2009 RA or Genesis Coup
Mar 17, 2009, 12:54 PM
#106
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: All Over
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey that Neon SRT-4 is a sick car! haha. I mean honestly look at that SRT-4. buy one for 7-9k build a built engine for about maybe 5 and have a 500+ hp freak that seats four for under 15k can you beat that? Ok maybe that front is ugly but if your driving it you can't see it... haha
Mar 17, 2009, 01:02 PM
#107
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: michigan
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mar 17, 2009, 01:16 PM
#108
This car weights about the same a Ralliart does (3,439 pounds). I really don't see it being anywhere near the SRT4; I freaking hate the SRT4 for 4 reasons: Cheap, Cheap, F***ing Cheap Speed. U gotta give it to them. But a Gen being the next SRT, nah, not really. Probably on Mods yeah, but it won't compete with a well modded SRT4 at the drag strip. those bastard cheap and ugly looking SRT4 are roll kings.
Mar 17, 2009, 03:21 PM
#110
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: ohio
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can get V8 mustangs easily for $25k.
A base Camaro with a 300+ HP engine will start out at less than $23k!!
A Camaro SS will start around 27-28k - which is a much better choice than the 3.8L Hyundai V6.
I'm sure that in some trim the hyundai will beat an R/A in various races. That's not necessairly the point, nor is it all to the story. The R/A for one has more practicality. Second, it has AWD. Neither of those things are necessarily important to all buyers, though. So, what's my point? With the R/A, I truly believe you get what you pay for. Lots of great hardware waiting to be exploited. Like I said before, the hyundai is also a bargain, but only if we're talking about the 4 cylinder model. The V6 is too expensive considering there are better choices for the money.
Naturally aspirated engines take a lot more money and work to get power out of, unless they're really undertuned. I doubt this is the case with the hyundai V6. Looking under the hood, and the intake plenum hardly looks performance oriented. If I wanted a V6 coupe, I'd spend the extra $2k and get a 370z.
Eddie, I think you would find yourself greatly disappointed going from an Evo IX to a Genesis coupe regardless of trim level or package. The Evo will take it in most likely every single way possible.
The strength of the SST hasn't been determined yet. Has anyone toasted one yet? The only people that have had problems were the ones who were using piggybacks like the Z-chip. AMS and GST haven't reported transmission related issues when tuning the cars.
The R/A can make a decent little additional chunk of power with a simple tune. The hyundai may require some bolt-ons first. Either way, once you start adding some simple hardware, both should tune easily, and make a reasonable amount of power. I only say that the R/A should reliably make more because it has what's practically an evo engine. There's some good hardware in there.
Of course pro tuners are jumping on the bandwagon, and buying the turbo coups because:
1.) They are cheap
2.) Lots of people are going to buy them because they are cheap (see #1)
3.) Lots of people think coupes are hot.
4.) They come stock with the type of engine the 240SX should have had in America.
So, as I've said before - the turbo coupe is a bargain, with what will certainly be huge aftermarket support. The V6 coupe is not a bargain.
A base Camaro with a 300+ HP engine will start out at less than $23k!!
A Camaro SS will start around 27-28k - which is a much better choice than the 3.8L Hyundai V6.
I'm sure that in some trim the hyundai will beat an R/A in various races. That's not necessairly the point, nor is it all to the story. The R/A for one has more practicality. Second, it has AWD. Neither of those things are necessarily important to all buyers, though. So, what's my point? With the R/A, I truly believe you get what you pay for. Lots of great hardware waiting to be exploited. Like I said before, the hyundai is also a bargain, but only if we're talking about the 4 cylinder model. The V6 is too expensive considering there are better choices for the money.
Naturally aspirated engines take a lot more money and work to get power out of, unless they're really undertuned. I doubt this is the case with the hyundai V6. Looking under the hood, and the intake plenum hardly looks performance oriented. If I wanted a V6 coupe, I'd spend the extra $2k and get a 370z.
Eddie, I think you would find yourself greatly disappointed going from an Evo IX to a Genesis coupe regardless of trim level or package. The Evo will take it in most likely every single way possible.
The strength of the SST hasn't been determined yet. Has anyone toasted one yet? The only people that have had problems were the ones who were using piggybacks like the Z-chip. AMS and GST haven't reported transmission related issues when tuning the cars.
The R/A can make a decent little additional chunk of power with a simple tune. The hyundai may require some bolt-ons first. Either way, once you start adding some simple hardware, both should tune easily, and make a reasonable amount of power. I only say that the R/A should reliably make more because it has what's practically an evo engine. There's some good hardware in there.
Of course pro tuners are jumping on the bandwagon, and buying the turbo coups because:
1.) They are cheap
2.) Lots of people are going to buy them because they are cheap (see #1)
3.) Lots of people think coupes are hot.
4.) They come stock with the type of engine the 240SX should have had in America.
So, as I've said before - the turbo coupe is a bargain, with what will certainly be huge aftermarket support. The V6 coupe is not a bargain.
There is already a supercharger available in Korea for the V6.
I would like to know where the 25k base GT is coming from. 28k+ is what I have seen for a stripper. Second, have you seen the crap box interior of the Camaro RS? The Mustang interior is fairly nice however.
The V6 Coupe is pig rich from the factory. The factory tune cuts power at redline and kills it for about 3 seconds. I think there is already a factory reflash to get rid of that. My guess is that with an intake, exhaust and tune the V6 COUPE will surprise many. Again, I would not expect a 6 cylinder car to hang with a V8. As for the V6 Camaro, the numbers are out and not impressive 0-60 in 6.0 sec.. That car is HEAVY.
IMO, I do not want an expensive car. I want something that looks nice and handles and performs well for a daily driver. If I wanted something that was not cheap, I FOR SURE would not be looking at any of these 4 cylinder turbo cars. They are all econoboxes that ALL have cheap interior. The BIG 3 included. The Challenger interior is all cheap plastic, but that is not why people buy it.
For those 30 MPG naysayers on the 2.0t, do you believe 29 MPG for the V6 Camaro?!!
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...903169993/1039
Mar 17, 2009, 03:34 PM
#111
Evolved Member
Hey that Neon SRT-4 is a sick car! haha. I mean honestly look at that SRT-4. buy one for 7-9k build a built engine for about maybe 5 and have a 500+ hp freak that seats four for under 15k can you beat that? Ok maybe that front is ugly but if your driving it you can't see it... haha
Originally Posted by dboz
As far as the block, the Caliber SRT4 uses the same block and is making 400-500hp so I see no reason why the COUPE won't be able to hold at least 350-400hp reliably.
Mar 17, 2009, 05:10 PM
#112
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pgh, PA to Orl, FL
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is already a supercharger available in Korea for the V6.
I would like to know where the 25k base GT is coming from. 28k+ is what I have seen for a stripper. Second, have you seen the crap box interior of the Camaro RS? The Mustang interior is fairly nice however.
The V6 Coupe is pig rich from the factory. The factory tune cuts power at redline and kills it for about 3 seconds. I think there is already a factory reflash to get rid of that. My guess is that with an intake, exhaust and tune the V6 COUPE will surprise many. Again, I would not expect a 6 cylinder car to hang with a V8. As for the V6 Camaro, the numbers are out and not impressive 0-60 in 6.0 sec.. That car is HEAVY.
IMO, I do not want an expensive car. I want something that looks nice and handles and performs well for a daily driver. If I wanted something that was not cheap, I FOR SURE would not be looking at any of these 4 cylinder turbo cars. They are all econoboxes that ALL have cheap interior. The BIG 3 included. The Challenger interior is all cheap plastic, but that is not why people buy it.
For those 30 MPG naysayers on the 2.0t, do you believe 29 MPG for the V6 Camaro?!!
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...903169993/1039
I would like to know where the 25k base GT is coming from. 28k+ is what I have seen for a stripper. Second, have you seen the crap box interior of the Camaro RS? The Mustang interior is fairly nice however.
The V6 Coupe is pig rich from the factory. The factory tune cuts power at redline and kills it for about 3 seconds. I think there is already a factory reflash to get rid of that. My guess is that with an intake, exhaust and tune the V6 COUPE will surprise many. Again, I would not expect a 6 cylinder car to hang with a V8. As for the V6 Camaro, the numbers are out and not impressive 0-60 in 6.0 sec.. That car is HEAVY.
IMO, I do not want an expensive car. I want something that looks nice and handles and performs well for a daily driver. If I wanted something that was not cheap, I FOR SURE would not be looking at any of these 4 cylinder turbo cars. They are all econoboxes that ALL have cheap interior. The BIG 3 included. The Challenger interior is all cheap plastic, but that is not why people buy it.
For those 30 MPG naysayers on the 2.0t, do you believe 29 MPG for the V6 Camaro?!!
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...903169993/1039
Mar 17, 2009, 06:13 PM
#113
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: All Over
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the Caliber one way above. Sorry if i confused anyone.
Mar 17, 2009, 06:36 PM
#114
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: ohio
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it on the Chevy yes. Chevy has been all about fuel consumption in their performance cars lately. Hell the corvette got upper 20's highway because of a LONG *** 6th gear. I remember reading somewhere that 5th gear is where the Corvette tops out and 6th is strictly for mpg. I wouldn't be suprised if they pulled something similar with the Camaro.
Also, for 10k less than the G37 here are the numbers for those not thinking this is a good deal.
Genesis (3/10/09)
Infiniti G37S (2/10/09)
Acceleration
0-30 (sec.):
2.2
2.4
0-45 (sec.):
3.9
3.9
0-60 (sec.):
5.9
5.7
0-75 (sec.):
8.4
8.2
1/4 mile (sec @ mph):
14.1 @ 99.3
13.9 @ 101.4
0-60 (sec.): (w/rollout)
5.7
5.4
Braking
60-0 (ft.):
111
110
30-0 (ft.):
27
28
Handling
Slalom (mph):
69.0
69.7
Skidpad (g):
.87g
.85g
Last edited by dboz; Mar 17, 2009 at 06:43 PM.
Mar 18, 2009, 08:26 AM
#115
Absolutely not; Cheap and Fast are always a Good thing. Now Cheap, Fast and Ugly, that's different. And why do people always come up with the same nonsense "oh you're behind the wheel blah blah blah..." Dude, answer me this question:
Where would you rather see yourself, in a fast Neon or in a fast Lancer?
btw, I'm not biased towards a Lancer just because I own one regardless; I've got friends with that ****ty neon and I give respect when respect is due.
Mar 18, 2009, 08:46 AM
#117
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ramstein Ab
Posts: 1,376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This makes no sense. So a heavier car with a V6 is believable but a lighter car with a 4 turbo is not? I guess the 6 speed manual at less that a 1:1 ratio is not enough for you to believe. 0.794:1
Also, for 10k less than the G37 here are the numbers for those not thinking this is a good deal.
Genesis (3/10/09)
Infiniti G37S (2/10/09)
Acceleration
0-30 (sec.):
2.2
2.4
0-45 (sec.):
3.9
3.9
0-60 (sec.):
5.9
5.7
0-75 (sec.):
8.4
8.2
1/4 mile (sec @ mph):
14.1 @ 99.3
13.9 @ 101.4
0-60 (sec.): (w/rollout)
5.7
5.4
Braking
60-0 (ft.):
111
110
30-0 (ft.):
27
28
Handling
Slalom (mph):
69.0
69.7
Skidpad (g):
.87g
.85g
Also, for 10k less than the G37 here are the numbers for those not thinking this is a good deal.
Genesis (3/10/09)
Infiniti G37S (2/10/09)
Acceleration
0-30 (sec.):
2.2
2.4
0-45 (sec.):
3.9
3.9
0-60 (sec.):
5.9
5.7
0-75 (sec.):
8.4
8.2
1/4 mile (sec @ mph):
14.1 @ 99.3
13.9 @ 101.4
0-60 (sec.): (w/rollout)
5.7
5.4
Braking
60-0 (ft.):
111
110
30-0 (ft.):
27
28
Handling
Slalom (mph):
69.0
69.7
Skidpad (g):
.87g
.85g
I highly doubt that
Mar 18, 2009, 09:29 AM
#119
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: All Over
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely not; Cheap and Fast are always a Good thing. Now Cheap, Fast and Ugly, that's different. And why do people always come up with the same nonsense "oh you're behind the wheel blah blah blah..." Dude, answer me this question:
Where would you rather see yourself, in a fast Neon or in a fast Lancer?
btw, I'm not biased towards a Lancer just because I own one regardless; I've got friends with that ****ty neon and I give respect when respect is due.
Where would you rather see yourself, in a fast Neon or in a fast Lancer?
btw, I'm not biased towards a Lancer just because I own one regardless; I've got friends with that ****ty neon and I give respect when respect is due.
Mar 18, 2009, 09:30 AM
#120
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: All Over
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts