2005 srt 4 neon
 

What's your opinion? I'm looking at one 30k miles, looks to be 100percent stock. 14k asking price? Let me know what you think.

I think I would rather spend 14k on something else.

If you think the twin's interior is crap, then the SRT-4 is worse. I owned an SXT neon before getting my FR-S. Also I'm not a fan of Dodge so....

I owned a 2005 Srt-4 for about 5 years. I beat the shit out of that thing, and it never skipped a beat. They are solid cars, but have a bad reputation due to the people that drive them.

Don't pay that much unless it's a pristine ACR or commemorative edition. I got my 2005 for 17k OTD and it had less than 6k on the odometer.

i'd rather have a TT 300zx. It'll eat an srt-4 for lunch stock or modified (both). Handle better, look better, last longer, make more power easier, and you'd have a few k left over after buying one.

I still have my 05 ACR and love it. 14K is way too high though. Id def try to talk him down.

I'd say that if this car is indeed 100% stock and in pristine condition, then $10k would be a fair price. Finding these cars unmolested is a very rare thing now a days.

the car is 10 years old man! $14k should be able to buy you much more than a 10 year old SRT-4

I'd offer him $8k and I wouldn't pay more than $9k

dood is out to lunch

$14k will get you a decent AP1, a clean Boxter, Z3M roadster, a low miles MR2 Spider or a totally bitchin' folding hardtop Miata.

This is just my opinion, but those Neons look like someone grafted a Dodge Caravan bumper to an Eclipse...

You can do better, man. :(

Ok, just looking at some of the other threads you made I take it you are like 16-17 yrs old? It doesn't look like you even own a twin. Do you even have a car at all right now?

If you are interested in getting a NSRT as your first car then you should probably be asking this on the SRT forums.

I dunno, stock for stock it is a driver's race when it comes to straight line acceleration. Not to mention the neon weighs 600lbs less and came with a factory LSD after 2004. I wouldn't be surprised if a stock ACR put down better lap times than a stock 300zx. Not bad for a car that cost 20k brand new. The Neon will never be a cool sports car, but it is no slouch either.

Pic related, my old Srt-4.
http://i.imgur.com/mlI3wNk.jpg

Agreed, only certain years of the 300ZX TT were fast and even then probably evenly matched with an SRT-4.

People that have never owned one or driven one don't know how fast and capable they actually are. They're always like "its just a Neon bro". That is until they get their ass handed to them by one... lol

Very clean car BTW :cheers:

If you want nothing but fast turbo FWD acceleration from point A-B, it's not a bad car.

Let me shed some light on this from an ex TT 300zx owner...

Handle better: Yeah they handle pretty well but they can sometimes feel their weight through the corners

Looks better: subjective

Last longer: lol have you ever even owned a 300zx?? Theres a common joke for these cars "wanna hear a 300zx joke? hold on i'm working on it." Also these cars are now coming up to be 25 years old and unless you want to be working on these cars all the time (which you probably will.) Also have you EVER tried to work on these things????? One of the hardest cars to work on due to there no room for the engine bay and replacing a turbo requires the engine to be pulled. If you find a 300zxTT for less than 14k you'll be spending quite a bit of $$$ just to get it running reliably. These cars are getting old and have always been hard to work on.

Make more power easier: Uhm..... Idk much about the srt4's but by the time you want to be making power with a 300zx you will most definately be pulling the engine for turbo upgrades or replacements.

You'll have a few k left over: :lol:

Unfortunately the Neon is the Civic of cars around these parts. So many base models have been riced out so bad that the real performance ones get lost in the mix and people forget they exist.

http://www.9thgencivic.com/forum/att...tures-neon.jpg