|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,610
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,610 |
Originally posted by BoostJunkie:
Just crusing the net and saw this, felt I had to contribute. Contour SVT vs SRT-4? In a few words, not a fair match up. Why? One chief reason: weight. You guys are frickin' heavy compared to the Neon. Power/Weight ratio plays a huge hand. Two: Turbo vs N/A. I'm sure your motors could put out some good power modded, but the were not designed as hi/po motors. The 2.4L in the SRT-4? Different story. Sport Compact Car did a complete write up of the motor's internals, a very good read which I recommend. Even you guys with turbo added are fighting Ford's engineering or rather, the fact that your motors are not designed for much more than fuel economy and reliability. Nor are your cars factory backed. SRT-4 has new parts from Mopar coming out on nearly a monthly basis, nevermind the aftermarket. The 2004's(which I have) are cutting anywhere from 14.0 to 13.8 STOCK. Nevermind those that have serious mods. So, while it's fun to bench race, let's keep some reality, ok?
IMHO the only two SVT's of any note are the Cobra and Lightning. Anything else is just bodykits and badging.
Not flaming, just pointing some things out.
Too Cool!
It is still a Neon............. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779 |
IMO my friend, you just started a flaming here. That post was complete BS. Did you read the whole post? Do you know what a 3L is? Do you know we have powerful and reliable turbo kits available to us? Do you know that we know SRT4 are fast? Do you know you sound like you don't have a clue? Oh well, just keep spouting off whatever you have to say and wait for some of these guys to get done with their 3L turbo setups. Stock for stock you win hands down no doubt, but don't come on here talkin about stuff like you have know we are slow and Ford sucks and blah blah blah. Sorry guy, but that was not a very educated or polite statement.  Maybe you should read up a little bit before you come back too. If you want to talk cost also, you spanked down 20k+, we can slap down 10k for the car and dump that other 10k into putting a 2004 to shame. money:power ratio is even now.  And of course I have to say it....it's still a Neon, an ugly one at that. The word "Exclusive" and Neon srt4 don't hang together anymore too.
99 SVTC, T-Red, #652/2760-12.8.1998
Mother#@%@!* did I sound abstract?
I hope it sounded more confusin than that!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
SRT-4s are pretty good for what they are, but there have been contours to prove plenty reliable and have more power than srt-4s. My car is lighter than a srt-4, so I'm sure some of these SVT guys could get close to my weight if they wanted. Also the SVT Contour is more than just badging and body work. You know about Lightnings and cobras because they're popular, but I guess we have to fill you in on the contour. The engine has 30hp more than normal duratec contours, upgraded suspension, and other nice things. The engine has some reliability problems but fixes have been found are easy to implement. Now I just wish I could build up my zetec and put everyone to shame, aftermarket is there but my wallet isn't.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 705
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 705 |
Belive me guys the SRT-4 is on the top of my list of cars to seek and destroy when I am done, I gurantee this summer I will get one. I am thinking on 10-11 lbs. of boost I will be somewhere around 350-375 hp with over 300 ft.lbs of tourque at the wheels and I will be in the mid to low 13's. I paid $11.5K for my car I got the 3L for about $1400 and the turbo kit for about $5500, That is about $18,400 for the motor and turbo plus the car, That is not counting transmission parts, and suspension and all the other little stuff. The only thing I can say is I hope I run into one of these SRT-4 guys and show em They are not the fastest thing on the street. what do you think of this license plate-> SRTWHAT That would be a good one! -Jeff-
1998 Black SVT
Morette Twin headlight conversion
Street flight turbo kit collecting dust!
Rebuilding my 3.0L
check it out
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 347
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 347 |
Cobra and Lighting are deffo worthy of the SVT tag, but just cause the Contour doesnt sport a V8 or some sort of FI, the guys at SVT are fond of it. Isnt there an article with an interview of someone from SVT whos favorite vehicle is the SVT Tour? I reckon that superchargers aside, IMO I dont think any stang (ok,ok, maybe a Cobra) or esp Lighting could stay with an SVT tour down a twisty, bumpy back road. See ya.
1996 Mondeo 24v 4-door
twin janspeed stainless pipe
cat by-pass
Phase 2 RS bodykit
16" cosworth alloys
K&N RU3530
SVT TB/UIM/LIM
poly bushings
konis/bat springs/bar
Pioneer
MSDS
Indiglos
P&P heads
2005 Mondeo Zetec Tdci
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by BoostJunkie:
Just crusing the net and saw this, felt I had to contribute. Contour SVT vs SRT-4? In a few words, not a fair match up. Why? One chief reason: weight. You guys are frickin' heavy compared to the Neon. Power/Weight ratio plays a huge hand. Two: Turbo vs N/A. I'm sure your motors could put out some good power modded, but the were not designed as hi/po motors. The 2.4L in the SRT-4? Different story. Sport Compact Car did a complete write up of the motor's internals, a very good read which I recommend. Even you guys with turbo added are fighting Ford's engineering or rather, the fact that your motors are not designed for much more than fuel economy and reliability. Nor are your cars factory backed. SRT-4 has new parts from Mopar coming out on nearly a monthly basis, nevermind the aftermarket. The 2004's(which I have) are cutting anywhere from 14.0 to 13.8 STOCK. Nevermind those that have serious mods. So, while it's fun to bench race, let's keep some reality, ok?
IMHO the only two SVT's of any note are the Cobra and Lightning. Anything else is just bodykits and badging.
Not flaming, just pointing some things out.
I would take you seriously but when you say the SVT motor was not designed as a hi-po motor then you are smoking the crack pipe a little to much.
When you figure that the SVT 2.5L was good for 200 HP and the '03 SRT-4 was 2.4L turbo and only good for 228 or even 240 HP or whatever it is now then you really have no leg to stand on.
Did you know that the CSVT motor was the first factory produced engine to have Extrude Honed intake manifolds? I'm surprised that a base model engine uses this technology 
Did you know that the 99 CSVT was the first EVER factory car to feature the BFG G-Force T/A KDW tires? It took them 6 months after the 99 models were rolling to release the tire to the public. Didn't I read that the SRT-4 has been coming with BFG's on it now? Hmm.
80HP/liter Naturally Aspirated was enough to put it as on of the "10 Best Engines" awards when it came out and ranked right up there with Acura for efficiency.
Where is the SRT4 motor going? With boost to make up the power.
Its hard to compare the cars accurately but comparing the engines is a different story. The 2.5L duratec is a far better motor, good enough that variants of it are used in Jaguars and the Noble sports car.
Our sorry little motors put out close to 350 horsepower on only 10 pounds of boost....that is only 0.1 Liters more than your engine, less boost and 100 more horespower!
How many pounds of boost is your srt4 motor running?
By the way, the interior quality and styling of the neon are still sup-par when compared with a Focus SVT or a Contour SVT and overall they are a much less refined car.
Enjoy your day, hope I meet you at the track sometime.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970 |
Originally posted by BoostJunkie:
Just crusing the net and saw this, felt I had to contribute. Contour SVT vs SRT-4? In a few words, not a fair match up. Why? One chief reason: weight. You guys are frickin' heavy compared to the Neon. Power/Weight ratio plays a huge hand. Two: Turbo vs N/A. I'm sure your motors could put out some good power modded, but the were not designed as hi/po motors. The 2.4L in the SRT-4? Different story. Sport Compact Car did a complete write up of the motor's internals, a very good read which I recommend. Even you guys with turbo added are fighting Ford's engineering or rather, the fact that your motors are not designed for much more than fuel economy and reliability. Nor are your cars factory backed. SRT-4 has new parts from Mopar coming out on nearly a monthly basis, nevermind the aftermarket. The 2004's(which I have) are cutting anywhere from 14.0 to 13.8 STOCK. Nevermind those that have serious mods. So, while it's fun to bench race, let's keep some reality, ok?
IMHO the only two SVT's of any note are the Cobra and Lightning. Anything else is just bodykits and badging.
Not flaming, just pointing some things out.
I'll take that BS on the duratec with a grain of salt considering what was said is obvious ignorance and the information is coming from an SRT4 owner 
The duratec has a interesting history, so rather than writing it off as an economy engine......actually look into if what you're saying is true. It is not. To continue to spout off incorrect info about the duratec is a statement in itself. Feel free to browse some more around CEG a bit more, as it is a wealth of information to show you the errors of your ways. 
2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4
1964 Chevrolet Impala SS
1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 487
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 487 |
Our economic, non-hipo engines were originally designed by Porsche....those economic vehicle manufacturers.. Our intake manifolds also use the Cosworth casting process..Yet another economy manufacturer! Seriously though, the SRT-4 is a great(term used lightly) "Bang for the Buck" performance car yet what it makes in overall power it lacks in other areas such as handling, looks etc. I personally think that comparing an SVT Contour that was designed/released in the mid-late 90's to a Factory F/I car of milllenium technology is absurd.
2002 ZO6...462whp/410wtq
pretty darn fast!11.70 @ 122
silver/black
2006 Trailblazer SS(wifes car)
silver/black
2000 SVT-Turbo-sold
silver/blue #1699/2150
13.83 @ 102.82 on 5psi
13.51 @ 107.56 on 8psi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 706 |
Atleast we have power rear windows! 
"God Got a Good One"
1982-2004
I love you JLM!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100 |
Originally posted by e1flakedsvt:
Atleast we have power rear windows!
HAHAHAHA
Ray
'99 CSVT - Silver #222/276
In a constant state of blow-off euphoria.
Originally posted by Kremitthefrog:
I like to wear dresses and use binoculars to watch grandmas across the street.
|
|
|
|
|
