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!

MAX POWER stats





Okay today i got my usually monthly edition of max power. while looking through the mags i reached the stats section of the cars.

and i just wanted to say that whoever wrote that section was either drunk or should be shoot. (even that might be a bit harsh but look at this).

Clio 16v (0-60) = 8.5 sec engine size= 1764cc 4 cyc (weight) = 1018kg

19 16v (0-60) = 7.7 sec engine size= 1764cc 4 cyc (weight) = 1140kg

okay now can someone explain to me how R19 16v with the same engine as a clio 16v go faster 0-60 even tough when its 122kg heavier.

plz explain....
 


Whats more funny is that last month they reviewed the clio cup and the type-R; They stated that the 172 Cup did 0-60 in 6.8 seconds then printed (in the same magazine) the stat page with a 0-60 of 7.1 !! (Their Calibra Turbo stats are way out too apparently!!)

Max P are poo... I buy the magazine for the adverts (and the occasional scantily clad female!!). Its full of Saxos!!
 


Yeah - its full of inaccuracies! (would be ironic if I spelt that wrong!)

Evo show the 19 16v with a 0-60 of 7.4 and the Willy with 7.7!

Interestingly, the most comprehensive test Ive seen of a 1991 Clio 16v (in Autocar) gives a 0-60 of 7.3! Actually, the Williams they tested a year later was fractionally slower in every regard except top speed!

Figures arent everything though. We all know that the Willy is faster in the real world.
 


I think the person who drove the clio 16v and got 8.5 sec out of it diffentely had something wrong with him.

maybe tat was te first time he ever got into a car. :D
 
  BMW 320d Sport


I think youd find most people would be hard pushed to get within half a second of a factory 0-60 time without a lot of practice. Anyway - all magazine data is wrong IMHO. Some obviously so, eg. Max Power, some less obvious eg. the usually reliable Autocar. There is no standard 16v that I have ever seen that can run 0-60 in the low 7s, whoever its driven by. I know there are fast valvers around but once you get the proper external timing gear on them (not an in-car accelerometer), it would be a very different story I think. IMHO. The Willy is the quickest then the 16v then the 19 16v comes in 3rd. Although it is a good cruiser on the motorway, down to its aerodynamics I think, it has a longer box and can achieve a slightly higher top speed.
 
  BMW 320d Sport


Yeah, on a wet day on the Santa Pod in-road using an AP-22 stuck to the dash with blue tack, that hadnt been setup exactly right for his Clio. Not taking anything away from him, Aarons Clio does seem to be one of the good uns. But just I dont really trust any internal timing gear. If it was a proper external setup then Id say fair enough. Which is why Im so keen on quarter miling cos IMHO its the *only* reliable way of timing and comparing cars.
 


Not saying your wrong Nick, but Ive done 0-60 in 7.3secs in my (as far as I know) standard valver without using N2O, that was using proper external timing gear, so either Im darn good, hehe, my cars one of the quick ones or the timing gear was bust.
 


Top