DakianDelomast
Feb 9 2006, 09:59 AM
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/02/08/aye-car...-caliber-srt-4/ QUOTE
High-caliber Performance: With 300 Horsepower, All-new 2007 Dodge Caliber SRT4 to Dominate Sport-compact Market
• Tire-smoking 300 horsepower -- 85 more than the original Dodge SRT4 -- and 260 lb.-ft. of torque
• 0-60 mph in less than 6 seconds
• All-around performance of a true “tuner car” right from the manufacturer
• Benchmark performance at the best price
Chrysler Group’s Street and Racing Technology (SRT) group will take the SRT4 reputation to new heights with the introduction of the all-new, 300-horsepower 2007 Dodge Caliber SRT4.
“The all-new 2007 Dodge Caliber SRT4 achieves the SRT mission of offering benchmark performance for the best price,” said George Murphy, Senior Vice President – Global Marketing, Chrysler Group. “With 300 horsepower under the hood, the Dodge Caliber SRT4 will dominate the sport-compact market.”
With true tuner performance right out of the box and a great price, enthusiasts immediately took to the original SRT4, which was introduced in 2003 at the Los Angeles Auto Show. In the 2003-2005 model years, more than 25,000 Dodge SRT4s were sold.
“We couldn’t wait to infuse Dodge Caliber with the SRT formula,” said Murphy. “The all-new 2007 Dodge Caliber SRT4 delivers a strong dose of all-around performance while delivering at least 28 miles per gallon on the highway. Our new SRT pocket rocket will be a hoot to drive.”
At least its a 6 speed.
Phix
Feb 9 2006, 10:07 AM
Wow, is that thing ugly.
I also noticed it made no mention of an LSD...
goota
Feb 9 2006, 10:34 AM
FF?!
lameeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
not to mention its ugly as fuck.
so it has absolutely nothing going for it.
bing5500
Feb 9 2006, 10:34 AM
All that is going through the front wheels on a package that looks like it won't be the greatest handling vehicle? No thanks, money can be spent in better fashion then this...looks fun though for what that is worth.
Phix
Feb 9 2006, 10:41 AM
Of course, this will be an absolute massive hit with all the boy racers.
I fucking hate boy racers.
Mitlov
Feb 9 2006, 10:57 AM
Good looking for a compact, tall wagon. But considering other styling jobs in that market (Matrix, Vibe, etc), that's not saying much. I'd even say that I prefer the aesthetics of this over the Forester XT. Mechanically, I'd much rather have the Forester XT, though, despite the Dodge's power advantage.
Still, I like this much more than the previous-generation SRT-4. And it's immensely more useful because of the five-door design.
clarkma5
Feb 9 2006, 11:10 AM
The Caliber looks totally lame.
DaGonz
Feb 9 2006, 12:24 PM
To paraphrase
Dukenukem's post on the 2007 Toyota Tundra thread...
It looks like a Dodge Dakota had anal sex with a Pontiac Aztek and htis is the bahstid* child they produced.....
*New England prounciation
Benny
Feb 9 2006, 12:26 PM
ihi
Mr b00st
Feb 9 2006, 02:13 PM
ihi doesn't make the turbo do they?
:-P
this car will be a riot. Of course, a WRX will still be faster in a straight line because they can launch hard
tune
Feb 9 2006, 02:23 PM
Thats rough and boring.
Halflifehavock13
Feb 9 2006, 03:48 PM
QUOTE(goota @ Feb 9 2006, 01:34 PM)

FF?!
lameeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
not to mention its ugly as fuck.
so it has absolutely nothing going for it.
Yeah, it would have been a better idea to offer it with the AWD instead of the FF layout.
Cyclone
Feb 9 2006, 04:44 PM
God dammit Dodge, I wish you'd just go out of business already. This "intimidating" look you give all your cars this day is just down right retarded.
And what the hell, they used the name SRT4.... they already have an SRT4...now they release another car that is nowhere near the same with the same fucking name!? hows that for stupidity.
dodge is the only car company stupid enough to put 300hp through the front wheels only
darinzon
Feb 9 2006, 06:10 PM
:'(
i want the neon back! haha
Phix
Feb 9 2006, 07:56 PM
QUOTE(Cyclone @ Feb 9 2006, 07:44 PM)

God dammit Dodge, I wish you'd just go out of business already. This "intimidating" look you give all your cars this day is just down right retarded.
And what the hell, they used the name SRT4.... they already have an SRT4...now they release another car that is nowhere near the same with the same fucking name!? hows that for stupidity.
dodge is the only car company stupid enough to put 300hp through the front wheels only
This replaces the old SRT-4?
Yup. The Skittle is gone.
DZ302
Feb 9 2006, 08:22 PM
fucking ugly
leif
Feb 9 2006, 10:11 PM
Dodge is the only Yanky car maker not posting losses in 2005...so they must be doing something right...
I personally know 2 shit-for-brains loosers who mannaged to flip their 215BHP Neon SRT-4s...with a higher CoG and an extra 85 BHP going to the front wheels...any bets on how many more flip their Calibur SRT-4??
Phix
Feb 9 2006, 10:16 PM
QUOTE(leif @ Feb 10 2006, 01:11 AM)

Dodge is the only Yanky car maker not posting losses in 2005...so they must be doing something right...
I personally know 2 shit-for-brains loosers who mannaged to flip their 215BHP Neon SRT-4s...with a higher CoG and an extra 85 BHP going to the front wheels...any bets on how many more flip their Calibur SRT-4??
Heh, somebody did that, too, at my school. He was racing a Accord I think on this stretch of road leading up to the school. It has a slight bend in it and he flipped his SRT-4, got into oncoming traffic, and slid into the nearby trees. Walked away with minor injuries.
Mitlov
Feb 9 2006, 10:50 PM
QUOTE(leif @ Feb 9 2006, 10:11 PM)

Dodge is the only Yanky car maker not posting losses in 2005...so they must be doing something right...
That's because Daimler-Chrysler is reveling in their uniqueness instead of trying to beat Honda and Toyota at their own game. How much energy have GM and Ford spent trying to defeat the Accord and Camry, the Civic and Corolla? Meanwhile, Dodge has had massive success with the 300/Magnum as well as the PT Cruiser. The PT Cruiser sells well because it's an image-car (like the Mini Cooper) that also happens to be a useful econobox; the 300's only Japanese competition is the Avalon (and the 300 has a very different image), and the Magnum has no Japanese equivalent.
Not to mention, the Ram is the meanest-and-most-macho full-size truck. It's not the most refined or the most reliable, but Dodge figured out that it's not refinement or reliability that sells full-size trucks. It's testosterone. So I see more Rams on the road than F-150s and Silverados combined--at least away from the countryside, where full-size trucks are all about image.
Phix
Feb 9 2006, 11:20 PM
There are Rams everywhere. Not just the cheap models, either. I mean the ones with the 5.7L Hemi and optional 20" rims... which I think are very sexy.
Flaw
Feb 10 2006, 12:18 AM
This car is ugly, fugly, pugly, pug fugly, and yes, even UGLY ugly.
-Thanks Moe the Bartender
Supafresh
Feb 10 2006, 12:28 AM
how is this thing sporty.. it looks like a fucking SUV
goota
Feb 10 2006, 12:33 AM
it looks like a damn pig
Mitlov
Feb 10 2006, 12:45 AM
QUOTE(Supafresh @ Feb 10 2006, 12:28 AM)

how is this thing sporty.. it looks like a fucking SUV
Because it's fast in a straight line. Remember that this is from the same company that brought us the Ram SRT-10 (or whatever it's called). You and I may think that "sporty" may mean "sporty handling," but there are a lot of people out there who only care about straight-line performance.
Cyclone
Feb 10 2006, 03:26 AM
QUOTE(Mitlov @ Feb 10 2006, 01:50 AM)

That's because Daimler-Chrysler is reveling in their uniqueness instead of trying to beat Honda and Toyota at their own game. How much energy have GM and Ford spent trying to defeat the Accord and Camry, the Civic and Corolla? Meanwhile, Dodge has had massive success with the 300/Magnum as well as the PT Cruiser. The PT Cruiser sells well because it's an image-car (like the Mini Cooper) that also happens to be a useful econobox; the 300's only Japanese competition is the Avalon (and the 300 has a very different image), and the Magnum has no Japanese equivalent.
Not to mention, the Ram is the meanest-and-most-macho full-size truck. It's not the most refined or the most reliable, but Dodge figured out that it's not refinement or reliability that sells full-size trucks. It's testosterone. So I see more Rams on the road than F-150s and Silverados combined--at least away from the countryside, where full-size trucks are all about image.
What kind of image are they trying to go for with the PT Cruiser? O_o I guess since I'm not an old lady (between 40-60) i cant appreciate it.
Dodge Ram's arent that bad of trucks. The cheapo model really sucks because its just that...cheap. I mean I'd still take a Chevy over it but the Ford would be a dead last. But this doesn't matter since I will never buy a truck!
DakianDelomast
Feb 10 2006, 05:34 AM
Well the more you guys piss on it the more I have a tendency to like it.
leif
Feb 10 2006, 06:26 AM
the thing that im astounded by is the quality of the Chrysler/Dodge products...and people still liking the products. I have been inside the 300, and lived with a Durango for a week, and i was astounded at the shitty materials, and poor fit and finnish of the whole thing. buttons felt hollow and fragile, and the HAVC had flash lines on the moulding which atcually cut me!
and that HEMI engine...it sucked.
simply put, not as good a product as the Japanise equivilants (Legacy wagon is a Magnum competition) yet, people are still considring them based on the fact that they are different.
Just speaks to how much people consider image when buying a car.
DakianDelomast
Feb 10 2006, 06:51 AM
QUOTE(leif @ Feb 10 2006, 09:26 AM)

Just speaks to how much people consider image when buying a car.
BMW
HONDA
PORSCHE
FERRARI
GM
All cars are about image! It is impossible to buy a car and NOT consider image! Some cars say "Look at me I can spend fscktons cash." while others say "I care about the environment and my children and the little bunnies in the meadows."
leif
Feb 10 2006, 06:55 AM
I guess what I was trying to say was "im surprised at how much of a role image plays, compared to other factors"
meaning, people are willing give up toyota and honda build quality for the look of a new dodge...
DakianDelomast
Feb 10 2006, 06:56 AM
I'd take a Dodge just simply because I don't want a Japanese Buick.
leif
Feb 10 2006, 07:00 AM
well, in Canada at least, for the price fo a 300C I can get an A4 (nicely equpiped) or possibly a BMW 5 series...and for the price fo a 300 I could buy a Nissan Maxima, and for a Magnum I could have a Legacy GT, or possibly a Spec B...all infinetly better options, which will hold re-sale better!
top spec A4 (not S4 or RS4) = $51,000ish CAD
top spec 300C = $53,000ish CAD
base BMW 5 series = $54,000ish CAD
top spec Maxima = $34,000ish CAD
I just dont see the Dodge producat as being a bargain...infact they are quite expencive for a domestic product
DakianDelomast
Feb 10 2006, 07:16 AM
Your arguements are always so half assed and supermely biased it starts to hurt the brain. Compairing "top spec" is never a good judge of a vehicle's cost. The best way to get a flat compairison in terms of price is to look at the base cost. And is your "top spec" 300C the SRT-8?
leif
Feb 10 2006, 07:22 AM
again my point was lost...I can get a very nice A4 for less than a 300C...the base A4 is $41,000, the base 300C is $43,000, while the base Maxima is $27,000
top spec is a 300C with the same kit as an A4 (not AWD 300C though, although the top A4 is Quattro...if you want an AWD 300C your looking at close to $60,000
this argument in not biased...it is factual...
I can get a nicely equipped Audi A4 for close to, or below that of a Chrysler 300C...I can get a nicely eqiped 3 series, or a base 5 series for the same money...im sure I could get a Lexus IS for less than any of them...and that is done up to the tits.
my point is that the 300C, the Charger and the Magnum dont offer any kind of benifit in terms of price, and they are poorly built...the only reason to buy one is the style...which i think is a little over done!
how is this argument biased?
DakianDelomast
Feb 10 2006, 07:28 AM
Heh well leif keep in mind something. Dodge is an import for you, not a domestic. Here in the states Audis are about 4000 more on average.
dukenukem
Feb 10 2006, 07:36 AM
QUOTE(Mitlov @ Feb 10 2006, 02:45 AM)

Because it's fast in a straight line. Remember that this is from the same company that brought us the Ram SRT-10 (or whatever it's called). You and I may think that "sporty" may mean "sporty handling," but there are a lot of people out there who only care about straight-line performance.
TRAP SPEED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
leif
Feb 10 2006, 07:37 AM
A4 starts at $28,000 USD
300 starts at $28,000 USD (for the touring edition) while the 300C starts at $34,000USD
A4 is still cheaper, and has a better trap speed.
i still have to say, when I could have a new A4 on my drive for the same price as a Chrysler 300, I begin to wonder why i see so many of these things on the road!

is so much nicer than
DakianDelomast
Feb 10 2006, 09:32 AM
APPLES TO ORANGES.
Quit trying to skew your results. For the love of god you must be a HORRIBLE scientist!
leif
Feb 10 2006, 09:42 AM
im not skewing anything...2 luxury sedans...ones an Audi, ones a Chrysler...
I chose the Touring edition because it had options which are standard on the Audi, unlike the base 300, which comes with nothing.
I'm starting to wonder here who has the bias, im showing you Quantitative evidence here, and I think i have demonstrated my point well...but you wont let it rest based on some sort of qualitative BS...any way I have to go and run my HORRIBLE experiments, so I can produce a fake antibiotic to kill MRSA...and be published for a second time in a pretend science journal.
dukenukem
Feb 10 2006, 09:43 AM
lief, A4 is a car for rich women and sorority chiks ... 300C is a car for people who want to make a bold entrance. Noone in their right mind think about comparing them.
Mitlov
Feb 10 2006, 10:40 AM
QUOTE(Cyclone @ Feb 10 2006, 03:26 AM)

What kind of image are they trying to go for with the PT Cruiser? O_o I guess since I'm not an old lady (between 40-60) i cant appreciate it.
Well they're NOT aiming for the young market. I know a Vietnam War vet who has it and loves it. That's the sort of person I think of when I think PT Cruiser. Middle-aged blue-collar people--the sort of people who watch the show
American Chopper. And there are a LOT of them in the United States, and none of them want to drive something that looks like the Toyota Matrix.
Mitlov
Feb 10 2006, 10:44 AM
QUOTE(leif @ Feb 10 2006, 06:26 AM)

not as good a product as the Japanise equivilants (Legacy wagon is a Magnum competition)
I'm pretty positive you could fit a Legacy wagon
inside a Magnum, and still have room for groceries. They're competition in the same way that a RAV-4 and a Chevy Tahoe are competition...which is to say not much. There's no other large wagon--not midsize wagon, but large wagon--that I can think of in the US market. Certainly not with RWD and an available V8.
A Magnum with the 250hp 3.5 liter V6 costs mid $20s, before rebates--and American brands always offer rebates. That's about the same price as a 175hp Legacy wagon with an automatic. You get a lot more room and a lot more power with the Magnum, or a lot more refinement with the Subaru (I can't believe that phrase just came out of my mouth).
Phix
Feb 10 2006, 11:13 AM
QUOTE(Mitlov @ Feb 10 2006, 01:44 PM)

(I can't believe that phrase just came out of my mouth).
Good thing you typed it, huh.
Mitlov
Feb 10 2006, 11:32 AM
QUOTE(leif @ Feb 10 2006, 07:37 AM)

A4 starts at $28,000 USD
300 starts at $28,000 USD (for the touring edition) while the 300C starts at $34,000USD
A4 is still cheaper, and has a better trap speed.
i still have to say, when I could have a new A4 on my drive for the same price as a Chrysler 300, I begin to wonder why i see so many of these things on the road!

is so much nicer than

Why are you comparing a compact car to a large car? The VAG cars that are a comparable size to the Chrysler are the Phaeton and the A8, not the A4. Furthermore, why are we talking about trap speeds on luxury cars? Were you planning on drag-racing that A4?
For the record, the 300C is a really, really good looking car. I like the new A4 as well, but the Chrysler is awesome in a very different way. Looks like a tank. It's undeniably American. Nothing out of Europe or Japan looks remotely like it.
clarkma5
Feb 10 2006, 11:39 AM
^^Agreed.
The 300 is a frickin' LIMO inside, and for the price of a lightly equipped 4 cylinder Audi you get a V8 rear wheel drive 300.
Phix
Feb 10 2006, 11:54 AM
QUOTE(clarkma5 @ Feb 10 2006, 02:39 PM)

^^Agreed.
The 300 is a frickin' LIMO inside, and for the price of a lightly equipped 4 cylinder Audi you get a V8 rear wheel drive 300.
Considering I drove/worked on Limos over the summer and one of my bosses had a 300 and let me drive it... I hated it. The interior, atleast, since I didn't drive it for too long. It's nothing like a limo. You could practically eat a full course meal on the top of the dash rather comfortably.
But, yeah, I gotta say the exterior looks pretty nice. But I don't like the rounded headlights... I prefer the straight cut ones.
Mitlov
Feb 10 2006, 11:56 AM
QUOTE(PHiX @ Feb 10 2006, 11:54 AM)

Considering I drove/worked on Limos over the summer and one of my bosses had a 300 and let me drive it... I hated it. The interior, atleast, since I didn't drive it for too long. It's nothing like a limo. You could practically eat a full course meal on the top of the dash rather comfortably.
Compared to a real limo, a Chrysler 300 isn't limo-huge. But is sure is compared to a frickin' Audi A4.
Phix
Feb 10 2006, 11:57 AM
QUOTE(Mitlov @ Feb 10 2006, 02:56 PM)

Compared to a real limo, a Chrysler 300 isn't limo-huge. But is sure is compared to a frickin' Audi A4.
Ditto.
leif
Feb 10 2006, 01:13 PM
ok, apparently some of you feel that 2 cubic feet is the difference between a limo and a compact car...because thats what were talking about here people...
Audi A4 interior volume is 103 Cubic feet
Chrysler 300C interior volume is 105 Cubic feet
Im not trying to start an argument here...but franlky im a littel tired of people coming in and saying "no your wrong" and spouting some made up fact
QUOTE
Why are you comparing a compact car to a large car? The VAG cars that are a comparable size to the Chrysler are the Phaeton and the A8, not the A4
the A4 is nearly the same inside...it just doesent have a huge exterior...
these 2 cars are not competing against one another, but my point still stands...a 300 is no bargain...you can have a 6 cilynder 300 touring with no options for the same price as a base Audi A4...which has more standard equipment, which are optional extras on the 300!
I know I have been accused of beating a dead horse in the past, and sure...ill own up to that...but I cant beleive some of you people would atcually take a poorly equipped chrysler over an Audi A4! especially considering that they are the same freaking price.
Mitlov
Feb 10 2006, 01:24 PM
Where did you get those statistics? According to
Honda's comparison website, the difference in interior volume is 16.0 cubic feet. Not two. This includes six more inches of rear legroom (the 300C only has 0.5" more front legroom, admittedly) and 4.3 inches of shoulder room, front and rear.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.