Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

Discussion in '2002 Ford Focus SVT' started by DodgeFreak, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    True the S2000 makes 250 hp, but it makes it at around 9000 rpm and peaks at about 150 ft-lbs. of max torque. My 96 Taurus makes more torque than that, seriously (175). I'm pretty sure I read somewhere the SRT makes about 230 ft-lbs of torque. That is one of the highest figures I have ever seen from a production 4 cyl. The Dodge 2.4l was designed to be economical, not for performance, which is the opposite in the Honda.

    Also, the Neon is a front wheel driver. Too much power and torque will cause torque steer without the implementation of costly control systems like in the Acura 3.2 CL Type S. The entire basis for the Neon SRT is low-cost performance and it just wouldn't be that with anything less or more.
  2. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    2.5 liter actually, and it really puts out only 205 hp, pathetic given the Turbocharger<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
  3. #28 bigrick, Dec 4, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    Correct me if I am wrong....but isn't torque more useful for low-speed grunt, and horsepower more for higher speeds? The SRT-4 has 215 hp @ 5400 rpm, and 245 lb. ft of torque @ 3200-4200 rpm.


    As compared to the Honda S2000 which has 240 hp @ 8300 rpm, and 153 lb. ft of torque @ 7500 rpm.


    Acceleration-wise, the Neon might have the S2000 here...considering the rear wheel hp and torque won't be what the numbers are above for the S2000. The dodge site claims a sub-six second 0-60, the S2000 is around 6.3 seconds, and a rolling start 5-60 7.6 sec. The Neon might have the S2000...at least in a straight line.


    p.s. Why are we talking about this in a Ford Focus page??
  4. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    I dunno why.

    But according to an article by SCC it looks like I was wrong, Dodge's claimed hp: 215hp @ 5400rpm, SCC's hp measured at the wheels: 223hp @ 5600rpm. Dodge's claimed torque: 245 lb-ft @ 2000rpm, SCC's torque measured at the wheels: 250 lb-ft @ 3000rpm. 6000rpm redline.

    Now SCC's 0-60 time was 5.8 for the neon srt-4. There have been runs on the S2000 as quick as 5.4 seconds, so if a good driver is behind the wheel (I think the dramatically quicker time is due to better shifting on the S2000, because of the rpm at which the hp really kicks in) then I think the S2000 would have the acceleration advantage.

    S2000 certainly handles better, and then there's the fact that they are in two entirely separate classes. And remember, the Neon has the advantage of .5 liters more displacement and a turbocharger, therefore good car, not so great engine.
  5. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    the -04 SVT Focus will be getting a power bump for a total 225hp...
    that should enable the car to go head to head against the SRT Neon
  6. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    The SRT-4 Neon will be production but it wont be the original concept that I and most car magazines fell in love with it will be the new body style and it sits a little higher but dodge says the performance spec will be close to the same as the original concept.
  7. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    The SRT-4, w/a stopwatch, goes to 60 in 5.9
  8. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    This is messed up your saying 2004, then 2003 1.8 then 2.4, then 2.4 then 5.9 im confused.
  9. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    Ive got an SVT Focus and its one of the best cars I could have gotten for the money. Ive already checked out performance mods for it. with heads I could get 50 hp = 220 over stock 170; then I found out about a turbo and the complete setup w/ a Garrett turbo for about 4g and it would be pushing past 300 hp, which was a 130+ add for the focus + the heads is a 180 hp add for all around 5g, not too bad for a total of 350 hp in a car that weighs 2750 lbs. + there are plenty of other mods that might allow you to hit 400 hp. If you bought the SVT for 20g and did these mods you could be running low 12s to high 11s for the same price as a WRX.
  10. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    yea...its only a neon...lol. the thing is soooo underrated from the factory. its rated at 205 hp at the crank but a magezine i read got ahold of one and they dyno tested it and it read out something like 230 hp at the front wheels! this car is fast...the fastest car under 20 grand...now you can take all the money you saved and put it in the engine of the neon and it will be fast as hell. it should be on here, and so should the focus. i think any car built for performance or has special interest should be onhere. are you paying the bill for their bandwith? i don't get why people complain when there are more and more cars added, even if they arn't the fastest ones in the world
  11. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    The SRT-4 neon has 215 hp and is actually in the class as the SVT - not sure why, given the engine size and Turbocharger it should be in the same class as the RS, nevertheless, it is in the same class as the SVT. And the RS only has 220hp
  12. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    I heard that Ford will pump up the SVT's engine power to something like 225, and the RS will be pumped to 300hp with 4WD.
  13. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    IF that happens then the Focus will start to have my respect, will have to improve the reliability before it comes close to the level of the Civic Type-R for the SVT and the STI for the RS though.
  14. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    Its HP is actually 215, and its spec is about that of S2000 except that it has an electronic limiter so its top speed is slower stock.
  15. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    one interesting fact, i just found out thr new SRT-4 uses Mitsubishi's turbo system.
  16. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    The Neon SRT-4 is a respectable car whether I, or anyone else, like it or not. Sure it doesn't have as sophisticated and high-tech engine and gearbox as something like an S2000, but thats for good reason: it was never meant to. Dodge took the approach of giving it excessive horsepower and torque to make it an exciting car at a cheap price. Not only that, but contrary to popular belief, the suspension allows recieved a good deal of massaging so that it actually handles pretty well(.90 g on 300 ft skidpad by C&D). Yes, the engine doesn't much impress a 2.0L 4 cylinder that car rev to 9,000 rpm, but the SRT-4 also undercuts the car that can, the S2000, by almost $10,000 in price. Nothing's free in the world. That was the goal of the Neon; to be the fastest car for the least money. I'd say it accomplished that pretty well.
  17. Re: Why this but no SRT-4 Neon?

    Yeah, but I think the Neon could have accomplished what it did using a 2.0 instead of a 2.5. Just look at the WRX STI, 2.0 liter, Turbocharged as well, considerably more power and torque, but I guess Subaru is just phenomenally better than Dodge, still they should have gotten what they did with a 2.0 for the same price.

Share This Page