Talk:Street & Racing Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Deleted[edit]

This page was deleted as inappropriate in tone. I have undeleted it as it is an important automotive topic (see also Special Vehicle Operations, and Mercedes-AMG for similars) and will rewrite it. --SFoskett 14:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Future Vehicles[edit]

Although some of the vehicles in that section have been rumored, they are mainly speculatory. Should it be allowed in the article? Bok269 00:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean up, Suggesting new sections[edit]

I've cleaned up the article using IP 212.116.219.163, i added a new wikitable of a summary of SRT cars, only cars which have the SRTx emblem. i suggest to add new section of history, concepts prior SRT (such as Plymouth and Team Viper) and a section for future SRTs such as 6.4 Hemi SRT8s vehicles.  A M M A R  00:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I also re-categorized wiki-commons SRT photos long time ago.  A M M A R  00:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edited some performance numbers[edit]

I recognized that roughly half of the performance numbers, chiefly the 0-60 times, were using estimated pre-production numbers or citing flukes caused by bad testing and manufacturer tampering. ie the Chrysler Crossfire SRT-6 test by Car and Driver was performed with traction control engaged which greatly lowered the performance capability of the car, no other test utilizing a professional driver by any reviewer has been able to repeat those numbers. The numbers for the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8 were off by a large margin as well. There has only been one test with a 0-60 time that rivals the Dodge Viper SRT-10 which is generally evidence of manufacturer tampering (here's a example of manufacturer tampering http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0512_exotic_sport_coupes_comparison/dyno.html).

I corrected many of the numbers to what the vehicles are consistently capable of running stock, post-production. I believe this would aid any confusion of anyone who decided to purchase or debate any SRT vehicle. (Anthony955 (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

Corrected Jeep Grand Cherokee 0-60 performance again as it continues to be reverted to the "fluke" number. I have left that 0-60 time as it did happen and a dyno test was not performed to prove the increased horsepower levels. I have included the typical 0-60 time performance from a new production model not meant for testing with citation from Edmunds Insideline. (Anthony955 (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

Fixed performance numbers on the first generation Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8 to reflect the production model. As previously mentioned the production version could not do 0-60 in 4.4 seconds. Also fixed the citation on the Neon SRT-4, the 0-100 time was used in the place of the quarter-mile time. Please read citations before changing information. (71.23.73.75 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC))

This is not a reputable citation. Please do not use it. http://www.carthrottle.com/future-classic-2003-2005-dodge-srt-4/ (99.144.70.71 (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC))

Removed the citation leading to an opinion blog and replaced with a reputable source. That blog is obviously not neutral based on the article's content and the source does not have a reputation at all in the automotive world. If you are attempting to cite the 2004-2005 Neon performance numbers then add those numbers in addition to the other numbers, do not replace them as if all models were capable of that, which they're not.(99.144.70.71 (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC))

Car Throttle is not a blog page, it is an online automotive magazine. "...the source does not have a reputation at all in the automotive world." If you could, please cite for all of us the location where "reputation in the automotive world" can be verified. Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Auto Week, etc, they are not unbiased, the entire point for them is to accurately do reviews and bring those reviews to the public in a way that is both entertaining, and more importantly, factual when it comes to the actual numerical statistics about the vehicles. One of the biggest problems with sourcing for Wikipedia is that it must be done online, using links to webpages that are constantly changing, and in some cases, disappearing altogether. If all the reviews for the SRT-4 in 2004/2005 were still verifiable online, Wikipedia would actually be able to list the quarter mile time as 13.7, which was the fastest documented time for a reputable review. Unfortunately, this information does not exist. Referring to Car Throttle as a "fan boy" page, or a "biased blog", and then not providing any evidence of such really erodes your position. The time is coming where all automotive magazines, and perhaps all magazines in general, will be online, if you follow current trends in publishing. An opinion in an article about a vehicle is something that all reviews do, they become biased or "fan boy" when they start to provide statistics about the car that don't match up with the vehicles actual abilities. There is nothing here to suggest that. I have personally seen a stock SRT-4 run a 13.6 quarter mile. That doesn't mean I can come in here and source that, even though there is video evidence of such. We all understand that. However, as I had already stated, when you take offense to an online article that reviews a car going 1/10th of one second faster in the quarter mile than Car And Driver reviewed the performance numbers as. Not only that, you went out of your way to use an older Car And Driver review to post up the slowest time you could find for the car, despite there being a more recent, more accurate review. Furthermore, you point out the importance of "referencing reputable sources" yet you have made several changes to other pages and provided no sourcing to back up your changes at all (Mercedes Benz transmission page, for instance). That really calls into question your credibility. There is no reason to change the performance numbers for the SRT-4 Neon. RTShadow (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Car Throttle has minimal expertise on any of the subject matter. They were established in 2008 and have no reputation among enthusiasts (or no more than 100,000 as their hits show). They only have one confirmed automotive journalist on staff and he's only a part-time contributor, they have another alleged automotive journalist from Singapore. The person who wrote the article has no expert knowledge on cars or journalism, neither does the blogs owner and most of the contributors. Car Throttle is not a reputable source.

As for the Car and Driver citations I used. As you can see on the Neon SRT-4 page, I updated it to both based on the years they're associated with, as it should be. You're correct on the Mercedes thing, I have the manual in front of me and really should upload it for citation purposes. Honestly for automotive citations I prefer Insideline over any as they tend to be the most extensive and reputable, but we work with what we have and cite with what's most reliable.

I'm opening this up to the dispute page to see about getting carthrottle.com flagged or blocked until they can build a proper reputation. (99.144.70.71 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC))

I forgot to add this. It doesn't matter if Car Throttle is correct or close, for all we know they didn't test anything and guesstimated based on other times they've seen. That's the point of reputation. I fixed the numbers again and used a reputable source. Sure, it's .1s slower than the time you keep putting, but it comes from a source than every automotive enthusiast knows and many trust. It was also performed by experts in their field, not a bunch of hobbyist with a website and some spare time between class. (99.144.70.71 (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC))

While it's irrelevant to this talk page. I checked the information I changed on the Mercedes 5G-Tronic transmission page and it's correct. Thanks for reminding me about citing it. I even updated the page to reflect the two versions of the 722.6. (99.144.70.71 (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC))