Various Topics on Dodge

..iv..

NG wrote:
> "driven" <blah@test.com> wrote in message
> news:10bu7p6reof4e21@corp.supernews.com...
>
>

>
> My cousin picked up an '04 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution and it's one hell of
> a screamer. I'd be interested to see an Evo and a SRT-4 go at it. The Evo
> has the Neon beat in HP and Torque, but I think the Neon is lighter.
> Handling is close too, I think. Anyone raced an Evo yet?
>

I haven't, but it would be a fun race.

As for looks, in spite of your criticism of the SRT-4 (and I agree about
the wing, although I like the wheels and the nose) ... the SRT-4 is
*far* better looking than the Evo ... (IMHO)

..iv..

Dan C wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:28:52 +0000, Bill 2 wrote:
>
>
>>The oval Taurus SHO wins the award for the ugliest / stupidest spoiler in
>>existence. The normal Taurus spoiler from that era isn't nearly as bad.
>
>
> True enough, although the truth of it is that the wings on any of these
> little toy cars is a joke. In fact the whole toy car scene is a joke.
>

Define "toy car" ... are you referring to Fords?

..n ..

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:54:35 -0400, driven wrote:

>>>The oval Taurus SHO wins the award for the ugliest / stupidest spoiler in
>>>existence. The normal Taurus spoiler from that era isn't nearly as bad.

>> True enough, although the truth of it is that the wings on any of these
>> little toy cars is a joke. In fact the whole toy car scene is a joke.

> Define "toy car" ... are you referring to Fords?

No, I'm referring to any little car commonly seen these days, which has a
"spoiler" on the back. Makes it look like a toy, and serves no valid
purpose. Usually accompanied by a large diameter (and loud)
muffler/tailpipe, and "ground effect" plastic moldings in the front/back.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

.... ..

"Dan C" <youmustbejoking@invalid.org> wrote in message
newsan.2004.06.04.18.12.44.491833@invalid.org...
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:54:35 -0400, driven wrote:
>
> >>>The oval Taurus SHO wins the award for the ugliest / stupidest spoiler
in
> >>>existence. The normal Taurus spoiler from that era isn't nearly as bad.
>
> >> True enough, although the truth of it is that the wings on any of these
> >> little toy cars is a joke. In fact the whole toy car scene is a joke.
>
> > Define "toy car" ... are you referring to Fords?
>
> No, I'm referring to any little car commonly seen these days, which has a
> "spoiler" on the back. Makes it look like a toy, and serves no valid
> purpose. Usually accompanied by a large diameter (and loud)
> muffler/tailpipe, and "ground effect" plastic moldings in the front/back.

While I don't particularly care for spoilers, not all are after market on
rice pretend performance cars.

I also wouldn't call the SRT-4 a toy car, nor would I necessarily call the
SHO one either.

..n ..

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:06:48 +0000, Bill 2 wrote:

>> No, I'm referring to any little car commonly seen these days, which has a
>> "spoiler" on the back. Makes it look like a toy, and serves no valid
>> purpose. Usually accompanied by a large diameter (and loud)
>> muffler/tailpipe, and "ground effect" plastic moldings in the front/back.

> While I don't particularly care for spoilers, not all are after market on
> rice pretend performance cars.

While that may be true, they do all have one thing in common: lack of
purpose.

> I also wouldn't call the SRT-4 a toy car, nor would I necessarily call
> the SHO one either.

Well, I would.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

..iv..

Dan C wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:06:48 +0000, Bill 2 wrote:
>
>
>>>No, I'm referring to any little car commonly seen these days, which has a
>>>"spoiler" on the back. Makes it look like a toy, and serves no valid
>>>purpose. Usually accompanied by a large diameter (and loud)
>>>muffler/tailpipe, and "ground effect" plastic moldings in the front/back.
>
>
>
>>While I don't particularly care for spoilers, not all are after market on
>>rice pretend performance cars.
>
>
> While that may be true, they do all have one thing in common: lack of
> purpose.
>
>
>>I also wouldn't call the SRT-4 a toy car, nor would I necessarily call
>>the SHO one either.
>
>
> Well, I would.
>

Any car with a top speed of 140+ has the speed whereas a spoiler *could*
actually affect performance. (I doubt that is the case on either of the
two cars in question) but it's not unreasonable.

For example: They had to have a recall on teh Audi TT in it's early days
to actually ADD a spoiler. (Recall # 99V300000) The car would become
unstable during high-speed abrupt driving without it.

And no ... I wouldn't call either car a "toy" car.

..

"driven" <blah@test.com> wrote in message
news:10c0018bs3g6ud3@corp.supernews.com...

> As for looks, in spite of your criticism of the SRT-4 (and I agree about
> the wing, although I like the wheels and the nose) ... the SRT-4 is
> *far* better looking than the Evo ... (IMHO)

Agreed. And there will most definately a crowd interested in them years down
the road as we've seen with the Shelby Dodges and the GLH cars. I know he's
worried about the resale on that car too.

NG

.... ..

"driven" <blah@test.com> wrote in message
news:10c2rnic3j3d768@corp.supernews.com...
> Dan C wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:06:48 +0000, Bill 2 wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>No, I'm referring to any little car commonly seen these days, which has
a
> >>>"spoiler" on the back. Makes it look like a toy, and serves no valid
> >>>purpose. Usually accompanied by a large diameter (and loud)
> >>>muffler/tailpipe, and "ground effect" plastic moldings in the
front/back.
> >
> >
> >
> >>While I don't particularly care for spoilers, not all are after market
on
> >>rice pretend performance cars.
> >
> >
> > While that may be true, they do all have one thing in common: lack of
> > purpose.
> >
> >
> >>I also wouldn't call the SRT-4 a toy car, nor would I necessarily call
> >>the SHO one either.
> >
> >
> > Well, I would.
> >
>
> Any car with a top speed of 140+ has the speed whereas a spoiler *could*
> actually affect performance. (I doubt that is the case on either of the
> two cars in question) but it's not unreasonable.

Nothing like pushing down the back of a front wheel drive car when at speed.

Though I doubt the spoiler has any function in the SHO.

I also wonder what the purpose of a spoiler is on so called "sport" edition
minivans.

..iv..

Bill 2 wrote:

> Nothing like pushing down the back of a front wheel drive car when at speed.
>
> Though I doubt the spoiler has any function in the SHO.
>
> I also wonder what the purpose of a spoiler is on so called "sport" edition
> minivans.
>
>


With the light rear end of a FWD car it makes a TON Of sense to push the
back end down. (Unless you want the back end to come around on you in
a sharp turn.)

The spoiler on the mini-van might be for two things:
1) Clean the back window from dirt-build up. (Depending on the angle)
2) Reduce drag somewhat. (Not that I can see how this would be overtly
effective.)

..n ..ica.. ..

Ken <keneth_leung@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<DsAvc.64191$0b7.2680@newssvr29.news.prodigy. com>...
> I don't hear a rattle either... I've got an '04 as well....
>
> Do you hear it constantly in a turn? Is this on any turn? or only on a
> full (wheel locked in one direction) turn? Where (approximately) is the
> sound coming from? The steering column? Under the hood?
>
>
>
> Ken Chicago A wrote:
> > I just purchased a 2004 SRT-4. Let me start off by saying this car
> > truely flies. I had a 99 Mustang Cobra with Flowmaster exhausts and a
> > S-Trim Vortech Supercharger. So I know fast and this little SRT-4 is
> > FAST for a STOCK car.
> > The only problem I am seeing is that on turns the cars seems to rattle
> > a bit. Does anyone else notice this? Also, what can I do to make
> > this car reall fly? Any Suggestions?

Guy,

Thanks for all the info. The rattle was the plastic guard they put on
under the front of the car. I removed it and everything seems to be
fine now.

Driven... I agree with you on the mid life crisis thing. I felt the
same way. This car's looks does take some getting used to, but you
forget about the looks once you get in and hit the gas. This car
flies.... Plus with the Mopar stage turbo upgrades it can really fly.
I have checked into upgrades on the engine such as the Mopar 3 stage
upgrades. They have a ton of stuff you can add to this car and it
when finished yu will still be $5k under the WRX STi. I love it!!!
Thanks for all you input.