|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Neon (Reply to this comment)
by Nightshade_01
Oops!
I'll correct that immediately!
|
Jun 12 '03
7:11 pm PDT
|
|
Neon (Reply to this comment)
by savagegardenny
Just wanted to point out that the 2003 base Neon actually only gets a 2.0 liter engine, not a 2.2 as this review states.
|
Jun 10 '03
11:35 pm PDT
|
|
You like me, you really like me! (Reply to this comment)
by Nightshade_01
*sniffle* I'm so HAPPY!
Yeah, i'm a wiseguy. Seriously, thanks for the positive comments. I really appreciate it.
|
Apr 12 '03
1:40 pm PDT
|
|
Fun, enjoyable review (Reply to this comment)
by pvreditor,  in Cars & Motorsports
I agree with openroad... this is a fun, enjoyable review with lots of good information. Nice work!
--Bob
|
Apr 09 '03
6:57 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Well done review (Reply to this comment)
by Nightshade_01
The only reason the Dodge won the test is because it had the most power. That's all those chumps care about.
|
Apr 08 '03
11:19 pm PDT
|
|
Well done review (Reply to this comment)
by openroad, in Cars & Motorsports
for a test drive. I got all the information I was looking for, and it wasn't excessively long.
I had a sneaking suspicion the lack of a front LSD was more of a problem than auto magazines alluded to. I have driven powerful non-turbo front drivers and they had large amounts of wheel-spin while cornering. The extra torque generated by the turbo can only exacerbate the existing limitations of FWD.
If anyone wants to read a comparison between the SRT-4, Mazdaspeed, Spec-V, and SVT Focus, pick up a copy of the May issue of Car and Driver. (A spoiler here, the Dodge won the test.)
Considering the poor reliability of past Neon's and the average reliability of every other Chrysler product, I would snatch as much warranty as they can throw at you! The turbo can't help the long term durability very much...
For some reason, I wouldn't think twice about a WRX though... :)
Thanks again, and nice work!
Openroad
|
Apr 08 '03
8:14 pm PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.