Autoweek: Neon SRT gets green light

[DavMan]

AutoWeek, in it's latest issue state that the Neon SRT concept has been given the green light for production. The horsepower was 208-hp for the concept. 225-hp is now what's floating around for production, along with a 2002 (or 2003) MY release. A production SRT would be the make the Neon the definitive compact sport vehicle, period.

[mopartodd]

DavMan. I hope the car will be available without all the rice-boy crap hung on it, like the wing, generic hood, and the stupid colored dash accents. Please just offer powertrain and suspension mods.

[Maxwedge]

I think I would be cool to have ALL the riceboy stuff and a Bigger wing.then I would have a bumper sticker that sais "when i grow up I wanna be a superbird!!!'Thats what they wanna be anyway. WIngs and graphics are cool IF and only IF they help you go faster. otherwise they are just tacky

[DavMan]

Remember, it wouldn't be "rice-boy" if it was functional. I can easily see the hood being functional, but the rear wing needs to be "slammed." For a car that's pushing 200-225hp in a lightweight, I for one, want to see a styling statement. These days, if you're gonna buy something similar to the magnitude of the SRT, you wanna be seen. Sorry guys, this isn't the 60's anymore.

[mopartodd]

Granted, it's not the 60's. I don't think I would want it to be. But, it would be cool to pull up to a light, next to a riced out Honda or whatever, in a simple "LOOKING" neon. When the light changes, leave the ricer with his baggy pants flapping in the wind. You don't have to be loud to make a statment.

[roodypoo]

Originally posted by mopartodd:
Granted, it's not the 60's. I don't think I would want it to be. But, it would be cool to pull up to a light, next to a riced out Honda or whatever, in a simple "LOOKING" neon. When the light changes, leave the ricer with his baggy pants flapping in the wind. You don't have to be loud to make a statment.

[roodypoo]

i want a neon srt so bad i can taste it and can't wait till it comes out.

[novicius]

<dd>

<dd>Hmm. Doesn't look *that* bad. At least the wing isn't taller than the roof. Still, if you couldn't get the rear wing as an 'Option - Delete', were I to get one, I'd just drive it over to my local body shop and have them remove the wing and refinish the trunklid.

<dd>Needs to be lower, tho'. Eibach Pro Kit spring set and a new set of Bilstein's all around, just to tighten up the gap between the tops of the tires and the fenderwells...

<dd>- novicius -

<dd>P.S. - On second thought, it's low enough for daily use. Just lose the wing.

[This message has been edited by novicius (edited June 16, 2000).]

[GR8WHT]

Sorry Autoweek is 90% blowing smoke. DailmerChrysler has made NO I repeat No announcement on the Neon SRT. Autoweek has a bad track record ort being wrong. There are only 2 SRT's built and the reason
That it will probably not see production is the Supercharger is a custom piece from Eaton, not a production item.

I hope they do build it, but you will hear it from DaimlerChrysler not Autoweek

[DavMan]

Actually, Autoweek has a great track record for news about future product. It's their niche, in fact. I'd be more willing to believe a reliable source, like Autoweek, rather than say an Internet-only source like C&T News or Allpar. You really shouldn't be shocked that DC hasn't made the announcement. The SRT is in the early stages of planning, and has only been given the go ahead to consider production. You won't hear anything from DC until they are much closer to production, preferably less than 6 months. This is the way they have always done it. Just because they haven't spoken publicly about it, does not mean it isn't happening. DC is known for making it's concepts realities, the SRT page on Dodge's site even hints this may happen. The fact that the PT is getting a turbo (although probably a supercharger) is a good hint DC is willing to use typically aftermarket parts on their vehicles. There is a strong possibility the SRT will fly.

Originally posted by GR8WHT:
Sorry Autoweek is 90% blowing smoke. DailmerChrysler has made NO I repeat No announcement on the Neon SRT. Autoweek has a bad track record ort being wrong. There are only 2 SRT's built and the reason
That it will probably not see production is the Supercharger is a custom piece from Eaton, not a production item.

I hope they do build it, but you will hear it from DaimlerChrysler not Autoweek

[roodypoo]

check this site this guy seems to be right all the time and he says that they are building it. http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/b041800.htm

[DavMan]

I am saying Autoweek has significant credibility. Car and Truck News is usually high levels of speculation and rumors. He didn't actually say they were building it, but was merely reporting that AutoWeek broke the story. I believe AllPar also did the same. Here's the story at C&T News:
http://www.carandtrucknews.com/chryed/buzz/b060900.htm

Originally posted by roodypoo:
check this site this guy seems to be right all the time and he says that they are building it. http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/b041800.htm

[DonHoward]

If they do build it I would wager it will be turbo and not supercharged.

The Mex spec Stratus R/T has a 2.4L turbo, the GT Cruiser is supposed to be coming with a 2.4L turbo.

The 2.4L DOHC head interchanges with the 2.0L.

A turbo on the SRT would make a lot more sense since many of the parts would crossover from existing or planned vehicles.

Besides, Hahn Racecraft has turbo'd DOHC Neons running 11's - street legal and daily driven too.

------------------
My Home Page, Check It Out

[DavMan]

I'd have to disagree. The SRT, by concept and nature is supercharged, not turbo'd. I see no reason for that to change. While it is expected that the Sebring and PT Cruiser will get the 2.4L Turbo, I don't think that necessarily means the Neon SRT will. The 2.0L supercharged would be a better choice for the Neon because it would produce superior gas mileage and minimal extra parts for the Neon line. The R/T actually seems setup to accept a supercharger as it redirected the engine intake and resolved back pressure. Development costs for a factory supercharger would be relatively small, especially considering the SRT is already paid for. It is also coming to surface that the turbo 2.4L in the Cruiser is creating heat issues. This would be even more detrimental to a Neon. And for those reasons, if DC builds the SRT, it will be supercharged.

**AUTOMOBILE MAGAZINE IS NOW ALSO REPORTING THE SRT IS SET FOR PRODUCTION**

Originally posted by DonHoward:
If they do build it I would wager it will be turbo and not supercharged.

The Mex spec Stratus R/T has a 2.4L turbo, the GT Cruiser is supposed to be coming with a 2.4L turbo.

The 2.4L DOHC head interchanges with the 2.0L.

A turbo on the SRT would make a lot more sense since many of the parts would crossover from existing or planned vehicles.

Besides, Hahn Racecraft has turbo'd DOHC Neons running 11's - street legal and daily driven too.

[This message has been edited by DavMan (edited June 29, 2000).]

[DavMan]

While taking a step back from the engine performance of the SRT, I'd like to remind you that the OTHER part of the SRT concept was the outrageous aftermarket (Alpine) stereo setup.

This seems to add to the bill that the SRT is coming:

-The SONY Ford Focus
-The 2000 Nissan Sentra SE
-The 2000 Pontiac Sunfire MONSOON
-The Subaru 2.5RS

The Neon competitors above feature aftermarket or aftermarket-level stereo performance from the factory. I've read a lot of talk this not likely to happen for the would-be production SRT. The fact is that the rest of the market IS doing such a thing. I'd be willing to bet that some SRT stereo system aspects will make it to a hypothetical production car, simply because of this. I hope they offer it, but leave it optional, as not everyone cares about both performance and stereo systems. More times than not, it's an either/or.

The SRT is starting to make production sense afterall.

[Maxwedge]

The other interesting note about production Type riceboy cars is the fact that California is going to trane there CHP officers on how to visually inspect a car to see if the emmissions control devices have been altered or removed..That fact , might in the next few years push the Brainless wonders to purchase a factory build riceboy car..which Im not against seeing alot of turbo charger neons...They probably will sell alot of them out here there are more Rice boys out here in LA than anywhere...I cant tell you how many cars I have seen the the "Type R" sticker on them...AMAZING ignorance..
my.02

[roodypoo]

well did you here what chp did outside the spring nopi nationals in i think pomona? they set up a road block and inspected hundreds of cars that they suspected had turbo's or nitrous and tampered with the exhaust system, they got 16 arrests but most got off because it was entrampment., sub compact car did an article on this.

[DonHoward]

Uh, DavMan, how is a supercharger more fuel efficient than a turbo?

And the developement costs for the SC are NOT done, that is a concept car - sh!t have they even put more than 1000 miles on it! Whereas the developement work for the turbo is very much further along. And since the head for the 2.0 and 2.4 are the same then mouting up the turbo will not be a problem.

Doing a Neon with a turbo will be less parts for DC then doing a supercharger for just that line of car and turbos for the others. Less parts means more cost effective and far more likely to get done. The bean counters run everything, they would scream "diminishing returns/lost investment" at doing a supercharger on one car line only, especially when the turbo already exists! Just bolt it on, literally.

And what does this mean:

The R/T actually seems setup to accept a supercharger as it redirected the engine intake and resolved back pressure

Redirected the intake? No - the new R/T just has a different intake plenum then the run of the mill PL2K Neon. Resolved back pressure issue? What back pressure issue?

The Neon is no more suited for a supercharger than any other FWD in Chryslers line. And with them having the intakes towards the front and the exhaust towards the firewall they are all more adept at accepting a turbo. There is more room in the Neons engine bay for a turbo than an accessory driven supercharger.

Also - how would heat be more detrimental to the Neon than the PT Cruiser? The Neon has more room under the hood than the PT, it should have less of an issue!

Sorry, but IF the SRT gets the go ahead, a really huge if, I will stick with my bet that it will be turbo'd.

------------------
My Home Page, Check It Out

[DavMan]

As far as fuel efficiency, I was actually referring to the 2.0 vs 2.4. But...most turbo's I have seen reduce fuel economy, and the modern supercharger in the Grand Prix GTP has been shown to INCREASE it and provide similar emissions. The unit Eaton has is a marvel. For CAFE, anything that increases fuel economy will be looked highly upon.

Let me just get one thing straight: I don't care whether the SRT turns out to be turbo'd or supercharged, or....let's get some additional performance under the hood!

Every test drive review I have seen of the SRT indicates its a well put together and seems to work great. It's been said it's a very FUNCTIONAL concept car, perhaps even a prototype. I'd venture to say that DC has studied the idea of a supercharger in a Neon for a while, and if you remember back to 1996's R/T concept car, you'll realize the same. If the supercharger was such a bad idea then, why would they continue to study it in 1999? It just doesn't add up to the bill you are trying to push. It's obvious DC is curious about taking a different route.

You have to remember that the turbo was last used in a Stratus for Mexico, not in a Neon. We don't know enough about this unit to decide where it should be employed. For all we know, the thing could have been problem prone. You speak of it as though DC never makes mistakes. Regardless of how well (or not so well) it worked in the Stratus, the Neon has a much smaller engine compartment, and would likely require modification. That sounds like additional parts to an already "specialty" part. And once they pass that hurdle, THEN they could start testing the thing. Guess what? That's still a lot of work. In my opinion, enough to warrant looking at a supercharger.

I always consider DC's views from the "bean counters" point of view. It sounds to me like the SRT was an outsourced project and if it were to make production, in this day and age, it is unlikely DC would develop or manufacture the supercharger internally. You stated those reasons well. However, a company like Eaton will not build you or I a supercharger kit, but for an OEM like DC and GM, they will and they do. If they continued down this route, cost becomes less of a factor.

A supercharger would be ideal for the Neon, as compared to a Turbo simply because heat has propped up as being an issue, and because a supercharger would deliver power throughout the powerband. I think they are very wary about putting it in the Cruiser for this reason (reports of this surfaced in C&T News, others), and I don't see it lasting for long. This shouldn't surprise anyone. It appears as though they are using the turbo for now because they have an overwhelming demand for SOMETHING, and the turbo for now is convienient, albeit risky.

DC knows there is now a demand for a car similar in nature to an SRT, thats why they built the concept car. The turbo, yes, has been around for a while, but for reasons DC knows, they didn't build it into a Neon concept car. To me, that says a lot. At any rate, I don't the turbo has an overwhelming benefit-detriment factor to be a shoe-in for a production SRT. Of course, they could collaborate on a new or redesigned turbo with MB engineeers.

Whatever it is, I am remaining optimistic that the company wants to enhance the brand's value and strengthen the company's performance image. I have been happy so far.

-Dave

[roodypoo]

i read someplace that dc was considering using a supercharger on the pt gt instead of turbo because the supercharger would produce more torque which the felt was needed.

Originally posted by DavMan:
As far as fuel efficiency, I was actually referring to the 2.0 vs 2.4. But...most turbo's I have seen reduce fuel economy, and the modern supercharger in the Grand Prix GTP has been shown to INCREASE it and provide similar emissions. The unit Eaton has is a marvel. For CAFE, anything that increases fuel economy will be looked highly upon.

Let me just get one thing straight: I don't care whether the SRT turns out to be turbo'd or supercharged, or....let's get some additional performance under the hood!

Every test drive review I have seen of the SRT indicates its a well put together and seems to work great. It's been said it's a very FUNCTIONAL concept car, perhaps even a prototype. I'd venture to say that DC has studied the idea of a supercharger in a Neon for a while, and if you remember back to 1996's R/T concept car, you'll realize the same. If the supercharger was such a bad idea then, why would they continue to study it in 1999? It just doesn't add up to the bill you are trying to push. It's obvious DC is curious about taking a different route.

You have to remember that the turbo was last used in a Stratus for Mexico, not in a Neon. We don't know enough about this unit to decide where it should be employed. For all we know, the thing could have been problem prone. You speak of it as though DC never makes mistakes. Regardless of how well (or not so well) it worked in the Stratus, the Neon has a much smaller engine compartment, and would likely require modification. That sounds like additional parts to an already "specialty" part. And once they pass that hurdle, THEN they could start testing the thing. Guess what? That's still a lot of work. In my opinion, enough to warrant looking at a supercharger.

I always consider DC's views from the "bean counters" point of view. It sounds to me like the SRT was an outsourced project and if it were to make production, in this day and age, it is unlikely DC would develop or manufacture the supercharger internally. You stated those reasons well. However, a company like Eaton will not build you or I a supercharger kit, but for an OEM like DC and GM, they will and they do. If they continued down this route, cost becomes less of a factor.

A supercharger would be ideal for the Neon, as compared to a Turbo simply because heat has propped up as being an issue, and because a supercharger would deliver power throughout the powerband. I think they are very wary about putting it in the Cruiser for this reason (reports of this surfaced in C&T News, others), and I don't see it lasting for long. This shouldn't surprise anyone. It appears as though they are using the turbo for now because they have an overwhelming demand for SOMETHING, and the turbo for now is convienient, albeit risky.

DC knows there is now a demand for a car similar in nature to an SRT, thats why they built the concept car. The turbo, yes, has been around for a while, but for reasons DC knows, they didn't build it into a Neon concept car. To me, that says a lot. At any rate, I don't the turbo has an overwhelming benefit-detriment factor to be a shoe-in for a production SRT. Of course, they could collaborate on a new or redesigned turbo with MB engineeers.

Whatever it is, I am remaining optimistic that the company wants to enhance the brand's value and strengthen the company's performance image. I have been happy so far.

-Dave

[DavMan]

That makes sense. A supercharger would be superior as it supplies additional power throughout the torque curve, a turbo is only beneficial at higher RPMs. The PT needs help down low. It would be better served blown.

[ChristianCuda]

A few things to note to everybody the Supercharger used on the SRT Neon was a stocked piece already being made and use the intake duct was the only custom piece on it. So in this light DC would not need to worry too much about a custom supercharger being made also niether would they for the turbo. The supercharger does require less intake fabrication parts and would fit where the intake currently sits so no other accessories would need to be moved. Likewise in the turbo now access need to be moved. But in the turb the intake and the intercooler need to be built and added. I think that things may go the otehr way around for these cars as they dont need the extra power on top like the 2.2 engines did they need help down low where the SC helps. The 2.2 responded well to the turbos but the 2.0 and 2.4 will be better served by the SC.

Christian

------------------
68 'Cuda 383 Formula S recreation
Working on adding EFI
69 'Cuda Race Parts Car
76 Duster 273 recent transplant
95 Neon 2.0 SOHC best of 16.96
84 Dodge Ram D50 transplanting 360

[Maxwedge]

The main problem with the "helping down low" is the fact that the tires can already be "lit up" off the line with just the normal 4 banger...it doesnt need any help down low..
the only advantage, other than the ease of manufacture, of the SC over the turbo is the fact that the SC at any RPM has immediate effect and the Turbo wont.even at 55,when you kick it down the turbo still takes a moment to kick in(vacume operated devices are that way) but the SC doesnt..

[DavMan]

While my ACR Neon 5-speed can certainly be lit up easily, I hesitate to say it would be the same for the PT. It is a much heavier unit. I am asserting that if the SRT happens, it's use of a turbo or supercharger will be directly based on the direction DC wants the PT to take. A supercharger is a good and likely choice choice for the PT because especially teamed with an automatic tranny (as most will be), it DOES get much needed help down low (as well as mid and high). A turbo would not provide anything beneficial in this matter. Thats why I think it would be a mistake to offer a turbo. As for use in the SRT, the whole point of adding a supercharger to the car is to add power throughout the powerband. The SRT concept demonstrated it does this well.

Dave

Originally posted by Maxwedge:
The main problem with the "helping down low" is the fact that the tires can already be "lit up" off the line with just the normal 4 banger...it doesnt need any help down low..
the only advantage, other than the ease of manufacture, of the SC over the turbo is the fact that the SC at any RPM has immediate effect and the Turbo wont.even at 55,when you kick it down the turbo still takes a moment to kick in(vacume operated devices are that way) but the SC doesnt..