1.6 16v dynamique owners

[Oakley]

Would you say that the stated 0-60 time is right (9.6secs)

Because my 1.2 16v had a stated time of 13 seconds but it was quicker to 60 than that?

 

[Tom]

yeah they (1.2 16vs) do it in about 11 secs

i would say thats about right may be 9 secs or 8.9

 

[RobFenn]

Have any 1.2 owners got timing equipment? It would be good to get a 0-60 time down

 

[SAX_MAN]

Doubt it mate, my VTS is quoted as 7.8 secs by Citroen but ive had it timed at 7.1

Probally more like 8.5

 

[Oakley]

I got the times off parkers and its got the 172 down and doing 0-60 in 7.9

What Im getting at is, is my 1.6 16v quicker than a vtr as there 0-60 is 9.3 (On parkers) you would think it would be because its only an 8v engine.

BTW I did 12 sec in the 1.2 up a slight hill!!!

 

[Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by RobFenn on 20 February 2003

Have any 1.2 owners got timing equipment? It would be good to get a 0-60 time down

will have a look in my shed

 

[Bryan]

yeah would be very interesting



i see a 1.2 16v shoot out over the 1/4 mile

 

[SAX_MAN]

Quote: Originally posted by Oakley on 20 February 2003


I got the times off parkers and its got the 172 down and doing 0-60 in 7.9

What Im getting at is, is my 1.6 16v quicker than a vtr as there 0-60 is 9.3 (On parkers) you would think it would be because its only an 8v engine.

BTW I did 12 sec in the 1.2 up a slight hill!!!

VTRs may only be 8 valve but they only weigh 920 kg and have 100 ib/ft avaliable at 3500 rpm, a VTR against a 1.6 16v Dynamique would be close.

 

[Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by bambam on 20 February 2003


yeah would be very interesting

i see a 1.2 16v shoot out over the 1/4 mile





hmm maybe the most boring 1/4 mile session ever 25secs peeps?

 

[RSTDL]

Our mk 1 1600 16v is 0-60 in 7.8secs - not bad for a 1600 but then its tuned well! The 1200 16vs are defo quicker than the factory figures say though

 

[Oakley]

The mk1 and mk2 are the same engines arent they so Its possible to get it alot quicker?

 

[R3OBC]

boring watch, be fun if u were driving tho lol! ill bring my makeshift induction kit along HAHA! As for the vtrs, my mates 98bhp one, with pipercross viper and magnex, could pull away from the 1.4 16v once the speed got built up...........1.6 16v would be interesting, but i think the clio would have the edge once up to speed.......but vtrs have some serious foreskin pulling power!!!

 

[Oakley]

R-I-G-H-T........ Is his non standard then as they are only 90bhp as standard

 

[RobFenn]

1.6s have 110bhp, VTR owners would only have a chance against 1.4s

 

[SAX_MAN]

R308BC, yes VTRs do but try a VTS!

 

[RobFenn]

and the 1.6 produces all torque at 3750 (148 foot pounds) so suck on that lemon!

 

[R3OBC]

no, new spec ones r 98bhp, as standard

 

[R3OBC]

148lb/ft torque from a 1.6 16v clio???????? hmmm, bollox!! lol!!!!! Yeah mate i like reading up about these VTSs...........craggy seems to be enjoying his!!!!

 

[SAX_MAN]

VTRs were 90 bhp as standard, then 98 bhp but now their 100 bhp. Their alot lighter than Clios too due to the crap build quality as well. VTRs have 108 bhp per ton, a good match for a 1.6 Dynamique.

 

[R3OBC]

RobF.........trust me, my mates vtr toasted the 1.4 16v clios once up to 80-90ish! his old 98bhp one was superchipped and thats all, and it had 107bhp, 3bhp less than the 1.6 16v clio, yet much lighter! Saxos r little pocket rockets

 

[RobFenn]

Quote: Originally posted by R3OBC on 20 February 2003

148lb/ft torque from a 1.6 16v clio???????? hmmm, bollox!! lol!!!!! Yeah mate i like reading up about these VTSs...........craggy seems to be enjoying his!!!!



Erm thats the official renault figure

 

[Tom]

Yep its in my database at work at 148@3750rpm

 

[R3OBC]

109 lb/ft
@ 3750 rpm thats more like a 1.6 torque figure......... 146lb/ft is more like a 2.0l engine!

 

[R3OBC]

sorry boys but i cant see a 1.6 producing that much........ i used top gears figures

 

[R3OBC]

if a vtr produces about 100lb/ft and its a 1.6, the vts is almost the same lb/ft im sure, so ur not gonna squeeze an extra 40odd lb/ft from a 1600cc unit............someone back me up here lol

 

[R3OBC]

hmmmmmm, i aint convinced boys........can someone explain how a 1.8 LOTUS elise engine can only produce 124lb/ft torque then??????sorry but i aint budging on this one lol...........no way is it 148 lol .............torque comes from CUBIC capacity............so the more cc u have, the more torque.........

 

[Oakley]

I have the clio broucher in front of me it says....................(Drum roll)

148 @ 3750 I thankyou

the 172 is 200@ 5400

 

[R3OBC]

oh i know whats happening..............u idiots r lookin an NM torque figures!!!!!!!!! 200NM for the 172????LOL, my dads 2.8 V6 Audi produced 184lb/ft of torque...........so, i dont think the 172 2.0l engine would produce more than a 2.8 v6 lol! ya have got ya units wrong boys! nm not lb/ft

 

[R3OBC]

i say idiots in a nice way........i aint falling out wi anyone but i know im right lol

 

[Tom]

whoops oh yeah

 

[R3OBC]

cheers boys.................LOL ya was fcukin wi ma head there ya know lol

 

[R3OBC]

lol @ tom editing all his posts out hope ya get ya car back soon matey

 

[Oakley]

Get up to date mate, we are in the EU now you cant use lbs or feet

 

[R3OBC]

im going on what was quoted firstly.........it takes a big man to admit defeat!!! lol

 

[RobFenn]

Damn poxy renault figures

Anyway the 100bhp mk2 VTR still has 136nm so thats still 12nm down

hahhahahhahahahhaa!

 

[R3OBC]

lol.............im bored wi this now! vtrs n vtss are cool, so are clios, as for the 1.6 dynamique, its only one step down from a 172 so all is well. Cheers guys, Rob

 

[Tom]

you could be chasing vtss in a 1600 all you need is 10 bhp

 

[Oakley]

What do you mean, you need 10 bhp????

 

[Tom]

sorry corrected

 

[RobFenn]

+ Clios rule +