Eclipse...
ORIGINAL: petepete
at least the new srt 4 is goin gto be a magnum not neon so now being heavy no way they can beat us
at least the new srt 4 is goin gto be a magnum not neon so now being heavy no way they can beat us
The smallest Magnum engine is a 2.7 six, so they wouldn't make an SRT-4 Magnum. A guy as work has a 2.7 Magnum and all he does is say how slow it is, lol. 190 hp/190tq in a 3900lb car, jeebus [
]
my bad always mix calibur and magnum :P but check this out http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/06/...-and-sluggish/
ORIGINAL: petepete
my bad always mix calibur and magnum :P but check this out http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/06/...-and-sluggish/
my bad always mix calibur and magnum :P but check this out http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/06/...-and-sluggish/
I understand HP is way higher...but torque...260 on the GT...240 for us...Isn't that really the deciding factor for the short races? If what I'm seeing on here is true then people are pretty easily getting 20 hp gains with a CAI, tune, headers...etc...What does that translate to in torque gain?
Also...I would consider the Eclipse GT a direct price competitor to a V6. 23k for a base model vs 20k for a base model? 3k difference doesn't put it in a different price point in my book. Add upgrades and you're up into the 26 to 27 range...which is what you're paying for the upgrades to the v6 as well (understand you can buy a baseline GT for that also...but I'm doing v6 comparison here). I don't know...looks like the Eclipse GT out-priced us to me. Especially when you consider that most of us are adding another 4-5k for addons.
And as far as the Neon srt-4...yeah they beat us stock for the hp and torque but barely...I'm sure they're considerably lighter than ours so I imagine that's what gives it it's 14 second times and whatnot...But man it's frusterating because they're just cheap cars at 18k. Ugly as sin in my opinion, but its frusterating to have such a HUGE engine and be competing with 2.4 liter v4. And did somebody say the Cobalt would beat us?? I'm seeing 205 hp for the supercharged SS...missing something?
I'm not complaining about my car, I love it...wouldn't trade it for the world (figure of speech of course), as far as pure sexiness you can't beat it. But it doesn't make me want to go to the track. I think I'll just stick to cruising...
Also...I would consider the Eclipse GT a direct price competitor to a V6. 23k for a base model vs 20k for a base model? 3k difference doesn't put it in a different price point in my book. Add upgrades and you're up into the 26 to 27 range...which is what you're paying for the upgrades to the v6 as well (understand you can buy a baseline GT for that also...but I'm doing v6 comparison here). I don't know...looks like the Eclipse GT out-priced us to me. Especially when you consider that most of us are adding another 4-5k for addons.
And as far as the Neon srt-4...yeah they beat us stock for the hp and torque but barely...I'm sure they're considerably lighter than ours so I imagine that's what gives it it's 14 second times and whatnot...But man it's frusterating because they're just cheap cars at 18k. Ugly as sin in my opinion, but its frusterating to have such a HUGE engine and be competing with 2.4 liter v4. And did somebody say the Cobalt would beat us?? I'm seeing 205 hp for the supercharged SS...missing something?
I'm not complaining about my car, I love it...wouldn't trade it for the world (figure of speech of course), as far as pure sexiness you can't beat it. But it doesn't make me want to go to the track. I think I'll just stick to cruising...
I like SRT4's simply because of the MOPAR upgrades. You can get the car up to 355 HP without voiding your warranty (stage 3 turbo + intercooler sprayer, dial-a-boost). That's a whale of a car for the money. Also have lots of suspension upgrades, but after you go through those the car starts to weigh the same as a mustang. I kinda like caliburs, but I doubt I'd get one.
The cobalt SS i have a soft spot for. Which would be cheaper, insurance on a v6 mustang or a SRT4/Cobalt SS? I'm just curious whether it's engine size or stock HP that determine the insurance rate.
The cobalt SS i have a soft spot for. Which would be cheaper, insurance on a v6 mustang or a SRT4/Cobalt SS? I'm just curious whether it's engine size or stock HP that determine the insurance rate.
ORIGINAL: beaustang
Compare our cars to comparably PRICED cars! I keep hearing how all of these other V6's are so much faster than ours, but those cars cost more than a GT! Let's keep it apples and apples! We have a $20,000. base price car, not many if any $20k cars beat us!
Compare our cars to comparably PRICED cars! I keep hearing how all of these other V6's are so much faster than ours, but those cars cost more than a GT! Let's keep it apples and apples! We have a $20,000. base price car, not many if any $20k cars beat us!
ORIGINAL: Horrific_Ending
Dang i am starting to wonder what our cars are good for. Like not to **** anyone off but are our cars really that slow stock?
Dang i am starting to wonder what our cars are good for. Like not to **** anyone off but are our cars really that slow stock?
Eclipse V6 is what? 26k-28k? Even a Honda Civic Si is 20k+
ORIGINAL: fazm
I can take em
Already taken a couple gt's at the track. Remember, FWD cars are hard as hell to get the launch down right. The 2 i beat were running 15.0 and 15.4. They both trapped higher MPH though (like 95 and 97 i think) my highest is 93.6.
ORIGINAL: Derf00
IF it's a V6 (GT) You'd be seeing his tailights unless he doesn't know how to drive...
C/D TEST RESULTS
ACCELERATION: Seconds
Zero to 30 mph: 2.2
40 mph: 3.1
50 mph: 4.6
60 mph: 6.1
70 mph: 7.7
80 mph: 9.5
90 mph: 11.9
100 mph: 14.5
110 mph: 17.3
120 mph: 23.5
130 mph: 29.3
Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.4
Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph: 10.0
50-70 mph: 9.8
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.5 sec @ 100 mph
Top speed: (governor limited) 134 mph
2005 Ford Mustang 4.0l 6.9 15.3 (C&D Feb 05)
IF it's a V6 (GT) You'd be seeing his tailights unless he doesn't know how to drive...
C/D TEST RESULTS
ACCELERATION: Seconds
Zero to 30 mph: 2.2
40 mph: 3.1
50 mph: 4.6
60 mph: 6.1
70 mph: 7.7
80 mph: 9.5
90 mph: 11.9
100 mph: 14.5
110 mph: 17.3
120 mph: 23.5
130 mph: 29.3
Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.4
Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph: 10.0
50-70 mph: 9.8
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.5 sec @ 100 mph
Top speed: (governor limited) 134 mph
2005 Ford Mustang 4.0l 6.9 15.3 (C&D Feb 05)
I can take em
Already taken a couple gt's at the track. Remember, FWD cars are hard as hell to get the launch down right. The 2 i beat were running 15.0 and 15.4. They both trapped higher MPH though (like 95 and 97 i think) my highest is 93.6.

All the mags are conservative. So the Eclipse is probably capable of 5.8-5.9 0-60 and 14.3-14.4 1/4 miles and the 4.0 stang is probably good for 6.6-6.7 0-60 and 15.0-15.1 quarter. Still slower with equal driver.
The Cobalt will beat us stock for stock, it runs mid 14's easily, the 205 hp is underrated most dyno that to the wheels stock, and also due to the s/c, they have a good amount of tq. And they're about 500lbs lighter...the downside being it's an ugly cookie cutter POS FWD econobox dressed up with a laughable boy-racer spoiler strapped to it.
The SRT-4 is even better, performance wise, low 14's out of the box and it takes to mods like water. The negative is the same as the Cobalt. The SRT-4's a fast POS but in the end it's still a Neon and a POS.
And hp still matters in a short race, else we'd be losing to diesel Jettas that are chipped, and they have more tq, and weigh less..
The SRT-4 is even better, performance wise, low 14's out of the box and it takes to mods like water. The negative is the same as the Cobalt. The SRT-4's a fast POS but in the end it's still a Neon and a POS.
And hp still matters in a short race, else we'd be losing to diesel Jettas that are chipped, and they have more tq, and weigh less..


