Quote: Originally posted by stevoversteer on 29 January 2005
Quote: Originally posted by Ben j on 29 January 2005nope theyre aint much in em at all. its all down to gearing too dont forget. a valver and 172 will hit 150 ish top end revs a vts will only hit 130 top end revs. so has quicker gearing which helps it out a lot![/QUOTE]Quicker gearing??? A mk2 172s gearbox hardly differs from a VTS at all in terms of ratios and maximum in gear speed. 5th gear may be slightly longer but who cares? In VTS owners dream worlds, they are as quick as a 172 but in reality its bye bye from 3rd gear. Ive witness countless in gear acceleration tests between 106 gtis, vts and mk2 172s. As i said before, only about half a car to a car ahead in 1st and 2nd, then as soon as both cars are in 3rd onwards, it really is a case of bye bye mr vts. Im not saying they leave the vts for dead, but they do pull away slowly and consistently.<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #407db6">As for the original topic of the thread!!!!! That 60bhp 1.1 litre citroen engine is a good un! I started off with a Punto 1.2 which also had 60bhp and my mates saxo was a fair bit quicker. But dont forget, the 1.1 saxos do have 13" wheels as standard! My mate changed to 15s and the car became slow as fook.
yea a longer 5th means slower overall acceleration. that and coupled with its smaller wheels helps em alot!
over 100 the massive bhp power difference will plough a 172 onwards with ease! but did u ever see the top gear vts vs 172 reveiw that was posted on here? round a track there was not much in it at all!
and as for original topic. totally agree! small wheels and no weight makes em rapid little buggers for what they are