I think noone disagree's that a standard corsa VXR and clio 182 aren't equals. The only contraversy of this thread was that the guy was saying he owned a 242 bhp stage 3 VXR and his clio 182 was faster, which I called bullshit on. Clouded judgement when you've just bought a shiney new car seems really cool and fast, but usually due to the fact the way the car feels over facts.
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.
Poopensharten
ClioSport Club Member
Golf R
LOL!!!
Advikaz
ClioSport Club Member
I had 2 Corsa VXR's as company cars when I worked for a dealer group with VX in it. We had loads back under warranty.
First one blew up & had A/C issues prior as well as a sh*t g/box so I got another. Second one had wheel bearing problems withing 5k miles & Turbo failure.
They all have horrible gear box's with discustingly large gear knobs. They handle like a 1.2 with stiff springs & torque steer like a b*stard.
Mine both rattled a lot & didn't feel planted at all in the handling department plus I cooked the brakes on a sprited drive to work a few times. Never done that on my 200.
Burg does handle a lot better tho IMO & does have better brakes.
First one blew up & had A/C issues prior as well as a sh*t g/box so I got another. Second one had wheel bearing problems withing 5k miles & Turbo failure.
They all have horrible gear box's with discustingly large gear knobs. They handle like a 1.2 with stiff springs & torque steer like a b*stard.
Mine both rattled a lot & didn't feel planted at all in the handling department plus I cooked the brakes on a sprited drive to work a few times. Never done that on my 200.
Burg does handle a lot better tho IMO & does have better brakes.
Advikaz
ClioSport Club Member
You cant just go on the peak figure unless both cars have a CVT gearbox, you need to look at the power across a couple of thousand rpm at least to allow for you going through a gear and then changing.
I do agree a 242bhp corsa is quicker than a standard clio by the way, just disagreeing with your method.
Either his corsa wasnt still making the 242 he thought it was, or the clio is actually on bodies and he hasnt noticed, or he just isnt very good at deciding what car is quicker (terminal would be a better gauge on the quarter than time TBH as time is too much just about the first 60ft)
Turbo 182 Alfa 159
Because unless your trying to smash power in mid corner I fail to see how they have any more "torque steer" than any other car with similar power.
Advikaz
ClioSport Club Member
Lack of diff & chassis/sus/geo set up.
Don't hold the road all that well & don't put the power down all that well either. Which "may" be why the op was saying his Burg was quicker down the strip.
You can have all the power in the world but if you can't use it, it's a waste of time.
My 2 pence.
I own both and the Corsa is quicker on average, low down torque that the Clio dosen't have pulls out of corners. The Clio is more nimble but the Corsa can still be pushed pretty hard without "torque steer" that's what an accelerator does, modulates power. The Clio "feels" quicker as has been said, it a less refined/rawer car. If I had the choice of only one car it would be the VXR everytime, as a whole it's the better car.
For people that say the VXR is a chav car, you just have to remember your driving a Clio.
I own both and the Corsa is quicker on average, low down torque that the Clio dosen't have pulls out of corners. The Clio is more nimble but the Corsa can still be pushed pretty hard without "torque steer" that's what an accelerator does, modulates power. The Clio "feels" quicker as has been said, it a less refined/rawer car. If I had the choice of only one car it would be the VXR everytime, as a whole it's the better car.
For people that say the VXR is a chav car, you just have to remember your driving a Clio.
Accelerator doesnt modulate power as well on a turbo car as even at partial throttle angles you can still get the turbo making boost and its a lot harder to control as a result.
Main reason for torque steer on them now though is if the bushes are knackered etc, same as a clio TBH just more noticeable in the corsa cause it has more torque in the first place, lol
Main reason for torque steer on them now though is if the bushes are knackered etc, same as a clio TBH just more noticeable in the corsa cause it has more torque in the first place, lol
Again though, if they are massively over servo'd then you can lose resolution, so I disagree, its not just about how much you press the pedals its also about what they are programmed (or mechinically setup) to do.
Advikaz
ClioSport Club Member
I found mine on boost they'd loose traction a fair bit, exit of corners especially in the wet or damp it wasn't easy to get the power down efficiently.
I am a smooth driver & have worked in motorsport for years as well as competing. I understand the concept you're saying Swede, but as Chip rightly says Turbo cars aren't as "on/off" as a N/A thus more difficult to gauge.
On the limit I found them to torque steer a fair bit (in comparison to other vehicles from the same "class")
I am a smooth driver & have worked in motorsport for years as well as competing. I understand the concept you're saying Swede, but as Chip rightly says Turbo cars aren't as "on/off" as a N/A thus more difficult to gauge.
On the limit I found them to torque steer a fair bit (in comparison to other vehicles from the same "class")
There's no doubt they do tend to move about a fair bit, the overboost doesn't help either the front washing out. I can pin my car (standard with conti 3's on front) through the gears and not loose traction, on the flipside I can get it spinning late into 3rd in the wet if I want. The 18's are a trade off for handling and the conti 2's I have on the back makes it lively in the wet.
Yeah sure there not the most planted car in the world on the limit, takes some balls to drive them quick on a damp road but there no transit van.
The worst bit about a Corsa VXr is the view to the front, stupid front quarter window's really pi**es me off and is dangerous IMO, other than that I think there a good modern hothatch.
Yeah sure there not the most planted car in the world on the limit, takes some balls to drive them quick on a damp road but there no transit van.
The worst bit about a Corsa VXr is the view to the front, stupid front quarter window's really pi**es me off and is dangerous IMO, other than that I think there a good modern hothatch.
This isn't a generic method I use, it's just a method I used in this particular comparison. For example something like the rs2 & cams to which I know your referring , there's so little in it , it's debatable which one offers the best benefits. However a 242bhp VXR against a clio 182 standard, there's no argument in it. A friend of mine has a very similar spec corsa VXR and it doesn't matter what part of the rev range you look, it's better.
What are you on about with the RS2? OP doesnt have one of those does he? I havent mentioned one and nor was I referring to one :S
I was referring to the fact that some turbo cars briefly make a good peak figure but then fail to hold it which can make them less fast in reality than they look on paper.
Power/torque is pretty much useless if its only there for a small portion of the rev range, as when you drive a car on track you will be using at least a couple thousand RPM, and often more than that, unless you have a very CR gearbox.
i didn't say you said anything about the RS2 in this thread , I simply said you are referring, we had a chat about how peak figures don't mean everything just yesterday if you forgot?
You don't need to educate me about cars that make peak figures then drop them in a heartbeat, we all know cars can do that. But we're talking about corsa vxr's which by chance don't happen to do that. So it's a irrelevant comment to this thread.
But I was not referring to them at all with my comment you quoted and said I was.
Indeed but thats nothing to do with thread so I have no idea why you have brought the RS2 up in here TBH mate.
Typical graph for a corsa Vxr "stage 3" as referred to in this thread (not sure what is happening with the axis but the graph is indicative of typical torque curve shape):
The peak torque is generally pretty short lived mate on these cars.
But I was not referring to them at all with my comment you quoted and said I was.
Indeed but thats nothing to do with thread so I have no idea why you have brought the RS2 up in here TBH mate.
Typical graph for a corsa Vxr "stage 3" as referred to in this thread (not sure what is happening with the axis but the graph is indicative of typical torque curve shape):
The peak torque is generally pretty short lived mate on these cars.
Fair enough mate, apart from the fact you chose the most dire graph as a comparison off google images, we'll just have to come to an agreement even using that graph as a comparison you still got +100lbft more torque for most of the rev range comparing to a 182. I was going to post a better graph , one that's readable and doesn't look like dog s**t. But I don't really see the need to go into intrepid detail. It's faster than a 182, considerably. Ill have to put a lid on it there mate.
And generally it's quite rare that you see a dyno graph for any car that doesn't have bhp or torque bumps in it.
Like I said, ignore the details of the graph, was just the first one pulled up from google images like you say, but the key thing is that it DOES show a realistic shape and the torque dies off a lot as the revs range.
Still way more than a 182 of course though like you say (and more than there is extra weight) so will still win, but just not by as much as the peak figures suggest.
Still way more than a 182 of course though like you say (and more than there is extra weight) so will still win, but just not by as much as the peak figures suggest.
Evo 5 RS
Regardless, I wouldn't fancy owning a 'stage 3' Vxr. They've got their own problems.
Agreed, melting pistons being the most common one.
Please show me a car that doesn't.
TBH im terms of common expensive failures, im struggling to think of much up with a 172?
Not claiming they are perfect, but TBH they are bloody reliable in terms of big problems at least even if they have the occasional minor niggle.
Turbo 182 Alfa 159
So far out of the 5 cars I have owned my 182 has been the most reliable and it takes plenty of abuse and does a lot of miles.
In 23k miles in 9 month its wanted for nothing but servicing and tyres.
Lets see, cambelt snapping, gearbox failure, exhaust made of cheese, warning lights going on and off whenever they feel like it. And before you say they are not extremely common problems, neither is pistons melting on a corsa VXR unless you are silly enough to run the sort of power we have been talking about on standard pistons , in which case your a clown. Because its even relatively cheap to forge VXR engines .
The three RS Clios I've Owned have been relatively reliable too, except chips turbo one. That's not to say they are without problems though.
Ive never heard of that happening on a properly maintained car, ANY car with a belt needs proper maintainance.
Is that actually particularly common on the standard car?
Ive seen lots of trackday cars killing their box but standard road cars dont see to suffer with it at all.
I dont know what you are on about there TBH, all mild steel exhausts on all cars will eventually degrade, but its hardly a major or sudden issue?
I'd put that firmly in the "minor" camp.
A typical "stage 3" car which is what silent scone was saying he wouldnt like to own, wont have forged internals though, the moment you do that generally you alter the CR and things like injectors as well and make other changes, so you dont tend to be running an off the shelf "stage 3" map anymore, or if you are then you are a bit silly IMHO
Dont get me wrong, they are nice little cars and with the right modifications can be very quick and still reliable, but as standard they dont outperform the 172 by any significant amount and when just "stage" tuned with one of the various packages out there you do risk reliability issues.
What reliability issues did you have with that one then mate? You told me when I got it from you originally that the only thing you had done with it in the time you had it was change the oil and I had no reason to suppose you were lieing TBH?
Well tell a lie actually, there was actually no problems with it at all, it just felt like it had deteriorated a lot in the 4 months I owned it, gearbox mainly, everything was running fine, just felt very fragile. I did try and explain to you about the gearbox chip but you literally took the keys and ran haha, I had a laugh about it just the other day actually, you didn't even let me open the bonnet , and you almost ran off without even signing the log book! Haha.
and before you try make me look bad you know that's true :/ I told you the synchros were crunching and asked you if you wanted a test drive you just said no no it's fine.
and before you try make me look bad you know that's true :/ I told you the synchros were crunching and asked you if you wanted a test drive you just said no no it's fine.
FLOL, talk about changing your tune!
Steering rack mounts were the major thing that had deteriorated mate, once I change them it felt pretty much back how it did when Jack owned it.
Weirdly that was still working fine when I pulled it apart, but ive since got a new one as more than double the standard torque certainly will have done it no favours!
Lol, I already knew the car inside out from when I was mapping it originally so wasnt bothered about any wear and tear that occurred when you owned it mate, even if the gearbox was far worse than it actually was, as thats all easily sorted and TBH it was priced to sell not to have someone come and pick minor faults at it so I wouldnt have insulted you like that when as far I was concerned I was buying it "spares or repair" at that money rather than as a perfect condition car.
I'm not changing my tune chip..
despite nothing major went wrong with the car in my ownership I still don't class it as reliable, especially comparing it to a standard 172 but you already know that. I wouldn't "rely" on it to drive me circa 200 miles without something failing. And as you already said to ME before I bought it. You buy a car like that with OPEN EYES as something will indefinitely go wrong.
anyway, one thing that did get me scratching my head was how I opened the bonnet one day and the coil pack had fallen off its mount and dangling just above a boiling hot turbo, luckily there was no damage to it, and I refixed it with stronger bolts. I could only put it down to the sheer engine vibration on those mounts, how it had unscrewed 4 bolts was baffling though. Anyway you got a f**king bargain on that car so be happy. And stop trying to make an honest seller look bad
You said in this thread it was unreliable, then you said it was totally reliable.
despite nothing major went wrong with the car in my ownership I still don't class it as reliable, especially comparing it to a standard 172 but you already know that. I wouldn't "rely" on it to drive me circa 200 miles without something failing. And as you already said to ME before I bought it. You buy a car like that with OPEN EYES as something will indefinitely go wrong.
anyway, one thing that did get me scratching my head was how I opened the bonnet one day and the coil pack had fallen off its mount and dangling just above a boiling hot turbo, luckily there was no damage to it, and I refixed it with stronger bolts. I could only put it down to the sheer engine vibration on those mounts, how it had unscrewed 4 bolts was baffling though. Anyway you got a f**king bargain on that car so be happy. And stop trying to make an honest seller look bad
Not trying to make you look bad as a seller at all mate, like you say I was (still am) very happy with it, although anyway its a totally different car now TBH, different suspension, different engine build, new box with quaiffe etc, you'll have to have another go some time and see the difference now
You said in this thread it was unreliable, then you said it was totally reliable.
Not trying to make you look bad as a seller at all mate, like you say I was (still am) very happy with it, although anyway its a totally different car now TBH, different suspension, different engine build, new box with quaiffe etc, you'll have to have another go some time and see the difference now
i never said it was totally reliable!! Jeez chip please read, I said it was unreliable and you asked why and I said we'll actually nothing actually went wrong with it but I still didn't class it as reliable because It was just deteriorating , it felt nowhere near as solid as it was when I first bought it, from a drive ability point of view it felt like I was just crossing my fingers and waiting for something to break, I wouldn't put trust in that car to drive me to Manchester and back, therefore imo it was unreliable, and pretty much was right seen as a day after you owning it the turbo went , which I bit my lip when I heard was gutted.
saying that I absolutely loved this car , and you well know that after me messaging you to buy it back lol.
actually of love that chip, would be good to see this car again, but I take it you mean passenger ride lol, anyways after going back to a standard clutch I'd probably only stall the b****cks off it again lol. You need regular usage of those helix clutches to get used to them.
Similar threads
