Topic: Dodge Caliber SRT-4 @ C & D

[dougjp]

Got a good laugh from the latest Car & Driver that just arrived in the mail (Dec 07 issue).

They did a comparo of "hot hatches" again, did one in the spring where the Mazdaspeed3 won. Anyway, this time it was the Mazdaspeed3 against 3 others that came out since, the Volvo C30 turbo, Subaru WRX, and the Caliber SRT4.

Well, no surprise, the Dodge came last......quotes - " A mug its own mother would slug", " high sheen plastics among the cheap bits, a bucking ride", and The Verdict, "A running shoe trapped in a running shoe BOX". Sometimes they have a way with words 

[sirAQUAMAN64]

Yes, yes they do...

So, besides Caliber's rating, how'd the rest stack up?

[PJungnitsch]

#3 Volvo C30 T5
Highs: A cuter butt than any in Hollywood, quiet inside and composed on the road, pass-it-quick power.
Lows: Floats on softer springs, interior has the blahs (Volvo excels at interiors that look cast from concrete ), melt-away brakes.
Verdict: The aging boomers Mini Cooper

#2 Subaru Impreza WRX
Highs: Rock solid and refined, comes closer to rear-drive moves, the torque is spread thick.
Lows: Understated inside to the point of Accord-ness, looks dumpy next to the Mazdaspeed, worst mpg.
Verdict: A budget BMW in a plain beige wrapper

#1 Mazdaspeed 3
Highs: Felonious power, crisp steering, Porsche brakes, fits of giggling
Lows: Wheel-wrenching torque steer, spongy shifter, dash rattle
Verdict: It may cause jail time, but never boredom

They really, really liked the Mazda. And at under 25 grand, wow, what a deal they get down south.

Price as tested:

Caliber SRT4 25,585
C30 23,920
Impreza 29,833
Mazdaspeed 3 24,650

You'd wonder how Dodge will sell any SRT4's in the States.

[Mitlov]

Got a good laugh from the latest Car & Driver that just arrived in the mail (Dec 07 issue).

They did a comparo of "hot hatches" again, did one in the spring where the Mazdaspeed3 won. Anyway, this time it was the Mazdaspeed3 against 3 others that came out since, the Volvo C30 turbo, Subaru WRX, and the Caliber SRT4.

Well, no surprise, the Dodge came last......quotes - " A mug its own mother would slug", " high sheen plastics among the cheap bits, a bucking ride", and The Verdict, "A running shoe trapped in a running shoe BOX". Sometimes they have a way with words 

For the record, it's SRT-4, not STX.  And not that I'm a Caliber-lover, but for the record, C&D also noted that it had by far the best shifter of the lot.  It also had the best lane change numbers, best 0-100, best 0-130, best cargo room, best "powertrain flexibility," and best trap speed.  They also noted it was "planted through corners."

It's not for everyone, but you give the impression that C&D had nothing good to say about it.  And that's just plain not true.

[dougjp]

Valid point, Mitlov. However the post wasn't meant to be a recap of the comparison test or a comment on other facets of this car, it was about the comedy I found out of the wording they used relative to the appearance only of this car.

On that same vein, whenever I see one of these cars, I think of this old commercial (also comedy), because I happen to think its appearance is the modern day equivalent - just my opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BKC2lHN_lE

[Snowman]

C and D are far too subjective with their reviews and I put little weight on what they claim these days.

[Mitlov]

Valid point, Mitlov. However the post wasn't meant to be a recap of the comparison test or a comment on other facets of this car, it was about the comedy I found out of the wording they used relative to the appearance only of this car.

Then why did you say "Well, no surprise, the Dodge came last"?  How is that solely about the appearance of the car and not a recap of the comparison test?  And what does the ride quality ("a bucking ride") have to do with the car's aesthetics?  You addressed all of the negatives of the car and it's ranking in the test, not just the admittedly-funny comments about its exterior styling.

[Mitlov]

#3 Volvo C30 T5
Highs: A cuter butt than any in Hollywood, quiet inside and composed on the road, pass-it-quick power.
Lows: Floats on softer springs, interior has the blahs (Volvo excels at interiors that look cast from concrete ), melt-away brakes.
Verdict: The aging boomers Mini Cooper

#2 Subaru Impreza WRX
Highs: Rock solid and refined, comes closer to rear-drive moves, the torque is spread thick.
Lows: Understated inside to the point of Accord-ness, looks dumpy next to the Mazdaspeed, worst mpg.
Verdict: A budget BMW in a plain beige wrapper

#1 Mazdaspeed 3
Highs: Felonious power, crisp steering, Porsche brakes, fits of giggling
Lows: Wheel-wrenching torque steer, spongy shifter, dash rattle
Verdict: It may cause jail time, but never boredom

And for the sake of apples-to-apples, here's the complete summary of the Dodge:

Highs:  Planted through corners, gratifying shifter feel, gives good quarter-miles.
Lows:  A mug its own mother would slug, high-sheen plastics among the cheap bits, a bucking ride.
Verdict:  A running shoe trapped in a running shoe's box.

[dougjp]

Valid point, Mitlov. However the post wasn't meant to be a recap of the comparison test or a comment on other facets of this car, it was about the comedy I found out of the wording they used relative to the appearance only of this car.

Then why did you say "Well, no surprise, the Dodge came last"?  How is that solely about the appearance of the car and not a recap of the comparison test?  And what does the ride quality ("a bucking ride") have to do with the car's aesthetics?  You addressed all of the negatives of the car and it's ranking in the test, not just the admittedly-funny comments about its exterior styling.

Oh for heaven's sake.... I'll have to be so careful around here then. 

OK, by each point:

- "No surprise...came last" was simply based on the quality of the competition. I'm sure we've all seen reviews, forum posts etc. of all these cars before, in the case of the Dodge, back at the time of the base car's introduction. It was just my opinion, which I think would be shared by most upon seeing the model names in this comparo. However go ahead and tell me a majority of people would think otherwise, before seeing the outcome of this comparo, if you want.
 
- " high sheen plastics among the cheap bits, a bucking ride" was an unedited  summary quote by C & D about the downsides of the car.
I could have and would have only quoted the first part because "bucking ride" isn't that funny I guess, however keep in mind I had no concept at the time of the original post that anyone would come along to micromanage the post.
OK THEN, I MADE A MISTAKE in the wording of my reply (5th post)! I'll propose to change " it was about the comedy I found out of the wording they used relative to the appearance only of this car." to " it was about the comedy I found out of the wording they used relative to this car".

- RE: " You addressed all of the negatives of the car and it's ranking in the test, not just the admittedly-funny comments about its exterior styling." Answered above - purpose of post, share C & D wit/comments about this Dodge, which to me happened to be found in the negatives. I wasn't doing a summary of a car review and never said I was.

Oh, and while we are editing, delete "Valid point, Mitlov" from my 5th post. I mean, why put more in that post than necessary if it gets totally ignored anyway. 

P.S.: Fixed incorrect car description in the Subject line, sorry for the delay. 

[Mitlov]

Oh for heaven's sake.... I'll have to be so careful around here then. 

The only reason I nit-picked was because you got all hyper-technical on me first.  When I had the audacity to say something good about the SRT-4 and its review in C&D, you told me I was off-topic because you had a very, very, very narrow goal for this thread.  You posted about C&D's review of the SRT4, and I responded about C&D's review of the SRT4.  Posts on internet forums don't get much more on-topic than that.

- "No surprise...came last" was simply based on the quality of the competition. I'm sure we've all seen reviews, forum posts etc. of all these cars before, in the case of the Dodge, back at the time of the base car's introduction. It was just my opinion, which I think would be shared by most upon seeing the model names in this comparo. However go ahead and tell me a majority of people would think otherwise, before seeing the outcome of this comparo, if you want.

  Accurate or not, surprising or not, there's nothing "funny" or "clever" about the ranking of the four cars.  If all you wanted to talk about was C&D's clever quips, not C&D's hot hatch article as a whole, you wouldn't have mentioned the rankings.  That's all I'm saying here.

[Snowman]

I read my C&D on the weekend and despite the second place showing by the WRX I was especially disappointed in the performance scoring of the WRX against the Mazdaspeed3 and the Calibre SRT4. I expected the WRX would do better and with mine was OEM so I could verify the numbers.

Clearly Subaru needs to step it up somewhat and fully utilize the AWD driveline to be a leader in this class with more power and better tires.

[Benhaze]

C and D are far too subjective with their reviews and I put little weight on what they claim these days.

Yet you still subscribe? 

At least C&D is entertaining to read.

Motorweek just reviewed the SRT-4 also and they pointed out the very significant torque steer all the way in 3rd gear. And that's from a TV show that somehow seems to find all cars just marvellous! 

I think the Neon SRT-4 was a very pleasant surprise for some, and the Caliber SRT-4 isn't. Anyone remember the Omni GLH?

[rrocket]

The interior in the SRT-4 is TERRIBLY cheap....embarrassing almost.  That's reason enough in my book to not buy one....

[mdxtasy]

The interior in the SRT-4 is TERRIBLY cheap....embarrassing almost.  That's reason enough in my book to not buy one....

Where else can you get a car with that performance at that price? 

[rrocket]

^^^^Hey..if that's your criteria for a car, by all means buy it.  For me, I just can't overlook that POS, hard plastics, overtly cheap interior.  It's nice to have a fast car, but what's the point if you can't stand being INSIDE the thing?

[mdxtasy]

^^^^Hey..if that's your criteria for a car, by all means buy it.  For me, I just can't overlook that POS, hard plastics, overtly cheap interior.  It's nice to have a fast car, but what's the point if you can't stand being INSIDE the thing?

It's not for me either...but you have to analyze the market and see what they are offering for the price.  If you can get a competitor car that offers the same level of performance for the same price, but gives you a first class interior as well?  That's a winner. 

It's only cheap looking if you can find something in the segment offering better interior with the same level of performance.  Otherwise, they call this the benchmark. 

[Mitlov]

The interior in the SRT-4 is TERRIBLY cheap....embarrassing almost.  That's reason enough in my book to not buy one....

For some, the poor reliability and (relatively) low power output of the GTI is a deal-breaker.
For some, the sci-fi interior and the torqueless engine of the Civic Si is a deal-breaker.
For some, the rubbery shifter and high price of the Mazdaspeed3 is a deal-breaker.
For some, the soft suspension and poor rear-seat access of the C30 is a deal-breaker.
For some, the wooden steering, notchy shifter, and excessive body roll of the WRX is a deal-breaker.

Hot hatches all have compromises--that's why they're affordable.  It's up to each individual consumer to decide which criteria they're willing to compromise on.  Isn't it nice that the automotive industry offers choices? 

[rrocket]

The interiors of the WRX and Mazda3 and C30 when compared side by side with the SRT-4 are world class+++!  Sure the SRT-4 is fast, but when I'm driving it, I don't want to be looking at an interior that is reminiscent of a mid-80's Hyundai......Interiors are important (to me anyways) because that's where you spend all of your time...

It's one thing to drive a cheap car.  It's another to drive a car that feels cheap...

[Snowman]

C and D are far too subjective with their reviews and I put little weight on what they claim these days.

Yet you still subscribe? 

At least C&D is entertaining to read.

Motorweek just reviewed the SRT-4 also and they pointed out the very significant torque steer all the way in 3rd gear. And that's from a TV show that somehow seems to find all cars just marvellous! 

I think the Neon SRT-4 was a very pleasant surprise for some, and the Caliber SRT-4 isn't. Anyone remember the Omni GLH?

X-mass gift and I do not want to disappoint the person who thought of getting me an automotive related stocking stuffer.

[PJungnitsch]

It's all if you are buying in the US or Canada.

Where the test was done the Dodge and the Mazda are almost the same price.

For us there is a six grand advantage (at least) to the hopped up Chrysler product, makes a big difference.