nastinupe1

I know that I am going to get flammed for this but why is it that Dodge can make a 4 cylinder engine that produces 245 lbs/ft and we get a crappy 153 lbs/ft. Is there some technical point that I am missing? The new Neon has a 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds... WTF! The Neon is heavier, and has 35 less hp than us. Where's the torque Honda? If our car had torque like that, we would have some bad azz 0-60 times. And I can't remember the 1/4 mile time, but I know that it was in the 14's. To make it even worse, the Neon cost less than $20,000.

charlie

two words"forced induction" ie turbo charging... the S is n/a and is quite a technological achievement from 2 liter engine, the neon not so impressive IMHO of course. But hey that's why there is chocolate and vanilla. See you at the Dodge dealer enjoy your Neon.

hoppe

One word.........NEON

curveslayer

Ummm... HELLO! This isn't a fair comparison since the Dodge (Mitsubishi) engine is turbocharged.

If you really want to compare two forced induction engines, add the comptech supercharger to the S2000 and you get ~340HP at the crank.

Strike

Where are you getting your stats? I just went to dodge.com and according to their website the best Neon (base price 17k) has 150 HP and 137 lb-ft of torque. Either way, the only way you're gonna get more torque out of a 2L engine is with Forced Induction, something Honda specifically chose to avoid. If you're that worried about it buy an American car with a V8. How many times are you going to bring this topic up?

presto

BTW, I read that the torque was 220 lb/ft, not 245. And only 205 HP.

00S2K01S4

He's talking about the new SRT.

greybeard

Dodge is better?.............no, Dodge is different.......we all have a choice in the car we buy........you just need to decide.....for yourself......which you prefer, and act accordingly.......myself, I think you owe it to us all to visit your Dodge dealer and put that money down...............

greybeard

Elistan

Is there some technical point you're missing? Umm, YES. It's called a turbo charger.

Neon SRT, from http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/preview/art...70/article.html -

2.4L DOHC turbo, 205hp, 220lb-ft of torque. yawn Not much better than the '93 MR2 Turbo with 2.0L, 200hp and 200lb-ft. '93 Porsche 968, another 4 cylinder, had 240hp N/A. '93 Porsche 968 Turbo S had 304hp and 368lb-ft. The '87 944 Turbo S had 247hp and 258lb-ft out of 2.5L.

The new Neon engine is not anything impressive. It's nice, sure, but I certainly don't understand the excitement about it. Dodge is simply playing catch-up. (And, IMO, falling a bit short.)

nastinupe1

The Supercharger doesn't really help 0-60 times for the S from what I have seen. You really don't get the power from the supercharger until you really get going. I am not as concerned about the S's high end power, that is fine. What I am looking at is how much of a difference torque has on low end performance. You have a neon, which is heavier and has 35 less hp, but since it has 245 lbs/ft it is pulling off 5.6 0-60 times. I believe that many people on this forum are in denial of the fact that our car needs at least 50 more lbs/ft of torque. I don't want a neon, I don't like neons or dodge, but what I do want is a car that can beat a 4 door neon. And I hate to admit it, but since the neon has a very broad power band and is probably eaiser to drive, we will be seeing a many S's getting beaten out there. If this continues, Cavilers and Sentra's will be next. Soon, everyone compact under $20,000 will be running 14's and 0-60 times of sub 6.0's. Honda may want to release the new S in 2004 instead of 2005.