ClioSport.net
This is a sample guest message. 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.
Golf VR6 race
- Thread starter dawso
- Start date
gets attention, any attention is good attention, just ask michael jackson
Just had to jump in.
I can understand that maybe the VR6 wasnt trying and I know for a fact that the standard suspension on those is pretty soft where as the clio standard suspension is quite tough as standard. I have a mate with a 1.8 16v Golf who cant keep up with me on bends, but would lose me so so much on a staright.
I have nothing against VWs in fact I am going to be selling my 1.4 in the next 12 months for a corrado VR6....at the end of the day it doesnt matter who whipped who... there are some great cars out there on the market and Im not being treaturous sticking up for the VW lot out there, just trying to say that your car is what you make it, whether modded, standard or mutated the car is only as good as the driver.
So, you guys can whip my arse anytime xxx
guys, not sparking an argument, but have you ever seen dialynxs audi quattro? 0-67 2.37 seconds - silly quick, 10.something quarter
I raced (well, chased actually) a VR6 who was more interested in racing the V6 4MOTION in front of him and probably didnt even notice me. This was a couple of weeks ago up the Chesterfield/Sheffield bypass, which has a lovely mile long straight bit. The 4MOTION looked standard and the VR6 had a huuuuuge (silly looking) exhaust system.
The VR6 went before me off the round about but I was able to pull it back on him a little then went up to about 100mph (the point where I usually give up in respect to my license) with little in it. Unfortunately it was spoiled by the VR6 driver cutting up about 6 other cars by weaving in between lanes undertaking people at 100mph+ speeds
.I also owned a 1.4 16v clio for a few months and while I quite liked the car, there was no way that it was going to keep up with a VR6!
Rhys
I am afraid you have lost the plot no1 it was dangerous driving no2 i said that it was stuffed on the bends which it was i am not that stupid to think that my clio wouldnt be beaten on a long straight road or from a standing start but at the end of the day you could have the biggest engine and still loose to a more skilfull driver or somebody who dosnt give a toss about others on the road
yeah, im going inters - you got a golf etc? Where you from?
look there two totaly different cars and cant really be compaired! the VR6 has a huge engine and the clio has a skinny one it must be down to driver error or something!
End off
That VR6 may have had f**ked tyres???? Anyway I agree that there is no need to come onto here saying about french rustbuckets. I mean just because we aint old enough to pick up our pensions, to be able to drive a golf.....only kiddin. TO CLIO HATER, IF YOU DONT LIKE CLIOS GO SOMEWHERE ELSE! Ps A driver with skill can beat a novice with a bigger engine. That 1.4 may have known the roads better than the golf.
Dear Mr 172man - get your facts right first ! (i did)
This is straight from the 172cup brochure, which is on my lap !
Cup Kerb Vehical weight - 1021 kilos - then it goes on to say overall weight reduced by 89,000 grams, or 89 kilos. So 1021 plus 89 equals 1110 kilo. You still with me 172man, i know this might be a bit technical for you !
Then 172bhp divided by 1110 kilos equals 0.1549 times a 1000 equals 154.9 bhp per tonne. Well when you work it out, it is even lower than what evo quoted, which is the figure i originally used ! lol ! That will teach you !
Just before you start, i used the specs from the lasted and current 172, not the mark 1.
Anyway, the power to weight ratio of the 172 been out by 10 bhp was completely irrelavent, as i just using it to put another car into perspective !
Night night mate and atleast you can say you have learnt something new today cant you !
LOOK TOWN IDIOT, I HAVE THE RENAULT BOOKLET WHEN I BOUGHT THE 172 AND WAS ONE OF THE FIRST IN THE COUNTRY TO OWN ONE. mk1 KERB WEIGHT =1035kg ... I ALSO HAVE SEVERAL CAR MAGAZINES WHICH STATE 166 bhp per ton.. muppet
ps ; do you even own a car
pps go and apply your in-depth knowledge on a nova forum
JONTO = NooB
Quote: Originally posted by 172man on 23 February 2003
LOOK TOWN IDIOT, I HAVE THE RENAULT BOOKLET WHEN I BOUGHT THE 172 AND WAS ONE OF THE FIRST IN THE COUNTRY TO OWN ONE. mk1 KERB WEIGHT =1035kg ... I ALSO HAVE SEVERAL CAR MAGAZINES WHICH STATE 166 bhp per ton.. muppet
ps ; do you even own a car
pps go and apply your in-depth knowledge on a nova forum
JONTO = NooB
Mr 172man - you have called me a noob so you have won this argument, and therefore you must know everything.(not quite sure what a noob is, i think maybe you cant spell, or read actually, because in my post you missed a critical fact, that will make the above post and you look a bit stupid) I was on about the mark 2. It appears in your haste to post an aggressive and insulting post, you misread what i had typed. Never mind, we all make mistakes, just like the one you have just made ! (now who is the town idiot)
I do own a car, not sure what engine is in it, people tell me that it is a bit nippy though, i can never say it properly though, may be you could help me, is it soo bar ru ? is that right ? Anyway, there are people on this forum who can vouch for it too !
I would go and apply my in-debth knowledge in a nova forum, but i was told that they already have a know it all, can you guess what your, err, his name is !
here it is Noob
http://www.cliosport.net/specs/clio172mk1.asphttp://www.cliosport.net/specs/clio172mk1.asp - 172 MK1
read and learn Boy
Yes - i can see what it says on the site, but in the Renault Cup brochure (i think the guys who publish this might know a thing or too about clios) it says they have shaved 89 kilos of the cup which weighs 1021 kilos. So 89 plus 1021 equals 1110 kilos, which equates to 154 bhp per tonne. Evo agrees with me, bar 2 bhp and i have used the lastest info from renault and based on the Mark 2 ! not the MARK 1 which you keep goin on about, and not figures used on this site.
What more can i say, not trying to cause a slanging match, not really my style (maybe yours though)
Does this make me a noob, by just trying to argue my case ?
Can you see where i am comin from ?
Cheers
Jonathan
172Man,
We, meaning me and you, have already had this discussion. Renault have been bullsh*tting about the kerb weight of the Clio 172 since the car came out. Both versions are around 1100 KG. ClioSport did a weigh bridge between 3 different 172 marks! Hence the near identical performance figures.
i cant say i have knowledge of that?
I go off what i have in the brochure, i saw the extras on the mk2 and it was loads more than what mine had... i also test drove one (mk2) and it felt slower than mine up untill higher speeds. But it had less torque steer, the only thing i knew about the difference mechanically was the mk2 had different gearing and a diff induction im sure the torque curve was altered aslo
