|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by BoostJunkie:
...
I think there should be a discussion about the pros and cons of the Contour vs the SRT instead of completely bashing one or the other. I'm game either way, the SRT4 is one hell of a fast car but I'm open to any conversation on Contours. I like to learn about cars so all of this is good knowledge. Just don't knock it 'til you've tried it.
We tried that, at least those of us who could carry on an unbiased conversation, about 50 pages back. Or was it in the last SRT-4 thread?
Anyway, we tried that until people from both sides of the fence with little reasoning power and less patience chimed in.
BTW, I rode in the modded SRT-4 that my buddy Steve has that pulled 300 wHP on the dyno and it was just like riding in my turbo CSVT when I had the boost about 6psi. That thing was crazy fast too, spun the wheels all the way 1st and 2nd, with 18's no less.
He has modded as far as the stock turbo can go and that put him about 310 wheels is his best estimate.
So, how does it feel? As I said it is no better/worse than my CSVT when it was at 300 wHP.
So for all of you 'modded for modded' people out there....there is as fair and unbiased opinion as I can get.
And by the way, the interior looks pretty good though I don't like the tall shifter, the fact that the front window are power but the rears are crank handle, and that it is a tad plasticky. The seats kick ass though!
An SVT with a new-like interior is a bit more refined and looks and feels of higher quality. It's kind of like looking at a CSVT and then going and looking at an Audi...the CSVT looks real good until you sit in the Audi and really feel/see the small things. Well the SRT-4 also feels the same way until you fit into the nice leather interior of the CSVT.
Tom
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: Apr 2001
Posts: 9,442
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 9,442 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Nobody is denying the strength of the engine block in the SRT-4. Stout turbo blocks are nothing new from Mopar.
However making 500/500 and actually being able to use 500/500 are two completely different things.
I'd like to see the dyno graphs to see what the powerband looks like below 5000rpm.
It is easy to make dyno queens make great numbers, but good luck with actual street drivability.
You are now well into the realm of a drag only or dyno only setup.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Dayymmm!
Nice curve overall. I bet that isn't a stock turbo though, and what does "Actual Horsepower and Actual Torque" mean?
Is that one of those places that measure power at the wheels and then back-calculate the curve to estimate flywheel horsepower? Even if it is, that's still a lot of power.
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: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
No it's not stock turbo. It's the AGP manifold and the turbo they sell on 105 octane gas. And the price to get a srt4 to 500hp is less than what it takes to get a contour to 300hp. The car (new) also cost less. The srt4 (if you're comfortable with it and know how to drive) handles better than a csvt, thus why I consider it better performance wise than a contour,,, I don't think that should even be argueable,, but it seems some people can't believe something is faster than a contour (I'm not talking to people like warmonger that actually have fast contours and know what it takes to get there).
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: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Just like I was expecting. Fairly peaky. Especially TQ but then again how not to be on a small displacement 4 banger with a huge turbo.
Either way the numbers are HUGE!!!  (200+ per liter  )
Actual means uncorrected to SAE. What he "actually" made that day under actual conditions. No corrections.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,191
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,191 |
Peaky tq is a HUGE asset when your biggest issue is traction. Especially when the peak is at the tail end of the power band.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by ATL-SVT:
Peaky tq is a HUGE asset when your biggest issue is traction. Especially when the peak is at the tail end of the power band.
I definitely do not agree with that because of varying launch rpm.
If you launch out of the power band the engine will bog badly and have to wait until much higher rpm levels before it builds boost. That kills drag times.
You can tell by the graph where it starts building boost and almost exactly where it reaches full boost. Both are far above low rpm launch levels.
Also without flat torque the shifting powerband is extremely narrow and it relegates the car to dyno only or drag only "queen" status.
Which is exactly what he was going for here. The biggest numbers he could get regardless of the power curve it generated.
For what he was going for he definitely hit on the head. It makes astounding power numbers from the 2.4L engine!!! 
You are trying to defend moot points and it makes everyone's case against your mainly biased and unrational statements even stronger. 
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,191
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,191 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by ATL-SVT:
Peaky tq is a HUGE asset when your biggest issue is traction. Especially when the peak is at the tail end of the power band.
I definitely do not agree with that because of varying launch rpm.
If you launch out of the power band the engine will bog badly and have to wait until much higher rpm levels before it builds boost. That kills drag times.
You can tell by the graph where it starts building boost and almost exactly where it reaches full boost. Both are far above low rpm launch levels.
Also without flat torque the shifting powerband is extremely narrow and it relegates the car to dyno only or drag only "queen" status.
Which is exactly what he was going for here. The biggest numbers he could get regardless of the power curve it generated.
For what he was going for he definitely hit on the head. It makes astounding power numbers from the 2.4L engine!!!
You are trying to defend moot points and it makes everyone's case against your mainly biased and unrational statements even stronger.
Aight dude, you are so out of your element on the srt 4 it isn't even funny....
There is NO TURBO LAG. Unlike the contour YOU DON"T HAVE TO BE AT 4 GRAND TO GET ANY PULL. You don't know what you're talking about. YOu think I don't tune srt-4's? You think I don't drag srt-4's??? I clutch drop a 1800 rpms or less (or I spin in the box and never get out of the dig. IF and only IF I plan to feather the clutch do I launch at anything higher and then I launch at 2600, from there you short shift first and second gear. For the record, here is what happens when contours race SRT-4's at the track: right click save as My car makes more wheel tq at 3k than your contour could ever make PEAK at the flywheel. You sound like a honda owner with no concept of tq on a fwd in real life....  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,475
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,475 |
... and it just keeps getting fuller and fuller ... Those last few comments were especially nice. Demon stated some very valid points that would apply to ANY car and you just HAD to retort with the "my car makes more tq than yours" and "you sound like a honda owner with no concept of tq". Come on now ... I have to wonder if there is some particular reason you feel the need to boldly assert your car's superiority over everyone else here? Got something to prove? Some sort of inadequacy to compensate for? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,387
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,387 |
Atl you are a fool, you can clearly see that the car has huge lag issues, and to state that your car has "no lag" is a moot point, he has a different turbo which can completely change spooling characteristics. Next you go on to rip on stock contours because they have no torque below 4k....although the car in question has no torque down low either. Speak intelligently and we will respect you.
98 3.0 svt: Sold
|
|
|
|
|
