srt-4 extreem lightweight suspention setup problems

paracer#9 · Post by **paracer#9** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:48 am

i was reading the sport compact car review of the srt-4 extreem lightweight and it mentioned that the spring rates were 260 in the front and 170 in the rear and that the sway bars were 26mm in front and 19 in the rear isnt this an incorect setup i mean shouldnt the rear be stiffer than the front i also noticed that they were only running a 225mm pilot sport cup with 370 hp to the front tires wouldnt you run someting wider

tamadrumr88 · Post by **tamadrumr88** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:06 am

if its an extreme lightweight you obviously wont need as a high of spring rates for the coilovers

2g neons for whatever reason have always had a thicker front sway bar over a thicker rear sway bar (i know with my brothers VW GTi they keep the stock front sway bar and just about everyone and their brother moves to a Neuspeed 28mm rear bar)

if theyre running really excessive camber in the front they may not have had the choice of going with something wider than a 225. beings that the car is also much lighter, they dont need as much tire to get the car what they want it to do

grambo · Post by **grambo** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:54 pm

Think "cab forward" on the sway bar thing. There is VERY little weight in the rear of a 2G comparitively speaking. (especially when talking about a GTI where the engine is pushed against the firewal and the entire cabin leans over the rear tires. I miss my VW's, its all anyone is talking about this week.......

nodestiny · Post by **nodestiny** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:01 pm

If your rear bar is larger than your front, oversteering would be horrible. Oversteering is unsafe when compared to understeering. Safety comes first when it comes to a car. No point in trying to go all-out performance if you dont live to tell about it!

rice_eater · Post by **rice_eater** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:55 pm

turn in is affected quite a bit by the wide ass tires... on my srt you can tell the difference between the stock 205s and the 225 i have now. going bigger would only hurt turning more

nodestiny · Post by **nodestiny** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:45 pm

rice_eater wrote:turn in is affected quite a bit by the wide ass tires... on my srt you can tell the difference between the stock 205s and the 225 i have now. going bigger would only hurt turning more

Have you tried running larger in the front anything smaller in the rear? Seems to be a pic among the autocrossers to do something like a 225 up front and 205 in rear. Since its class limiting for 225, im sure othrers would run some type of 245/225 or simular... would be interesting!

paracer#9 · Post by **paracer#9** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:04 pm

ok but shouldnt the car have stiffer rear springs than front and is 2045lbs really an extreem lightweight when a stock else weighs in at just a tick over 1800lbs

rice_eater · Post by **rice_eater** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:07 pm

paracer#9 wrote:ok but shouldnt the car have stiffer rear springs than front and is 2045lbs really an extreem lightweight when a stock else weighs in at just a tick over 1800lbs

not even the first gens were that light...even they clocked in at 2200-2300+; the 2gn packed up a good 300-400lbs more and the srt base comes in at around 2900; so yeah, taking 800lbs out is quite extreme

JustANeon · Post by **JustANeon** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:41 pm

paracer#9 wrote:ok but shouldnt the car have stiffer rear springs than front and is 2045lbs really an extreem lightweight when a stock else weighs in at just a tick over 1800lbs

The Elise is essentially a track car, and you cannot compare a 4 door grocery getter to a purpose built sports car. So yes 2,045 lbs is EXTREMELY light for a 4 door sedan that was built to be an economy family car first and foremost

The car has close to a 60/40 split in weight distribution towards the front, so no, it should not have stiffer rear springs than the front

grambo · Post by **grambo** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:13 pm

No matter the weight distribution the SRT-4 ultra- extreme - super - lightweight is still the most beutiful, purpose built rendition of our beloved Neon that the factory PVO engineers ever got their HP addicted little hands on. The interior is flawless.....

I love that car.......

nodestiny · Post by **nodestiny** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:15 pm

OK whats the secret on the lightweight version? Is it somebody building one? If so, link?

grambo · Post by **grambo** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:32 pm

12.5 sec quarters at 199 mph, 1.0G on the skidpad, 75mph slalom brought to your by = PVO Engineers with deep pockets and alot of C/F.
C/F hood, trunk, front fascia, rear fascia, splitter, rear diffuser, and doors (the entire door.)
Polycarbonate windows in the rear, none up front save the windshield.
Car weighed in at 2495 according to momma MOPAR.

Frickin' four-wheeled wet dream.......

JustANeon · Post by **JustANeon** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:59 pm

It did not trap 199 mph, 119 is more likely

grambo · Post by **grambo** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:35 pm

Typing fast sorry.......199 would be a much more expensive vehicle on a very long tube frame with a very expensive HEMI from Keith Black stuffed between tires that are slick and 24" wide......

Plus 12 seconds at 199? The math don't jive homey...

JustANeon · Post by **JustANeon** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:00 pm

Dude SRTs have crazy traction problem lol jk

fixitmattman · Post by **fixitmattman** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:50 pm

Nothing wrong with a little more oversteer when you know how the car handles and how to handle a car with more oversteer. Everything is set up from the factory's to understeer as that's the safest thing for the "general public." If you're not a very good driver (think about your mom, or someone else in you're familiy who just drives to get around) oversteer can be quite dangerous for them.

Matt