Ho Hum, this might cause some stirring of the mud.
Met with BenH earlier today and talked for quite a long time over all sorts. And he came alone with the obvious question:
"how does it compare with your 172"
Well....having not thought about it, my answers included alot of umming and erring. But i did think he was a little surprised to hear my semi final verdict.
I actually rate my valver above that of my 172. Its got chassis mods, but theya re mild and cosist of BBT olwering springs and new std dampers and the rear lowered. And it handles absolutely brilliantly, not hard, but firm, and is so easy to control....i love it.
The 172 is a tad more wallowy, but thats expected from a std chassis. Granted its safer on the limit and.....well, it gets hard....the 172 is so competent i cant say anything bad, but the valver as it is dynamically better. More pointy is a way i would put it.
I think the rear setup has a lot to do with it. The torsion setup means that there is a constant amount of suspension droop, and it doent increase when lowered like a 172 with its beam axle.....lower a 172 and you have to add the lowering amount to the normal drop travel....meaning its harder to lift an inside wheel on a lowered car. And we all know a good FWD car will always lift is inside rear.
As for power, the diff between a 170 claimed valver (more like 150) and a 172 , well the 25 or so bhp is nothing on the rd really........on a track......IF it was twisty, i guess the 172 could just pip a valver.........but the MK1 cahssis is just so good, its a revalation over the RT i had......and you wonder why so many say, dump the RT/RN and get a valver....its just a diff world.
SOrry for the rant.......
and noticed that the rears were down to 1 bar(!) and the fronts were down by half a bar or more!! oh dear! I pumped them up and it feels a lot stiffer, but havent pushed it hard with pressures set at 2.3 front and 2.1 rear.....yet......
