Talk:Dodge Neon SRT-4

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal 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.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Performance

In the first paragraph in the performance section it sites that the SRT-4 is under-rated from the factory and claims that the official power outputs where deliberately falsified by Dodge. However no where does it site any proof for this and the reference for the claim of wheel HP is just as vague.

IMO this section is mere hearsay rather than fact and shouldn't be included. I do not dispute the power output of the car, just this example and reference.

The reference article [2] does not explain what type of dyno used (Eddy current or inertia) nor any of the correction factors or test conditions. In addition there is no explanation on how flywheel power is determined from wheel derived HP.

Either more explanation is required to explain the details of the claim or a reference to cite an example where the engine has been placed on an engine dyno and tested to FULL SAE Net standards and has produced notably higher results. 300bhpton (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you need to realize something. The performance numbers put out by this car caused many of the magazine reviewers to immediately suspect that Dodge had underrated the hp from the factory. Upon further research, this was found to be the case - "Brooke McClelland wrote: According to their chassis dyno, this Neon puts out 223 HP and 250 lb-ft of torque at the wheels! ... In comparison, their test of a 2002 Nissan Sentra SE-R, which is rated at 175 HP, put out just 141 HP at the wheels. Apex Technology has dynoed the SRT-4 and found 248 hp - at the wheels!"

Source - http://www.allpar.com/neon/neon-srt-4.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.76.17 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some more for you - "Our baseline on the Dodge proved our theory correct as our stock tester generated 218.8 hp and 222.8 lb-ft of torque to the front wheels. Our guess is the engine makes about 240 to 255 hp at the flywheel. "

Source - http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0407tur_dodge_srt4_bolt_ons/index.html

"As anyone with a right foot already knows, the "215 hp" SRT-4 was already underrated, making 223 hp at the wheels on our Dynojet. "

Source - http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/projectcars/0310scc_dodge_neon_srt_4/index.html

"Are the power numbers accurate now ? We don’t think so, taking into account the 10 – 15% drive train loss between the engine and the wheels the correct hp figures should be closer to 250-255 hp and 260-270 torque at the engine. In our opinion Dodge rates these figures low so that SRT-4 owners don’t have to pay super high insurance rates."

Source - http://www.modernperformance.com/dcx/srt4_faq.htm

"The 2003 original's horsepower and torque figures were grossly underrated. While rated at 215 hp, the actual figure is closer to 250 hp. "

Source - http://www.modernracer.com/history/dodgeneonsrt4history.html

Looking at all these sources as 'fan boi'? How about Motor Trend then?

"Who is Dodge kidding? One drive in a Neon-based SRT-4, and you'll know the advertised 230 horsepower is an underrated sham."

Source - http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/tuners/112_0512_2005_mopar_dodge_srt4/index.html

Honestly, let's put this nonsense to rest. The Neon SRT-4 pushes 230 whp, with the actual flywheel hp somewhere in the area of 250. Anyone who argues otherwise is merely sour grapes and a sore loser of sorts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.76.17 (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These 'sources' are not verifiable at all. They are simply spreading the same rumor around in circles. Review units could easily be overboosted by 1-2 psi, and differences between individual cars and their rated power by the manufacturer should not be the basis of information for the entire model in Wikipedia. These same crazy, fanboy rumors used to circulate about the STi when it first came out.

Motortrend simply stated that the SRT4 'seemed' faster than 230hp, without any evidence. Modernperformance is not a valid source, and doesn't provide any evidence. you also site them twice. Allpar is clearly a Dodge-biased site. Turbomagazine is clearly not an authoritative source. sportcompactcarweb is not a valid source, and used a DynoJet, which is an inertia-based dyno and a fairly inaccurate one at that.

Kelly Blue Book has been around almost as long as the automotive industry has. It is a trusted source. So is edmunds, and automotive.com. They quote the factory numbers - so should we. Differences between individual cars - if they even exist - are the exception, not the rule, and should not be taken into account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.121.125 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The factory numbers are not always correct. Let me give you a few examples. On the dyno, the Mazda RX-8 did not meet the factory numbers, in fact it was not even close. Most Honda's are well below what the 'factory' lists as the flywheel horsepower. If you find where Kelly Blue Book actually dyno'd the car, or where Edmunds or Automotive.com actually dyno'd the car, then you can use their numbers. The plain fact of the matter is this: With 230 flywheel horsepower combined with the weight of the SRT-4, the ratios do NOT work for being able to run a 5.3 second 0-60 time, nor would the car ever get to a 13.8 quarter mile time, that is why in 2003 a lot of the magazines mentioned above ran dynos on the SRT-4 to find out the true wheel horsepower. It is also hilarious that you mention the DynoJet as being 'innacurate' as it is used by nearly every reputable shop in the United States and is verifiable.

This argument has been rehashed several times and settled on the wheel horsepower of the SRT-4 as stated, BEFORE you came along some 3 years later and started this nonsense all over again. The Bonneville Salt Flats record is also NOT in question, they are verified, another change you made that needs to be reverted. What is becoming quite obvious is that this isn't a question of 'fanboi' behavior, this is more of a question of 'hater' behavior, to coin a term from your teen generation, and you need to stop your nonsense before your IP gets banned. It is common to post up corrections to manufacturer information when it is verified as incorrect at a later date. This is a specific case of that. RTShadow (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make personal attacks. From going through the logs of this article, I've noticed that you are one of the people who tried to claim that the Neon SRT4 was not based on a Neon. You also claim that you own the car. You are biased : I am not. We had to correct fanboys that did this to the STi article, we had to correct fanboys that did this to the Camaro Z28 article, and now we have to correct this article. Dodge did not issue a correction to their specification. The car is officially 230 to the flywheel as far as dealers, manufacturers, and authorities on cars are concerned. Just because you have done some original research, doesn't mean you can change reality. I'm sorry, but threatening me in all caps won't stop my quest to make Wikipedia more truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.121.125 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed the SRT-4 is not a Neon, only that the information had already been indicated. Daimler Chrysler, on the other hand, did not call the car a Neon, they called it simply the SRT-4. The car is based on the Neon but is not called that by the manufacturer, so it is quite humorous to me that you, who loves to say 'manufacturer is all that counts' would argue the counterpoint then. That is rather hypocritical. There is no "We had to correct fanboys" here, you are incorrect on your position about the horsepower on this car and you refuse to admit it. We have provided a whole list of evidence that shows that the flywheel horsepower is signficantly higher, using documented evidence. You are absolutely wrong about what can and cannot be used as supporting evidence, your bashing of specific dyno evidence proves that you have a biased when indicated to this car. Specific reviews of this car by reputable sources who have put the car on a dyno show back up the 230 wph claim, as do the power to weight ratios when compared to the performance numbers. You have done absolutely nothing to dispute that, you just go back to the original manufacturer's claims, which I've already shown were incorrect, AND provided the backing for it from the above articles in discussion. Therefore we've made the change to the page to include your argument. The wheel horsepower of the car is not indicative of 'original research' by myself, and it is absolutely ridiculous that you continue to make these changes, THAT is why you are going to end up getting banned, that isn't a threat by me, that is what happens at Wikipedia, if you continue to change this article you are going to get banned. You aren't making Wikipedia 'more truthful', what you are doing is letting a personal opinion about this car affect your actions which is poor judgement on your part and we will deal with it if we have to. RTShadow (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have never claimed the SRT-4 is not a Neon, only that the information had already been indicated:

  "in being correct about what the car is, it is not a Neon, that is merely the starting point for the what later became the SRT4" - RTShadow. [diff]

I didn't claim that it should be called a Neon. You changed my argument, and then argued some random point that has nothing to do with this discussion.

2. We have provided a whole list of evidence that shows that the flywheel horsepower is signficantly higher, using documented evidence.

Your evidence is unconvincing, and doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines as it is a fringe source. Please visit WP:RS for more information. Official numbers are always better than numbers derived from self-serving sources, especially when other, industry-standard sources have corroborated this claim.

3. It is also hilarious that you mention the DynoJet as being 'innacurate' as it is used by nearly every reputable shop in the United States and is verifiable.

No, no it isn't. This isn't relevant, but I'll address it anyway because you are so wrong. DynoJets are inertia-based, and read notoriously high. Other dynos actually have 'DynoJet modes' where they simulate DynoJet numbers by artificially inflating them by 15%. DynoJets also allow for all sorts of corrective factors to be manually inputted to further distort the results.

Every other article on cars in Wikipedia state the manufacturer-claimed flywheel horsepower. I have yet to see any convincing evidence at all that we should treat the SRT4 otherwise. As previously stated, these urban myths of underrated horsepower existed in the early days of STis and 4th gen Camaros as well, but we don't address them in those articles, because they are unsubstantiated urban myths.

I like SRT4s. I really do. They are one hell of a car. But we need to be realistic here. We need to document them as they actually are, and not how we wish they would be. Whalelover Frost (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RS actually allows the use of multiple independent sources that are in consensus as to their findings, which actually supports what we have been saying all along. In Usage By Other Sources for instance: "The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." Also, your labeling of the magazine sources as "fringe" is incorrect as stated by Wikipedia itself. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations." I would agree if this were one published source going against the manufacturer's horsepower claim, however when there are many sources that independently find the same information to be true, that is 'widespread and consistent', and the evidence is, as stated by the Usage By Other Sources, strong. Your argument takes the same source, the manufacturer's claim, which has been proven wrong by these many other sources. Also, you don't have 'several' sources, Kelly Bluebook and the other sources you used simply quote the manufacturer, the sources we showed disproved that, and because they are independent of one another, are actually more reliable than what you came up with. So, to turn this around, it could be reasonably stated that your claim is actually more of a "fringe" than what we have come up with, based on the sources involved. At this point I am not going to change the article from where it is right now, at least not until I have more support to do so from other editors on Wikipedia, but I am more than within my right to do so based on the Reliable Source guidelines. RTShadow (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "fringe sources" that are listed above. The fact remains that in nearly every case where the SRT-4 has been dynoed as part of a magazine review the dyno shows that the wheel horsepower is actually matching what Dodge claimed to be the flywheel horsepower. We do not care about the STi or 4th Gen camaros, that does not matter here.

You do realize that the manufacturers use dynojets to come up with their horsepower numbers? What is your next argument? That the SRT-4 is overrated at 230 flywheel horsepower? Whether or not you like the vehicle is irrelavent, when documented sources that are not affiliated with one another come up with the same conclusion, that conclusion is acceptable. That was even addressed and you went and completely deleted it. Therefore we have added a disputed tag to the article until such time as this issue is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.14.15 (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that we need to use manufacturer numbers for specifications sections. It would be fine to put a sourced sentence somewhere in the article discussing the fact that magazines have produced dyno results higher than the manufacturer claims, but it would be a real mess if hp numbers on Wikipedia came from independent dyno testing rather than manufacturer claims which are the standard in most publications. One more thing, the edit warring over this must stop, otherwise the page will have to be protected which will stop improvements. --Leivick (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input, Daniel, while I don't agree 100%, due to the vast number of independent sources that show the manufacturer numbers are incorrect, I will leave it and the supporting links alone and reference it as you said, with a sourced sentenced.RTShadow (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturers use engine dynos, not wheel dynos. The rolling inertia inaccuracy problem does not apply in this case, because obviously there are no rollers involved. I think Leivick's conclusion is a good, accurate compromise.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.209.42 (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we reached a good compromise, so we can get back to improving the article rather than arguing about a "w". --Leivick (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we thought we had also but this same person continues to make changes based on personal bias. Now we have documented several different sources independent of one another that show the actual horsepower of the car to be wheel horsepower, which is what the reasonable standard is here at wikipedia, we even agreed with him on leaving the horsepower rated number as the manufacture rating, and still he is up to this same nonsense. The dynojet dyno is the industry standard for checking wheel horsepower, if there were only one dyno done and it went against all the other evidence that would be one thing, but we are talking about many different dyno runs here, all independent of one another. Also, there aren't scientific journals on these vehicles available. As stated in the WP:RS, use of several documented published sources that are independent of one another is a reasonable and acceptable practice, and we could have sourced many other published media sources, they all say the exact same thing, that the horsepower of the car is significantly higher than what was stated by the manufacturer. These magazines stating this are not "fringe sources", they are the industry experts, people who drive these cars for a living, who review thousands of vehicles. This user's comments including "unsubstantiated urban myth" and "self serving sources" basically show that this person has no interest in fact but is more interested in stirring the pot and causing problems. We at wikipedia are in the interest of providing factual information here, not providing multiple sources that are all dependent on one source, the manufacturer's horsepower claim. As was stated above, our evidence is much more compelling than his based on the WP:RS guidelines, yet he has come here again and done the same thing, making changes to the article that are incorrect. RTShadow (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with the compromise. I only edited the sentence to make it more scientific. Dyno evidence suggests a trend, but doesn't 'prove' it, as stated in the original sentence. The estimation of flywheel horsepower from the wheel horsepower is just that - an estimation. The percentages used in calculating drivetrain loss are pretty sloppy, and it doesn't add anything to the article to mention this estimated figure.

On a related note, I'm noticing that a lot of these sources you cite have conflicting figures. For example, some of the sources (allpar, etc) cite the 0-60 time of the SRT4 to be 5.6 seconds, and the quarter mile to be 14.1, but also indicates the car may have more horsepower. The Car and Driver article you cite gives more optimistic numbers, but indicates that the car has the manufacturer's horsepower claims. You then cite allpar for the horsepower claim, but use Car and Driver's performance numbers, picking and choosing what to believe based on what sheds the car in the best light. I haven't changed this (yet) because I know you will instantly revert anything I do. But doesn't it seem like POV-pushing to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whalelover Frost (talk • contribs) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, it doesn't. Generally speaking people post up the quickest published performance numbers. The sources you posted are different sources for different aspects of performance. If you'd like I'll put up all the performance numbers then, from all 30 or so magazines reviews that I have. I'll post up all the horsepower claims, from all the different sites that I've sourced. The article used to have the range for quarter mile times, which looked just silly (13.7 to 14.5 various sources) so we chose the quickest just to clean it up, and because it is documented in a specific article/review. You bring up 'scientific' but the problem is these aren't scientific numbers, the manufacturer's horsepower rating is not scientific, therefore we accept magazine reviews (as do thousands of car pages on wikipedia) to fill in the blank spaces and to fix incorrect ratings such as the horsepower rating to this car. Change whatever you want, I am going to continue to change it back to the documented sources. All you have is the manufacturer's horsepower rating, which is incorrect and in the racing community that is common knowledge, but because you know very little about cars you you hang your hat on that and assume some pretty foolish things. I have one question for you: How does a 2900 lb car with, by your account, less than 200 wheel horsepower, run a 13.9 or better in the quarter mile? Answer that question for me, because if you really wanted to do the 'science' you keep talking about, that absolutely does not work out at all. Again, that is because you know very little about automobiles in general. The sad thing is that you have such a bias against this vehicle that you will do anything in the face of facts to try to discredit anything that we do. Also, this is YOU, there is no "WE" that you keep bringing up, you, by yourself, your bias will do nothing more than to get this article locked up so no changes can be made, likely for whatever laugh you are looking to get from whatever forum you are currently posting on, be it a honda forum, mustang forum, or whatever. That is really sad. RTShadow (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks. As previously stated, I have no bias for or against this car. I'm not vandalizing - I'm only looking to conform the language of this article to that of the rest of Wikipedia. In scientific literature, evidence 'suggests', not shows. Your flywheel horsepower is an estimate, either one you made up, or one you cite from someone who estimated it. It's not factual, and needs to be removed. I concede that there should be some mention of anomalous wheel horsepower, and I'm leaving it. All I'm doing is changing that claim to be more scientific, and less fanboyish. I'm not from some forum that's trying to lock the article down - this is paranoid. Please refer to WP:OWN, as it seems like you are trying to claim ownership of this article by repeatedly undoing my edits. I'm leaving almost everything you added, but this seriously needs to be changed. Whalelover Frost (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the quarter-mile time and 0-60 time to reflect the Car and Driver times. The current source was from a blog post that has some very serious slant to it. (71.23.73.75 (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You updated the 0-60 times from an already existing Car and Driver article to source inaccurate times for the 2005 model of the SRT-4, the existing article also sourced a 13.9 time for the quarter mile, basically showing that a 13.8 is certainly within the realm of possiblity for the vehicle, therefore there is no slant to the performance measures. Please refrain from vandalizing this page in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.10.15 (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I utilized a Car and Driver review stating 14.2 from 2002, I have now shown a Motor Trend review of 14.4. If there was an update on the SRT4 to give it better performance then it should be listed separately as revised version. Unknown opinion blogs are not acceptable sources here, if anyone is vandalizing it's the person citing that website. (99.144.70.71 (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You completely ignored the more current Car and Driver review that is sourced showing the 13.9, this shows that you don't even know that the 2004/2005 version of the SRT-4 received a bump in horsepower and torque, and a limited slip differential, which resulted in the quicker times. Therefore the referenced material showing a 13.8 quarter mile time is acceptable, considering it is 1/10th of one second away from the Car and Driver time.

As far as using different times from different articles, let me compare this to an NFL Football Player, in this case, Peyton Manning. Manning threw for 440 yards once in a game. He also completed 37 passes in a row in a game. They were in different games. Much the same way, different sources for automobile reviews may get different times for their performance numbers for a particular vehicle. Much the same way as we do with sports figures, and with other vehicles for that matter, we take the best numbers and source them here. It isn't a matter of cherry picking, it is a matter of factual conclusions from their tests.

Please stop making changes to a page when you don't even know anything about the vehicle. You cannot seriously be having an issue with a tenth of a second differential in a quarter mile time. You are simply attempting to portray the vehicle as being slower than it has actually been documented at.RTShadow (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to try and blacklist me for using legitimate sources. If you ladies want to get butt-hurt over your Neons being slow then specify which version does which instead of being a bunch of fan boys claiming all of them perform the same. I'm going with reputable sources, a personal opinion blog is not a reputable source in any way shape or form, even if they're citing factual information based on their 'own testing'. What's to stop me from making a blog, taking my SRT down the track, run a 12s, and claim that as a fact? At least stick with sources someone has heard of. Again, blogs are not sources, it's not even allowed on Wikipedia.(99.144.70.71 (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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) 17:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously from reading other run-ins people have had with you on here, there is a definite bias, and I can probably guess why. I already tore apart Car Throttle in the other talk page we're in. The evidence is in the "About" page (as mentioned in the other page, only 1 staff member comes close to having the credentials to work for an automotive reviewer, nobody else does, they're hobbyist with a blog). Feel free to show me how the staff from Car Throttle has more knowledge and expertise than Car and Driver. They all list their background and education, which isn't much. (99.144.70.71 (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Semantics: Sports car vs Sport Compact

This car is labeled "sports car" in the article, but would be more accurately described as a "sports compact."

From article Sport Compact:

"A "sports car" is a car specifically intended to provide elevated vehicle performance. The "sports compact", on the other hand, is a compact car that has been improved (by owner or manufacturer) to provide an elevated degree of vehicle performance over the base version of the car."

The distinction comes from the SRT-4's roots as a Neon. Given that sports cars are usually rear wheel drive, the front wheel drive SRT-4 would have to be a notable exception to this rule of thumb. Such exceptions exist, such as the Lotus Elan) cited under the Sports car article, but SRT-4 is not listed. The Lotus Elan also does not have an economical base model. Clarkcol 01:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree and I changed the intro to read "sport compact". FYI, if you ever want to make this kind of change yourself, go ahead- it's a wiki and you can generally edit any page. Friday (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did initially change it, but it was reverted. I wanted to add some reasoning here in talk. Clarkcol 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, right you are. I hope anyone who wants to change it back joins in the discussion here first. Friday (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Official" vehicle specs vs real world?

I reverted a recent edit regarding this vehicle's Top Speed back to what the manufacturer states. The prior editor's change was also factually incorrect, and there are several videos floating around the 'net from vehicle owners proving this... http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=690232622

It is widely believed that Dodge innacurately stated this vehicles top speed as "Electronically limited" in official literature for 'legal' reasons. - CollegeSportsGuy 07:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The manufacturer's claims are presumably nice and verifiable, they have that going for them. If they're wrong and other reliable sources contradict them, we can of course include that data as well. The video you linked to is worthless in my opinion- it's just some guy on the net. How do we know to take his word for whether it's stock or not? Also, if you want to see the difference between 153 and 155, you better have some more accurate means of measurement than looking at the speedometer. Friday (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where the somewhat adversarial language is coming from, as I agree with your points entirely. These videos are hardly verifiable sources. I was simply pointing out that there are many videos out there documenting the SRT4's speedometer needle buried at or beyond 160 mph, which could possibly disprove any "Electronically governed limit" of 153 mph that Dodge has claimed... providing these videos could be verified as being stock SRT's. I also have yet to hear of a common replacement ECU/PCM/aftermarket "chip" that could remove a factory-existing speed limiter, and I'm a serious turbo Dodge enthusiast who keeps up with the latest news in the aftermarket on these vehicles. And for what it's worth, Dodge has also claimed in other literature over the past 4 years a contradictory "Electronically governed" limit of a 148 mph top speed. Hence the "rumor" of it being only a claim made by Dodge for legal reasons.

Bottom line as far as I'm concerned: short of a verifiable source, the previously accepted 153mph spec from the vehicles brochure should be what's listed in the article. I could, however, see the need for a note regarding the belief of a "fake" electronic limit claim from Dodge considering the contradicting mph #'s and multiple unverifiable video evidience to the contrary. - CollegeSportsGuy 05:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wasn't trying to be adversarial. I tweaked the language a bit to make it clear this was the manufacturer's claim. Friday (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clutter

Is it just me or is there waaaay to much info before you even get to the 'contents' box?

For example, the Viper page:

'The Dodge Viper is the most powerful production car made by Dodge. Production of the two seat sports car began at New Mack Assembly in 1992 and moved to its current home at Conner Avenue Assembly in October 1995.'

I would think that most of the information before the contents box could be put into the article itself.

External Links

" Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Dodge SRT-4 do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ckatz 22:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)"

Ckatz- SRTforums is notorious not only for misinformation presented as fact but also for rampant scamming by paying vendors and in the buy/sell sections by unscrupulous members. SRTSyndicate and SRT4mation are smaller local sites populated by groups of highly knowledgeable car tuners with long histories of association with the SRT-4. While there are experts in the field who frequent the larger SRTforums, the problem is that it is "the largest SRT-4 community on the internet." With 50,000 members questions from newcomers are often overlooked or simply incorrectly answered by people who are not skilled with the subject matter. At first glance Syndicate and 4Mation may look less useful but try asking a question about the car and I guarantee that it will be answered both promptly and correctly. That being said I cannot believe that having a link ONLY to SRTForums is in the best interest of the article.

Good_Neighbor

Actually, lets go over a few facts here. There is no greater resource for information about ALL of the srt vehicles than the SRTforums. There are actually 56,000 members, and yes, in this case, bigger is better. The SRT-4 discussion section on it's own has far more information about the SRT-4 than any other website, that's without the dedicated sections that discuss the powertrain, tires, interior, etc, etc. I have been to all three websites, I don't see any dedicated threads to the Commemorative Edition SRT-4, except the SRTforums, same goes with a variety of other specialized information that can be found only there.

There are NO websites free from scam artists or, as you called them, unscrupulous members, especially those with tens of thousands of members. And just as with other large well run websites, there are hundreds of user trades/sales that go down without any issues for every problem transaction. The SRTforums also removes vendors who try to scam users, however, there are vocal members of the forums who complain about everything about a vendor, regardless of how they misuse the parts they buy. I can bring up examples about EBay or Paypal that are just as bad as anything on the SRTforums, and just the same, it does not mean that EBay/Paypal are bad websites. The nice thing is that, with 56,000 members, you will find far more owners, tuners, mechanics, Mopar parts specialists, than on any other website.

The other issue is that there are a select few users from those two websites that you brought up who like to spam both here and at srtforums, typically because they had their user accounts suspended for promoting their own websites and, just as you did above, slandering SRTforums for no good reason other than because they didn't allow them to promote their own website continuously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTShadow (talk • contribs)

Let's cut straight past opinions about the sites and address the key argument being brought up by RTShadow and Ckatz, that wikipedia isn't for promoting websites. ALL pertinent links should be included because then and only then no promotion of any one website is occuring and instead people are directed to all available information. Blocking links to anything but SRTforums is clearly promoting SRTforums and nothing anyone says can change or dispute that fact.

Good_Neighbor

My argument, that Wikipedia isn't a link directory, is valid as it reflects the encyclopedia's policy. As such, I'll continue to remove spam links. (Your idea to include all links will never be accepted as it contravenes accepted policies.) If you feel that SRTforums shouldn't be there, make your case, as RTShadow did for its inclusion. I don't have any bias regarding any of the sites. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry that we cannot agree Ckatz. Saying that I am trying to promote SRT Syndicate is incorrect. Promoting SRT Syndicate serves no purpose as there is no source of income for the site, the cost to run it is absorbed by the administrators. I have already made my point that blocking links to all other SRT related sites is promoting SRTForums, which by the way is a for profit website run by collecting revenue from paying vendors. Including links to other websites is purely in the interest of providing as much information to interested parties as possible and I will continue to repost them. If changing the links back makes you happy then so be it, you'll have plenty of reverts to make you happy. I will continue to add links to other SRT websites as it is in the best interest of the article and clearly within the guidelines set forth by wikipedia.

Good neighbor 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the link to SRT Forums which someone had deleted and also the link to SRT Syndicate. I have also added links to the Northern California, Mid Atlantic and NY/NJ regional websites. Good neighbor 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering, now, just how many times I'll have to repeat that I do not care about any of the sites. Reverting disruptive edits does not "make me happy", and I would appreciate it if you could remain civil. This section is obviously disputed, unstable, and likely to remain that way. As such, I plan to replace all of the links with a link to the "Open Directory Project" sub-page on Dodge SRTs. This is per the direction of the external links policy; any disputes over appropriate links are thus directed to that project, so that the Wikipedia article can remain stable. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The external links section has been the source of an extensive edit war over what links are suitable for inclusion. There is disagreement as to which fan forums are appropriate, suggestions that only one (SRTForum) should be allowed, counter-suggestions that SRTForum should not be allowed, and proposals to include all fan sites. As such, and following careful examination of the guidelines for external links, I have replaced the entire section with a link to the Open Directory Project - specifically, to their search page for "Dodge" and "SRT". This is the recommended course of action for when an external links section is in dispute. If editors wish a link to be included, they can seek to add it to the ODP. --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one said SRT Forums shouldn't be allowed, ckatz. I don't understand why someone would spend so much time perusing the internet deleting links that people might find useful. If you're not being paid to do something and it doesn't make you happy, why do it at all? Sounds like you might need to do some soul-searching. Good neighbor 20:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of the article being disupted?

Why exactly has Daniel J. Leivick added that heading? There is nothing in the "Talk" session that is questioning the facts that are displayed on the srt4 page, there are arguments about what classifies what car as a 'sports car', however that has little to do with the article as a whole, if anything really. The arguments about the links page are just silly, that was taken care of some time ago. I can only conclude that Daniel J. Leivick has an issue with this page because he has some obvious 'Ford bias', as can be seen by viewing his user page. I'll give you a day or two to reply then I'm going to remove the neutrality banner from the article. If you do have a valid argument about any of the performance numbers or anything else in the article, let me know, there is plenty of documented material out there to show what the SRT-4 is capable of. RTShadow 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ford bias?" take a look at the list of cars I have driven and see where the Fords come in :) as for the GT40; come on you don't have to love Fords to like that car. I really don't have an opinion on the SRT-4 either way, but before I edited the page yesterday it read like an intro on a SRT-4 forum. It still has some problems with tone that I will try to improve it in the coming days, but I stand by the NPOV tag. Things can be factual but still POV. I would be happy to discuss specifics further if needed. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I would rather you wouldn't mess with the intro. If you go over the number of times it has been reworked, we have finally settled in on the intro and it finally hasn't been altered to any great extent (other than vandalism of course). But, I'm open to whatever... just be prepared, whenever big changes are made to this page people flood in and change it back and forth and add and delete. Anyways, good luck RTShadow 03:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, I reverted one of your alterations. You are removing a ton of documented items from the article, if you have an issue with any of the facts that are listed, please bring it up here before you just dump it from the article. Thank you. RTShadow 06:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, things can be factual and still POV. Saying the neon "dewarfed" competion is not NPOV. The pre trimming version of the article contains significant pro SRT bias. --Daniel J. Leivick 06:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, however, a lot of what was 'trimmed' is documented, the quarter mile times for instance. I'll admit that there are biased areas, but no worse than other car pages, and they generally get worked on. I believe there is a big difference between cleaning up and just outright "slash and burning" through articles.RTShadow 06:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Go ahead and added back what you thinks should be and we will work on a compromise version. --Daniel J. Leivick 07:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SRT Page Redesign?

With the creation by Dodge of numerous different SRT models, each in their own way differing from the mother-model, should the SRT4 page be completely redesigned as an SRT page? I feel it would make more sense to drop the 4 from the title, and include information on the Neon SRT4, Caliber SRT4, Magnum/Charger SRT8, Crossfire SRT6, 300 SRT8, Viper SRT10, and SRT10 Truck. This only makes sense, as currently the Neon SRT4 has its own page, and the others are only entries in the Trim sections of the mother models. Originally, I think the Neon SRT4 had its own page becase it was the first SRT model. But now that there are a number of them around, I think there is no need for the Neon SRT4 to have its own page. (Zw4nzig 22:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

But it was seen as a separate vehicle from the Neon. It was even listed as a separate vehicle on the Dodge website when you could "Build your own". Plus it was never referred to as the "Neon SRT-4" it was just "SRT-4" though they shared the same body and style. It was never an optional trim like the SRT-8 is for the Magnum or Charger. Montu Man 1011 04:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps get rid of the Corvette page and Camaro page because those are both performance models from the same company? Zw4nzig, you are looking at things incorrectly. If you want a page for the Crossfire or Caliber SRT models, or any of the other models, BUILD IT! The reason there is a page for the SRT4 is because we took the time to create the page. You are comparing it backwards, assuming that because no one has taken the time to create pages for the other SRT models, then the SRT4 should lose it's page. That's totally backwards thinking. The SRT4 needs it's own page, and the other SRT models should have their own pages too. The Ram SRT-10 does as a matter of fact. Also, what Montu said above is correct. Although the SRT4 is based on the Neon model, it is in fact it's own car and was not even called a Neon anywhere on the vehicle. RTShadow 06:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SRT4 was based on Neon

I love the first line of the history of the car: "First of all its NOT a Neon" "Ways in which this car is NOT a neon" bascially. BAHAHAHAHA. Seriously, can we change that? Its too funny. CJ DUB 04:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the fact that the vehicle is based on the Neon to the intro paragraph, hope that helps. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone pulled it out. But it's a well-established fact, right? I imagine it should go back in. We don't cater to fanboys who don't want to admit it's a Neon. But we shouldn't be making fun of it being a Neon, either. Friday (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just about to make the larger suggestion that the article be retitled as "Neon SRT4", since the Caliber SRT4 has just arrived to muddy things up. As has been mentioned, too, there are now a lot of SRT models (Caliber/Neon SRT4, Crossfire SRT6, Charger/Magnum/300C/Grand Cherokee SRT8, Viper SRT10, more to come?). And what's the problem with it being a Neon, anyway? I'd think owners would be proud to know they had the absolute "ultimate" Neon of all. (Beats the hell out of an Expresso model, at least. :) ) Duncan1800 07:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan1800 (talk •

contribs)

The car is NOT called the "Neon SRT4". The Caliber SRT4 on the other hand IS called the "Caliber SRT4". I can scan in the cover of the owner's manual and also the original window sticker for more proof on that. If you want a page about the Caliber SRT4 then that is what that page should be called. And also, the car's roots were introduced as based on the Neon later in the article. In being correct about what the car is, it is not a Neon, that is merely the starting point for the what later became the SRT4. I for one have never had an issue with the car being called a Neon, but to be fair, it technically is not a Neon, this being based off the one technical truth that should be taken into consideration: What the manufacturer of the vehicle, Dodge, labels the vehicle as, and Dodge does not call it a Neon. RTShadow (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? Go to http://www.dodge.com/en/owners/manuals/, choose 2004 as the model year, then click the list of models, there is a Neon SRT-4 available for selection. --Holderca1^talk 22:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The car is clearly based on a Neon. In fact, so much of it is a Neon that most spares from Neons work on SRT-4s, like hoses and belts and body parts. However, it isn't a Neon like humans aren't chimpanzees: we share much of the same DNA but we're fundamentally different. The engine block, the turbocharger, the Quaife LSD, the exhaust system are all completely divergent and require a different PCM, etc. A respectful nod to its ancestry is appropriate, but my 2002 ACR is not and without major upgrades, will never be a 2005 ACR.Scarletknight (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never really understand this whole issue as to why people can't admit the obvious. There are very few similarities between a base V6 Mustang and the Shelby GT500, but I have never heard anyone say that the Shelby isn't a Mustang. Seriously folks, your situation isn't any different than other car models. --Holderca1^talk 15:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The car is an SUB MODEL of Neon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.49.230 (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caliber

When will there be a Caliber version? 76.126.35.84 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already is, see Dodge Caliber. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was done to the world record setting car?

Seriously, they appear to have improved the power output by 3-4x WITHOUT - allegedly - using nitrous, boring out the engine, or even using any non-standard tuning parts... what the heck did they do? I've seen turbo/supercharging make an easy double of BHP before, but this is already turbo'd and making over 100hp/L in standard guise, and they've taken it up to 3-400... (can i have this applied to a 1.0 litre european car, please, just to cause complete mayhem?). Some incredible skill there.

And if I find a good used SRT4 somewhere, will they do me the same service? :D (pipe dreams, but hey ... a 700 - 1000hp FWD car that looks quite similar to a granny-spec Neon, and could probably made to look even more like one, has no end of possibilities) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Directory Project Links

The DMOZ search template, and by implication all DMOZ search links, is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Qazin (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning Up The Article

Because so much of the information is overlapping and not sourced, I'm going to be working to get this article up to speed, cleaning it up, providing sources, and making sure that the correct information is in the correct areas. If anyone has input or differing opinions about any changes I am making, please bring it up here for discussion. Remember, we need to pretty much source everything we put in the article in order to move it up in importance scale and overall grade. RTShadow (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production Colors

Although the SRT-4 maintained a short production period, several colors were available, some of which changed from year-to-year. Specifically, the inaugural year of the SRT-4 (2003), the popular Dodge "Solar Yellow" was offered. In the two years following, "Electric Blue" replaced yellow and "Orange Burst" ultimately replaced the blue. Black, Red, Silver and White were paint options and available through all production years (2003-2005). However, some colors did make their way into other model years. Most notably, the "Solar Yellow" did carry on into some 2004 production models, which most SRT-4 enthusiasts confuse as a 2003 model. I know, I own one. If anyone would like to find a reliable source for this and add it to the main page, better yet, anything related to the paint options and years, it would be beneficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leebetter (talk • contribs) 10:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flywheel HP vs Wheel HP

Here we go again apparently. The Neon SRT-4 was a one and done, therefore many of the articles that discussed the true WHP of the car are now dead links or gone altogether. This is unfortunately given the tendency of people who dislike the car to find new reasons to come back around again and again to change the HP section, despite having had huge arguments that have been settled several times already. So we can look at another example, considering that few of the reviews are still good clean links. The general rule for automotive expertise is that when dealing with WHP (wheel) vs CHP (crank), is that drivetain loss when you strap a car do a dyno will result in a 15% parasitic decrease in HP from the crank to the wheels. The Neon SRT-4 with 230hp, using this rule that is accepted across the automotive rule, would result in 264.5 CHP (230 X 1.15). If the vehicle did in fact have 230 hp at the crank (or even 244), the performance numbers wouldn't hold up, the car wouldn't be able to pull 0-60 or run the quarter mile in the times listed if that were the case. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTShadow (talk • contribs) 04:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The greater majority of articles on wikipedia which pertain to the cars do not discuss this at all. They list the manufacturers specifications for the car. If there is a perceived discrepancy they say something about there being a perceived discrepancy. The "rule" you speak of is not a rule. There is no industry agreed upon standard for calculating power loss through a drivetrain, and there are reasons for this. If you can't cite it, you can't use it. Just post the factory power numbers and say something like "real world performance and several independent performance measures would indicate power to be higher than specified by the manufacturer". Without further citation, you don't have hard numbers. A lot of anecdote does not equal evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burdickjp (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the word "estimated", which is very much acceptable. And yes, if you actually followed the automotive industry you would understand the facts behind parasitic loss. No where does anyone state categorically the factual hp and/or torque, the estimations are close and documented by links that support the higher hp claims. Please supply independent refuted dyno tests linked by reputable magazines or organizations made on the SRT-4 if you wish to change this section again, thank you.RTShadow (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved Tiggerjay (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge SRT-4 → Dodge Neon SRT-4 – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally, simply "Dodge SRT-4" leave vagueness since there has been the Dodge Neon SRT-4 & the Dodge Caliber SRT-4. A Google search for "Dodge Neon SRT-4" (with the quotes) returns 672,000 results, while "Dodge SRT-4" (with the quotes) 653,000 results with a lot of the titles of the websites on the pages actually saying "Dodge Neon SRT-4" instead of just "Dodge SRT-4". 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢ 08:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - make sense and is straight forward, it is not contested and the LEAD uses the Neon portion. It does not appear related to the SRT-4 degistation that Dodge uses for their various car lines, but rather specific to just the Neon -- perhaps long ago this was just about the SRT-4 designation, but it no longer appears that way. I am moving for a WP:CSD#G6 to have an admin carry this out. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dodge Neon SRT-4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081208192358/http://www.ustcc.com:80/ustcc_points.html to http://www.ustcc.com/ustcc_points.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dodge Neon SRT-4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page really needed?

I find it quite redundant that there's an entire page dedicated to a trim. If this is the case, why isn't there an "I-ROC Camaro" page or "Supra (JZA80) Turbo" page. 142.162.196.44 (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If this is the case, why isn't there an "I-ROC Camaro" page or "Supra (JZA80) Turbo" Maybe the Supra should be a trim level on the Celica page, eh?

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dodge Neon SRT-4/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

What is the story with the removal of the srt forums external link???

There is no better reference for this car than the srt forums. I have seen other honda wikipedia pages, for instance, that link up pure junk forums. The SRT forums is a well run website, not looking for spam or hits or anything of the sort. But if someone is looking for more information about the srt4, there is no website with better information than that forum. It's disappointing that I have to come back and redo the link because someone removes it for no reason whatsoever. If there is something I don't know about the link that I'm doing wrong, then please, enlighten me about it, because that link belongs on this page. Thank you. (my apologies, forgot to sign the post) RTShadow 07:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Check out Wikipedia:External Links, especially the "What not to link to" section. That should sort things out for you.

Okay, I've looked through that page and honestly there really isn't anything in this particular forum that goes against anything on that page. You do have to register to POST to the forums but that should be understandable given the amount of trolling that goes on these days. RTShadow 07:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 21:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dodge Neon SRT-4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Maine Speeding Incident

This information was included originally (not by myself I might add), and was left not because of the speed the car is able to achieve (155 mph), but more so due to the noteworthy aspect of this being the highest speed ever recorded on radar in the state of Maine. As far as speed, it is notable as there is an ever present opinion among some people that this car isn't capable of achieving such speeds. This article verifies that the speeds are in fact verifiable. Comparisons of the top speed of the car (155 mph) and the speed referenced within the speeding incident (146) make this a valid comparison, regardless of someone's personal opinion. Please refrain from removing said section without further discussion, and input from other editors. Thank you.RTShadow (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of inclusion of information about crimes committed with vehicles in that vehicle's page has been discussed extensively (mostly in relation to crimes that are themselves notable) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 45 this has not come to any definitive conclusion but is a useful read so as to avoid rehashing the same arguments. As to using this to verify a top speed, I think that is ridiculous, one can't verify that the car is unmodified (according to the guy who owns it it makes 400 hp [1]), nor the flatness of the road. Cars are used in the commission of crime every day, and for that reason almost all mention of those crimes is WP:TRIVIA, imagine how cluttered the articles on most superbikes would be if you tried to add every speed related crime committed by the guy atop them. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between "to" and "until"

A recent change was incorrectly made to this page. A user changed the "manufactured by Dodge from 2003 to 2005." removing to and changing the sentence to "manufactured by Dodge from 2003 until 2005." This is an unnecessary and grammatically incorrect change. When indicating a length of time between two specific dates, the term "to" is the accepted term, especially for such a short period of time. One could potentially use that term for a longer period of time, such as a car like the Camaro for instance, "Production began in 1966 and continued all the way until 2002". Let's say someone were to change how the wording is: "Dodge began manufacturing the SRT-4 Neon in 2003 and continued production until 2005." This certainly sounds more natural, but the brevity of "2003 to 2005" is a better way to do a lead in, it thoroughly explains exactly what it should in the shortest way possible. From looking at this user's page, it seems he makes thousands of changes and many of them seem unnecessary. 2600:8804:400:9E50:2C0D:538D:DFD4:B876 (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]