seeing as everyone is doing simlair threads i thought i would do the same,but atleast the pusar is worthy,not like the other wankmobels metioned...any thoughts on how the clio would fare..?
[Edited by pigme1000000 on 31 January 2005 at 4:44pm]
ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
clio turbo vs pusar gtir
- Thread starter pigme1000000
- Start date
seeing as everyone is doing simlair threads i thought i would do the same,but atleast the pusar is worthy,not like the other wankmobels metioned...any thoughts on how the clio would fare..?
[Edited by pigme1000000 on 31 January 2005 at 4:44pm]
pusar? wankmobels?
Bad boy, dirty boy in your bed.
Ziel Nurburgring
There is another thread where he linked to a thread about a std 172 (for all we know) against a GTI-R pulsar.
There arent any clio 172 turbos on here that i know of. There are a few in development, but nothing on the road yet. Bit of a silly debate, based on a theoretical car vs a car with any number of mods
clio turbo , the k tec or the bb one
standard gtir 0-60 is 5.5,even a souped up pusar wouldnt be much quicker than a 330 bhp evo,k-tecs one keeped up with a 330 bhp evo so me thinks the clio running at 10psi would be having the last laugh!!! dont you
Nah not really. Clio ISNT a turbo car. Wouldnt dream of taking boost too high cause it WILL end up melting a piston or something.
As for 330bhp - thats easy money in an Evo or a Pulsar. Most Jap Evos and Pulsars are more in standard that a Turbod valver.
4x4 acceleration too is second to none. A FWD car wont keep up in a line with a RWD or a 4x4 with equal or more power to weight.
Bill - my mates moderately modded 2wd Sapph Cossie beat his mates 265bhp 850KG Nova down the 1/4 mile.
FWD cars with that sort of power cant get traction where it counts.
Fair dues the Nova when moving is very fast indeed but whats the point if you sit there spinning your new tyres into oblivion through 1st 2nd 3rd and sometimes 4th.
As I said the Clio 16v Turbo is a quick car, Nicks is very fast but sod spinning it every where all the time just trying to pull off normally. Also the risk of meltdown all the time.
Whats all this off the line sh!te. No performance is based purely on this nonsense. Of course 4*4 will get off the line quicker. My God has been said tOOOOOO many times.
When rolling the 4*4 will suffer against a F/RWD, given the same power to weight everyone goes on about.
These threads seem a little (NO, LOT) like those card based games adulesents would play. Top Trumps anyone.
Quote: Originally posted by blaze on 31 January 2005
Whats all this off the line sh!te. No performance is based purely on this nonsense. Of course 4*4 will get off the line quicker. My God has been said tOOOOOO many times.When rolling the 4*4 will suffer against a F/RWD, given the same power to weight everyone goes on about.These threads seem a little (NO, LOT) like those card based games adulesents would play. Top Trumps anyone.
ok im callin top speed! 185mph! wat u got?
Is this the most pointless thread ever?
I got one for you, how long is a piece of string and how much would a Clio turbo beat it by?
Ben J got me on that one. I only had a Carrera GT3. Too less on the points.
Ben J one must assume you are a very young man. 185 out of that car is physically impossible. The engine cant rev that far. Nor can any VTR gearbox. GROW UP.
Just because you have "a friend" that can, generally means they cant.
I dont wont to be pedantic: yet, these "phrases" are just plain daft.
Quote: Originally posted by blaze on 31 January 2005
Ben J got me on that one. I only had a Carrera GT3. Too less on the points.Ben J one must assume you are a very young man. 185 out of that car is physically impossible. The engine cant rev that far. Nor can any VTR gearbox. GROW UP.Just because you have "a friend" that can, generally means they cant.I dont wont to be pedantic: yet, these "phrases" are just plain daft.
LMAO! u lot are sooo funny and bite soo easily! who said wat car i was even talkin about?
and nope 167 at 7400 is all thats possible
Still grow up, what is the point of being a 7 year old. Saying "Nah Nah nah, didnt tell you what car." Thats about as realistic as some of the crap that comes out here from time to time.
I probably shouldnt give a reasoned and hopefully articulate arguement.
Im not going to get into "I know this or that" type arguements. Suffice to say pub talk or youngsters with mates have verything sorted: dont they?
You obviously have issues as a Saxo driver. Who realy cares anyway. Could/not be fast. Again who cares. Lets just hope you are not scrapped up off the road like so many before you.
This is afterall a Clio forum. Likening a modified car to standard, and then again saying well "IT CAN BE MODIFIED MORE"
Bryan, Agree would be a car to see. YET still a very overrated response to what he called a wind up. No way will any VTS, supercharged or not give the top speed: and then to say "I didnt say which car" just gives the "Top Trumps" away again.
Who really cares of his pride and joy is worth only as much as its standard form. God he may even get a couple of hundred quid more.
No, the car will never get to 185, its a pyshical impossibility. There may be diffrent gearboxes and any form of transmission, That will only throw the speedo even further out. The speedo always over reads anyway. The faster the worse it gets. What it does not do anyway is give the the drag coefficient to get that fast. BRICK WALL. Why do people think power equals top speed. There are loads of very powerful hatches, yet top speed is not one of their strengths. Give a good coefficient with less power to weight and it could easily have a far higher to speed.
Mark
2005 Impreza WRX STI
handbags
i can get 70mph out of mine!
in 2nd
Good point, you dont need to go any quicker than 70mph, isnt that right..?
LOL well I know a lot of you on here and Im not taking anyones side, but Mark (yes I do remember you btw!), in fairness, power DOES equal top speed. Admittedly, there are other factors at play, final drive, aerodynamics etc, but one thing that is not an issue in any way is power/weight ratio.
As a prime example lets take an old school Elise, they might be bloody nippy in terms of acceleration but all that means is that theyll reach their top speed sooner. Once they get there, 130mph or whatever it is, it wouldnt matter how much lighter you made it, it could not go 1mph faster. In most real world situations power-weight ratio IS the decider. But top speed is an exception and there is a fundamental correlation between power and top speed. For example, my Clio did 145 on the autobahn (GPS, not speedo) even though it has the aerodynamics of a garden shed. The combination of gearing/final drive (which would have given a theoretical 150-155 depending on where my limiter came in), aerodynamics (bad) and power (pretty good) were what decided the top speed.
Why do some people - on internet forums in general - feel the urge to sh*t in other peoples threads? Surely if you dont like a topic, find it boring, childish or offensive - then you dont continue to read it, and certainly dont bother to perpetuate it by sh*tting in it.
IMHO if you dont find a topic interesting, you should simply not bother paying it any attention.
her her roy
Similar threads
