17th Jan 2005, 21:53

If your srt is anything like mine, I'm sorry to say, but many problems await you in the future. sorry.

8th Aug 2005, 14:44

To the person above me, what do you mean by future problems?

26th Sep 2005, 14:33

The SRT-4 NEON beats the WRX off the line, true, but it will also beat it to the junk yard by a long shot!! Low cost means low quality ESPECIALLY when dealing with cars. Good luck to you... I will be the one cruising by you with your hood up on the shoulder of the road wondering why you bought such a cheap car! A used WRX is a better bet than this car any day if you can't swing a new one for $25K!!

9th Jan 2006, 00:33

(Although this comment maybe a little late, I must say)

Just because a Car is low priced does not mean it is lower in quality. More Power Usually Creates Less reliability, Look at a Chevy Corvette, tons of power, but I read about lots of problems with the car in the long run especially if you race all the time. Now if a car is not designed or tuned properly to deal with the stress then it won't last long. Lots of people own SRT4's and have very few problems. And I'll tell you what, the engine in an SRT4 is forged internals, it can deal with alot. And if you want to compare about reliability! Look at honda's and acura's, u will rarely See a Honda or an Acura on the side of the road or fall apart. Now If you wish to compare your WRX, and think its so reliable then listen to this. My dad still owns his Carbeurated 1984 CRX. Even with the same engine, the car still RUNS with minor problems. Change the oil, it lasts forever! 21 years old! Now lets see your 20 - 25k WRX do that... 20 years without failing?highly...unlikely....oh and by the way, isn't the MSRP on a CRX around $12,000?? wow, so its not reliable because its cheap right? WRONG! Just because you like the WRX more, doesn't make the car more reliable. WRX's have weak trannys by the way. There not top notch quality either.

Just for the record I do like both the SRT-4 and the WRX, but which is More or Less reliable usually depends on whether the car is a lemon and/or how abusive you are when you drive it. Racing a car all the time will break it. I've yet to find anything to out last a Honda or an Acura. A WRX!? Not a chance buddy!

9th Jan 2006, 19:12

As for outlasting a Honda or Acura, notice how many 80's Hondas you see on the road compared to 80's american cars. The Japanese cars have all rusted away from that era, while the American cars from that era are still cruising away, many with original paint jobs. I would take an 80's full size American car over any Japanese Junk any day of the week!

16th Mar 2006, 19:22

How about you guys quit being stupid, the dodge srt-4 is not some miracle of super engineering.

You can turbo a car 3 ways:

For Power, Reliably, or Cheaply.

Now pick 2.

Srt-4s don't hold a bone to STis Evos or Corvettes whatever. I can make an argument that my altima is the best bang for my buck because of its 'awesome' engineering. Btw, you can buy a 2004 STi for under 25k now.

5th May 2006, 15:11

The SRT-4 may provide some competition for the WRX in the acceleration department. But that's where that ends. The Subaru is more refined, handles far, far better, is definitely more reliable, and will hold more value.

5th May 2006, 18:35

Yup, the Neon is just another one trick pony whereas the others, mainly WRX/STI, are more refined and offer a more well rounded experience.

And read the reviews here of Chrysler products and their engines are the paragons of engineering the May 4th poster is making them out to be.

7th May 2006, 20:45

I have an 05 SRT-4 and think its wonderful. Wanted a Charger RT, but this was cheaper and faster. Its just a great car. The reason the car is cheap is because of the sound deadeners taken away and lighter parts used. All in the name of speed. I can't really tell you much about handling at high speeds because I never tried taking a turn at 70-147. So in my everyday driving I do not see the need for the WRX's handling. Its just nice to have a spunky car. 17,000 miles no trouble.

8th May 2006, 13:40

I don't think the SRT-4 is a Charger with less sound insulation and lighter materials.

In the end, its still a neon.

1st Jun 2006, 04:32

Just like the Ram SRT-10 is just a "Ram", huh?

1st Jun 2006, 20:19

Well considering the ram has a V8 and the srt-10 has a huge viper motor, that's pretty damn cool.

But the neon is an economy car. The srt4 is a beefier 2.0 with a turbo.

It's still a neon. And it's nowhere near a neon with a viper motor.

14th Jun 2006, 20:35

Its still a neon.

14th Jun 2006, 20:59

To the person above... the 2.4L is a beefed up 2.0. its just bored out and has a different head. hence how you can buy 2.4l kits for your 2.0.

13th Aug 2009, 17:55

It is a great car and cheap. If you don't like it, then stop complaining about it; you don't have to buy one.

And another thing; the Neon SRT4 uses the PT Cruiser engine block, not a Neon engine. The engine is tweaked on a bit and then has a turbocharger on it. So really the only thing it has in common with the regular Neons is the body style and the name. So lay off the Dodge Neon SRT4.

I love WRX too, but right now I want an SRT4. Then later get a WRX or maybe both. Love those 4 bangers. Mustangs are still awesome too. But screw the Toyotas and Hondas!!!

3rd Oct 2009, 16:32

I'm on the verge of buying a beautiful 04 SRT4 with 80k, and I came here to see what people were saying about the SRT4. I really wanna know if it's going to be reliable. I'm going to be driving it a lot, perhaps beating on it a little, but I still want the car, and I want it to last. I just don't know what to do after seeing all these complaints.

4th Oct 2009, 16:12

Don't buy it. Go look for a nice lightly used Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla and see what real quality is.

5th Oct 2009, 19:19

Yeah, buy a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla and risk being passed by mopeds or walking pedestrians...

I had an 04 SRT-4 that I sold to my sister when it hit 100K. No problems. Now my roommate has one that has just about 90K on it and he has put about 50K on it. He has had no problems. These are not bad cars, you just have to take care of them like every other car on the road, yes, even those Hondas and Toyotas.

7th Sep 2010, 15:30

I love my 2003 Dodge SX 2.0 R/T.

14th Sep 2010, 18:33

"I recommended that person buy a Honda or Toyota because it will actually RUN."

I'd recommend a bit of research. I seriously doubt that any Honda or Toyota built in the past decade is capable of anything over 250,000 miles without major repairs. Ratings services now rank Honda 6th out of 33 car makers in build quality (BELOW Ford) and Toyota gets a pitiful 21st place.

As for Chrysler 4's they were pretty tough. I sold mine at just shy of a quarter million miles and it had never even had freon added to the A/C. No oil consumption, no engine or transmission problems and it ate Civics for breakfast (of course no Toyota is a threat to anything faster than a moped).