Please...talk me out of a 07 'stang....

[DisgustipatedAP1]

Honda's H22A engine , an N/A 4 cylinder makes 215hp

Dodge's SRT-4 engine, a 4 cylinder turbocharged engine.... makes 230hp.

Subaru's turbocharged 4 cylinder makes 330hp.

Its a terribly engineered, pathetic excuse of a "performance" engine inside a FWD girl's car. Plus they always sound like total shit while their douche-nozzle owner pilots them down the road.

EDIT: I seriously don't know how Chrysler manages such a small amount of power out of a turbo 4-banger. Seriously. I could make a better engine in my basement.

EDIT 2: Dodge sucks.




EDIT 3: With all that being said, I'd still rather have an SRT-4 Neon than a V6 Mustang.

Fail. While the SRT-4 is lame, the engine is very bad-ass. Not quite STI/Evo level, but that 4-banger can make insane power. Hell, on E85 I have seen them make like 330 whp with 450 wtq... insane low-midrange torque on them (dies off quick though.)

For a piece of shit, it's a very good engine. Not sure about reliability though...

[Wh33lhop]

I'm sure your clutch is stock, too. ;)

[DisgustipatedAP1]

I'm sure your clutch is stock, too. ;)

It's an ACT street clutch, nothing major, certainly no twin-disk Exedy. I could launch on stock and it'd be fine.

If you know what you're doing, you can take the shock of the launch and place it on either the tires or the clutch. Also, where I launch, the car isn't making peak torque.

[Wh33lhop]

I've launched a few Evos. None of the clutches were very happy. It really doesn't matter though. Point is, once you take the launch out of the equation the SRT4 is on a similar level to a boost buggy and I think we're on the same page there.

[Toadleg]

Fail. While the SRT-4 is lame, the engine is very bad-ass. Not quite STI/Evo level, but that 4-banger can make insane power. Hell, on E85 I have seen them make like 330 whp with 450 wtq... insane low-midrange torque on them (dies off quick though.)

For a piece of shit, it's a very good engine. Not sure about reliability though...

I know what you saying but I want to clarify thats on the stock turbo. Old dyno number for me on the stock turbo are 305whp &405wtq

[Xat1cZ]

i would rather have a 1984 318i automatic than a 07 mustang v6

funny you should mention that, as I as soon as yesterday drove a '06(iirc) Mustang GT, with an intake(oooh) and ROUSH conversion (just bodywork, springs and mufflers) with ~30000 km,

and after that drove a '87 316i with ~260000 km, rusty as hell with a wheel bearing that made more noise than the engine/exhaust, only time I could hear it running was when at a standstill.. it didn't have a tach either, anyways ....

guess which one I liked more .... yah the beat up 316i

much more fun, for me, as described in this thread http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=268747 ..

but also, I'm not impressed even by the GT's stock power, I don't like the driving position, not much for the looks altho' the ROUSH body kit and lowering springs and Saleen rims made it better, don't like the quality of the build, or should I say lack of quality, don't like the interior, don't like how I can't help but feel a little bit like a douche bag in it altho' I haven't done anything wrong xD, don't like the "oooh a muSTANGGG, Iizbada$$" hype, don't like how damn big they are, and I especially hate how they drive- I prefer the wheel suspension on my mothers wheelbarrow.. kinda,

point is, while most people wouldn't even get in the... ok I say it, shitty 316i
.... I like it because rac- ..... because different strokes for different folks
















































mustangs suxh!!

[Wild Ride]

Fail. While the SRT-4 is lame, the engine is very bad-ass. Not quite STI/Evo level, but that 4-banger can make insane power. Hell, on E85 I have seen them make like 330 whp with 450 wtq... insane low-midrange torque on them (dies off quick though.)

For a piece of shit, it's a very good engine. Not sure about reliability though...

Reliability of an srt4...Met a couple srt4 owners both had blown up several transmissions each (4) as the trannies don't seem to be engineered to cope with the power. They were definitely doushenozzles one guy would rachet strap his rear torque beam suspension through open holes in the trunk floor so the fwd car would launch better, I bet that handled amazing. Plus FWD is always a fail.

I have driven the new Dart. Looks nice and has all the electronic too dads but it drives like a total pile of s**t, totally uninspiring. If you get in a TDI Jetta/sportwagen at the same price you will be blown away at how much better they drive and the fit and finish of the interior is worlds better. Plus the mileage is insane and the DCT or 6speed trannies are fantastic. My mom bought a TDI sportwagen 6 months ago with my advice last month my dad bought the exact same car as her in the same color, they are that good.

Mustangs..... I have ridden in some very fast V8 mustangs at autox and although fast were totally unrefined and uninspiring, the unsupportive mush seat foam gives way to the seat frame that digs into your shoulder blades when pulling G's. I have driven the new 300hp V6 mustang the car feels like a boat won't launch straight, it squats, wiggles and bucks like crazy after it decides to drop down two gears which you have to force the car to do. The auto tranny tuning is purely for economy and will not lock up feels mushy and terrible when cruising on the freeway like the gas pedal is not attached to the engine at all (it isn't). I have also driven a 2010 GT, unrefined is the best way to put it.A 300hp BMW vs a 300hp ford is an entirely different league of car. It is like getting equally drunk on Krystal vs Bud Light.
My foreign exchange student neighbors bought two newer v6 mustang convertibles during their time in the US to get the full america experience and try to stoplight race everyone all the time. They try to race me and I routinely put car lengths on them to 30mph in my bone stock unrestored e30 vert they are always so pissed. I bet you would be sorely disappointed to learn that the heavy mustang although more powerful is heavy and slow, much slower than your much lighter less powerful e30.

I used to work at BMW and drove $50-120,000 brand new BMW's daily and although they are very nice cars I always loved driving my e30 home without ever really wanting a new car. Even if I could afford a 70k m3 I prefer a well modded e30. I beat tons of brand new M3's at autox with a well prepped e30. It quite simply is one of the best drivers cars of all time. A nicely modded and maintained e30 is more fun and engaging to drive than anything I have ever driven and I have driven hundreds through their paces.

Honestly dude if you want a newer car without the 20-25 year old car hassles take my professional car broker advice and buy a nice e46 330i maybe even a zhp package, you will thank me. The refinement is worlds better than the mustang at the same price. Need any more help deciding PM me and we can talk further.

my

[Silverdogz]

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/features/#page=Feature4

This is the only mustang. Or you can have the GT500

[Crippled Crip]

[DisgustipatedAP1]

I've launched a few Evos. None of the clutches were very happy. It really doesn't matter though. Point is, once you take the launch out of the equation the SRT4 is on a similar level to a boost buggy and I think we're on the same page there.

Here's what I think is ultimately flawed about the SRT-4 (other than the fact that it's a godawful Neon):

It is basically an American GTI. A small 4 cylinder with a tiny turbo that produces gobs and gobs of low end torque and good mid-range... but absolutely falls flat on its face at higher RPM's. There simply is NO top end at all. This makes it akin to an older V8: that low-end response that Americans love.

It has the potential to be more than just a simple daily driver, but because of retarded design choices (FRONT WHEEL DRIVE), it simply fails in anything more than being a car to drive to work/school/whatever. All while looking like a huge tool. :p

In conclusion: I would rather drive a basic 325i than a RUSTANG GT or SRT-FAIL.

[chadthestampede]

All this srt4 talk reminds me of this thread:

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=146951

I wish the pictures were still up. People went crazy.

[DisgustipatedAP1]

All this srt4 talk reminds me of this thread:

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=146951

I wish the pictures were still up. People went crazy.

Wow. OP in that thread is hilarious.

[Holland]

I love old thread revivals. Makes me feel like I've been here forever and have some OG status.

[Wh33lhop]

Here's what I think is ultimately flawed about the SRT-4 (other than the fact that it's a godawful Neon):

It is basically an American GTI. A small 4 cylinder with a tiny turbo that produces gobs and gobs of low end torque and good mid-range... but absolutely falls flat on its face at higher RPM's. There simply is NO top end at all. This makes it akin to an older V8: that low-end response that Americans love.

It has the potential to be more than just a simple daily driver, but because of retarded design choices (FRONT WHEEL DRIVE), it simply fails in anything more than being a car to drive to work/school/whatever. All while looking like a huge tool. :p

In conclusion: I would rather drive a basic 325i than a RUSTANG GT or SRT-FAIL.

They just took a good motor and put it in the cheapest car they could. Goal of the car is only to go as fast as possible in a straight line for as cheap as possible, and they did it very well.

[Holland]

They just took a good motor and put it in the cheapest car they could. Goal of the car is only to go as fast as possible in a straight line for as cheap as possible, and they did it very well.

Agreed. They wanted to make a car that had the most bang for the buck with track day fun. The SRT4 neon was born. I personally don't like them, and they are owned by Supra rejects. But don't be butt hurt because one stomped you at the local auto x.