2007 Dodge Caliber SRT-4 Revealed

[BMWDave]

2007 Dodge Caliber SRT-4 Revealed
By: Phil Lienert

Date Posted 10-13-2005

When the Neon is replaced by the Caliber hatchback next year, the Chrysler Group will be filling the void of deliciously cheap performance with the 2007 Dodge Caliber SRT-4.

How can Dodge top what was already one of the most fun compact vehicles to begin with?

When Chrysler Group executives admitted during a Caliber briefing in Detroit last month that the "Neon has not been as good as it could have been," we assumed that they probably weren't talking about the SRT-4 version of that reliable economy car.

Regardless of the Neon SRT-4's somewhat outdated looks and unsatisfactory interior, the car delivered behind the wheel. As good as the Neon SRT-4 was, the Caliber SRT is bound to be even better.

The hood scoop visible in these photos distinguishes this 2007 Caliber SRT mule from its standard kin, and this hot hatchback will be powered by a SRT-tuned version of the 2.4-liter, four-cylinder engine developed with Hyundai and Mitsubishi. The tweaked version of this new global engine will probably place the Caliber SRT's output in the neighborhood of 235 horsepower.

In addition to the Caliber SRT's expected performance capabilities, the vehicle may also incorporate electronic all-wheel drive. As the first such unit to be used on a Chrysler Group car, the Caliber's AWD will feature an electronically controlled front-rear split, in which the system will primarily make use of the front wheels for the sake of fuel economy, sending extra torque to the rear if slippage is sensed.

Expect the 2007 Caliber SRT to appear some six months after the standard version of the car, most likely toward the end of 2006. As Dodge plans on starting the Caliber in the $15,000 range, expect the SRT version of the hatchback to run along the same lines as the Neon SRT-4 in the low $20,000s.

The Caliber, in all its forms, is bound to be much more of a globally oriented car than the Neon ever was, thanks in part to a platform developed with Mitsubishi. Dodge's intentions to place special marketing emphasis on Europe were clear from the Caliber concept's introduction at the 2005 Geneva Motor Show.

Despite the Caliber's cross-cultural leanings, the SRT version of the vehicle proves that Dodge has not forgotten its home market in the creation of this upcoming budget hatchback.

Given the current state of oil prices and the fact that many American consumers are already running scared from SUVs, the 2007 Caliber SRT ? with better performance, space, handling, and possibly even fuel economy than the Neon ? is already starting to sound like it could be a real winner for the Chrysler Group ? perhaps even more so than the upcoming SRT-tuned versions of the Jeep Commander and Jeep Grand Cherokee.

[Catman]

Looks awesome. B)  

[Raza]

I think I might have liked the Neon SRT-4 better.

[Fire It Up]

It looks so fucking gib.

[Raghavan]

Front AWD.

[SaltyDog]

Is that an SUV?

[Raghavan]

Is that an SUV?

Neon replacement wagon.  

[MX793]

Front AWD.

The Lancer Evolution is a front biased AWD system too, and it will smoke most anything on the road.

[Raghavan]

Front AWD.

The Lancer Evolution is a front biased AWD system too, and it will smoke most anything on the road.

But I thought that it always was sending SOME torque to the rear wheels? And in this, the rear wheels don't help until needed?

[MX793]

Front AWD.

The Lancer Evolution is a front biased AWD system too, and it will smoke most anything on the road.

But I thought that it always was sending SOME torque to the rear wheels? And in this, the rear wheels don't help until needed?

IIRC, the Evo switches between 100% FWD to 50/50 depending on conditions.

[Raghavan]

Front AWD.

The Lancer Evolution is a front biased AWD system too, and it will smoke most anything on the road.

But I thought that it always was sending SOME torque to the rear wheels? And in this, the rear wheels don't help until needed?

IIRC, the Evo switches between 100% FWD to 50/50 depending on conditions.

So under regular driving conditions the EVO is always FWD?

[Raghavan]

Front AWD.

The Lancer Evolution is a front biased AWD system too, and it will smoke most anything on the road.

But I thought that it always was sending SOME torque to the rear wheels? And in this, the rear wheels don't help until needed?

IIRC, the Evo switches between 100% FWD to 50/50 depending on conditions.

So under regular driving conditions the EVO is always FWD?

...

[MX793]

Front AWD.

The Lancer Evolution is a front biased AWD system too, and it will smoke most anything on the road.

But I thought that it always was sending SOME torque to the rear wheels? And in this, the rear wheels don't help until needed?

IIRC, the Evo switches between 100% FWD to 50/50 depending on conditions.

So under regular driving conditions the EVO is always FWD?

...

Seems I was mistaken.  When traveling in a straight line, the center diff puts power to all 4s.  In a turn, however, the diff unlocks and routes power to the front to help the car turn better, since 50/50 AWD is stable and doesn't like to yaw.  However, the power split never puts more than 50% to the rears.

[Catman]

This thread was edited due to trolling.  :angry:  

[Raghavan]

Front AWD.

The Lancer Evolution is a front biased AWD system too, and it will smoke most anything on the road.

But I thought that it always was sending SOME torque to the rear wheels? And in this, the rear wheels don't help until needed?

IIRC, the Evo switches between 100% FWD to 50/50 depending on conditions.

So under regular driving conditions the EVO is always FWD?

...

Seems I was mistaken.  When traveling in a straight line, the center diff puts power to all 4s.  In a turn, however, the diff unlocks and routes power to the front to help the car turn better, since 50/50 AWD is stable and doesn't like to yaw.  However, the power split never puts more than 50% to the rears.

So at least that's more rear biased than this will be because the rear wheels won't get power till there's slippage in the front.

[MX793]

Front AWD.

The Lancer Evolution is a front biased AWD system too, and it will smoke most anything on the road.

But I thought that it always was sending SOME torque to the rear wheels? And in this, the rear wheels don't help until needed?

IIRC, the Evo switches between 100% FWD to 50/50 depending on conditions.

So under regular driving conditions the EVO is always FWD?

...

Seems I was mistaken.  When traveling in a straight line, the center diff puts power to all 4s.  In a turn, however, the diff unlocks and routes power to the front to help the car turn better, since 50/50 AWD is stable and doesn't like to yaw.  However, the power split never puts more than 50% to the rears.

So at least that's more rear biased than this will be because the rear wheels won't get power till there's slippage in the front.

Why does it matter if you're running power to the rear wheels when you don't need it?  Driving all 4 wheels saps a lot of power.  If they disconnect the rears when they aren't needed, they may wind up reducing drivetrain loss.  Subarus lose over 20% of their power through the driveline, compared to about 14% for RWD and around 13% for FWD.  The point is, the car moves power rearward when you need it.  When you romp on the gas, the weight will shift rearward and the power will likewise shift to prevent wheel slippage.  Meanwhile, by not driving the rear wheels at higher speeds when you no longer need the traction, the car should accelerate faster than if it were full time AWD since there should be less drivetrain loss (more power goes to the road).

[Raghavan]

Front AWD.

The Lancer Evolution is a front biased AWD system too, and it will smoke most anything on the road.

But I thought that it always was sending SOME torque to the rear wheels? And in this, the rear wheels don't help until needed?

IIRC, the Evo switches between 100% FWD to 50/50 depending on conditions.

So under regular driving conditions the EVO is always FWD?

...

Seems I was mistaken.  When traveling in a straight line, the center diff puts power to all 4s.  In a turn, however, the diff unlocks and routes power to the front to help the car turn better, since 50/50 AWD is stable and doesn't like to yaw.  However, the power split never puts more than 50% to the rears.

So at least that's more rear biased than this will be because the rear wheels won't get power till there's slippage in the front.

Why does it matter if you're running power to the rear wheels when you don't need it?  Driving all 4 wheels saps a lot of power.  If they disconnect the rears when they aren't needed, they may wind up reducing drivetrain loss.  Subarus lose over 20% of their power through the driveline, compared to about 14% for RWD and around 13% for FWD.  The point is, the car moves power rearward when you need it.  When you romp on the gas, the weight will shift rearward and the power will likewise shift to prevent wheel slippage.  Meanwhile, by not driving the rear wheels at higher speeds when you no longer need the traction, the car should accelerate faster than if it were full time AWD since there should be less drivetrain loss (more power goes to the road).

Because you're lugging around all of that junk like the rear diff and the driveshaft, and they arent doing anything . it's just dead weight, so might as well put em to use.

[giant_mtb]

Front AWD.

The Lancer Evolution is a front biased AWD system too, and it will smoke most anything on the road.

But I thought that it always was sending SOME torque to the rear wheels? And in this, the rear wheels don't help until needed?

IIRC, the Evo switches between 100% FWD to 50/50 depending on conditions.

So under regular driving conditions the EVO is always FWD?

...

Seems I was mistaken.  When traveling in a straight line, the center diff puts power to all 4s.  In a turn, however, the diff unlocks and routes power to the front to help the car turn better, since 50/50 AWD is stable and doesn't like to yaw.  However, the power split never puts more than 50% to the rears.

So at least that's more rear biased than this will be because the rear wheels won't get power till there's slippage in the front.

Why does it matter if you're running power to the rear wheels when you don't need it?  Driving all 4 wheels saps a lot of power.  If they disconnect the rears when they aren't needed, they may wind up reducing drivetrain loss.  Subarus lose over 20% of their power through the driveline, compared to about 14% for RWD and around 13% for FWD.  The point is, the car moves power rearward when you need it.  When you romp on the gas, the weight will shift rearward and the power will likewise shift to prevent wheel slippage.  Meanwhile, by not driving the rear wheels at higher speeds when you no longer need the traction, the car should accelerate faster than if it were full time AWD since there should be less drivetrain loss (more power goes to the road).

Because you're lugging around all of that junk like the rear diff and the driveshaft, and they arent doing anything . it's just dead weight, so might as well put em to use.

It's put to use when necessary, while saving fuel and wear/tear on parts when it isn't neessary.    

[MX793]

Front AWD.

The Lancer Evolution is a front biased AWD system too, and it will smoke most anything on the road.

But I thought that it always was sending SOME torque to the rear wheels? And in this, the rear wheels don't help until needed?

IIRC, the Evo switches between 100% FWD to 50/50 depending on conditions.

So under regular driving conditions the EVO is always FWD?

...

Seems I was mistaken.  When traveling in a straight line, the center diff puts power to all 4s.  In a turn, however, the diff unlocks and routes power to the front to help the car turn better, since 50/50 AWD is stable and doesn't like to yaw.  However, the power split never puts more than 50% to the rears.

So at least that's more rear biased than this will be because the rear wheels won't get power till there's slippage in the front.

Why does it matter if you're running power to the rear wheels when you don't need it?  Driving all 4 wheels saps a lot of power.  If they disconnect the rears when they aren't needed, they may wind up reducing drivetrain loss.  Subarus lose over 20% of their power through the driveline, compared to about 14% for RWD and around 13% for FWD.  The point is, the car moves power rearward when you need it.  When you romp on the gas, the weight will shift rearward and the power will likewise shift to prevent wheel slippage.  Meanwhile, by not driving the rear wheels at higher speeds when you no longer need the traction, the car should accelerate faster than if it were full time AWD since there should be less drivetrain loss (more power goes to the road).

Because you're lugging around all of that junk like the rear diff and the driveshaft, and they arent doing anything . it's just dead weight, so might as well put em to use.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear.  If you use them, you incur losses in power.  Yes, the weight is there whether you use them or not, but by not using them when they aren't needed, your wheel horsepower (which is the power that matters) to weight ratio goes up and your performance improves.

Your suggestion to route power to the rears simply because the hardware is there and you should always make use of it is about as bright as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Raghavan]

The Calibur SRT-4 should be 2WD only. It's already heavier than the Neon it replaces, and yet it's not getting any more power, so adding more weight isn't helping at all.

[ifcar]

With an AWD system available but not standard, everyone is satisfied. Why would it be a good idea to tell potential buyers that they can't have AWD at all even if they personally decide it's the best for them?

[Fire It Up]

Front AWD.

The Lancer Evolution is a front biased AWD system too, and it will smoke most anything on the road.

But I thought that it always was sending SOME torque to the rear wheels? And in this, the rear wheels don't help until needed?

IIRC, the Evo switches between 100% FWD to 50/50 depending on conditions.

So under regular driving conditions the EVO is always FWD?

...

Seems I was mistaken.  When traveling in a straight line, the center diff puts power to all 4s.  In a turn, however, the diff unlocks and routes power to the front to help the car turn better, since 50/50 AWD is stable and doesn't like to yaw.  However, the power split never puts more than 50% to the rears.

So at least that's more rear biased than this will be because the rear wheels won't get power till there's slippage in the front.

Why does it matter if you're running power to the rear wheels when you don't need it?  Driving all 4 wheels saps a lot of power.  If they disconnect the rears when they aren't needed, they may wind up reducing drivetrain loss.  Subarus lose over 20% of their power through the driveline, compared to about 14% for RWD and around 13% for FWD.  The point is, the car moves power rearward when you need it.  When you romp on the gas, the weight will shift rearward and the power will likewise shift to prevent wheel slippage.  Meanwhile, by not driving the rear wheels at higher speeds when you no longer need the traction, the car should accelerate faster than if it were full time AWD since there should be less drivetrain loss (more power goes to the road).

Because you're lugging around all of that junk like the rear diff and the driveshaft, and they arent doing anything . it's just dead weight, so might as well put em to use.

Christ, this deserves a massive rolleyes.

[Raghavan]

With an AWD system available but not standard, everyone is satisfied. Why would it be a good idea to tell potential buyers that they can't have AWD at all even if they personally decide it's the best for them?

Oh. It's optional. That's good then.

[Raghavan]

Front AWD.

The Lancer Evolution is a front biased AWD system too, and it will smoke most anything on the road.

But I thought that it always was sending SOME torque to the rear wheels? And in this, the rear wheels don't help until needed?

IIRC, the Evo switches between 100% FWD to 50/50 depending on conditions.

So under regular driving conditions the EVO is always FWD?

...

Seems I was mistaken.  When traveling in a straight line, the center diff puts power to all 4s.  In a turn, however, the diff unlocks and routes power to the front to help the car turn better, since 50/50 AWD is stable and doesn't like to yaw.  However, the power split never puts more than 50% to the rears.

So at least that's more rear biased than this will be because the rear wheels won't get power till there's slippage in the front.

Why does it matter if you're running power to the rear wheels when you don't need it?  Driving all 4 wheels saps a lot of power.  If they disconnect the rears when they aren't needed, they may wind up reducing drivetrain loss.  Subarus lose over 20% of their power through the driveline, compared to about 14% for RWD and around 13% for FWD.  The point is, the car moves power rearward when you need it.  When you romp on the gas, the weight will shift rearward and the power will likewise shift to prevent wheel slippage.  Meanwhile, by not driving the rear wheels at higher speeds when you no longer need the traction, the car should accelerate faster than if it were full time AWD since there should be less drivetrain loss (more power goes to the road).

Because you're lugging around all of that junk like the rear diff and the driveshaft, and they arent doing anything . it's just dead weight, so might as well put em to use.

Christ, this deserves a massive rolleyes.

Oh go away.  

[ifcar]

With an AWD system available but not standard, everyone is satisfied. Why would it be a good idea to tell potential buyers that they can't have AWD at all even if they personally decide it's the best for them?

Oh. It's optional. That's good then.

I don't believe the standard Caliber even offers AWD, and they're only talking about it as a possibility here. Sounds like an option to me.  

[MX793]

With an AWD system available but not standard, everyone is satisfied. Why would it be a good idea to tell potential buyers that they can't have AWD at all even if they personally decide it's the best for them?

Oh. It's optional. That's good then.

I don't believe the standard Caliber even offers AWD, and they're only talking about it as a possibility here. Sounds like an option to me.

I believe that AWD will be standard on the SRT4 version, though.  At least that's what I gather from the rumor mill.  Of course, everything that's circulating now is speculative.  We'll have to wait and see how it all plays out.

[ifcar]

It wouldn't make much sense, but anything's possible.  

[MX793]

It wouldn't make much sense, but anything's possible.

What wouldn't make sense about it?  The SRT4 will be the high end, performance oriented Caliber.  The "regular" Calibers would certainly be FWD and they may offer AWD as an option, but it makes sense to me that the SRT would be AWD only.  It would be like the Lancer Evo to the Caliber line (speaking of which, the Caliber is on the Lancer platform).

[Raza]

The Mitsubishi, on the other hand, never sends the majority of engine torque to the rear axle. Instead, it can send all the engine torque to the front wheels or 50 percent of it (using an electrohydraulic clutch on the center diff). So the Evo varies the front-to-rear torque split between 100/0 and 50/50. In addition to the yaw-rate and throttle-position sensors, the Evo has a steering-wheel-angle sensor that also provides the computer with information.

From Car and Driver

Original Context

[ifcar]

It wouldn't make much sense, but anything's possible.

What wouldn't make sense about it?  The SRT4 will be the high end, performance oriented Caliber.  The "regular" Calibers would certainly be FWD and they may offer AWD as an option, but it makes sense to me that the SRT would be AWD only.  It would be like the Lancer Evo to the Caliber line (speaking of which, the Caliber is on the Lancer platform).

I would hope that they make it into more than a cheap Evo hatchback with a Ram grille.