Keydogg said:but with £2000 u can get roughly 150-160bhp, which will then keep up with type Rs!
pbirkett said:Sorry but I just dont buy this business of a VTS as standard being as fast as a 182. One tried it on with me several months ago and I was all over him, and it was definitely trying.
0-100 is 17s on the Clio and 22s on the 106/Saxo. Thats FIVE seconds. That is a fair difference.
So if you mod a Saxo it'll be closer, or may even exceed it. But do similar mods to a Clio and then what?
I'm taking nothing away from these cars, they are brisk little cars, and great fun and handling, but the 182 IS in a league above, there is no doubt about it.
For some reason it seems fashionable to put the Clio down on a forum that is dedicated to Clios. Please explain why this is?
gazcaddy said:I know what you mean, its the same with the williams according to the the road test the 182 is much quicker. BUT people on here have 1st hand experience and say theres not much in it
Keydogg said:the saxo's suspension is a bit softer than any of the 172/182s, especially the cup/trophy, but at only 935kg, its chassis really copes well and it will whip round any corner. just like a clio will.
SOHROB said:you must have had a dodgy saxo canky if it didnt corner,the vtr/s are well known for there good handling
brucey106 said:i just want this brought up for my 172 mate i am his vts mate, i say level to a ton my vts has only done 37k to the 172 70k?
average vts on a 1/4 get around 15/16's?
same for a 172 getting 15/16's?
i reckon both cars driven by good drivers would see low 15's together
'F' all in it really! ok saxo has the chav image, but 172's are gettin cheaper and chavs are movin on
sorry bush
edde said:Don't forget that badging means nothing the amount of VTR and VTS baged cars being 1.1's