Josh
SuperDork
5/17/12 4:38 p.m.
Wally wrote:
I am always surprised to find out I'm the slowest person I know. Almost all everyone I went to school and worked with has gone over 150 mph in some small crapbox. We have one guy now who cruises at 210MPH on his Goldwing going to bike week every year
In most of the world, "miles" starts with a silent K, just like "knife" or "knee". That's why, on most foreign vehicles you'll see a scale for "KPH" on the speedometer, that stands for "Kmiles Per Hour". I'm surprised you didn't know this, Wally.
ShadowSix wrote:
In reply to Knurled:
That might be the way it was marketed by Dodge, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a system that lists it as a separate model (outside of MoPar systems of course.)
EDIT: Not that it matters,but that is probably where the confusion comes from.
No doubt. Vehicles like the Pacifica or Forester are listed as trucks by some people and cars by others. I think, by federal standards, both are trucks.
For what it's worth, I just checked Alldata and for 2004, it lists the SRT-4 on a separate model line from the Neon (which had not one but two 2.0l available, I am guessing R/T and non.).
Alldata also lists, for 2004, the Pacifica as a "car".
B430 wrote:
It was sold as the dodge srt4 not the dodge neon srt4. So technically a neon can't run 10s on a stock bottom end because that technically is not a neon. I agree with you that in reality it is a neon, but it still isn't a neon
well I told him it was an srt4, he reverted to the it's just a neon eventually. just like an sti is just an impreza.
Knurled wrote:
ShadowSix wrote:
In reply to Knurled:
That might be the way it was marketed by Dodge, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a system that lists it as a separate model (outside of MoPar systems of course.)
EDIT: Not that it matters,but that is probably where the confusion comes from.
No doubt. Vehicles like the Pacifica or Forester are listed as trucks by some people and cars by others. I think, by federal standards, both are trucks.
For what it's worth, I just checked Alldata and for 2004, it lists the SRT-4 on a separate model line from the Neon (which had not one but two 2.0l available, I am guessing R/T and non.).
Alldata also lists, for 2004, the Pacifica as a "car".
a nissan rogue is also a truck, as is a juke
Javelin
UltimaDork
5/17/12 6:20 p.m.
Not Federal standards, carmaker definitions for CAFE requirements. Gotta keep those fleet-wide MPG averages in line or face stiff fines. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKXZscAQMZ8
Javelin wrote:
Not Federal standards, carmaker definitions for CAFE requirements. Gotta keep those fleet-wide MPG averages in line or face stiff fines.
This is true, also the reason that a PT Cruiser is a "truck."
In order to sell a lot of high-profit full-size trucks the automakers have to raise their average for the "truck" category with car-based stuff.
Now, the SRT-4/Neon thing is just that the computer system at Advance/AZ/NAPA probably has the SRT-4 listed under "Neon."
Javelin wrote:
Not Federal standards, carmaker definitions for CAFE requirements. Gotta keep those fleet-wide MPG averages in line or face stiff fines.
The CAFE gets them from.... someplace.
The rule for "truck" is kinda interesting. My VW (a Quantum Syncro, coolest VW ever) qualifies as a truck due to the rear seats that can fold down to create a flat loadbed (removable seats also count if they leave a flat floor) AND the fact that the loadbed/floor is on the same level as the tailgate opening - no step-up. (VW sold it as a car. Just for the record)
The way it is written, there are some mandatory things, and a few either/or things. Jeeps, for example, don't qualify because of the loadbed issues, but they pass due to approach angles. It's convoluted, which is to be expected when you need to codify into legalese a concept that normally falls under "I know it when I see it"
Will
Dork
5/17/12 7:59 p.m.
Love the SRT4/Neon denial.
Will Neon doors fit on your SRT4?
How about Neon headlights?
Is the shell the same?
Doesn't matter - it's a different model.
This is more important than it sounds. If you are looking for parts for an SRT-4 and call it a Neon, you may keep getting the wrong things.
Yes, this happens a LOT. Not just with the Neon/SRT-4 differences. That's why it's easiest to do parts lookup by VIN, although even that is not always accurate for certain German makes where they treat model years as more of a guideline than a hard-and-fast rule Audi.
And this is before getting into update/backdate/trim level rules. The SRT-4 is not a Neon trim level.
Knurled wrote:
Doesn't matter - it's a different model.
Ohh, like Chevrolet and GMC trucks are different... I get it now.
Trans_Maro wrote:
Knurled wrote:
Doesn't matter - it's a different model.
Ohh, like Chevrolet and GMC trucks are different... I get it now.
And a Z/28 isn't Camaro, just like a Trans Am isn't a Firebird.
Correct. Asking for a Golf part will often get you the wrong part if you're working on a GTI.
So a diesel Golf isn't a Golf either because you would get different parts too. I still think these are all trim level issues, not different models.
B430
New Reader
5/18/12 12:18 a.m.
My point was if I made a bet that a neon couldn't run 10s on a stock block and you "proved" me wrong with a vid of a srt4 there is no way I would pay up, srt4 is not a neon. We all know it has a neon body, but other than the body and most of the interior is anything else the same?
If I sold you a 1968 Shelby gt500 for a gt500 price and you found out after that it was just a mustang converted to a gt500 would you be ok with that, because a gt500 is really a mustang?
B430 wrote:
If I sold you a 1968 Shelby gt500 for a gt500 price and you found out after that it was just a mustang converted to a gt500 would you be ok with that, because a gt500 is really a mustang?
IMO, that is a little apples-to-oranges. A Shelby GT500 has the artificially inflated price because it's a 'collector' car with intrinsic, unquantifiable quality. A Gt500 clone, even if functionally identical, is still just a modified mustang and worth only the cost of the car, parts, and labor minus miles done.
Wheras the SRT4 is literally a Neon with a really cool engine dumped under the hood. Take that engine/trans and put it under the hood of any other Neon and it would be the same car. Unless the Neon SRT4 is a collectors car now. And given how much iconoclasm* and engine swaps go on here, the 'engine swap' issue isn't much of a point either.
Will
Dork
5/18/12 6:00 a.m.
B430 wrote:
If I sold you a 1968 Shelby gt500 for a gt500 price and you found out after that it was just a mustang converted to a gt500 would you be ok with that, because a gt500 is really a mustang?
Of course not. But that's not what we're talking about. A GT500 is still a Mustang, no matter what engine it has, and to claim it's not a Mustang is just silly.
Will wrote:
B430 wrote:
If I sold you a 1968 Shelby gt500 for a gt500 price and you found out after that it was just a mustang converted to a gt500 would you be ok with that, because a gt500 is really a mustang?
Of course not. But that's not what we're talking about. A GT500 is still a Mustang, no matter what engine it has, and to claim it's not a Mustang is just silly.
^^^This. Its a special model Mustang just like the SRT4 is a special model Neon. The difference between a Chevy 1500 regular cab short bed truck and a Chevy 1500 extended cab long bed truck is greater than the difference of a Neon and a Neon SRT4 but it is still considered a Chevy 1500 truck. It seems only fanboys seem to get upset when someone calls it a Neon. Maybe we should drop the Dodge part too.
Yeah, it's pretty cool. It dates back to the 'high rider' drag days, the theory was that if the car was high and level at launch it would more easily transfer weight to the rear. That was with leaf springs generally, it was hard to get decent anti squat out of leafs.
Straight axle high rider:
Will wrote:
B430 wrote:
If I sold you a 1968 Shelby gt500 for a gt500 price and you found out after that it was just a mustang converted to a gt500 would you be ok with that, because a gt500 is really a mustang?
Of course not. But that's not what we're talking about. A GT500 is still a Mustang, no matter what engine it has, and to claim it's not a Mustang is just silly.
That's the basis for all the hell raising about 'clone' muscle cars, like that Boss 302 Mustang cowl that was on eBay a few years back. Theoretically, you could splice that into a regular Mustang shell and legally have a 'real' Boss 302 Mustang.
Old page dealing with the clone Boss issue: http://www.boss302.com/rogues.htm
gamby
PowerDork
5/18/12 10:56 a.m.
This vid claims to have the real sounds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1b37u5JitY&feature=related
