well as the exotics (costing twice as much) it competed with. To a certain degree, this car is no different. So why isn't it getting ANY respect?

A point that needs to be hammered home is the fact that, despite the perception, this car proportionately very similar to the beloved MS3.

SRT (L x W x H) 173.8 × 68.8 × 60.4 3189lbs
MS3 (L x W x H) 176.8 x 69.5 x 57.7 3163lbs

So the MS3 is 3" longer... nearly an inch wider and 2.7" shorter. 2.7 inches... That's like the length of your thumb! Oh and... it's 26lbs heavier. Big deal!

As some of you may recall, Dodge under-promised/over-delivered on the original SRT. Not only were the hp #s understated but the car delivered performance #s far better than what people had originally expected. Will history repeat itself? Probably not... in comparison to the last gen model, this car IS pretty damn big/heavy. But then again... in comparison to the MSP, the MS3 is pretty damn big/heavy as well! With most publications testing the MS3 at about 5.8 seconds... a "low 6 second" (I don't know... call it 6.2 before the #s come out) isn't terrible. Everyone gets so hung up on #s... especially 0-60 times. Unless you're doing burnouts, those times mean shit. And even if you are... are you really going to notice a difference between .4 seconds? It's all psychological.

Just like defending the nerd from the school bully at recess, this is no different. I didn't particularly care for the nerd back then and I don't particularly care for this iteration now. But fair is fair... and nobody (or nothing) should be picked on unjustly.

[///M Compact]

maybe you just really prefer that product? (shrug)


If someone really prefers that product, fine. What I'm referring to is the doofus who says, "Yeah, that XYZ is great, but no way will I buy one because it's built in _____ . The ABC may not be as good, but at least it's made in _____ ." Doesn't matter if they are boycotting the US, Japan, or Germany- they are morons.

[ccann26]

Thought Mazda was an American owned Co anyway now that Ford owns most the shares even if it were'nt most cars are made by robots anyway right ?

[Donas64]

Thought Mazda was an American owned Co anyway now that Ford owns most the shares even if it were'nt most cars are made by robots anyway right ?

PWNED by the car making robots!

[Donas64]

Woot another G8 fan, personally I think that thing is one of the sexiest cars around.

Oh and when i do run into a new SRT4 at a light I'll certainly answer the call. My MS6 may be fat, but shes always ready.

I'm absolutly stoked about the G8. I was considering a used MS3 for my next car (about 4 years down the road) but once I saw the G8, I knew that that would be my next ride. Used of course.

So who ever buys the G8 GXP I will someday buy second hand, please go easy on the clutch would you! Thanks.

[staples187]

I would pick the MS3 over the new SRT4, not because that's what I bought, but because that's what I prefer. The old neon SRT4 is overrated and they're a dime a dozen. Around my area there's only 4 MS3s rolling around here. I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said I've seen over 12 SRT4s on the road. They're like the Mustang GT overrated just like the new Caliber is going to end up being, cash cheap MOPAR quality performance.

"I drive an SRT4", it's still a neon.

[Donas64]

I would pick the MS3 over the new SRT4, not because that's what I bought, but because that's what I prefer. The old neon SRT4 is overrated and they're a dime a dozen. Around my area there's only 4 MS3s rolling around here. I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said I've seen over 12 SRT4s on the road. They're like the Mustang GT overrated just like the new Caliber is going to end up being, cash cheap MOPAR quality performance.

"I drive an SRT4", it's still a neon.

Thats patently false. Overrated in what sense?

No one says that it has a nice interior but where it counts (performance) its absolutely not overrated.

You know all those comparison tests the MS3 is winning now, the SRT4 was winning them 4 years ago.

Give credit where credit is due. The MS3 is the undisputed king now but the NEON SRT4 pwned all comers in its class when it came out. Thats a fact.

No ones saying its not a Neon. It is a neon but its a darn quick one.

[I vtec, do you?]

It's kind of pathetic how some of you are so narrow-minded, like the MS3 is the ONLY car to buy if you're looking for a performance compact.

Yes, the car looks like ass. Lets not kid ourselves, the MS3 is no gem either when it comes to looks. In fact, my brother wound up buying a regular 3 because he couldn't get over the ugliness of a hatch, even though he wanted performance. Looks are all relative - I love the way the MS3 looks, others think it's disgusting.

I know you guys all like to think you're the 'king' of the sports compact, but reality check.. there can never be a true winner when everyone wants something different. Sorry, that's just the way it is. If you want solid power, a low-revving engine and a utilitarian-like hatch.. then the MS3 is for you. If you want low torque, high horsepower (for an N/A 2.0) high revving coupe/sedan.. the SI is for you. If you just want cheap power and strikingly aggressive looks, than the Cobalt SS/Ion Redline is for you. Everyone has different wants.. so how can you proclaim to be king?

The new SRT-4 is nice.. but I would never get one because it looks like a sports SUV. I would never buy an SUV for spirited driving.. it should've been made a bit more sporty/aggressive looking.. I think the old SRT-4 was an amazing car for what it was.. I guess others disagree.

[Betelgeuse]

It's kind of pathetic how some of you are so narrow-minded, like the MS3 is the ONLY car to buy if you're looking for a performance compact.

Yes, the car looks like ass. Lets not kid ourselves, the MS3 is no gem either when it comes to looks. In fact, my brother wound up buying a regular 3 because he couldn't get over the ugliness of a hatch, even though he wanted performance. Looks are all relative - I love the way the MS3 looks, others think it's disgusting.

I know you guys all like to think you're the 'king' of the sports compact, but reality check.. there can never be a true winner when everyone wants something different. Sorry, that's just the way it is. If you want solid power, a low-revving engine and a utilitarian-like hatch.. then the MS3 is for you. If you want low torque, high horsepower (for an N/A 2.0) high revving coupe/sedan.. the SI is for you. If you just want cheap power and strikingly aggressive looks, than the Cobalt SS/Ion Redline is for you. Everyone has different wants.. so how can you proclaim to be king?

The new SRT-4 is nice.. but I would never get one because it looks like a sports SUV. I would never buy an SUV for spirited driving.. it should've been made a bit more sporty/aggressive looking.. I think the old SRT-4 was an amazing car for what it was.. I guess others disagree.

What does this thread have to do with an SI or cobalt? Sorry but those cars are in a different class. Cheap power is the ms3 and srt-4. The cobalt is a good third and the SI - last. Almost everyone regardless of taste agrees the new caliber is Fugly. I'm not saying the car is crap, it's just really really nasty looking (my opinion of course).

Regarding the ms3's looks you said 'let's not kid ourselves'? I love the hatch look a lot more than the sedan. But I agree looks are subjective. As for there never being a true winner - yes there can always be a winner when it comes to raw performance. Performance isn't subjective. The SI is weak, deal with it.

[redspeed]

(flame2)(flame2)(flame2)(flame2)(flame2)

[misbehave]

.....

I do agree that the HHR is ugly no no amount of SS badging will ever make me want to buy that thing.

GM should sell all their HHR that are left in their lots to UK.
I am sure they will make good use of them.
This is why:

HHR:
http://a904.g.akamai.net/7/904/506/v0011/www.autobytel.com/images/2006/Chevrolet/HHR/500/2006_Chevrolet_HHR_exdrvrsd.jpg

London Taxi:
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/790/188333.JPG
http://www.link2content.co.uk/leadimages/london_taxi-01.jpg

[misbehave]

While I appreciate the time/effort that went into creating this... it's patently ridiculous! Simply change the gender of the people pictured above and your argument holds no water. Let's see... do I want to drive a car that looks like a wimpy, albeit good-looking guy or some jacked-up dude with roid-rage?

All I know is, the new SRT may not have the clean lines of an exotic sports car. But so what? Not every car has to be drop-dead gorgeous. In fact, some (myself included) actually prefer cars (like the Element, last gen WRX and even Hummer) which certainly would never win a beauty contest... but are at least different and "cool" in their own unique way.

Most of us are obviously fans of imports. Why else would we own a Mazda (or belong to a Mazda board) At the same time, I seriously doubt any of us would kick a Corvette, Viper or Mustang GT out of bed. While this new SRT obviously isn't in the same league as those cars, I feel we should still appreciate it for what it is... just like we do with those cars. Until recently, the Vettes interior was pure crap. Did anyone give a shit? Not really... the car still drove about as well as the exotics (costing twice as much) it competed with. To a certain degree, this car is no different. So why isn't it getting ANY respect?

A point that needs to be hammered home is the fact that, despite the perception, this car proportionately very similar to the beloved MS3.

SRT (L x W x H) 173.8 × 68.8 × 60.4 3189lbs
MS3 (L x W x H) 176.8 x 69.5 x 57.7 3163lbs

So the MS3 is 3" longer... nearly an inch wider and 2.7" shorter. 2.7 inches... That's like the length of your thumb! Oh and... it's 26lbs heavier. Big deal!

As some of you may recall, Dodge under-promised/over-delivered on the original SRT. Not only were the hp #s understated but the car delivered performance #s far better than what people had originally expected. Will history repeat itself? Probably not... in comparison to the last gen model, this car IS pretty damn big/heavy. But then again... in comparison to the MSP, the MS3 is pretty damn big/heavy as well! With most publications testing the MS3 at about 5.8 seconds... a "low 6 second" (I don't know... call it 6.2 before the #s come out) isn't terrible. Everyone gets so hung up on #s... especially 0-60 times. Unless you're doing burnouts, those times mean shit. And even if you are... are you really going to notice a difference between .4 seconds? It's all psychological.

Just like defending the nerd from the school bully at recess, this is no different. I didn't particularly care for the nerd back then and I don't particularly care for this iteration now. But fair is fair... and nobody (or nothing) should be picked on unjustly.


I would like to see you beating Maria Sharapova in a tennis court, then you will know who is wimpy one here.
You totally misread my pic.
SRT-4 <-----just raw power with no look.
MS3 <------performance with a good looks.

And you thought Maria Sharapova was just a pretty face with no talent/power? Oh my!
BTW, I also certainly wasn't saying female body builders doesn't get respect, just that as soon as I compare the 2 cars, the idea of the above 2 female celebrity figures immediately pops up in my mind. I hope you are not telling me you don't respect female body builders, since you were saying the SRT-4 "isn't it getting ANY respect."

[misbehave]

Thought Mazda was an American owned Co anyway now that Ford owns most the shares even if it were'nt most cars are made by robots anyway right ?

But other than the platform, the car isn't designed by American Co. It was the Japanese.

I do wish Ford would bring out a product as exciting as the MS3.
In fact, they do have such product, it's called the European Focus, they just didn't bring it over here.
http://www.caradisiac.com/media/images/le_mag/mag251/ford-focus-st-s1b.jpg
http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/09/focuswrc07.jpg
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/3904_Focus.jpg
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/08/MHsporty.jpg
http://tripleb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/car_photo_219406_5.jpg

[misbehave]

It's kind of pathetic how some of you are so narrow-minded, like the MS3 is the ONLY car to buy if you're looking for a performance compact.

Yes, the car looks like ass. Lets not kid ourselves, the MS3 is no gem either when it comes to looks. In fact, my brother wound up buying a regular 3 because he couldn't get over the ugliness of a hatch, even though he wanted performance. Looks are all relative - I love the way the MS3 looks, others think it's disgusting.

I know you guys all like to think you're the 'king' of the sports compact, but reality check.. there can never be a true winner when everyone wants something different. Sorry, that's just the way it is. If you want solid power, a low-revving engine and a utilitarian-like hatch.. then the MS3 is for you. If you want low torque, high horsepower (for an N/A 2.0) high revving coupe/sedan.. the SI is for you. If you just want cheap power and strikingly aggressive looks, than the Cobalt SS/Ion Redline is for you. Everyone has different wants.. so how can you proclaim to be king?

The new SRT-4 is nice.. but I would never get one because it looks like a sports SUV. I would never buy an SUV for spirited driving.. it should've been made a bit more sporty/aggressive looking.. I think the old SRT-4 was an amazing car for what it was.. I guess others disagree.

So we are narrow-minded? Why don't you open your eyes and check out this other posts in this forum.
We DO have people here praise the 07Civic-Si, the WRX, the Golf/Rabbit, the Mini, and some other sport compacts.
Please check out the fact before you jump to conclusion with just strong criticism.

The new SRT-4 does look somewhat ugly to a lot of us and we are just voicing our opinion.

[DeadGeneration]

slowwwwww

[Aricjm15]

new srt-4 = same engine as new evo = bastardize the two and get an ugly cheap AWD rocket

[altspace]

Thought Mazda was an American owned Co anyway now that Ford owns most the shares even if it were'nt most cars are made by robots anyway right ? Mazda Rotary hand built in Japan, woot!

On topic, the Caliber is just a new name and face to what the Neon was IMO.

[CHICO2003]

I would like to see you beating Maria Sharapova in a tennis court, then you will know who is wimpy one here.
You totally misread my pic.
SRT-4 <-----just raw power with no look.
MS3 <------performance with a good looks.

And you thought Maria Sharapova was just a pretty face with no talent/power? Oh my!
BTW, I also certainly wasn't saying female body builders doesn't get respect, just that as soon as I compare the 2 cars, the idea of the above 2 female celebrity figures immediately pops up in my mind. I hope you are not telling me you don't respect female body builders, since you were saying the SRT-4 "isn't it getting ANY respect."

I don't think I misread your pic at all. Your goal was to point out how ugly and tasteless the SRT was in comparrison to the MS3's beauty (and undestated power) I merely said by changing the genders of your pictures, the double-standard would be reversed. Most people think muscle bound women are gross... whereas jacked guys (to an extent) are worshipped in society. As far as Maria goes... she's quite simply (as far as our society is concerned) the perfect specimen. Tall, thin, attractive, blonde... athletic. Your male equivalent, while certainly no slouch with the ladies, obviously wouldn't be an Arnold in his prime type of guy.

[///M Compact]

As for there never being a true winner - yes there can always be a winner when it comes to raw performance. Performance isn't subjective. The SI is weak, deal with it.

You have to wonder why a disciple of the Church of Honda feels the need to constantly defend his cherished marque on a MS3 board. I suspect that few -if any- MS3 owners lie awake at night wondering if they should have bought an Si or waited for the SRT-4...

[I vtec, do you?]

What does this thread have to do with an SI or cobalt? Sorry but those cars are in a different class. Cheap power is the ms3 and srt-4. The cobalt is a good third and the SI - last. Almost everyone regardless of taste agrees the new caliber is Fugly. I'm not saying the car is crap, it's just really really nasty looking (my opinion of course).

Regarding the ms3's looks you said 'let's not kid ourselves'? I love the hatch look a lot more than the sedan. But I agree looks are subjective. As for there never being a true winner - yes there can always be a winner when it comes to raw performance. Performance isn't subjective. The SI is weak, deal with it.

1) It has everything to do with the SI / cobalt / GTI / Redline, etc etc. I'm simply pointing out how this thread is nothing but a bash against anything that isn't a mazdapseed3. As I said before, how can you declare the speed a winner when it has a lot of things people HATE? As I pointed out, in my brother's eyes ( a potential buyer) the MS3 was a loser, so he didn't buy it. You get my point?

2) As for the looks of the MS3, again i say "Lets not kid ourseves". Some people think the mazdaspeed3 is down-right ugly, just like you think the new SRT-4 is. So.. I don't undersatnd that point.

And yes, the SI is weak, but in certain aspects, it's stronger than the MS3. For example, your MS3 would fall on its face at 8000 RPMs where mine will keep going. I'm not saying the SI is better, nor am I saying it's worse. It all depends on the buyer, which is something you guys can't seem to figure out. Tons of people hate turbo lag, the hatch body style, and the low redline. So how is the MS3 a winner to them? Explain.. please.


So we are narrow-minded? Why don't you open your eyes and check out this other posts in this forum.
We DO have people here praise the 07Civic-Si, the WRX, the Golf/Rabbit, the Mini, and some other sport compacts.
Please check out the fact before you jump to conclusion with just strong criticism.

The new SRT-4 does look somewhat ugly to a lot of us and we are just voicing our opinion.

True.. but I'm talking about this thread. Go back and re-read it. It's all about how the MS3 is better. Is it? How can you say that? As I said before, a lot of what you're all saying is subjective. There's a reason why people buy the GTi, the SI or the cobalt instead of the MS3, and 99% of the time it's not a money thing. It's just the MS3 doesn't do it for them.

I'm not sure if anyone understands what I'm saying.. but simply, it's the MS3 sucks to some people, and it's a god-send to others. For me, it's right above the SI because I like the interior more and the power is nice.. but I hate the low redline and the hatch body style. So it's all subjective, some of you need to remember that.

[ccann26]

I'd rather wait a tenth of a second then wait until my engine gets up to 7000+ before I have any power just my opinion .

I really just started the tread to see how the srt will stack up to the speed so the comparison is there (performance) i don't really care about how ugly it is . its still a beast no matter what it looks like.

[AllLostThings]

It looks like a Super Deformed Anime charcter...

[ch77]

I like the fact that the wheels on the SRT-4 have a simple, 5-spoke design. Aside from that, it looks awful to my tastes..

My MS3 looks great to me, from every angle except the front. But, I wanted a fast Mazda, and I love hatches, so there you go. Eventually I'll have some front end work done, when I have the whole car repainted in a sort of gunmetal gray..

[Kosh]

I really just started the tread to see how the srt will stack up to the speed so the comparison is there (performance) i don't really care about how ugly it is . its still a beast no matter what it looks like.

If you get beat it doesn't matter how pretty/ugly the car is. A win is a win.

[Stu C]

There's a lot of things that are subjective but I don't know where you get the idea that an 8000 RPM is important to anyone. The ONLY reason that an 8000 RPM is nice is that it allows the car to have dual personality, daily commuter below VTEC cutover, and high end engine after. That's it. Same powerband (roughly - I think the MS3's is a bit broader) so you're talking about shift points that are different.

So by all means, argue the SI can do both chores, but to say that an 8000 RPM redline vs a 6700 RPM redlide is a selling point is just stupid. All things being equal, it makes no difference - it's all about the powerband.

[misbehave]

If you get beat it doesn't matter how pretty/ugly the car is. A win is a win.

It does, when it sit inside my garage and I will have to look at it everyday.
And you don't need to race everyday I guess, and if you do, I think neither the SRT-4 nor the MS3 would be your choice. Go get a EVO/M3 CSL/CLK-AMG-DTM/Lotus Elise/Saturn Sky Redline.

[Babyface13]

personally I like it, does that mean I will trade my MS3 for it? Hell No but I think it is a nice car and that it will grow on people in the long run. Its still new and after a while I think there will be alot of them sold and we will be competing with them wether we want to or not. I bet alot of us will be suprised with some of the things that people can do with those cars.

[Betelgeuse]

1) It has everything to do with the SI / cobalt / GTI / Redline, etc etc. I'm simply pointing out how this thread is nothing but a bash against anything that isn't a mazdapseed3. As I said before, how can you declare the speed a winner when it has a lot of things people HATE? As I pointed out, in my brother's eyes ( a potential buyer) the MS3 was a loser, so he didn't buy it. You get my point?


2) As for the looks of the MS3, again i say "Lets not kid ourseves". Some people think the mazdaspeed3 is down-right ugly, just like you think the new SRT-4 is. So.. I don't undersatnd that point.

And yes, the SI is weak, but in certain aspects, it's stronger than the MS3. For example, your MS3 would fall on its face at 8000 RPMs where mine will keep going. I'm not saying the SI is better, nor am I saying it's worse. It all depends on the buyer, which is something you guys can't seem to figure out. Tons of people hate turbo lag, the hatch body style, and the low redline. So how is the MS3 a winner to them? Explain.. please.



Wow, you really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not gonna waste the time. You'll fit like a glove in ClubSI and ClubRSX.

[Young Roids]

Ok let's not mention looks interior and exterior. Let's talk about advantages mechanicaly. Here is how I see it.

Caliber pros:
Front mount IC

Mazdaspeed3 pros:
direct injection
limited slip diferrential
mechanical shifter not a cable shifter.

On top of that I would tend to believe that the Mazda will be more reliable than the Dodge allthough that is a bit subjective.

[Falconx84]

I'm shocked an appalled!! (wow)

someone thinks we're biased towards the MS3 on a mazda board

what is the world coming to??

[CHICO2003]

haha touche!

[I vtec, do you?]

There's a lot of things that are subjective but I don't know where you get the idea that an 8000 RPM is important to anyone. The ONLY reason that an 8000 RPM is nice is that it allows the car to have dual personality, daily commuter below VTEC cutover, and high end engine after. That's it. Same powerband (roughly - I think the MS3's is a bit broader) so you're talking about shift points that are different.

So by all means, argue the SI can do both chores, but to say that an 8000 RPM redline vs a 6700 RPM redlide is a selling point is just stupid. All things being equal, it makes no difference - it's all about the powerband.

Hmm man.. I dont' think you know much about Honda then (uhm) That IS one of the selling points - a high revving n/a motor. Do you honestly think honda would sell a lot of SI's if it redlined at 6500 or so? Of course not.. 95% of the fun is winding the engine up. I would hate the SI if it only went to 6500 RPMS.

I'm with you in that the MS3s powerband is better, dont' get me wrong. I would much rather have power down low instead of waiting for the engine to wind up. My point is, though, that others like it the opposite way of that.. power up high. That's all I'm getting at.


I'm shocked an appalled!! (wow)

someone thinks we're biased towards the MS3 on a mazda board

what is the world coming to??

That's not what I was saying. I was saying how lame it is that some of you act like there is no other car that can compete with the MS3, when that's simply not true. It seems like a lot of you can only look at raw horsepower and torque numbers and absolutely nothing else.. which is, again, a narrow-minded view. How can you argue that?...

I just think you guys need to appreciate some of the aspects of the new SRT-4.. sure it's an ugly mutt of a car (imo), but it has some serious numbers and its after market will put most to shame (as you've all said).

[S.A.MSP]

the car is extremely gay, gay, gay.......................................... still gay

[Falconx84]

That's not what I was saying. I was saying how lame it is that some of you act like there is no other car that can compete with the MS3, when that's simply not true. It seems like a lot of you can only look at raw horsepower and torque numbers and absolutely nothing else.. which is, again, a narrow-minded view. How can you argue that?...

since we're all about opinions here .... and generally speaking, I'll play devil's advocate

imo, there is no car to compete with the MS3, or I would have purchased something different

power (specifically a fat powerband in the middle where you need it), quality, fit/finish, style, handling, utility -- the MS3 does all of these wonderfully whereas other lesser cars (read- si) must compromise

which brings me to an older quote-- "honda left 2 letters out when spelling Si.... the H and the T" (flame2)

[S.A.MSP]

which brings me to an older quote-- "honda left 2 letters out when spelling Si.... the H and the T" (flame2)

HAHAHAHA(lol)(lol2)

[Stu C]

Hmm man.. I dont' think you know much about Honda then (uhm) That IS one of the selling points - a high revving n/a motor. Do you honestly think honda would sell a lot of SI's if it redlined at 6500 or so? Of course not.. 95% of the fun is winding the engine up. I would hate the SI if it only went to 6500 RPMS.Yeah... an owner of a '97 lude for 7 years knows NOTHING about the SI engine. And no - it's not a selling point. Honda would sell lots of SIs if they redlined at 6500 and sacrificed nothing. In fact, I would bet that they'd sell even more since the only way they wouldn't sacrifice anything by lowering the redline would be... wait for it... a fatter power band. The novelty of screaming an engine to 8000 wears off when you realize you HAVE to, rather than you can choose to. You've already come to terms with that. The selling point is EXACTLY what I said (which you somehow completely ignored considering it was the whole point of the post) is you have best (sort of) of both worlds.

[tvissues]

Man I've got no beef with you but that comment seems a little ignorant. If someone wants to buy American because they believe in this country and want to support an industry that once helped build this nation, then more power to them. It's their money and they can spend it as they wish!

I for one am really hoping the Pontiac G8 (yes I know its a rebadged holden but Austrailia is a great place and they are an ally so there!) is a huge hit so I can someday own a high quality 400hp rip snortin RWD american sedan!

I love imports, but I think its kinda harsh to use the term "Patriotic shit head" to describe someone who wants to buy products made in the country where they were born.

some people will only buy imported brands, what does that make them?

People will buy what they want. Period.


I do agree that the HHR is ugly no no amount of SS badging will ever make me want to buy that thing.

I don't mean to start anything here but i just had to let you know that if you ever check out a dodge product you will see majority of its components is manufactured outside of US borders. It may depend on each vehicle but atleast its trucks are made in Canada and Mexico... If somebody is patriotic and wants to support this nation, buy a toyota or honda that actually makes majority or atleast matches "american" vehicles components made in the U.S. (depending on model)

[tvissues]

Ok let's not mention looks interior and exterior. Let's talk about advantages mechanicaly. Here is how I see it.

Caliber pros:
Front mount IC

Mazdaspeed3 pros:
direct injection
limited slip diferrential
mechanical shifter not a cable shifter.

On top of that I would tend to believe that the Mazda will be more reliable than the Dodge allthough that is a bit subjective.

I think you can deduct one from the speed pros.... we have a cable shifter... suprized no one corrected you on that. lol

[staples187]

Thats patently false. Overrated in what sense?

No one says that it has a nice interior but where it counts (performance) its absolutely not overrated.

You know all those comparison tests the MS3 is winning now, the SRT4 was winning them 4 years ago.

Give credit where credit is due. The MS3 is the undisputed king now but the NEON SRT4 pwned all comers in its class when it came out. Thats a fact.

No ones saying its not a Neon. It is a neon but its a darn quick one.

I agree, I never said I didn't like the SRT4 I'm just saying they're overrated in my area like the WRX/STIs are. Originally that's what I was going to get, but I wanted something different that's unexpected towards a Subaru, Mitsubishi, or Dodge owner. The SRT4s are quick cars but if you lived in my area I'm sure you would agree that purchasing a car that majority tuners already own isn't a head turner. I'm going to give the new SRT4 a test drive and see what I feel about it.

[staples187]

I don't mean to start anything here but i just had to let you know that if you ever check out a dodge product you will see majority of its components is manufactured outside of US borders. It may depend on each vehicle but atleast its trucks are made in Canada and Mexico... If somebody is patriotic and wants to support this nation, buy a toyota or honda that actually makes majority or atleast matches "american" vehicles components made in the U.S. (depending on model)

It's the other way around.. Toyota still gets most of their parts from Japan but they're manufactured in Kentucky to save on costs of importing.

[CX-7owner]

I wouldn't want to be caught dead in a Dodge, but the name fits, low Caliber of quality, refinement, fit and finish, Dodgey styling, NO LSD??! wtf! And I think they Know its going to be unreliable, they will not offer that awesome sounding lifetime powertrain warranty on it.

[andrew.savage]

Excellent post.

I only disagree with one thing:

Was I the only one who actually liked the SRT-4 wheels and the front fascia?

Nope, i def like the wheels.

[boostdog]

good reading - if you go to canadiandriverdotcom you can see an article there
]First Drive: 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT-4

2008 Dodge Caliber SRT-4.
Article and photos by Paul Williams

Photo Gallery: 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT-4
Indianapolis, Indiana - 285 horsepower. $24,995. Need I say more?

For many, those two numbers - 285 hp; $24,995 - will be enough to schedule a visit to the local Dodge dealer to test drive this performance and value slam-dunk at the earliest opportunity (sorry, you'll have to wait until December, 2007 for first delivery). For the rest of you, here are the details.

The latest opus from Dodge's SRT (Street and Performance Racing) division - the $24,995 Dodge Caliber SRT4 - is all that you might want from a high performance Dodge Caliber, and more. It's also all you might want, and less, which I'll get to later. What you do get on the SRT4 will be more than enough for most buyers interested in a very high-performance modified production compact car with an MSRP of less than $25,000 (okay, it's only five-bucks less, but you know how cars are priced).
The SRT-4 engine is a turbocharged version of the 2.4-litre, four-cylinder powerplant found in the base Caliber.
It uses variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust valves, and features a specially machined block for increased water flow, cast pistons, forged connecting rods, a high-performance aluminum head with high temperature exhaust valves, special bearings and crankshaft, and a new air cleaner assembly. In other words, this is not your average "World" engine. Add a high-performance turbocharger and a new engine management system designed by Siemens and you get 285 hp at 5,700-6,400 rpm and 265 pounds-feet of torque at 2,000-5,600 rpm. There is, of course, more. Contributing to the power equation is a free-flow exhaust system that uses a single, 75 millimetre (three-inch) pipe from the engine back to the exhaust tip, a dual-mass flywheel that connects the engine to the SRT-4's unique, Getrag, six-speed manual transmission, and an electronically tuned Brake Lock Differential designed to put the power smoothly to the ground.

The brake lock differential, along with a 22 mm reduction in overall ride height (28 mm at the front suspension), and the special positioning of the differential in the transmission, are designed to manage the torque-steer you'd expect when putting this much power into a compact, front-wheel drive car. The steering and suspension are comprehensively tuned by SRT, including performance tuned rack and pinion steering, and lowered MacPherson strut front suspension with new suspension knuckles, tuned dampers and revised swing rates. The front suspension also includes coil spring over gas-charged shock absorbers and stabilizer bar. The rear multi-link suspension includes coil springs, link-type stabilizer bar and gas charged shock absorbers. Sway bars are 24 mm front and 22 mm rear. The Caliber SRT4 also uses a unique front crossmember with anti-lift geometry.

The Caliber SRT-4 arrives with 19-inch alloy wheels with 225/45 Goodyear RS-A all-season or F1 Supercar "three-season" tires, an oversized spoiler at the rear, a functional scoop on the hood, big (340 mm vented front; 302 mm rear) four-wheel disc brakes with antilock and red-painted calipers, traction control, vehicle stability control (tuned for performance handling in dry, wet and snowy conditions), side curtain airbags, air conditioning, a decent audio system, and power windows, doors, mirrors. The dual 57 mm piston brake calipers are also used in the 5.7-litre Dodge Charger police cars.
You can add almost $10,000 worth of options, including a navigation system, sunroof, accelerometer/g-force calculator, polished wheels and premium audio, but many buyers (40-percent, Dodge reckons) will buy the SRT-4 straight-up and add their own finishing touches. Available colours are red, orange, silver and black.


Inside, you'll find hip and shoulder-hugging front seats with red stitching and the SRT logo sewn into the head restraints, a centre-mounted tachometer, separate turbo boost gauge, leather shift knob and steering wheel, an all-grey interior with aluminum-look centre console and performance pedals.
The seats are comfortable (the squab a little softer than you'd expect) with pronounced side bolsters for your thighs and torso, and the driver's seat is height-adjustable. The steering column tilts, but unfortunately doesn't telescope, which will prevent some (me included) from finding an optimum driving position. Visibility front and rear is restricted by the short glass (a Caliber design feature) and the A-pillars also block vision when cornering.
On the road, the steering is firm and precise, the ride firm but not jarring, and the exhaust note is louder than most cars but not annoying. Wind noise at speed is noticeable (this car has a high 0.39 coefficient of drag). The armrests in the doors are hard on the elbows, and the dashboard is a bit plasticky, and hard to the touch. But this car isn't about luxury appointments and creature comforts. It's designed to go, steer and stop better than most everything on the road, with a very low entry price. You can add your carbon-fibre inserts later, if you want.

On the track at Putnam Park Raceway we were able to drive the Caliber SRT-4 without the moderating presence of the local constabulary. Flat-out acceleration requires two firm hands on the steering wheel as torque-steer will pull this car aggressively, despite efforts from the SRT engineers. Even though it's a tall car, the SRT-4 handles sharp corners with poise and feels stable on the straights. Steering is quick and precise, but the car doesn't feel high-strung. Brakes are very effective and after several hard laps were not fading appreciably. Acceleration is fierce, with the car reaching 100 km/h in about six-seconds (top speed, by the way, is 250 km/h). Torque comes on low, and keeps pulling.
Nobody crashed; a good time was had by all.
The drive back into Indianapolis from the track was uneventful, with the SRT-4 effectively transforming into street clothes from budget supercar when required. But those satisfying second and third gears do beckon when conditions allow, as do any twisting roads you may encounter.

What more would I like? All-wheel drive. Apparently, the system available for the Caliber is not robust enough to handle the Caliber SRT-4's power, so it's not offered. An AWD system would be a terrific option, and likely would tame the torque steer. An automatic transmission option is also missing, but most buyers of this car (males, twenty-something, enthusiasts) will prefer the six-speed manual, I should think. And I have to mention the doors. They really let the car down by making such a hollow sound when you close them. Should be an easy fix; should be done soon. The Caliber fuel tank is a mere 51 litres, and the SRT-4 gets the same tank (93-octane is recommended; that's the very good stuff…). I suspect the small tank will cause frequent visits to the gas station. Smallest wheels you can fit over those big brakes are 18-inch, so expect to pay a lot for winter tires that will be so wide they won't do much of a job.

What else should you know? Oh yes, performance add-ons. As I said above, 40 percent of buyers will want more and apparently it's coming: cold air intakes, suspension bits, the works from SRT for future tuning. The Caliber SRT-4 isn't the uncivilized little beast found in the original SRT-4 which was based on the 2.0 SX (Neon). That was a mini-NASCAR that burbled, snarled and belched on occasion as you ran it through the gears. The Caliber SRT-4 is not quite as wild, but still has lots of attitude. Given that buyers of this car will be fairly young, and this is a particular breed of automobile, Dodge might consider offering a performance driving course to go with it.

New SRT-4 drivers could learn how to properly handle such a high performance car, and brush up on emergency manoeuvres as well.
Competition in this segment includes the Mazdaspeed3 and Volkswagen GTI, but the Mazda costs $6,000 more and the VW has 85 hp less. 285-hp. $24,995. A performance and value slam-dunk.



I am looking forward to the release. should be a fun car to drive.

[Falconx84]

ms3 is $6k more??

oh, wait..... canadian article -- I still feel like I got away with a deal (cabpatch)

[DeadGeneration]

I thought the first SRT-4 was supposed to appeal to domestic ricers. This car seems to be appealing to those 25 yr old mid life crisis people. It's still using a small turbo charged engine, keeping that domestic ricer edge.

[DeadGeneration]

Some one please photoshop this car with a 4 inch exhaust pipe so I can throw up now instead of later. And make sure it sticks out an inch longer then it should. That's JDM. Or wait. haha. Put a JDM exhaust on it, the ones that shoot out back and at and angle. Put some green underglow on there to.

Am I hurting the situation? lol

[Kosh]

I'm going to give the new SRT4 a test drive and see what I feel about it.

Best quote in this entire thread.

Everyone has their first impression on this car based on appearance and the second is the hp/tq numbers. Power is moot if the car doesn't handle well. Look at the new wrx video from another post; the car has awd and decent hp but tosses through the slalom like a load of bricks. I would rather drive a slow car that can take corners fast than a fast car that doesn't handle well. (drive2)

[xtrememps]

Agreed on that point, however I don't think I could bring myself to actually sit in there without involuntarily vomiting all over the dashboard...I don't think that'd go over to well with the sales guy.

[DeadGeneration]

Make sure you lick the dashboard during the test drive. Make sure it has that new car taste.

[boostdog]

Best quote in this entire thread.

Everyone has their first impression on this car based on appearance and the second is the hp/tq numbers. Power is moot if the car doesn't handle well. Look at the new wrx video from another post; the car has awd and decent hp but tosses through the slalom like a load of bricks. I would rather drive a slow car that can take corners fast than a fast car that doesn't handle well. (drive2)

You do realize that the srt has already been outperforming many cars on test tracks...one being a boosted m3. Per Dale Steely who works for PVO -

"I couldn't run it down in my supercharged M3 at Memphis. It was on stock tires and suspension...
What little bit I caught it under braking, it extended through the offset slalom, and then we'd maintain distance during the entire front straight.
Mine is a 95 with H&R coilover kit, Motorsports adjustable sways, Motorsports chassis braces, and a 6 pound blower. It's not bad for a daily driver, I loaned it to someone to run Onelap with this year as well. It's not a racecar by any means, it's just supposed to be something fun to take to work everyday that I'm not on the bike.

The Caliber that came to Nationals was stock, down to the huge tires. Erich Heuschele was driving it, not quite Mario Andretti, but a hell of a lot better than I am.

There are tons of excuses why I wasn't faster, some are more humorous than others (the heat exhaustion had me puking after every session for example), but not of that really mattered on the track. I don't like the tires that are on the M, Goodyear F1, but that's what was put on it for Onelap. I prefer the Pilot PS2's, and would have had more confidence in them, but I was pushing hard enough to loop the car in Grants Tomb.

Assuming the Caliber launches better than the M3, it's probably a 13.4 second car at 106mph, based on how it held it's gap from me from 45 mph to 125+. It transitioned into the corners really well, the OEM suspension really suprised me. Body roll was less than the SRT-4, something I didn't expect.

I was killing it under braking, but couldn't stay with it in the "m's", a set of tight slalom-like corners. I curse the tires (Goodyears) for that, that and Erich's consistancy."

I think you may be suprised

[Kosh]

You do realize that the srt has already been outperforming many cars on test tracks...one being a boosted m3. Per Dale Steely who works for PVO -

I think you may be suprised

I wasn't trying to cut down the new srt-4 in handling and I didn't realize those reviews on the track was out there. I was stating there is only so much you can tell about a car without driving one. All I know for sure is I personally think the car looks like shit (it actually looks a lot better on dodge's web site in orange but it could be the angle/lighting) but has some impressive numbers and I look forward to going against one on the track. Need more FWD competition in STU (wrc)

[boostdog]

I wasn't trying to cut down the new srt-4 in handling and I didn't realize those reviews on the track was out there. I was stating there is only so much you can tell about a car without driving one. All I know for sure is I personally think the car looks like shit (it actually looks a lot better on dodge's web site in orange but it could be the angle/lighting) but has some impressive numbers and I look forward to going against one on the track. Need more FWD competition in STU (wrc)


oh ok that's cool...actually everyone says that it looks better in person. Ya i am looking forward to seeing what it can do performance wise by someone other than a magazine editor.

[I vtec, do you?]

Yeah... an owner of a '97 lude for 7 years knows NOTHING about the SI engine. And no - it's not a selling point. Honda would sell lots of SIs if they redlined at 6500 and sacrificed nothing. In fact, I would bet that they'd sell even more since the only way they wouldn't sacrifice anything by lowering the redline would be... wait for it... a fatter power band. The novelty of screaming an engine to 8000 wears off when you realize you HAVE to, rather than you can choose to. You've already come to terms with that. The selling point is EXACTLY what I said (which you somehow completely ignored considering it was the whole point of the post) is you have best (sort of) of both worlds.

8thcivic.com. We OWN the 8th gen civics, why don't you ask them what the selling point of the car is? I will shit my pants, delete my username over here, and praise you as a god if the vast majority of them say that th 8k rpm redline IS NOT a selling point.

Seriously, that is what makes the SI an SI. I have even seen people write that they would sacrifice even MORE torque for a 9k rpm redline. That's just what Honda owners want.. a high revving machine. If our power-band kicked in at 3500 and stopped at 6500, the car would NOT sell nearly as well to the people who like the way the new SI is now.

[S.A.MSP]

get the fuck off the mazda forum douche bag, i don't wanna hear shit else about ur damn honda, we don't give a shit, my 260whp protege will eat ur honda so go eat shit and die

[Kosh]

Rotary RPM FTW

8000 rpm isn't piss to a rx

[Rotary_Powered]

Rotary RPM FTW

8000 rpm isn't piss to a rx
(stupid) If you ever miss shift a rotary, Let's say from 3rd to 2nd (which shouldn't happen if you can drive) The Engine car take spinning at over 10k, the car won't like it but the engine sill be perfectly fine.:) Much love to Rotary

[Kosh]

(stupid) If you ever miss shift a rotary, Let's say from 3rd to 2nd (which shouldn't happen if you can drive) The Engine car take spinning at over 10k, the car won't like it but the engine sill be perfectly fine.:) Much love to Rotary

And it sounds like hawt sex when it gets that high.

[TonyBSRT]

^^^THANK YOU

One thing people are missing, nobody bougt the Neon SRT4 for interior quality. The people looking at the SRT4 were people looking for a raw, fast, and loud car to build on later. I have about $300 in mods. With that, I'm around 260WHP and drive car capable of 13.6-13.7sec 1/4 miles @about 104mph. With about $1000, I'll be about 300WHP.

I'm not going to turn this into a "All hail the SRT4" thread, because I love the MS3 and think it is a very solid car.

Overrated........yeah....sure.....

[TonyBSRT]

^^^^Ignore above post. Didn't know there were so many pages.



DAMMIT!

[I vtec, do you?]

^^^THANK YOU

One thing people are missing, nobody bougt the Neon SRT4 for interior quality. The people looking at the SRT4 were people looking for a raw, fast, and loud car to build on later. I have about $300 in mods. With that, I'm around 260WHP and drive car capable of 13.6-13.7sec 1/4 miles @about 104mph. With about $1000, I'll be about 300WHP.

I'm not going to turn this into a "All hail the SRT4" thread, because I love the MS3 and think it is a very solid car.

Overrated........yeah....sure.....

Exactly.. the SRT-4 WAS a great car and I'm sure the new one will be as well.. it just lacks in certain areas. Sadly, you get fanbois that can't look past MAZDA, honda, chevy, etc etc.


get the fuck off the mazda forum douche bag, i don't wanna hear shit else about ur damn honda, we don't give a shit, my 260whp protege will eat ur honda so go eat shit and die

Lolz... and then after it makes the 1/4 mile pass, the engine will shit out and the body panels will fall off it? Please, dont' compare a protege to the build quiality of a honda. Any honda.. I'd rock a honda fit before a mazda protege.

You can get all worked up as you want, I take comfort in knowing that it'll take 500k miles before my honda civic is worth as much as your protege is with 70k miles on it (headbang)

[Rotary_Powered]

I like Honda/Acura, especially the RSX Type S :) And the S2000! Just happen to think the Mazda are a slightly better value (if you intend to keep your car).

[CHICO2003]

8thcivic.com. We OWN the 8th gen civics, why don't you ask them what the selling point of the car is? I will shit my pants, delete my username over here, and praise you as a god if the vast majority of them say that th 8k rpm redline IS NOT a selling point.

Seriously, that is what makes the SI an SI. I have even seen people write that they would sacrifice even MORE torque for a 9k rpm redline. That's just what Honda owners want.. a high revving machine. If our power-band kicked in at 3500 and stopped at 6500, the car would NOT sell nearly as well to the people who like the way the new SI is now.

I hear what you're saying... but it still doesn't make any sense to me. I drove my buddies new Si recently and, while I was impressed in virtually every way, I couldn't get over the fact that you had to rev the shit out of the thing in order to get any decent power.

Think about it like this. Remember when the WRX first came out? All the critics loved it overall... but hated the turbo lag. Said it was basically the economy car it was based on prior to 4k... then turned into a monster. Some people liked the jeckyl and hyde routine but most car enthusiasts found it annoying. (which is why subaru addressed the issue later with their 2.5) To me, though not quite as dramatic, the whole vtec thing is no different. in fact, if anything, it's worse. Having to not only rev the hell out of the engine to generate the power you paid good money for... but also do your best to keep it within that range... that's a lot of work!

I guess it all depends on what your intentions are. If I'm racing on a track and keeping my rpms up there... I can see how it would be cool to have a car capable of spinning that fast. (just from the sheer sound the engine makes) However... last time I checked, our cars at used as daily drives 99.9% of the time. i want to be able to enjoy my car and, for me, getting low-end torque helps me do just that.

[I vtec, do you?]

I hear what you're saying... but it still doesn't make any sense to me. I drove my buddies new Si recently and, while I was impressed in virtually every way, I couldn't get over the fact that you had to rev the shit out of the thing in order to get any decent power.


Beleive me.. I'm with you. I tried hard to turn my SI in for a MS3, but it's just not financially sound when I'm just heading into college.

I didn't think about it before I bought it, but I don't like having to rev it up to 39002313 RPMs to get any power out of it. I feel like I'm abusing the hell out of it every time I want any sort of fun. My point is that some people DO like that, though. That is the sole reason they bought the car - it was the highest revving N/A sports compact they could get for that price, and that's what they wanted.


I like Honda/Acura, especially the RSX Type S :) And the S2000! Just happen to think the Mazda are a slightly better value (if you intend to keep your car).

Again, I agree. The MS3 just packs more for the money (things like fog lights being standard, 18 in wheels, auto climate control, amongst the power upgrades) all for nearly the same price. However the SI was still a good buy for me because in 1-2 years when I get a different car, I'll still get most of the value of the car back. But yes I do agree, mazda gives you more value for the money. I think they do this because they have a name they want to build up, whereas honda already has a good rep and they can just kinda give what they want and know you'll be happy.

[S.A.MSP]

Lolz... and then after it makes the 1/4 mile pass, the engine will shit out and the body panels will fall off it? Please, dont' compare a protege to the build quiality of a honda. Any honda.. I'd rock a honda fit before a mazda protege.

You can get all worked up as you want, I take comfort in knowing that it'll take 500k miles before my honda civic is worth as much as your protege is with 70k miles on it (headbang)

yup, i bet, go break down on the fucking rail road tracks you shmuck, i have the mazdaspeed, ur civic wont even be worth a mint flavored turd so shut the fuck up

[TonyBSRT]

^^^My Neon will beat you.........

[DeadGeneration]

^^^My Neon will beat you.........

and a used $750 v8 will beat your neon (wiggle)

[Donas64]

get the fuck off the mazda forum douche bag, i don't wanna hear shit else about ur damn honda, we don't give a shit, my 260whp protege will eat ur honda so go eat shit and die

Absolutely unessesary!

[Falconx84]

(iagree)

[Young Roids]

I think you can deduct one from the speed pros.... we have a cable shifter... suprized no one corrected you on that. lol

Down to two advantages for the mazda then...

[S.A.MSP]

Absolutely unessesary!

um, yea, sorry about that, been having a bad day, had to let it out somehow

[Betelgeuse]

yup, i bet, go break down on the fucking rail road tracks you shmuck, i have the mazdaspeed, ur civic wont even be worth a mint flavored turd so shut the fuck up

+1

Harsh but I agree. I'm all for open debate and of course I don't expect everyone to bow down to everything Mazda, but that guy comes in here with his Honda superiority complex, flapping his jaws spouting negative stuff about Mazda constantly (half of which is complete BS) and it's clear he's just talking out his ass. And he wouldn't get it through his thick skull that many on here could give two shits about his SI and its high revving torqueless motor. Go over to ClubSI and have a big SI circle-jerk over there.

[S.A.MSP]

+1

Harsh but I agree. I'm all for open debate and of course I don't expect everyone to bow down to everything Mazda, but that guy comes in here with his Honda superiority complex, flapping his jaws spouting negative stuff about Mazda constantly (half of which is complete BS) and it's clear he's just talking out his ass. And he wouldn't get it through his thick skull that many on here could give two shits about his SI and its high revving torqueless motor. Go over to ClubSI and have a big SI circle-jerk over there.


hahaha, yes, thank you for the backup(cabpatch)

[Stu C]

8thcivic.com. We OWN the 8th gen civics, why don't you ask them what the selling point of the car is? I will shit my pants, delete my username over here, and praise you as a god if the vast majority of them say that th 8k rpm redline IS NOT a selling point.Look, I'll simply leave you with a question that should make things clear for you. How can a selling point also be the main contributor of the number #1 thing people (you being one of them remember) hate about it?

I will agree with one thing though - it wouldn't sell as well to the people who enjoy hi-reving engines. But it would sell more overall ;)

[DeadGeneration]

I just found this http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=122412?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 .*

[tvissues]

It's the other way around.. Toyota still gets most of their parts from Japan but they're manufactured in Kentucky to save on costs of importing.

Exactly... manufactured in Kentucky... dodge hase various parts manufactured in Mexico.. canada yada yada..... In either case, buying one over the other does no more damage to foreign comapanies...

[I vtec, do you?]

+1

Harsh but I agree. I'm all for open debate and of course I don't expect everyone to bow down to everything Mazda, but that guy comes in here with his Honda superiority complex, flapping his jaws spouting negative stuff about Mazda constantly (half of which is complete BS) and it's clear he's just talking out his ass. And he wouldn't get it through his thick skull that many on here could give two shits about his SI and its high revving torqueless motor. Go over to ClubSI and have a big SI circle-jerk over there.

Lawl are you retarded? I like the MS3 more than my SI, I tried trading in for it.. since you can't even comprehend THAT much, I'll just ignore the rest of your post since you obviously suck at reading.


Look, I'll simply leave you with a question that should make things clear for you. How can a selling point also be the main contributor of the number #1 thing people (you being one of them remember) hate about it?

I will agree with one thing though - it wouldn't sell as well to the people who enjoy hi-reving engines. But it would sell more overall ;)

Because I'm not like most SI lovers, apparently. I posted something on the 8thcivic about how I wish we had more low-end and EVERYONE started screaming at me for buying the SI if I didn't want a high-revving machine. THAT is what they like about the SI. Trust me when I say.. 70+% of the 8th (at least) wouldn't of gotten the SI if it revved to 6.5k.

[Falconx84]

thats just because poor deprived Si fanbois can't imagine power down low(confused)

Torque is the devil!!(laugh) If torque was good for us, the Honda Gods would have bestowed it upon us

(bow)All hail VTEC!!

blinded by their own ignorance.... sad thing, really

[jeg0024]

Why is this shit in the MS3 welcome secton?

Welcome MS3 owners... check out the SRT4!

[Betelgeuse]

Lawl are you retarded?

I'm not the one driving an SI now am I? Only a retard would buy an SI over an MS3 and then cry about the lack of torque.

[Betelgeuse]

Because I'm not like most SI lovers, apparently. I posted something on the 8thcivic about how I wish we had more low-end and EVERYONE started screaming at me for buying the SI if I didn't want a high-revving machine. THAT is what they like about the SI. Trust me when I say.. 70+% of the 8th (at least) wouldn't of gotten the SI if it revved to 6.5k.

They are right, you shouldn't have bought the SI in the first place. However if Honda came out with a boosted SI making 250/270 hp/tq that redlined at 6.5k 90% would trade or sell their current SIs in a heartbeat.

[I vtec, do you?]

I'm not the one driving an SI now am I? Only a retard would buy an SI over an MS3 and then cry about the lack of torque.

Hrmm whose crying about lack of torque? I said I didn't like having the power-band up high, not crying over the lack of torque.

Go look at true race-cars with like 900 hp.. guess how much torque they have? 200-300? Torque isn't needed for speed.. that's why you'll see lil hondas running 10 second passes all day..

Anyways, this isn't about hondas. It's about SRT-4s.. so maybe keep it on topic instead of looking at ways of bashing the most popular sports compact out there :S

[CX-7owner]

I just found this http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=122412?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 .*

LOLllllllllll I posted this on the first page LOLlllllllllllll

[Betelgeuse]

Hrmm whose crying about lack of torque? I said I didn't like having the power-band up high, not crying over the lack of torque.

Go look at true race-cars with like 900 hp.. guess how much torque they have? 200-300? Torque isn't needed for speed.. that's why you'll see lil hondas running 10 second passes all day..

Anyways, this isn't about hondas. It's about SRT-4s.. so maybe keep it on topic instead of looking at ways of bashing the most popular sports compact out there :S

(omg)

http://www.g-speed.com/pbh/torque-and-hp.html


Both horsepower AND torque are needed for speed. In fact Hp is calculated by multiplying torque by the rpms and dividing that by 5252 (hp = tq x rpms / 5252). In a light car like a gutted Honda, torque isn't as important as there isn't much force needed to get the car going and the overall power to weight is ratio is usually large to begin with.

Yeah we knew this thread was about the SRT-4, YOU were the one that came in bashing everyone and spouting off about how great your SI was.

[jeg0024]

I just found this http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=122412?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 .*

[CX-7owner]

wow http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3367540&postcount=7 I just found that too!

[jeg0024]

i know

[TonyBSRT]

I LOVE my Neon SRT4!

The Caliber is way too soft for my taste. A stiff ride, loud exhaust, and a cheap interior don't bother me. I have other cars if I want to ride in comfort or if I feel the need to go off-road.

As for MS3 vs. New SRT4, I think the MS3 will kill it. And if I had the choice of either, I'd be riding home in the MS3.

[Kosh]

Hrmm whose crying about lack of torque? I said I didn't like having the power-band up high, not crying over the lack of torque.

Go look at true race-cars with like 900 hp.. guess how much torque they have? 200-300? Torque isn't needed for speed.. that's why you'll see lil hondas running 10 second passes all day..

Anyways, this isn't about hondas. It's about SRT-4s.. so maybe keep it on topic instead of looking at ways of bashing the most popular sports compact out there :S

(cryhard)(rofl2)(hah)(rofl)(laugh)

How the hell do you get quick acceleration with no torque? How many of those 10 second honduhs are NA? Where the hell do you find a 'true race-car' with only 200 torque?

(cryhard)(rofl2)(hah)(rofl)(laugh)

[TonyBSRT]

^^^X2


WTF dude? ANY car breaking 10's is going to have GOBS of TQ. And I don't see many DD 10 sec Honduhs running around. Now, I know of 3 people rolling around in 10-11sec V8 powered monsters. VTEC is great...............I think......well.........no, no it's not.

[CHICO2003]

I think the beatdown needs to stop. I haven't read everyone of his posts but, the ones I have read didn't seem offensive. There's definitely an anti-honda 'thing' on this board. I guess it has more to do with what a lot of hondas become...and less to do with what they originate as from the factory.

All I know is, this place would be pretty dull if we all agreed on the same thing. I personally like when someone from another forum comes over to voice his opinion. If all we (or any forum for that matter) do is beat that person down... the chances of this continuing are slim. (unless they're a glutton for punishment.)

Anyway, for those of you who still feel the need to trash this guy... try re-reading some of his posts (on this thread at least) with a more open mind. He's praised the MS3 and voiced his opinion on why he feels a lot of people like the Si. Unless I missed a memo... there's nothing wrong with that.

[CHICO2003]

Hrmm whose crying about lack of torque? I said I didn't like having the power-band up high, not crying over the lack of torque.

Go look at true race-cars with like 900 hp.. guess how much torque they have? 200-300? Torque isn't needed for speed.. that's why you'll see lil hondas running 10 second passes all day..

Anyways, this isn't about hondas. It's about SRT-4s.. so maybe keep it on topic instead of looking at ways of bashing the most popular sports compact out there :S


LOL Didn't see this one! Wow... yeah, this is a bit off. The ONLY way I'm buying into this premise is if the car is more of a big bike than a true car. We're talking stripped down to the sheetmetal...tiny little hatchback type of car. I had a friend in college with a 98 civic hatchback. gutted it to shreds. Thing only had about 240hp (only! haha) but it ran 11sec quarters.. or so he said. not sure what the tq was but.... I'm guessing it didn't have to be THAT high... considering how light the car must've been.

In the real world however.... tq and hp are usually pretty similar. Look at any supercar. I'm not sure what true racecars have (not quite as easy to google that!) but I'd be shocked if they only have 200-300 lb/ft of tq. that's just nuts.

[TonyBSRT]

Beat down? He should come to the Off-Topic section on the SRT forum. Now THAT would be a beat down!

[CantCMe]

Wow...I've been crackin' up reading these posts (yeah, don't have much to do at work). Hey, if the guy luvs his Honda, let 'em. He said he wanted a MS3 but could get one...ya'll can take ur feet off his neck, geez. I've owned a '95 and a '97 Civic, and I loved them. The only thing that stopped my '97 was a 30 ft. tree that fell on it while my wife and oldest son was trapped inside...but the car ran great before that. I have a '02 Pro now, and I knew it wasn't gonna keep its value like that Civic did, but I luv my Pro almost twice as much...more fun to drive, handles WAY better, and to me looks better ( and will be ALOT faster when I get this turbo kit installed). But hey, I'm also a musclecar fan, so does that make me a traitor? Naw...let that dude breathe...he sees the error in his ways now lol!!!! I'll keep my Pro 'til it blows up and I can't get it put back together, but if I had a '68 Yenko Camaro da Pro might have a couple of layers of dust on it before I took it out.

Now, about that SRT...don't like the way it looks so no need to take it for a test drive or think about owning one.

[I vtec, do you?]

(omg)

http://www.g-speed.com/pbh/torque-and-hp.html


Both horsepower AND torque are needed for speed. In fact Hp is calculated by multiplying torque by the rpms and dividing that by 5252 (hp = tq x rpms / 5252). In a light car like a gutted Honda, torque isn't as important as there isn't much force needed to get the car going and the overall power to weight is ratio is usually large to begin with.

Yeah we knew this thread was about the SRT-4, YOU were the one that came in bashing everyone and spouting off about how great your SI was.

Well for one, how come true ACTUAL race cars have LOW torque and HIGH horsepower numbers? This confuses me..

And secondly, when did I come in and say how great my SI was? I came in and said it was lame how you guys don't give any other car a chance (and I included my SI WITH the cobalt SS, ion redline AND SRT-4, no where did I say anything about my SI specifically until it was brought up).. I realize a mazda forum is going to be just like my honda forum and will be biased towards their own car.. but c'mon, I can't even come in here and say one thing about ANYTHING before all I hear is how much Honda sucks, how much better the mazda is, etc etc. And the ironic thing is how I'm always the one to be blamed for it/yelled at when you guys are the ones who bring it up, every single time. I don't care if you think the SI doesn't compare with the MS3, but at least give other cars a chance to be RELEASED (srt-4..) before you make judgements.


I think the beatdown needs to stop. I haven't read everyone of his posts but, the ones I have read didn't seem offensive. There's definitely an anti-honda 'thing' on this board. I guess it has more to do with what a lot of hondas become...and less to do with what they originate as from the factory.

All I know is, this place would be pretty dull if we all agreed on the same thing. I personally like when someone from another forum comes over to voice his opinion. If all we (or any forum for that matter) do is beat that person down... the chances of this continuing are slim. (unless they're a glutton for punishment.)

Anyway, for those of you who still feel the need to trash this guy... try re-reading some of his posts (on this thread at least) with a more open mind. He's praised the MS3 and voiced his opinion on why he feels a lot of people like the Si. Unless I missed a memo... there's nothing wrong with that.

Seriously, this is the most mature and thought-out response I've seen yet. I came on here and said NOTHING about honda's specifically, and yet all I got in response was how much my honda sucks. Says a lot for the mazda community, yeah? I even came in and admitted that I like the MS3 more than my SI, yet people still feel the need to bash the honda. The pathetic part is that Honda is the leader of the sports compact, and the mazda/chevy/vw cars are trying to compete with honda. It's not the other way around - you can say it's all about availability all you want, but there's a reason why I've seen ONE mazdaspeed3 in my lifetime in person being driven around.. and the rest were sitting on the lot, while I see SI's nearly every day.

And I'll stand behind my comment about how torque isn't necessary. My SI has less than half the torque as the mazdaspeed3 does.. is naturally aspirated AND is a 2.0 vs a 2.3, and yet the MS3 still only beats it 0-60 in approx. half a second or so. Yes.. that's quite the difference, but the way you all praise torque.. it's really not. You have 280, and we have ~140.. yet your acceleration still isn't that dramatically different. Why do you think that is? Surely having TWICE the torque, 60 more horsepower, etc etc would net a substantial acceleration difference.. but it doesn't. And to add on to my point even more, 0-60 on the SI is FAR worse of a comparison test fot the SI because all of its power is made up top, so from a standstill we suck. It's on the roll where the SI will shine a bit more.

Again, I'm not trying to make this a honda vs. mazda thread, but you all keep bringing it up. Instead of replying to this thread about why hondas suck some more.. why don't you actually post something about the SRT-4?

[clos561]

"Hondas" dont need torque because the stripped and gutted hatches weigh about 1000 lbs..250 hp and 200 tq, youll get a low 12 sec car....weight/power makes a big difference...

[TonyBSRT]

REAL race cars? Yeah, 'cause I'm sure that "REAL" drag car has just a little bit of TQ, right?

As far as the MS3 vs Si, give the MS3 full power in 1st and 2nd gear with some good rubber. You know what will happen? Your little Si gets left HARD!

The Si shines on the top-end? Eh, it's ok. My slightly modded 17 YEAR OLD Taurus was faster on the topend.

One thing people are forgetting here is how well the car USES the power it has. The flater the TQ (Oh, there's that dirty TQ thing again) is, the better.

Standing by a statement like "TQ doesn't matter" is like standing next to a Nuke and saying "Eh, Radiation doesn't matter".

Give me a break.

[I vtec, do you?]

REAL race cars? Yeah, 'cause I'm sure that "REAL" drag car has just a little bit of TQ, right?

As far as the MS3 vs Si, give the MS3 full power in 1st and 2nd gear with some good rubber. You know what will happen? Your little Si gets left HARD!

The Si shines on the top-end? Eh, it's ok. My slightly modded 17 YEAR OLD Taurus was faster on the topend.

One thing people are forgetting here is how well the car USES the power it has. The flater the TQ (Oh, there's that dirty TQ thing again) is, the better.

Standing by a statement like "TQ doesn't matter" is like standing next to a Nuke and saying "Eh, Radiation doesn't matter".

Give me a break.

When I said they had little torque, I meant it in reguards to the amount of horsepower it has. It has a LITTLE bit of torque compared to how much hp it has..

And I said the SI shines a bit more on top-end versus 0-60 acceleration. Can you read?! I never said the SI has a better top-end than other cars, I just said that's where it's best at for itself. Good job sucking at reading and then trying to argue with me about something I never said.

And as for your lil comment about "give the MS3 full power in 1st and 2nd gear with some good rubber".. how about I just give the SI a turbo and see what happens? See what a stupid argument it is to bring mods into play? I could hit 380 WHP with a bolt-on turbo and a reflash if I truly wanted to.. however that would be a retarded way to argue for the car. Get me?

[TonyBSRT]

What race cars are you talking about man?

So the Si shines a bit more on topend? Well hell, so does the MS3 then. There is no way around needing TQ to have an all around fast car.

As far as a modded MS3, I never said anything like that. Just allow the car to run to it's max boost in ALL gears. You get VTEC in all gears, don't you?

[Antonio DiMarco]

When I said they had little torque, I meant it in reguards to the amount of horsepower it has. It has a LITTLE bit of torque compared to how much hp it has..

And I said the SI shines a bit more on top-end versus 0-60 acceleration. Can you read?! I never said the SI has a better top-end than other cars, I just said that's where it's best at for itself. Good job sucking at reading and then trying to argue with me about something I never said.

And as for your lil comment about "give the MS3 full power in 1st and 2nd gear with some good rubber".. how about I just give the SI a turbo and see what happens? See what a stupid argument it is to bring mods into play? I could hit 380 WHP with a bolt-on turbo and a reflash if I truly wanted to.. however that would be a retarded way to argue for the car. Get me?

...not solving world hunger. Cars are suppose to be a means of reducing stress (at least for me). Take it down a notch otherwise you'll burst a bloodvessel and die. At which point horsepower, torque and whos penis is larger won't matter...:-).

Oh and the SRT looks like a$$ ...and EVERY Honda is over rated (gun)(deadhorse(dark)

[TonyBSRT]

^^This is a wise man.

[camrycev6]

Ok...it would seem this has got into an apples and oranges discussion on torque, speed, power, acceleration, and HP. To clarify a few things:

Overall, acceleration has more to do with torque than it does with HP.
Speed (as in top speed) has more to do with HP than torque
Weight has implications on both HP & torque, but torque is more important the heavier the object being accelerated.

Yes...an SI is only 1/2 second slower than a MS3, but this does not mean that torque is not important and only HP is for racing. That is ridiculous. However, I will agree with you that for reaching high speeds, HP is more important. Conversely, that is why you see large trucks, construction vehicles, and larger marine vessels with low HP relative to their torque. These guys could move tons at 1500 RPMs...very slowly. However, try dumping the clutch on your SI at 1500 RPMs...see how fast you go then. (If it doesn't stall.) Same for the MS3...it might do better, but there is a reason why the SI clutch dumps at 7K+ RPMS to get that 0-60 time.

Racing engines make more HP than torque, however, not even close to the 4 or 3 to 1 ratio you mentioned. Sorry, I am not sure where you got your data, but it is wrong. I have some real data:

1997 McLaren F1 GT
Horsepower 627.00 HP (461.5 KW) @ 7400.00 RPM
Torque 480.00 Ft-Lbs (650.9 NM) @ 5600.00 RPM

2007 Bugatti 16/4 Veyron
Horsepower 1001.00 BHP (736.7 KW) @ 6000.00 RPM
Torque 922.00 Ft-Lbs (1250.2 NM) @ 2200.00 RPM

2007 Ferrari 599 GTB
Horsepower 620.00 BHP (456.3 KW) @ 7600.00 RPM
Torque 608.00 NM (448.3 Ft-Lbs) @ 5600.00 RPM

2008 Porsche Ruf CTR-3
Horsepower 700.00 BHP (515.2 KW) @ 7000.00 RPM
Torque 890.00 NM (656.2 Ft-Lbs)

Then of course it comes down to the type of racing you are doing! F1 racing versus drag racing... totally different. Autocross...same thing, you are going to need torque to get out of those tight turns. NASCAR...not so much, but you can bet those cars still have plenty of torque, just more HP.

Now...I am not ragging on the SI. In fact, I am just trying to clarify some incorrect statements about what is really is important for "racing."

[CantCMe]

SRT is ugly in my opinion.
MS3 is a better car in my opinion.
I have neither...

that is all.

[Kosh]

The higher the RPM the higher the HP with the same torque. I had to look it up but some race cars that rev around 16k rpm do have what would be considered low torque but make good hp. You are comparing super cars that don't have anywhere near the rev limit of club racing cars. The most important things is power/weight ratio and keeping the rpm in the optimum range. You can't just look at a engine's top hp and torque rating and know how fast it will make the car go.

As far as the large truck statement goes are you talking about diesel? Diesel engines have a much longer stroke than our engines. Longer stroke means lower rpm. That is why diesel trucks also get more gears.

[camrycev6]

Kosh,

I think you are helping me make my point. There are quite a few different types of "race" cars, so unless we narrow it down a bit, it is hard to discuss.

My only point was that saying race cars have high HP and low torque needs to be serious justified and explained, because I just provided at least one true F1 race car, and 3 other super cars (that a lot of folks consider race cars) that don't fit that definition.

Also...diesel or gasoline trucks typically have as much if not more torque than HP. I know all about the physics of a longer stroke as well. Just like cars with more cylinders have higher proportionate torque because the increased amount of angular mass in motion.

[Kosh]

What you posted and what vtec has been saying are sort of touching on the same concept. Torque is a bigger factor than anything at low RPM for producing horsepower. When you get to higher RPM torque is less important to producing horsepower.

Having a higher rpm helps honda engines make more horsepower with the torque that they have but having low torque at low rpm hurts the car. If their cars had the same redline we have then that low torque would not be enough to produce the horsepower to make the car perform the way it does.

I see a lot of people (honda, mazda, dodge, everyone) just look at numbers and try to base an argument on just that. These cars preform in different ways and each car has its own advantage.

I'm not trying to put anyone down in this post but I think we should all just chill out a bit.

[camrycev6]

What you posted and what vtec has been saying are sort of touching on the same concept. Torque is a bigger factor than anything at low RPM for producing horsepower. When you get to higher RPM torque is less important to producing horsepower.

Having a higher rpm helps honda engines make more horsepower with the torque that they have but having low torque at low rpm hurts the car. If their cars had the same redline we have then that low torque would not be enough to produce the horsepower to make the car perform the way it does.

I see a lot of people (honda, mazda, dodge, everyone) just look at numbers and try to base an argument on just that. These cars preform in different ways and each car has its own advantage.

I'm not trying to put anyone down in this post but I think we should all just chill out a bit.

I am actually very chilled...I was not flaming anyone...I really was just trying to help. And in essence I was saying that using a few specs can't give you the big picture on racing. The scope of the dicussion was way too broad.

[I vtec, do you?]

What you posted and what vtec has been saying are sort of touching on the same concept. Torque is a bigger factor than anything at low RPM for producing horsepower. When you get to higher RPM torque is less important to producing horsepower.

Having a higher rpm helps honda engines make more horsepower with the torque that they have but having low torque at low rpm hurts the car. If their cars had the same redline we have then that low torque would not be enough to produce the horsepower to make the car perform the way it does.

I see a lot of people (honda, mazda, dodge, everyone) just look at numbers and try to base an argument on just that. These cars preform in different ways and each car has its own advantage.

I'm not trying to put anyone down in this post but I think we should all just chill out a bit.

THIS is a smart man ^^

All you guys look at are numbers (265 hp vs 197 hp, 280 ft lbs of torque vs. 140). What does that mean? We have a member over on 8thcivic who has run 14.2xx on FIVE different tracks in his SI with only a CAI. The best I've ever seen an MS3 run stock (airbox removed I beleive) is 13.9. I'm sure there are others out there that are better but I haven't looked. So my point is that the MS3 looks better on paper and the SI looks better in real life than the specs show. So they're actually a closer comparison than you think. it's not like the SI runs mid 15s and the MS3 runs low 13s.. they aren't very far off.

Yes, torque is a big factor when you guys need to be shifting at ~5500 RPMs before the motor starts falling in power. However, when the SI runs up to 8200 RPMS and builds HP and Torque the entire way there.. it can do without a lot less and still maintain its quickness. And btw.. I'm really not upset or mad about anything haha, I find it quite funny how Honda's are ragged on a lot because they think the driver's all act as if VTEC is some god-send.. when it's quite the opposite. I've said good things about BOTH cars, whereas no one really on these forums (a few are an exception) can admit to any pluses of the other car, only why there's is better.

As for the SRT-4, I have high, high hopes that it'll be running mid 13s with ease. Somehow, I have a feeling it'll be running close to high 13s and low 14s with a sub-par driver. It just always seems to work that way..

[camrycev6]

I agree...people shouldn't make drastic or generalizations off a few numbers. I know I wasn't doing it, so I assume that was directed at someone else. Anyway, here is a good article to read if anyone wishes to educate themselves further. It says what would take me far too long to type here in my own words.

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

[Kosh]

This is the article I found that helped me understand torque.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question381.htm

After reading that my respect for honda went up ten fold.

[boostdog]

I vetc do you.....do you have a time slip to prove that by chance? I am not starting anything..just wanting to see the proof that the SI went that fast please.

[CX-7owner]

I would much rather have a torquey 2.0T DSG GTi, than an anemic feeling torqueless Honda V-Tec engine, It's just a matter of personal preference and what feels better to the pants.

[I vtec, do you?]

I vetc do you.....do you have a time slip to prove that by chance? I am not starting anything..just wanting to see the proof that the SI went that fast please.

Not that this proves anything.. because it could be from anyone, and for all you know, the guy has I/H/E among countless other things.

These slips are 'bone stock' with drag radials on, I beleive he was running the same times a bit later with a CAI as well..

http://a232.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/36/l_fbf45d61df91c3d9f70f26a6201b4d2f.jpg

http://a334.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/52/l_166201eb9866ba65b0fc9664e541ebfd.jpg

http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20649

Just goes to show that specs on paper dont mean shit. For such a shit car.. it's probably running better times than most of you can get in your turbocharged car. (wiggle)

[shark77]

I just provided at least one true F1 race car, and 3 other super cars (that a lot of folks consider race cars) that don't fit that definition.


The McLaren F1 GT is not a "true F1 race car". Back in 1997 Formula 1 engines were 3 liter V10's that put out around 800hp @ 16000rpm, and up until two years ago these engines were putting out near a rumored 950hp at 18,000rpm. Since the 2006 season, they have been using a 2.4 liter V8 pushing around 750hp @ 20000rpm.

As far as acceleration goes, it all comes down to horsepower and weight.

Torque is a measurment of force. Horsepower is simply the measurment of force related to the rate (RPM) that force is being applied.

Example:

Take 2 identical cars except for their engines...

Car A: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 250hp @ 4000rpm which is equal to 328ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 500ft/lbs @ 2000rpm which is equal to 190hp

Car B: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 500hp @ 12000rpm which is equal to 219ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 250ft/lbs @ 10000rpm which is equal to 476hp

If both cars are geared for and driven only between peak torque and peak horsepower. By the laws of physics, car B will out accellerate car A by quite a margin.

Why?

Because if you average the horsepower between peak torque and peak horsepower, you will find that Car A has a average horsepower over this power band of 220hp. This equates to 121,000ft/lbs per second of work being done.

Car B averages 488hp over this power band, which equates to 268,400ft/lbs per second of work being done.

In order for car A to be able to accellerate as quickly as car B, it would have to reduce it's weight down to ~1350lbs.

[Falconx84]

anyone remember anything from physics class that can verify? or comment on the validity of this comparison?

I've been out of school too long, lol

[Kosh]

When I think race car I think super gt or champ car, not production supercars. Production cars have to be made street legal with safety equipment and have added comfort amenities you won't find on the track. Weight, RPM and torque is what makes a race car powerful.

We should probably start a thread to discuss physics instead of thread jacking the hell out of this one. This is really interesting to me since I was a bit of a physics geek back in school.

[camrycev6]

The McLaren F1 GT is not a "true F1 race car". Back in 1997 Formula 1 engines were 3 liter V10's that put out around 800hp @ 16000rpm, and up until two years ago these engines were putting out near a rumored 950hp at 18,000rpm. Since the 2006 season, they have been using a 2.4 liter V8 pushing around 750hp @ 20000rpm.

As far as acceleration goes, it all comes down to horsepower and weight.

Torque is a measurment of force. Horsepower is simply the measurment of force related to the rate (RPM) that force is being applied.

Example:

Take 2 identical cars except for their engines...

Car A: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 250hp @ 4000rpm which is equal to 328ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 500ft/lbs @ 2000rpm which is equal to 190hp

Car B: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 500hp @ 12000rpm which is equal to 219ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 250ft/lbs @ 10000rpm which is equal to 476hp

If both cars are geared for and driven only between peak torque and peak horsepower. By the laws of physics, car B will out accellerate car A by quite a margin.

Why?

Because if you average the horsepower between peak torque and peak horsepower, you will find that Car A has a average horsepower over this power band of 220hp. This equates to 121,000ft/lbs per second of work being done.

Car B averages 488hp over this power band, which equates to 268,400ft/lbs per second of work being done.

In order for car A to be able to accellerate as quickly as car B, it would have to reduce it's weight down to ~1350lbs.

I think my link I provided in my other post covers this really well.

Check your physics, torque is not a unit of force by the way, it is a unit of energy. (But it is non-scalar.)

Your example is correct, and I understood the concept prior to this post. I think your engine examples are just a little unfairly unrealistic. How many car engines make 500 HP / 250 Tq that can be driven at 10,000 - 12,000 RPMs? If such an engine did exist, I would assume engine B would CRUSH car A. Let me see, B engine reaches max HP at 3 times the RPMs of engine A, and max torque at 5 times the RPMs. That B engine is amazing compared to A. You also have a larger power curve, so you can be at a much higher level of power for a much longer time...so yeah, I can see why B could do a heck of a lot more work.

So we haven't proven anything other than gearing and the overall powerband are more important. All I have to do is adjust the RPMs, and I can flip the results around....without changing the HP or Tq and I won't use numbers quite as high or as far off as you did.

Car A: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 250hp @ 8000rpm which is equal to 164ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 500ft/lbs @ 5000rpm which is equal to 476hp

Car B: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 500hp @ 6000rpm which is equal to 437ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 250ft/lbs @ 3000rpm which is equal to 142hp

Car B would have the initial advantage, but because of his relatively small power band when compared to car A, A would win. (Given enough time.)

[Babyface13]

nuff' said lol VVV
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s266/jjohnson1368/Picture122.jpg

[User Name]

What was this thread about again?

[shark77]

Check your physics, torque is not a unit of force by the way, it is a unit of energy. (But it is non-scalar.)

Let me clarify... I meant it is not a unit of power. Torque is a rotational force when applied over a set amount of time will give you a unit of power.



I think your engine examples are just a little unfairly unrealistic. How many car engines make 500 HP / 250 Tq that can be driven at 10,000 - 12,000 RPMs?

The only way you are making ~500hp at 10,000-12,000 rpm, is if you are putting out ~250ft/lbs of torque.

Look at a Formula 1 engine. If the engine is making 750hp at 20,000 rpm, we know that only 197ft/lbs is being applied.



If such an engine did exist, I would assume engine B would CRUSH car A. Let me see, B engine reaches max HP at 3 times the RPMs of engine A, and max torque at 5 times the RPMs. That B engine is amazing compared to A. You also have a larger power curve, so you can be at a much higher level of power for a much longer time...so yeah, I can see why B could do a heck of a lot more work.

Indeed Car B is much faster, that was my point. As far as acceleration goes, it all comes down to horsepower and weight.



So we haven't proven anything other than gearing and the overall powerband are more important.

The powerband I showed for both cars was 2000rpm each. Car A was from 2000-4000 and Car B was from 10,000-12,000.



All I have to do is adjust the RPMs, and I can flip the results around....without changing the HP or Tq and I won't use numbers quite as high or as far off as you did.


If you adjust the RPM's around, you have to change either horsepower, torque, or both for it to mathmatcially make sense.



Car A: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 250hp @ 8000rpm which is equal to 164ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 500ft/lbs @ 5000rpm which is equal to 476hp

Car B: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 500hp @ 6000rpm which is equal to 437ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 250ft/lbs @ 3000rpm which is equal to 142hp

Car B would have the initial advantage, but because of his relatively small power band when compared to car A, A would win. (Given enough time.)

Geared properly they would be pretty evenly matched. With a slight edge going to car B. The big difference here is that you are now making almost 500hp with car A.

You should re-label car A's peak horsepower to be 476hp.

[Donas64]

I think the beatdown needs to stop. I haven't read everyone of his posts but, the ones I have read didn't seem offensive. There's definitely an anti-honda 'thing' on this board. I guess it has more to do with what a lot of hondas become...and less to do with what they originate as from the factory.

All I know is, this place would be pretty dull if we all agreed on the same thing. I personally like when someone from another forum comes over to voice his opinion. If all we (or any forum for that matter) do is beat that person down... the chances of this continuing are slim. (unless they're a glutton for punishment.)

Anyway, for those of you who still feel the need to trash this guy... try re-reading some of his posts (on this thread at least) with a more open mind. He's praised the MS3 and voiced his opinion on why he feels a lot of people like the Si. Unless I missed a memo... there's nothing wrong with that.


(mswerd)

Holy crap! A forum member with common sense! I salute you sir!

[Betelgeuse]

Let me clarify... I meant it is not a unit of power. Torque is a rotational force when applied over a set amount of time will give you a unit of power.



The only way you are making ~500hp at 10,000-12,000 rpm, is if you are putting out ~250ft/lbs of torque.

Look at a Formula 1 engine. If the engine is making 750hp at 20,000 rpm, we know that only 197ft/lbs is being applied.



Indeed Car B is much faster, that was my point. As far as acceleration goes, it all comes down to horsepower and weight.



The powerband I showed for both cars was 2000rpm each. Car A was from 2000-4000 and Car B was from 10,000-12,000.



If you adjust the RPM's around, you have to change either horsepower, torque, or both for it to mathmatcially make sense.



Geared properly they would be pretty evenly matched. With a slight edge going to car B. The big difference here is that you are now making almost 500hp with car A.

You should re-label car A's peak horsepower to be 476hp.




Without comparing actual torque curves it's pretty hard to say for sure which car would be faster (assuming the gearing and weight are the same). But you guys both make excellent points, however the fact remains, Hondas (with the exception of their v6s)generally make little torque and hp at low rpms in relation to their weight. The SI is a good example. Down low there's hardly any power:

http://http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/610/0610z2007hondacivicsisesq7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Now it does have between 120 - 134 ft/lbs of tq but at 5000 rpms it's only putting out about 110 hp! (tq dips to about 118 there) For a 2900 lb car (four door sedan), that's not a lot of power. And the small band it has to play with from 6-8k isn't that impressive as well. Yeah on the highway it might be quick but the overall power to weight is not enough for it to be really quick. The only way to increase the hp at lower to mid rpms is to raise the tq. The only way to do it in upper rpms is either to move the redline up(unlikely)or increase the tq. HP matters but it's nothing without torque.

[Betelgeuse]

I think the beatdown needs to stop. I haven't read everyone of his posts but, the ones I have read didn't seem offensive. There's definitely an anti-honda 'thing' on this board. I guess it has more to do with what a lot of hondas become...and less to do with what they originate as from the factory.

All I know is, this place would be pretty dull if we all agreed on the same thing. I personally like when someone from another forum comes over to voice his opinion. If all we (or any forum for that matter) do is beat that person down... the chances of this continuing are slim. (unless they're a glutton for punishment.)

Anyway, for those of you who still feel the need to trash this guy... try re-reading some of his posts (on this thread at least) with a more open mind. He's praised the MS3 and voiced his opinion on why he feels a lot of people like the Si. Unless I missed a memo... there's nothing wrong with that.


He started this thread a while ago that had to be closed:

http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123680117

Believe me, he just likes to stir things up and his respect for Mazda and the ms3 is questionable. His rant in this thread was uncalled for and had little to do with the topic. Besides I doubt anyone was really putting down the Caliber based on its performance, it was more its looks. Even on the SRT forums they constantly beat on it for its looks. The car will be quick and a good rival no doubt.

[CX-7owner]

I certainly would not have any place to beat down on it for performance, or would anyone else be able to, I mean no one here has driven it, But I can say this, its FUGLY, CHEAP INTERIOR, and Dodge looked to cut every corner when making it, I mean BRAKE LOCK DIFF? hahahahahaha!

[Haltech]

yup, i bet, go break down on the fucking rail road tracks you shmuck, i have the mazdaspeed, ur civic wont even be worth a mint flavored turd so shut the fuck up


Whats funny about this is MSP do hold their value, just like any mazdaspeed.. More value than a honda, nissan and toyota. i watched a guy get 17K for a 2003.5 MSP with 55,000 miles on it... i was signing my papers when he was trading it in for a MS3. Unbelievable.

[Haltech]

Well for one, how come true ACTUAL race cars have LOW torque and HIGH horsepower numbers? This confuses me..


This is the problem with multi-valve engines that are v6 or v8... Their horsepower will always be higher than the torque. go back to a 2 valve design and the torque explodes. Multivalve engines have a more linear powercurve.. This is excellent for coming out of corners while steering the car with throttle.



And secondly, when did I come in and say how great my SI was? I came in and said it was lame how you guys don't give any other car a chance (and I included my SI WITH the cobalt SS, ion redline AND SRT-4, no where did I say anything about my SI specifically until it was brought up).. I realize a mazda forum is going to be just like my honda forum and will be biased towards their own car.. but c'mon, I can't even come in here and say one thing about ANYTHING before all I hear is how much Honda sucks, how much better the mazda is, etc etc. And the ironic thing is how I'm always the one to be blamed for it/yelled at when you guys are the ones who bring it up, every single time. I don't care if you think the SI doesn't compare with the MS3, but at least give other cars a chance to be RELEASED (srt-4..) before you make judgements.

I think the new SRt-4 is butt ugly but i never capped on its power. I think people need to be aware of these things when they hit the road..





Seriously, this is the most mature and thought-out response I've seen yet. I came on here and said NOTHING about honda's specifically, and yet all I got in response was how much my honda sucks. Says a lot for the mazda community, yeah? I even came in and admitted that I like the MS3 more than my SI, yet people still feel the need to bash the honda. The pathetic part is that Honda is the leader of the sports compact, and the mazda/chevy/vw cars are trying to compete with honda. It's not the other way around - you can say it's all about availability all you want, but there's a reason why I've seen ONE mazdaspeed3 in my lifetime in person being driven around.. and the rest were sitting on the lot, while I see SI's nearly every day.

You started out good than began to brag about your hondas. If you throw shit in the wind, its bound to fly back in your face.



And I'll stand behind my comment about how torque isn't necessary. My SI has less than half the torque as the mazdaspeed3 does.. is naturally aspirated AND is a 2.0 vs a 2.3, and yet the MS3 still only beats it 0-60 in approx. half a second or so. Yes.. that's quite the difference, but the way you all praise torque.. it's really not. You have 280, and we have ~140.. yet your acceleration still isn't that dramatically different. Why do you think that is? Surely having TWICE the torque, 60 more horsepower, etc etc would net a substantial acceleration difference.. but it doesn't. And to add on to my point even more, 0-60 on the SI is FAR worse of a comparison test fot the SI because all of its power is made up top, so from a standstill we suck. It's on the roll where the SI will shine a bit more.

Umm are we driving go-carts around here now? If you dont think you need torque, its time you go back to school and enroll.. you missed to many science classes. Torque moves you.. horsepower keeps you moving.. you need them both for performance... If you just want to use torque, its obviously for towing.. thats why diesels are such animals. If you want hp with no performance, you buy an SI.. whoops, did i say that outloud? lol. sorry. but you get my point by now. Ive squashed many SIs from a roll, so i dont know where you are thinking your hondas are going to stay with a monster torque producing turbo car. Please put the crack pipe down.


Again, I'm not trying to make this a honda vs. mazda thread, but you all keep bringing it up. Instead of replying to this thread about why hondas suck some more.. why don't you actually post something about the SRT-4?

Well all agree Honda's suck... and im hoping for more srt talk.

[jeg0024]

I just found this http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=122412?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 .*

[jeg0024]

Why is this shit in the MS3 welcome secton?

Welcome MS3 owners... check out the SRT4!

[jeg0024]

I just found this http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=122412?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 .*

[CX-7owner]

(inout)

[I vtec, do you?]

Whats funny about this is MSP do hold their value, just like any mazdaspeed.. More value than a honda, nissan and toyota. i watched a guy get 17K for a 2003.5 MSP with 55,000 miles on it... i was signing my papers when he was trading it in for a MS3. Unbelievable.

Sorry.. but no. I actually almost bought a mazdaspeed protege when I saw one on the lot once. I had no knowledge of them at the time, but I had just turned 16 and it looked hot, drove well, etc etc and I decided to persue it. I *beleive* the car was 12k and it has low miles on it. This was nearly two years ago as well. Name is everything in the car biz, that's why honda's retain so much value and mazda's don't, even if their quality if equal.




Umm are we driving go-carts around here now? If you dont think you need torque, its time you go back to school and enroll.. you missed to many science classes. Torque moves you.. horsepower keeps you moving.. you need them both for performance... If you just want to use torque, its obviously for towing.. thats why diesels are such animals. If you want hp with no performance, you buy an SI.. whoops, did i say that outloud? lol. sorry. but you get my point by now. Ive squashed many SIs from a roll, so i dont know where you are thinking your hondas are going to stay with a monster torque producing turbo car. Please put the crack pipe down.
.

Ok, you keep using text-book answers for your replies. I used a real-world example - an SI running LOW 14s (14.295 I think) BONE STOCK. If torque IS so important like you all say, then how come a car with less horsepower and half the torque is running just a touch behind the all-mighty MS3? Just answer that question.. and quit giving me torque and work formulas.

I've said it before and I've noticed it on here as well - the MS3 is worse in actuality than it is on paper. There's a reason why the SI runs competitive times against it with a substantial lack of power in comparison. How can you tell me the SI is garbage when it runs that quickly with that much less power? That's beautiful engineering to accomplish that.. but you're too much of a narrow-minded Mazda fanboi to admit that. I've admitted the MS3 is a great lil car.. but you'll always be hell-bent on hating Hondas.

[CX-7owner]

As far as I know, MAZDA3's keep damn good value, Along with others.

[CX-7owner]

Please understand what you are comparing to, a Stock MS3, which is a little on the porky side, to a light Civic 2 door with Drag radials on it.

[Falconx84]

so ... about this whole SRT4 thing I've heard about.....

can't we stay on topic, just once??

[Stu C]

Sorry.. but no. I actually almost bought a mazdaspeed protege when I saw one on the lot once. I had no knowledge of them at the time, but I had just turned 16 and it looked hot, drove well, etc etc and I decided to persue it. I *beleive* the car was 12k and it has low miles on it. This was nearly two years ago as well. Name is everything in the car biz, that's why honda's retain so much value and mazda's don't, even if their quality if equal.Yeah. Ummm - want any respect? Don't tell people their anecdotes aren't accurate. You don't know his market, you don't know the circumstances. Want to disagree with his point? Find something that isn't based on your opinion, especially since you know that its value is rapidly declining (your opinion that is).


Ok, you keep using text-book answers for your replies. I used a real-world example - an SI running LOW 14s (14.295 I think) BONE STOCK. If torque IS so important like you all say, then how come a car with less horsepower and half the torque is running just a touch behind the all-mighty MS3? Just answer that question.. and quit giving me torque and work formulas.Haven't read everything have ya? If you had, you would have known the answer to this already. But here goes:

1. Drag radials will make a big difference
2. 250 lbs.
3. A 1/4 mile race requires us to go into 4th gear. I'm guessing the Si only needs 3 - you can correct me if I'm wrong.
4. Now this is the big one. Torque Management system. This massive 280 ft-lbs that keeps getting brought up doesn't kick in until 3rd gear. The race is half over by the time we're in 3rd gear.

So there ya have it. 4 pretty good reasons why the Si can almost keep up.


There's a reason why the SI runs competitive times against it with a substantial lack of power in comparison. How can you tell me the SI is garbage when it runs that quickly with that much less power? That's beautiful engineering to accomplish that..Wow... just. Wow. It's a great engine, but its greatest feat is in its ability to be a dual personality engine. What most Honda owners forget is that beautiful engineering doesn't mean winning races (look at their success in F1). The 1st Gen S2000 engine is amazing in its ability to rev to 9000 and make 240 hp. I mean - that really is something. But there's cheaper, faster cars out there that can do the same job (get from point A to B). Why pay/develop technology for the sake of it? It's a tough hurdle to get over for some people.

Honestly, you're not helping Honda's case here. You really are coming off as a troll even if you're not trying to be.

[jeg0024]

so ... about this whole SRT4 thing I've heard about.....

can't we stay on topic, just once??

I guess not...

[CantCMe]

They (dodge) should have put that motor in a 4-door sedan like they did with the Neon. They would more than likely make a killin'...who wants to buy a soapbox, even if it does have alot of power? Lower center of gravity, better handling, better looking...oh well, I wouldn't buy it anyway but just wish it was easier on the eyes.

[clos561]

either way dodge will sell alot of these and we re gona have stiff competition in straight lines....MY preference is definitely not for a car with those looks. i like the front , it looks aggressive but the rear is really ugly....for each car there is a buyer because of taste and preference....alot of people dont like the ms3 ( dont know why, the car is just soo sexy ) but we still bought it because we like it. i am just anticipating to see one on the street and maybe do a few runs

- dont even know why this thread has gotten this long without being locked....soooo off topic at times

[CantCMe]

- dont even know why this thread has gotten this long without being locked....soooo off topic at times

lol...true!!

[boostdog]

They (dodge) should have put that motor in a 4-door sedan like they did with the Neon. They would more than likely make a killin'...who wants to buy a soapbox, even if it does have alot of power? Lower center of gravity, better handling, better looking...oh well, I wouldn't buy it anyway but just wish it was easier on the eyes.

You and 1000's of others have said the same thing...alot of people want the driveline/engine put into the new avenger with AWD but as far as I know it's just a thought.

[boostdog]

Also one thing to keep in mind..is it takes 2 to argue..if you ignore the as*hats they go away after a little while since they get no attention.

[CantCMe]

i just don't think they (dodge) thought this one through...some will like, but the Caliber is only one step away from a pt cruiser gt.

[clos561]

its a step away form being a jeep....

[xelderx]

19" rims? When are they going to fess up and call it a crossover SUV?

[CantCMe]

won't be surprised if they re-do it in the next 2 years.

[boostdog]

19" rims? When are they going to fess up and call it a crossover SUV?

you do realize that comparing the size totals of the sxt model caliber (the srt-4 model will be lower than the sxt) which the it is only bigger than the ms3 in height by 2.2". It is also shorter in length by 3" and is only wider by 1.8".

Cars today are getting bigger every year and the size of the caliber is very decieving. I am not trying to be a fanboi just stating facts.

and aren't you guys rolling on 18"s in the ms3?

Edit: personally I think that the aftermarket tire companies have alot to do with the 19" size of the wheels..forcing people to purchase a tire that size that is usually more expenisive than a 20" tire.

[xelderx]

you do realize that comparing the size totals of the sxt model caliber (the srt-4 model will be lower than the sxt) which the it is only bigger than the ms3 in height by 2.2". It is also shorter in length by 3" and is only wider by 1.8".

Cars today are getting bigger every year and the size of the caliber is very decieving. I am not trying to be a fanboi just stating facts.

and aren't you guys rolling on 18"s in the ms3?

Edit: personally I think that the aftermarket tire companies have alot to do with the 19" size of the wheels..forcing people to purchase a tire that size that is usually more expenisive than a 20" tire.

Well...getting into more detail of my post. I considered the 18X7 stock size of the MS3 to be crazy, but at least you had some reasonable tire choices for it. Going to the 19" rim on the SRT jumps the tire prices available for it into the $260-300+ per tire range. And that's only 7 tire choices available through TireRack. The MS3 (assuming you go to a 225/45-18) gives you 37 choices for tires and all but a few are under $200 each.

[neox.286]

I got rear ended and they gave me a caliber SXT as a rental car

my god its a piece of shit!

the srt-4 is probably more powerful, but I doubt the interior is gonna be any better...its got pretty much everything as plastic, the vents snap after like a day cause of the shitty way they built them, the shifter is supposed to be 'rally style' and have it attached to the dash instead of a center console, but its just annoying there

god I hated that car while I had it, traded it back to them and got a jetta instead

Id rather be driving a beater ass taurus than that piece

[camrycev6]

I had a Caliber SXT for a rental back in June. You are right, it sucked. Obviously, you can't compare the engines between that and the SRT-4, but I didn't like the interior nearly as much as my MS3.

[boostdog]

Ok let's just get this completely out of the way

THE INTIORER SUCKS OK ....so now that the air is clear


from a perfomance stand point face it..it will be very fast.

geez you guys act like your driving a benz or bimmers. The fact is that dodge has always cheaped out on the inside of most their cars, esp. ones at his price point. And believe me I wish the cali. had a better interior as I own one.

[camrycev6]

Benz or Bimmers? What are you talking about? I just said that I didn't like the interior as much as my MS3. That is hardly a drastic or derisive statement. I like the interior of a Hyundai Accent better than a John Deere tractor too, so what? I have ridden around in many BMWs (no Benz's) and I wasn't "wowed" by the interior. Nice...yeah...but nothing my Infiniti and other nice cars don't offer. In fact...the MS3 interior is almost as nice as a BMW's IMHO.

As far as them (Caliber SRT-4) being fast, like in another post I just read, they are reporting better 0-60 times than the MS3 already. Fine... I still wouldn't want to trade my MS3 in just so I could go 0.3 seconds faster 0-60.

[Karma_hunden]

a recent mag release said it would be a mid 13 second car. For a FWD that means it will run like a low 13 second [non-fwd] car when rolling.

[TonyBSRT]

You know what I say when some guy in a Honda, Mazda, or anything with a nice interior says "Oh yeah, WELL YOUR INTERIOR SUCKS!"??

I don't say anything.......I'm too far ahead to hear them!!

[CantCMe]

my '93 SHO interior sucked but it moved too fast and the audio sounded too good to even notice...

[boostdog]

You know what I say when some guy in a Honda, Mazda, or anything with a nice interior says "Oh yeah, WELL YOUR INTERIOR SUCKS!"??

I don't say anything.......I'm too far ahead to hear them!!


perfect!! lol that's now my sig.

[Rotary_Powered]

This is funny everyone, thinks their car is better. Everyone feels the need to justify their purchase...lol.

[TonyBSRT]

Good deal boostdog!! LOL

[TonyBSRT]

CantCMe, You shold have had a '90 SHO like mine! The interior was SO much better! I miss that old Yamahammer..........

[DeadGeneration]

All I know is the interior is the easiest thing to cheap out on and that's why there is a specific category for "luxury sports cars". Those people don't have to worry about these retarded threads.

[CantCMe]

CantCMe, You shold have had a '90 SHO like mine! The interior was SO much better! I miss that old Yamahammer..........

I took pics of that motor...it was beautiful...wish they could have put that in a rwd platform. The only thing I hated was it was an automatic, but damn it had some pull. My wife liked doing burnouts in it when I wasn't around.

[Donas64]

You know what I say when some guy in a Honda, Mazda, or anything with a nice interior says "Oh yeah, WELL YOUR INTERIOR SUCKS!"??

I don't say anything.......I'm too far ahead to hear them!!

(lol)

[jeg0024]

All I know is the interior is the easiest thing to cheap out on and that's why there is a specific category for "luxury sports cars". Those people don't have to worry about these retarded threads.

Which makes me wonder why im even still subscribed to this one. Have a nice day SRT-4 wannabe thread. *un-subs*