had someone talk crap on my 512 today

[mally69]

The best way to get the turbo guys is a rolling start.  Check any of those new cars at Car and Driver, Road and Track, Edmunds, you name it.  I'll use an article on a Subaru Impreza WRX STI from 2005 as an example, mainly because my buddy and I found one in our parking lot at work with drag radials on it and racing stickers, and I'm itching to catch this guy going to lunch, which he usually does with a few guys in his car.  If that little dream comes true, I'll pull alongside him in my 06 Charger RT (cut me slack, I'm working on my 69 in my garage), and unless he dumps the clutch at 5,500-6,000 RPM (which is what these articles recommend for them), he's mine, no questions asked.  Here's how I reason it:

This article (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/1801/specialty-file-m2-wrx-page2.html) showcases a $13,000 set of mods they can do to their riceroni's.  Let's look at the numbers, shall we?  0-60 in 4.4 seconds.  Wow!  Wait a second, 5-60 in 5.9 seconds.  Hey, that's 06 Charger territory.  Unless he dumps his clutch at high RPM and really beats the shit out of his car, he's 1.5 seconds slower, and THAT'S ASSUMING HE PUT $13,000 INTO IT.  Toss in the weight of a few buddies, which will seriously affect him but not me, and he's done for.

Personally, I hate turbos and power-adders, and am the biggest fan of "there's no replacement for displacement."  The best machine is a simple machine, not 27 overhead cams with 45 valves each, twin turbos and a supercharger, 3 jugs of nitrous, and a belly ring that a buddhist monk told them they could rub for more power.  The only way the turbo helps in his case is if he can spool it up.  If he's rolling at 5 mph, he has no turbo power yet and has to rely on torque, which is what gets a car going, not horsepower, and torque is EXACTLY what he does NOT have.  This article says 305 ft/lbs at 6,000 RPM, which sounds decent for his weight.  But if you've ever seen a torque curve for this car, and I've never seen one this extreme, I swear this year and model are making less than 100 ft/lbs at 5,000 RPM, which is where the torque FINALLY begins to climb, and very steeply.

While it's true you can always find modded junk along these lines that can beat you, the root of it is junk.  If his turbo fails, he's probably making 100 torque max.  That can't be THAT far from my weed-eater.  Don't let that jackass rattle you, and we all respect your car and the work that went into it.

well said my friend, well said..   hey i wish they would have put those dual overhead cam 426's in production ill bet thosee things had some power.

[suntech]

Holy Crap!!!
Would be cool to have those heads on a new WP Hemi!!
I am going with the stage V heads, but gotta idmit that i´m drewling all over that picture!!!
Amd for the guys that agree on the term "no replacement for displacement", 588 should hack it, don´t you think??

[SRT-440]

The best way to get the turbo guys is a rolling start.  Check any of those new cars at Car and Driver, Road and Track, Edmunds, you name it.  I'll use an article on a Subaru Impreza WRX STI from 2005 as an example, mainly because my buddy and I found one in our parking lot at work with drag radials on it and racing stickers, and I'm itching to catch this guy going to lunch, which he usually does with a few guys in his car.  If that little dream comes true, I'll pull alongside him in my 06 Charger RT (cut me slack, I'm working on my 69 in my garage), and unless he dumps the clutch at 5,500-6,000 RPM (which is what these articles recommend for them), he's mine, no questions asked.  Here's how I reason it:

This article (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/1801/specialty-file-m2-wrx-page2.html) showcases a $13,000 set of mods they can do to their riceroni's.  Let's look at the numbers, shall we?  0-60 in 4.4 seconds.  Wow!  Wait a second, 5-60 in 5.9 seconds.  Hey, that's 06 Charger territory.  Unless he dumps his clutch at high RPM and really beats the shit out of his car, he's 1.5 seconds slower, and THAT'S ASSUMING HE PUT $13,000 INTO IT.  Toss in the weight of a few buddies, which will seriously affect him but not me, and he's done for.

Personally, I hate turbos and power-adders, and am the biggest fan of "there's no replacement for displacement."  The best machine is a simple machine, not 27 overhead cams with 45 valves each, twin turbos and a supercharger, 3 jugs of nitrous, and a belly ring that a buddhist monk told them they could rub for more power.  The only way the turbo helps in his case is if he can spool it up.  If he's rolling at 5 mph, he has no turbo power yet and has to rely on torque, which is what gets a car going, not horsepower, and torque is EXACTLY what he does NOT have.  This article says 305 ft/lbs at 6,000 RPM, which sounds decent for his weight.  But if you've ever seen a torque curve for this car, and I've never seen one this extreme, I swear this year and model are making less than 100 ft/lbs at 5,000 RPM, which is where the torque FINALLY begins to climb, and very steeply.

While it's true you can always find modded junk along these lines that can beat you, the root of it is junk.  If his turbo fails, he's probably making 100 torque max.  That can't be THAT far from my weed-eater.  Don't let that jackass rattle you, and we all respect your car and the work that went into it.

My SRT kills from a roll..much faster than from a stop (wheel spin)..a 20-30mph 2nd gear pull is pretty intense in these little cars thanks to a rather small turbo and only weighing 2800lbs or so. Stock they dyno at the wheels 220-240hp with torque being real close to 300ft lbs and power coming on at about 2500 RPM.
They have little or no turbo lag. Although people don't respect 4cyl turbo cars their "roots" and bottom ends are far from junk. On srtforums.com there a several stock bottom ends running 600+ hp..pretty tough for something so small.

Don't get me wrong..I don't assume my daily driver "neon" is anything compared to a classic, that's what I have my big block dart for..but Dodge did it's homework with these cars and mine has 60,000 miles and has been raced and ZERO problems and on stock clutch.

Btw, did I mention even tho it is just a neon, it gets 30 mpg and runs mid 13's with just a few mods? 

Here is an interesting video.. ...  



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPocAOaXT8

[moparstuart]

you never see musclecar guys trying to rig up a 426 Hemi with overhead cams. 

   

Ford did!

Sorry for using the F word.

Mopar also made a DOHC Hemi back in the day.


BBD

"Dual overhead cam Hemi

A 426 dual-overhead cam Hemi was actually produced - two of them, in fact, and both were made in 1964. The DOHC Hemis were made to counter Ford's response to the 1964 426 Hemi, the 427 SOHC, but when NASCAR ruled against Ford's engine, there was no need for the overhead-cam Hemi."

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/hemi/hemi.html

guy here in our local kc HPAC club has one of those dohc hemi's

[Brock Samson]

i bet he's runnin a 323 rear gear  like i am, & if your car is "off" a 15 ain't hard to do, and if your car is hookin up a 13 is about right...
boy this thread sure is getting some traction.. 

[Charger74]

I had a long talk with a guy who owns a hemi Road Runner.  He says he definetely has a hard time with ricers from a dead launch ( too much wheel spin) however, he kills them on a roll.  Not saying we have any super fast ricers here in Des Moines, but I do know that not all Imports are 4 bangers.  There are some inline 6's that will kill some cars without any mods.   Supras are great, but the Nissan Skyline GTR R34 was pretty darn quick stock.  The stock bottom end could handle over 1000 hp without any mods.  All this from 2.5 liters with twin turbos, plus it was just mean looking.  More intimidating that civics, etc.

[RD]

guy here in our local kc HPAC club has one of those dohc hemi's

stuart, does he plan on doing anything with it, or is it just a conversation piece?

[moparstuart]

guy here in our local kc HPAC club has one of those dohc hemi's

stuart, does he plan on doing anything with it, or is it just a conversation piece?

he is a procrastinator and a parts horder so who know   i would imagine its a museum piece

   he has several hemi cars and you rarely see them at all

[Todd Wilson]

My SRT kills from a roll..much faster than from a stop (wheel spin)..a 20-30mph 2nd gear pull is pretty intense in these little cars thanks to a rather small turbo and only weighing 2800lbs or so. Stock they dyno at the wheels 220-240hp with torque being real close to 300ft lbs and power coming on at about 2500 RPM.
They have little or no turbo lag. Although people don't respect 4cyl turbo cars their "roots" and bottom ends are far from junk. On srtforums.com there a several stock bottom ends running 600+ hp..pretty tough for something so small.

Don't get me wrong..I don't assume my daily driver "neon" is anything compared to a classic, that's what I have my big block dart for..but Dodge did it's homework with these cars and mine has 60,000 miles and has been raced and ZERO problems and on stock clutch.

Btw, did I mention even tho it is just a neon, it gets 30 mpg and runs mid 13's with just a few mods? 

Here is an interesting video.. ...  



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPocAOaXT8

How many miles can you plan on getting out of an SRT Neon?  Do they fall short on longevity with the turbo compared to a regular Neon?

You do know Neons have problems with head gaskets and clutches! Just ask Silver! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!   


Todd

[SRT-440]

My SRT kills from a roll..much faster than from a stop (wheel spin)..a 20-30mph 2nd gear pull is pretty intense in these little cars thanks to a rather small turbo and only weighing 2800lbs or so. Stock they dyno at the wheels 220-240hp with torque being real close to 300ft lbs and power coming on at about 2500 RPM.
They have little or no turbo lag. Although people don't respect 4cyl turbo cars their "roots" and bottom ends are far from junk. On srtforums.com there a several stock bottom ends running 600+ hp..pretty tough for something so small.

Don't get me wrong..I don't assume my daily driver "neon" is anything compared to a classic, that's what I have my big block dart for..but Dodge did it's homework with these cars and mine has 60,000 miles and has been raced and ZERO problems and on stock clutch.

Btw, did I mention even tho it is just a neon, it gets 30 mpg and runs mid 13's with just a few mods? 

Here is an interesting video.. ...  



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPocAOaXT8

How many miles can you plan on getting out of an SRT Neon?  Do they fall short on longevity with the turbo compared to a regular Neon?

You do know Neons have problems with head gaskets and clutches! Just ask Silver! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!   


Todd

I know some that have over 120,000 miles and still running strong..the SRT motor isn't a neon motor that they slapped a turbo on..so all the neon problems don't apply here. And our clutches are good for up to 350hp or so and it depends on how you drive also. But, mine is got 60,000 on it with no problems. Still, it's a fun little car to drive to work everyday and for the $20,000 I paid for it brand new I couldn't be happier.
It will hold me over till the SRT8 Challenger comes out. 

[zerfetzen]

My SRT kills from a roll..much faster than from a stop (wheel spin)..a 20-30mph 2nd gear pull is pretty intense in these little cars thanks to a rather small turbo and only weighing 2800lbs or so. Stock they dyno at the wheels 220-240hp with torque being real close to 300ft lbs and power coming on at about 2500 RPM.
They have little or no turbo lag. Although people don't respect 4cyl turbo cars their "roots" and bottom ends are far from junk. On srtforums.com there a several stock bottom ends running 600+ hp..pretty tough for something so small.

Don't get me wrong..I don't assume my daily driver "neon" is anything compared to a classic, that's what I have my big block dart for..but Dodge did it's homework with these cars and mine has 60,000 miles and has been raced and ZERO problems and on stock clutch.

Btw, did I mention even tho it is just a neon, it gets 30 mpg and runs mid 13's with just a few mods? 

Here is an interesting video.. ...  



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPocAOaXT8

Following through on my previous method, I looked up the 2002 Dodge Neon SRT-4 at Car and Driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/1868/dodge-neon-srt-4-page3.html), and although they don't have all the stats of a full test on it, and most importantly the 5-60 MPH measure, the last paragraph of page 3 criticizes it because "there are buckets of turbo lag."

If you get the launch down pat, and don't mind dumping a high clutch to avoid turbo lag, you'll probably out-accelerate your already quick rolling start, at least if it behaves like other small cars with turbo motors.  But excessive wheelspin at a 0 MPH launch has gotta be a concern in a frontwheel drive car that will lift up the front, so I'm sure that's part of the problem.  But if you race this car the way C&D recommends racing the turbo Subaru, or most of these that I looked at -- meaning dumping the clutch at high RPM, I doubt that clutch lasts that long.

Dodge has done some good things with its SRT-4's, but to me 2 things are junky: weedeater sized engines that require power-adders to get decent numbers, mainly because they're deceptive to people who only focus on something like 0-60, and modern disposable cars in general.  But, that's just my 2 cents.

[volk68]

My SRT kills from a roll..much faster than from a stop (wheel spin)..a 20-30mph 2nd gear pull is pretty intense in these little cars thanks to a rather small turbo and only weighing 2800lbs or so. Stock they dyno at the wheels 220-240hp with torque being real close to 300ft lbs and power coming on at about 2500 RPM.
They have little or no turbo lag. Although people don't respect 4cyl turbo cars their "roots" and bottom ends are far from junk. On srtforums.com there a several stock bottom ends running 600+ hp..pretty tough for something so small.

Don't get me wrong..I don't assume my daily driver "neon" is anything compared to a classic, that's what I have my big block dart for..but Dodge did it's homework with these cars and mine has 60,000 miles and has been raced and ZERO problems and on stock clutch.

Btw, did I mention even tho it is just a neon, it gets 30 mpg and runs mid 13's with just a few mods? 

Here is an interesting video.. ...  



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPocAOaXT8

Following through on my previous method, I looked up the 2002 Dodge Neon SRT-4 at Car and Driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/1868/dodge-neon-srt-4-page3.html), and although they don't have all the stats of a full test on it, and most importantly the 5-60 MPH measure, the last paragraph of page 3 criticizes it because "there are buckets of turbo lag."

If you get the launch down pat, and don't mind dumping a high clutch to avoid turbo lag, you'll probably out-accelerate your already quick rolling start, at least if it behaves like other small cars with turbo motors.  But excessive wheelspin at a 0 MPH launch has gotta be a concern in a frontwheel drive car that will lift up the front, so I'm sure that's part of the problem.  But if you race this car the way C&D recommends racing the turbo Subaru, or most of these that I looked at -- meaning dumping the clutch at high RPM, I doubt that clutch lasts that long.

Dodge has done some good things with its SRT-4's, but to me 2 things are junky: weedeater sized engines that require power-adders to get decent numbers, mainly because they're deceptive to people who only focus on something like 0-60, and modern disposable cars in general.  But, that's just my 2 cents.

I agree that modern cars have an air of the mundane about them, but you can't just deligitimize them.  I actually considered buying an SRT-4 as a daily driver...something quick, affordable, and American made that I didn't mind flogging into the ground just to spice up the work commute.  I might still pick one up when I retire my Shadow, which is still going strong at over 230,000 miles.

As far as disliking "power-adders" to engines, how do you feel about forced induction methods on vintage muscle?  Move to where I live at 8,000' and you will have a different attitude about adding forced induction to your ride.  All the cubes in the world won't mean much of anything if you can't feed them enough oxygen.  I would argue that anything that can add significant performance in a reliable way is a good thing.  I may not care much about new cars, but have no problems applying the same technologies with older muscle   

[mikesbbody]

dont forget the old saying "when the flag drops the bullshit stops" I think this kid needs that to be said to his face then see if he will put up, or shut up.

[69Chrgr]

The best way to get the turbo guys is a rolling start.  Check any of those new cars at Car and Driver, Road and Track, Edmunds, you name it.  I'll use an article on a Subaru Impreza WRX STI from 2005 as an example, mainly because my buddy and I found one in our parking lot at work with drag radials on it and racing stickers, and I'm itching to catch this guy going to lunch, which he usually does with a few guys in his car.  If that little dream comes true, I'll pull alongside him in my 06 Charger RT (cut me slack, I'm working on my 69 in my garage), and unless he dumps the clutch at 5,500-6,000 RPM (which is what these articles recommend for them), he's mine, no questions asked.  Here's how I reason it:

This article (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/1801/specialty-file-m2-wrx-page2.html) showcases a $13,000 set of mods they can do to their riceroni's.  Let's look at the numbers, shall we?  0-60 in 4.4 seconds.  Wow!  Wait a second, 5-60 in 5.9 seconds.  Hey, that's 06 Charger territory.  Unless he dumps his clutch at high RPM and really beats the shit out of his car, he's 1.5 seconds slower, and THAT'S ASSUMING HE PUT $13,000 INTO IT.  Toss in the weight of a few buddies, which will seriously affect him but not me, and he's done for.

Personally, I hate turbos and power-adders, and am the biggest fan of "there's no replacement for displacement."  The best machine is a simple machine, not 27 overhead cams with 45 valves each, twin turbos and a supercharger, 3 jugs of nitrous, and a belly ring that a buddhist monk told them they could rub for more power.  The only way the turbo helps in his case is if he can spool it up.  If he's rolling at 5 mph, he has no turbo power yet and has to rely on torque, which is what gets a car going, not horsepower, and torque is EXACTLY what he does NOT have.  This article says 305 ft/lbs at 6,000 RPM, which sounds decent for his weight.  But if you've ever seen a torque curve for this car, and I've never seen one this extreme, I swear this year and model are making less than 100 ft/lbs at 5,000 RPM, which is where the torque FINALLY begins to climb, and very steeply.

While it's true you can always find modded junk along these lines that can beat you, the root of it is junk.  If his turbo fails, he's probably making 100 torque max.  That can't be THAT far from my weed-eater.  Don't let that jackass rattle you, and we all respect your car and the work that went into it.

My SRT kills from a roll..much faster than from a stop (wheel spin)..a 20-30mph 2nd gear pull is pretty intense in these little cars thanks to a rather small turbo and only weighing 2800lbs or so. Stock they dyno at the wheels 220-240hp with torque being real close to 300ft lbs and power coming on at about 2500 RPM.
They have little or no turbo lag. Although people don't respect 4cyl turbo cars their "roots" and bottom ends are far from junk. On srtforums.com there a several stock bottom ends running 600+ hp..pretty tough for something so small.

Don't get me wrong..I don't assume my daily driver "neon" is anything compared to a classic, that's what I have my big block dart for..but Dodge did it's homework with these cars and mine has 60,000 miles and has been raced and ZERO problems and on stock clutch.

Btw, did I mention even tho it is just a neon, it gets 30 mpg and runs mid 13's with just a few mods? 

Here is an interesting video.. ...  



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPocAOaXT8

Wow! I also have an SRT 4 as our daily driver. I also have 60,000 plus and no problems. Can't beat that 30 miles to the gallon. I'm also not to worried about rice burners as my 408 SB 68 Cuda has handed plenty of rice here in Texas their @ss. Handed it to a Subaru WRX and he followed my into the church parking lot and said "Wow, now that's a musclecar". He then stated he just needed a bigger turbo. I replied and said that I couldn't wait to turn the little blue bottle on in the trunk to see what happens. He was stunned!

[zerfetzen]

I agree that modern cars have an air of the mundane about them, but you can't just deligitimize them.  I actually considered buying an SRT-4 as a daily driver...something quick, affordable, and American made that I didn't mind flogging into the ground just to spice up the work commute.  I might still pick one up when I retire my Shadow, which is still going strong at over 230,000 miles.

As far as disliking "power-adders" to engines, how do you feel about forced induction methods on vintage muscle?  Move to where I live at 8,000' and you will have a different attitude about adding forced induction to your ride.  All the cubes in the world won't mean much of anything if you can't feed them enough oxygen.  I would argue that anything that can add significant performance in a reliable way is a good thing.  I may not care much about new cars, but have no problems applying the same technologies with older muscle   

Weren't WWII fighter airplanes carbureted and producing 1,500 - 2,000 HP at altitudes above your 8000 feet?  The comparison's kind of goofy because it's an airplane vs. a car engine, but naturally aspiration is the common theme.  I wonder if that's a valid comparison.

Obviously I don't mind if others want to turbo their muscle car, but that's not for me.  It's wrong for the era, and smacks of the following couple decades with limited cubes, no power, and the attempt to get it back.  It's a poor way to make power because you don't have it on tap throughout the RPM range, but only when it's spooled up.  If others like it, great for them, but I know I don't have to.

Opinions are guaranteed to vary across the forum members.  I'm sure an SRT-4 is a great car, as far as modern ones go.  And it's arguably American and Mopar, being built by Dodge.  It's also arguably just a forced imitation of rice, highly influenced by the trend started by Honda Civics, first seen en masse in the '80's, etc.

[bull]

zerfetzen brought up a good point in a previous post. Tell the guy you'll race him but that you each have to have four 200-lb. passengers in the cars when you do it.

[SRT-440]

I agree that modern cars have an air of the mundane about them, but you can't just deligitimize them.  I actually considered buying an SRT-4 as a daily driver...something quick, affordable, and American made that I didn't mind flogging into the ground just to spice up the work commute.  I might still pick one up when I retire my Shadow, which is still going strong at over 230,000 miles.

As far as disliking "power-adders" to engines, how do you feel about forced induction methods on vintage muscle?  Move to where I live at 8,000' and you will have a different attitude about adding forced induction to your ride.  All the cubes in the world won't mean much of anything if you can't feed them enough oxygen.  I would argue that anything that can add significant performance in a reliable way is a good thing.  I may not care much about new cars, but have no problems applying the same technologies with older muscle   

Weren't WWII fighter airplanes carbureted and producing 1,500 - 2,000 HP at altitudes above your 8000 feet?  The comparison's kind of goofy because it's an airplane vs. a car engine, but naturally aspiration is the common theme.  I wonder if that's a valid comparison.

Obviously I don't mind if others want to turbo their muscle car, but that's not for me.  It's wrong for the era, and smacks of the following couple decades with limited cubes, no power, and the attempt to get it back.  It's a poor way to make power because you don't have it on tap throughout the RPM range, but only when it's spooled up.  If others like it, great for them, but I know I don't have to.

Opinions are guaranteed to vary across the forum members.  I'm sure an SRT-4 is a great car, as far as modern ones go.  And it's arguably American and Mopar, being built by Dodge.  It's also arguably just a forced imitation of rice, highly influenced by the trend started by Honda Civics, first seen en masse in the '80's, etc.

Opinions are great..otherwise we would be bored on here.  I'm a fan of both old school and new school..but to each his own.

Not that I know much about the subject but I know the old WWII fighter jet "Thunderbolt" which was from what I've read a great high altitude fighter had a turbocharger. But, who cares..I love it that we all see things differently thats what makes cars, racing and forums so fun and interesting! Cheers guys..I hope you all have a great weekend!

[firefighter3931]

dont forget the old saying "when the flag drops the bullshit stops" I think this kid needs that to be said to his face then see if he will put up, or shut up.

Well said Mike  If Mally gets that 512 to hook it'll be all over....most races are won or lost in the first 60 ft. I'll take a big inch torque monster over a high winding sewing machine anyday. 



Ron

[Brock Samson]

four pages and 13,000 Hit's!?..         
where's the pics of Chicks!?..   

[zerfetzen]

After looking into aircraft engines a little, it turns out I was full of it about non-turbo WWII aircraft.  There were some, but those were supercharged.  Most were turbosupercharged, and the '30's saw the first production turbo planes.

So to correct myself and give what I think would be the most valid comparison at altitudes, let's look at an Ass  (after all, Brock wants to see some chicks, right)...(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatros_L_75):

Albatross L 75 Ass
Ceiling: 18,000 feet
Powerplant: 1 BMW V, a water-cooled V-12
Bore: 5.9
Stroke: 7.1
Displacement: 2,330 CID
Horsepower: 360-420

Another page on Wikipedia about aircraft engines said that naturally aspirated aircraft motors without turbos do not suffer a loss in power due to altitude at or below 7-8,000 feet.  From our street cars, however, we all know to re-jet the carburetor accordingly.  I just thought this made an interesting case.

Since who likes or dislikes what should probably be irrelevant to a good debate, so I'll try to leave that out, and just stick to reporting facts I find.  And I'm definitely not trying to attack anyone's cars, just pointing out some facts, of which there are always counter-facts.

I did finally find some reviews of the Dodge Neon SRT-4, that post both 0-60 and 5-60:

Dodge Neon SRT-4, reviewed in Car and Driver, May 2003
BHP: 215@5,400
Torque: 245@3,200
0-60: 5.6
5-60: 5.9


Dodge Neon SRT-4 ACR, reviewed in Car and Driver, Sept. 2005
BHP: 230@5,300
Torque: 250@2,200
0-60: 5.6
5-60: 6.2

Both versions of the Dodge Neon SRT-4 launched worse from a rolling start than a standstill.  What is odd, is that the ACR package did increase HP and torque, but lowered the peak RPM, and caused a worse 5-60 time (6.2 vs. 5.9).  Most cars have worse 5-60's than 0-60's, for example the '06 Charger lost 0.2 seconds.  But Subaru's, Mitsu Evo's, and most other similar cars lose much more, like 1.5 seconds.  On the bright side, an SRT-4 owner should be able to improve the standstill launch over the rolling launch. 

[PocketThunder]

four pages and 13,000 Hit's!?..         
where's the pics of Chicks!?..   

[SRT-440]

Finally a neon we can all agree on is HOTT! 

[rick.d]

Its still just an Eagle Talon, i used to have one.....then i got a job.

[SRT-440]

Actually my sister had an Eagle talon TSI (all wheel drive) back in '91 and it was new...at the time it was a nice little quick car. Was impressive from a stand still..but needed an intercooler BAD. Now, I'm sure it's hard to find one that is unmodded or blown up or bout to blow up. 
I think it was like $21,000ish at the time..nobody really could ride in the back seat unless they didn't mind being stuffed in and then getting car sick. 

[Charger_Fan]

Musclecars could join the ricers at their own game with something like THIS under the hood, as they roam the streets looking for fresh rice.