Talk:Dodge Neon SRT-4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semantics: Sports car vs Sport Compact 

message: " 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)
replies: text: 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. --Ckatzchatspy 04:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. --Ckatzchatspy 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality of the article being disupted? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  SRT Page Redesign? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  SRT4 was based on Neon 

message: When will there be a Caliber version? 76.126.35.84 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already is, see Dodge Caliber. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Caliber

message: 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)
thread_title:  What was done to the world record setting car? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Open Directory Project Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleaning Up The Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Production Colors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flywheel HP vs Wheel HP 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dodge Neon SRT-4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dodge Neon SRT-4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080707083741/http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/dodge/neonsrt4/100454495/specs.html to http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/dodge/neonsrt4/100454495/specs.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091003003322/http://www.edmunds.com:80/reviews/comparison/articles/100452/page004.html to http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/100452/page004.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 21:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.drivechicago.com/heart.php?setminor=3457&gs_num=8218&rev_num=1131
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714114143/http://www.moparsupercenter.com/pdfs/P5007863.pdf to http://www.moparsupercenter.com/pdfs/P5007863.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060527074131/http://sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0302scc_2003_dodge_neon_srt4/index.html to http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0302scc_2003_dodge_neon_srt4/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017042650/http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0301scc_honda_ford_nissan_comparison/ to http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0301scc_honda_ford_nissan_comparison/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710143114/http://www.dodgemotorsportsmedia.com/Default.aspx?POID=174 to http://www.dodgemotorsportsmedia.com/Default.aspx?POID=174
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710143118/http://www.dodgemotorsportsmedia.com/Default.aspx?POID=259 to http://www.dodgemotorsportsmedia.com/Default.aspx?POID=259
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716071056/http://www.world-challenge.com/news/story.php?ID=792 to http://www.world-challenge.com/news/story.php?ID=792
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 ), 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)
thread_title:  2016 Maine Speeding Incident 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The difference between "to" and "until"