Another final O/T: SRT4 real world data

Where'd Shadow go? Is his tail between his legs yet?

- Ca$h

[Aredubjay]

Originally posted by Dick Young


I meant it as a joke . . .

sorry.

I actually enjoy the linguistic creativity.

I wasn't "miffed." Just thought you were another one that wondered why the "spellcheck" button didn't work. No problemo. Some of us got used to using it at first and WERE miffed when we had to let it go.

Anyway, I prefer my linguistic with alfredo sauce.

[Shadow248]

Sadly, im still here. Why? Sheer morbid curiosity. It's like that show JACKASS. It's so stupid, but why is it so popular? I watch it too. When I have time.

Anyway, im pretty much unable to continue this argument without saying the same thing over and over again, cause we are starting to go in circles here. Instead of giving intelligent replies to my comments, you have started avoiding them, and that doesn' t give me much to work with.

What I'm trying to say is that nobody on this forum (that I'm aware of) is getting CLOSE to magazine times in the 1/4 mile with their SVX. Do a search. I'm not even sure I've seen an SVX in the 15s EVER. However, I've seen quite a few stock neon do 15s. A stock R/T with some drag slicks managed a 15.3 2 years ago at union grove (the dragstrip around here).

Has anybody ever been able to reproduce "official" test results? Not that i've heard. The McLaren F1 was supposedly tested to reach 231mph. Mario Andretti tried it and never got over 218. The 2001 Corvette has been tested to do a 13 sec. quarter mile, the fastest i've witnessed is low 14s. My GTP was tested to do 0-60 in 6.8 sec, the fastest i've been able to get is a little over 7 secs. I've heard several comments on this board about SVXs in the high 14s. There are so many factors in this equation that i can't even start to explain it, besides i shouldn't have to.

There really isn't that big of a price difference. I sold my neon for 3400. The SVX cost me 3600. But I'm going to say something here that maybe, just maybe, you'll understand. The SVX is FAST. The neon is QUICK. Understand?

That's a totally unfair comparison. Im talking about the SVX being a car that sold for upwards of $34,000 brand new vs. a car that can be had for under $12,000 brand new. The Neon is quick to about 30 mph, maybe, but that doesn't do ****. And it's quick to fall apart, but that's not what we're talking about here. The SVX is fast all around, certainly not mind-blowing fast, but damn fast in my book.

Hey, no arguement there. Neon are cheap. Here are my plans: Neon shell : 1500, 2.4: 700. For under 3000 dollars I'll be running 14 second 1/4s and get almost a G on the skidpad. WEE!

Whatever happened to dignity? I wouldn't be caught dead racing anybody in even a Cavalier, let alone a Neon.

I'm not talking about spinning the tires moron. I'm talking about raising the revs to 3-4 grand and dumping the clutch. The result? A small CHIRP and you're hauling ass.

Have you ever tried this? In a Trans Am, that would be the result, without a doubt. In a Neon, your either spinning tires or stalling (or maybe breaking something).

The 5 spd. Yes. RELATIVELY. Look at that website I already gave you. In comparison to its competition, it is the best braking, best handling, and quickest car out there.

What do you consider it's competition? I already told you the Cavalier Z24 has outperformed those specs since 1995, and it's not even a special edition car. Same class, right?

And WHY oh WHY do they choose automatics? HRMMM>?!?!? It isn't because they're HIGHER PERFORMANCE, its because they're CONSISTENT, and because they reduce drivetrain shock. THAT is why they choose autos. Not for better performance. In fact, in almost ANY vehicle, if there is a stickshift and an automatic, the auto is ALWAYS slower. Why? FEWER GEARS. With more gears, you can remain in the engines powerband. With fewer gears, you are not in it as often. This is elementary knowledge, I can't believe you don't know this.

Here's what i mean about dancing around the comment. What did i say? I said (READ CAREFULLY and GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME): Manual is good for course racing, Auto is better at the strip. Manual is not better PERFORMANCE. In fact, the type of gearbox has NOTHING TO DO with performace. It's the gearing that matters, and that's completely separate from the type of box. Saying an automatic is slower because it has fewer gears is one of the most ridiculous things i've heard you say yet. Less gears equals less shifts. That's one of the best things you can do. Granted there has to be enough gears there to enable the engine to rev properly, but 5 is not necessarily better than 4.

Yes, they really can. Autos are CONSISTENT, but manuals usually have MORE GEARS, which allow them to be FASTER.

You are trying to tell me that a HUMAN driver can outshift an AUTOMATIC? SERIOUSLY? Cause that IS the stupidest comment i have ever heard. Now im losing interest in this cause I thought we were past this kind of IGNORANCE (you favorite word, isn't it?)

Uh oh. First, you called me a kid. Secondly, this kid is about to make you look like a fool.

Is this supposed to intimidate me? Cause you've tried about 8 times now and failed. If you haven't done it by now, it's not going to happen.

Riiiiigght. And the SVX was produced by god himself.

Don't say that, you never know.

[rally]

"Auto is better at the strip."

Historical note of interest: One of the most popular transmissions for "mom and pop" drag racing was/is the Chevrolet Powerglide. It is an automatic transmission made mostly out of aluminum so it is light weight. Also interesting, it is only a two-speed.

I have read this whole thread cause it has been staying at the top when it shouldn't be here at all. Now everyone please realize something: The SVX is not a 0-60 performer and neither is the neon. The svx is a hignway cruiser with a bit of power under the hood, the Neon is a economy car with a cheep powerplant designed to be cheap.
As far as a neon being fast off the line i still have yet to see that, my last car was an 87 Nissan pulsar, the Nissan specs were like a 12 sec 0-60 time i can tell you it was less than that but no 9 seconds even, and yes it would beat a neon off the line. The pulsar doesnt even have 100hp stock.
Now the manual tranny compared to an auto. I have driven both and i do prefere a manual. But the manual is best for rally driving, up and down hill driving and, saving gas and cost. The auto does shift faster than any human. A 5 or 6 speed is great but a 3 or 4 speed (older car) is going to shift faster. A 3 speed mustang for example, fast car and only 3 gears put a 5 speed in there bet in a strait line you wont out run the auto. And another thing i dont drivein strait lines all the time so my least needed car to drive is an street drag car, if i do get one it will be a supercharged '80 vette, yeah 20 grand same as your neon and no comparison there.
-enough from me for now

[Earthworm]

Originally posted by rally
"Auto is better at the strip."

Historical note of interest: One of the most popular transmissions for "mom and pop" drag racing was/is the Chevrolet Powerglide. It is an automatic transmission made mostly out of aluminum so it is light weight. Also interesting, it is only a two-speed.

That's what my dad has in his 1969 Nova. I took it down the strip 2 years ago. The reason you use auto's is only for consistency. When a race is won or lost by hundredths of a second you need to be able to be as accurate as possible. That's just not possible with a manual.

To make an automatic faster out of the hole you put on a high-stall (4000RPM) torque converter.

You would probably run faster times with a manual but nowhere near as consistent.

A human simply cannot shift as fast as the machine can. That's why some Motorcycle racing, Motorcycle drag, F1, and rally cars all have autoboxes. In those cases, the driver always makes the shift choice, but the tranny does the shifting.

CJ

[Shadow248]

Thank you RALLY, MT MANIAC, EARTHWORM, and CJOFFE for you comments. I knew there were people on this site who knew their schtuff and would finally speak up.

As for RALLY's comment on the powerglide, that was a neat box. My bro's 69 camaro came with that. He has now replaced it with a 700R4 Level 2 tranny to handle the 400+ horsepower that's now in that car. So if you know anyone who wants a powerglide from a 69 camaro, complete with torque converter, let me know. It's not used so much anymore in racing, the TH350s and TH400s, and of course the R4 have pretty much replaced it, but it still stands as one of the most robust trannies in racing.

No problem Shadow..
I just hate it when people say alot of bs about stuff they dont even understand and on top of that i am 6 years younger. I may not know everything but i sure do try my best to talk about what i do know, i am the kid that 20 to 60yo guys bring their car to, to ask a question about it. I try my best and my knowledge increases daily. Also i had to put my word in about that why would you buy a $20,000 Neon, just why??? As i see it a car is a car it is what you put into it and get out of it that matters, a 1980 vette will cost you 10 grand in good condition, put a nice supercharger in there and restore the car and you have spent less than 20 grand and it will take any neon and still is a kinda rare nice-looking car. Now look what you put in and got out..
Ok enough said.

--but still the SVX is way better

As much as I can appreciate cars, and the fact that every car has its good points I am a bit confused.

When I was young I always drove Volkswagons. I appreciated them for what they are, economy cars with a twist. Small engineering amazments that made them fun. For instance, four wheel (sorta) steering. The rear wheels were built with pivots to give a slight turn when racing around curves. I hear that is used in Subarus too. Also, Volkswagons were one of the first cars to ever build a 16V engine. The bugs used an "H" engine. And so on. But a Volkswagon is a Volkwagon. Even now they have 60,000 dollar VWs and I still think VW.

Back to my confusion. I was passionate about VWs, I owned 5 of them, infact I still have an almost completely restored '71 Super Beetle convertible. But I do not make posts defending VWs and I do not still want a volkswagon. I am just confused why someone that that is so passionate about a Neon would not buy another Neon. I am confused why, if the Neon is so "talented" why that person would buy something other than a Neon.

Volkwagons will always have a place in my heart, but I have outgrown that phase of my life and therefore found something that suits me now. That is why I purchased my first Subaru. That is why I have grown with Subaru. And when Subaru decides to notice us people that have grown with them ( I mean grow because I had an XT turbo 4-wheel drive, an XT6 AWD and now 2 SVXs) and not turn there back to us for the almighty dollar. So to put an end to the childish Neon argument...The SVX was discontinued in 98 with no real development in the last year of the car. To me that means the car is basically a 92 model that lasted till 98. (no offense meant to 93 and up owners) Here we have been talking about a car that has not been to the board for improvment since 92 but engineering and technology at Subaru have gone through the roof since that time. Want to compare a classification: WRX! That is the closest thing Subaru has to A Neon (well the headlights have something in common) Now compare away!!! Or need I say more. This is 2002. If the SVX is or would be, there would be significant changes in performance and safety (a point no one has mentioned especially considering the death trap Neon) So hypothetically if there were to be a 2002 model or even a 99 model SVX we can all assume that it would have to out perform a WRX! Does anyone disagree? So if we really are trying to compare an SVX to a Neon Should we compare a 92 Neon (are there any of those left without a blown head) to a 92 SVX or a 99-2002 Neon to what we can be assured will be one hell of an SVX?

Or am I just way out here by myself on a branch that will definatly break soon?


-G

[Landshark]

Originally posted by SVX'in
So hypothetically if there were to be a 2002 model or even a 99 model SVX we can all assume that it would have to out perform a WRX! Does anyone disagree?

-G

not necessarily. the SVX was a touring car (everyone seems to forget that), while the WRX is a performance car based on the rally racecar. i hate to bring 928's up again, but Porsche had a similar situation with the 928 and the 911. the 928 was the flagship touring car, but the 911 was the "sportscar", and faster 0-60 (although the 928 had a higher top speed). a new "SVX" would not have to be Subaru's "big dog" in the performance department if it was going to be produced again as a sport-luxury touring car as it was before. i can't say i wouldn't mind a 300+hp "new SVX" that is a sales flop, so i can snatch one up cheap a few years after they are produced.

I can totally see you point Mr. Shark, but, in its day the SVX had the best numbers Subaru had in their line-up. I was basing my hypothetical opinion on the fact that it was the top performer in its day so today I would hope it still had the best numbers. But , none-the-less it still would be a Neon defeater!! As well as a comparo of WRX and Neon, which are closely classed...The WRX makes the Neon wonder why it was ever made...

-G

[Landshark]

Originally posted by SVX'in
I can totally see you point Mr. Shark, but, in its day the SVX had the best numbers Subaru had in their line-up.
-G

that may be true for the U.S., Mr. SVX'in but what about the JDM lineup? did they have some better performers than the SVX in Japan in '92-'97 that we just didn't see? anyone know what year the WRX and Legacy B4's were introduced?

OK here i go again.... The SVX, WRX, and the Neon are all in very different classes, as Alan said the SVX is a touring car. The WRX is based on the Rally cars. The Neon is an economy car.
If the SVX was a new car i bet it would have 300hp and beat the poor little neon easy.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shadow248
Has anybody ever been able to reproduce "official" test results? Not that i've heard. The McLaren F1 was supposedly tested to reach 231mph. Mario Andretti tried it and never got over 218. The 2001 Corvette has been tested to do a 13 sec. quarter mile, the fastest i've witnessed is low 14s. My GTP was tested to do 0-60 in 6.8 sec, the fastest i've been able to get is a little over 7 secs. I've heard several comments on this board about SVXs in the high 14s. There are so many factors in this equation that i can't even start to explain it, besides i shouldn't have to.

The point is, I've seen a neon run 15.3s in real life. Stock. Modded, they can get MUCH faster. A friend of mine, Shawn Henry, who lives in texas, drove his turbo neon from texas up here to WI this year. He ran a 12.2 in the 1/4. Pretty good for FWD eh? The point is STOCK for STOCK, the SVX and Neons times in the 1/4 are damn near identical, ESPECIALLY since nobody can seem to be able to repeat those magazine numbers. And more importantly? Neons respond very very very well to mods. So the point IS shadow, that you can have a faster car than the SVX VERY easily for not a lot of money, so the entire point of my arguement is to show them some respect when one could destroy your precious (not sarcastic, mines precious) SVX on the strip.

That's a totally unfair comparison. Im talking about the SVX being a car that sold for upwards of $34,000 brand new vs. a car that can be had for under $12,000 brand new. The Neon is quick to about 30 mph, maybe, but that doesn't do ****. And it's quick to fall apart, but that's not what we're talking about here. The SVX is fast all around, certainly not mind-blowing fast, but damn fast in my book.

Hey. The neon isn't quick to fall apart. Where do you base this comment from? I drove mine for 80,000 miles without many problems. Sure, I blew a headgasket underwarrenty, but like I said it was replaced with the newer style MLS gasket, which COMPLETLEY SOLVES any headgasket issues. And I'm saying the neon is NOT fast all around, but to neither is the SVX. These two cars, while completley different, have damn near identical 0-60 times, and 1/4 mile times. HOWEVER, on the highway, an SVX would rape a neon. That is the one advantage in performance the SVX has. BUT IN 0-60 and 1/4 times, its a VERY CLOSE RACE, and that is what I am pushing here, something you still won't admit.

Whatever happened to dignity? I wouldn't be caught dead racing anybody in even a Cavalier, let alone a Neon.

There's something to be said about 'sleepers'. Having owned a neon for several years I've encountered all kinds of ignorant people, yourself being one of them. Its pretty cool that the general (read UNEDUCATED) population gives these cars absolutely no respect... because when you beat someone in a street race they're just flabergasted.

Have you ever tried this? In a Trans Am, that would be the result, without a doubt. In a Neon, your either spinning tires or stalling (or maybe breaking something).

Yes. Well apparently my Neon and everyone else's neon at neons.org is a trans am then. HELLO. If you rev it to the RIGHT rpm, and have a proper launch technique, you will neither spin the tires excessively OR stall. There will be a small 'chirp' and then you'll take off. Apparnetly you've never driven stickshift.

What do you consider it's competition? I already told you the Cavalier Z24 has outperformed those specs since 1995, and it's not even a special edition car. Same class, right?

I don't know anythign about cavaliers, but I've seen a few at the strip turn pathetic times. This is a moot point. My point is that the Neon has almost the same times in 0-60 and the 1/4 as the SVX. THAT is the point.

Here's what i mean about dancing around the comment. What did i say? I said (READ CAREFULLY and GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME): Manual is good for course racing, Auto is better at the strip.

WRONG! In professional drag cars, TRUE, but not in most street cars. Look at ANY car that has a manual and an automatic as an option. Hell, we'll start with one I know: Neon auto VS stick. 1/4 mile times (roughly):

Neon Auto: 17.5 seconds
Neon stick: 15-16 seconds (depending on tires, I;ve seen a stock R/T run 15.3s on slicks)

Look at the SVX:
SVX Auto: 15 second according to the magazines, 16s in real life
SVX Manual: FASTER


1997 BMW 528i (auto) 7.5 15.8
1997 BMW 528i (manual) 6.8 15.3

1980 BMW 733i (Auto) 10.5 17.5
1980 BMW 733i (4spd) 8.4 16.6

1994 Chevrolet Corvette LT1(auto) 5.5 14.1
1993 Chevrolet Corvette LT1 5.3 13.9

1966 Ford Mustang (289ci V8 Auto) 10.9 17.9
1964 Ford Mustang (289ci V8 w/4spd) 7.5 15.7

1993 Ford Mustang GT(auto) 8.0 16.1
1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.1

1994 Mercedes-Benz C280 (auto) 8.4 16.5
1994 Mercedes-Benz C280 7.8 16.1

1991 Nissan 300ZX Turbo(auto) 7.0 15.4
1990 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 6.5 15.0

1993 Nissan Altima GXE (auto) 9.6 17.2
1994 Nissan Altima GXE 9.4 16.9

1991 Porsche 911 Carrera 2 Tiptronic (auto) 6.9 15.0
1990 Porsche 911 Carrera 2 5.4 14.0

1995 Toyota Camry LE V-6 (auto) 8.4 16.3
1995 Toyota Camry LE 8.0 16.0

1994 Volkswagen Passat GLX (auto) 8.9 16.9
1993 Volkswagen Passat GLX 8.5 16.6

Notice a trend yet shadow??!?! It might be kinda hard for someone as stubborn and ignorant as yourself to pick it up, but I'll point it out for you: AUTOS ARE SLOWER IN ALMOST EVERY FREAKING CAR! PERIOD.

Manual is not better PERFORMANCE.

See above.

In fact, the type of gearbox has NOTHING TO DO with performace. It's the gearing that matters, and that's completely separate from the type of box.

AND how many gears you have. If you have more gears, you are able to do more with less. What would be easier to go up a hill with? A 1 spd bike or an 18 spd bike?

Saying an automatic is slower because it has fewer gears is one of the most ridiculous things i've heard you say yet. Less gears equals less shifts.
That's one of the best things you can do.

WRONG. The best thing to do ESPECIALLY with an engine that has a narrow powerband is to KEEP IT IN THE POWERBAND AT ALL TIMES. To do this, you need more gears.

Granted there has to be enough gears there to enable the engine to rev properly, but 5 is not necessarily better than 4.

But in most cases 5 IS better than 4.

You are trying to tell me that a HUMAN driver can outshift an AUTOMATIC? SERIOUSLY?

No. I'm saying that it doesn't matter. What is more important is keeping the engine in the powerband.

Is this supposed to intimidate me? Cause you've tried about 8 times now and failed. If you haven't done it by now, it's not going to happen.

See those specs up there? Who is correct here? You or I? Oh yeah, its me.

- Ca$h