RT vs RSI

[Andi RT]

what is the difference performance wise??

is there a point selling the RT and getting a RSI or just pay that lil more for a valver on insurance?

im only paying 480 a year now thats not bad but i wont pay upto 1000 for a valver theyre just not worth it.

would it be a good idea to do a engine swap to a 1.8RT or RSI?

HELP PLEASE

thanks

 

[Chris1.4RT]

Id stick with the RT, though I think you would notice a fair bit difference especially on the move.

I would get a valver though, think about getting on tpft.

 

[Ben j]

the rsi engine is more powerful than the rt i believe. but the 16v engine blows them both away easily! it is worth paying the bit extra for a valver!

 

[richieroo]

prob wuld be cheaper to sell the rt and buy a rsi than swap the engines - and you will notice a diff between the 2, rt = 90bhp rsi=110bhp and cos rsi is only ins group 11 it shudt sting you 2 much.

 

[Andi RT]

yeah the valver is grp 14 i believe, but you get all the goodies to go with it. for the money you pay on insurance you can get much more.

i keep up with valvers upto 60ish then they easily pull away

how about a 1.7t from a volvo 480??

 

[m4rk]

Quote: Originally posted by richieroo on 11 February 2005

prob wuld be cheaper to sell the rt and buy a rsi than swap the engines - and you will notice a diff between the 2, rt = 90bhp rsi=110bhp and cos rsi is only ins group 11 it shudt sting you 2 much.

er mk rt ie the 1.4 is 80bhp??

 

[unofficialPete]

Rt 60 in 11.1 (stats vary)

Rsi 60 in 8.something



Im sure youd notice the difference on top of improved looks etc but if its not much more go valver.

 

[m4rk]

Quote: Originally posted by m4rk on 12 February 2005

Quote: Originally posted by richieroo on 11 February 2005

prob wuld be cheaper to sell the rt and buy a rsi than swap the engines - and you will notice a diff between the 2, rt = 90bhp rsi=110bhp and cos rsi is only ins group 11 it shudt sting you 2 much.

er mk rt ie the 1.4 is 80bhp??

oops 1.8rt

 

[richieroo]

prob wuld be cheaper to sell the rt and buy a rsi than swap the engines - and you will notice a diff between the 2, rt = 90bhp rsi=110bhp and cos rsi is only ins group 11 it shudt sting you 2 much.

er mk rt ie the 1.4 is 80bhp??

oops 1.8rt

 

[Matt16v]

Quote: Originally posted by Andi RT on 11 February 2005


yeah the valver is grp 14 i believe, but you get all the goodies to go with it. for the money you pay on insurance you can get much more.

i keep up with valvers upto 60ish then they easily pull away

how about a 1.7t from a volvo 480??





Thats a very bold statement. 0-60 times between the two cars are heavily in favour of the valver. It should and unless driven by a child leave an RT by 30mph.

Also valvers are group 12 so not alot more than group 11 for an RSI.

If your only paying £480 now I cant see a valver being much more than about £700. An RSi wouldnt be far behind it.

Phone your insurance and ask. I went from a 1.4rt to a 1.8 16v a few years ago and it went up by about £200 over the remaining 6 months. I was young with little no claims then.

 

[Ben j]

maybe to 60 the rsi wouldnt be far behind but over that the valver would be gone! and for the sake of 1 insurance group and how cheap they are to buy now u might as well get a valver

 

[Matt16v]

I think Renault fecked up with the RSi. They made it due to insurance on hot hatchs going silly in the mid ninties. Ended up only being 1 group cheaper than the valver so wasnt really worth it in the end.

 

[Andi RT]

Quote: Originally posted by Matt16v on 12 February 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Andi RT on 11 February 2005


yeah the valver is grp 14 i believe, but you get all the goodies to go with it. for the money you pay on insurance you can get much more.

i keep up with valvers upto 60ish then they easily pull away

how about a 1.7t from a volvo 480??






Thats a very bold statement. 0-60 times between the two cars are heavily in favour of the valver. It should and unless driven by a child leave an RT by 30mph.

Also valvers are group 12 so not alot more than group 11 for an RSI.

If your only paying £480 now I cant see a valver being much more than about £700. An RSi wouldnt be far behind it.

Phone your insurance and ask. I went from a 1.4rt to a 1.8 16v a few years ago and it went up by about £200 over the remaining 6 months. I was young with little no claims then.



my RT is running 90bhp on a standard engine. ive played with valvers on many occasions and been equal upto 60, i do have a nippy RT. a true saxo eater

 

[Bryan]

Quote: Originally posted by Ben j on 12 February 2005
maybe to 60 the rsi wouldnt be far behind but over that the valver would be gone! and for the sake of 1 insurance group and how cheap they are to buy now u might as well get a valver

at most its 1 seconds over a 1/4 mile, which isnt that much

the gap between 16v and mk1 RSi is not that big, above three figures the valver will pull cleanly away, the strength of the RSi is its torque with it only being an 8v engine, pull cleanly through its range, only dying at the end, whereas the 16v kicks off at 3.5k and pulls cleanly to the redline

 

[markknightpz]

andi, your talking b****cks, ive got a nippy RT but its not going to keep up with a valver at all.

 

[Ben j]

Quote: Originally posted by Bryan on 12 February 2005
Quote: Originally posted by Ben j on 12 February 2005maybe to 60 the rsi wouldnt be far behind but over that the valver would be gone! and for the sake of 1 insurance group and how cheap they are to buy now u might as well get a valver

at most its 1 seconds over a 1/4 mile, which isnt that much

the gap between 16v and mk1 RSi is not that big, above three figures the valver will pull cleanly away, the strength of the RSi is its torque with it only being an 8v engine, pull cleanly through its range, only dying at the end, whereas the 16v kicks off at 3.5k and pulls cleanly to the redline

i think your talkind a modded rsi tho. do the same mods to a valver and again itd be way out in front!

 

[Bryan]

ben - the rsi i had at the time only had an open induction kit (15.8 seconds) when i run it, granted ive never seen another rsi under 16s, but even still, for the valver to be way out in front would mean it would have to run 14 second 1/4 miles, which AFAIK unless TBd or forced induction, no 1.8 16v has done so? (correct meif im wring)

look at the book 0-60 times, there is not much in it at all, this is continued to the top of 90mph where the valver then begins to pull

 

[Ben j]

you must have had one of those funny good french engines mate, cus any rsis ive ever played with ive pulled away with ease. and like you say 15.8 is a bloody fast rsi!

and as for an rt being close to a valver. no dont be silly. i think youll find the valver owner wasnt trying. me and jamesG used to play around all the time (him in his modded RT) and it really didnt stand a chance. i think he just liked seeing how fast a valver was!

 

[Bryan]

agreed, as i said, ive never seen any other RSi under 16 seconds at the pod,

and completely agree, the RT (1.4) is giving away 47bhp over the valver, which when you think about it, is 33% of the valvers power, its not going to stand a chance

 

[Chris1.4RT]

I had an RT and got skinned by Ben (red16) and I was alone, he was 2up. Truth is you drive a slow car in the RT and think its fast. Everyone is like that until they get a fast car as they have nothing really top compare it to. Comparing one car against another on the road isnt very scientific, theres loads of reasons why one car, which should be slower on paper than another, can keep up with a faster one.

When you get behind the wheel of a quicker car only then do you realise what its all about.

16vs are comparible to a VTS and my VTS has and would murder an RT.

Either the other cars have been driven by children or idiots or simply they werent even trying/caught them in the wrong gear.

 

[Martin]

15.8 qtr is deffo valver speed I think you must have had a freak there Bryan. But IMO 1 sec over 1/4 mile is a big difference....Id go for the valver everytime!

 

[Chris1.4RT]

I should also say, I absolutely loved my RT and hated parting with it. In some ways I prefer it to the VTS (things like not being able to have rear screen demister on unless engine is running, in the VTS; small things basically) but in terms of sheer speed, the VTS is in a totally different league to the RT.

 

[Ben j]

think youll find u were raggin the rt and the valver driver was driving normally/fastish and cus u were raggin yours u assume he was hammering it too, when he was not.

i had it the other day comin out of town on the dual carriageway. i was driving normally and there was some cavalier thing next to me, i moved over to turn right off the road and he gave me a flash then a thumbs up as he drove past, i was like wat?? were u racing me or something?

 

[Andi RT]

obviously there is no comparison between the RT and valver, but everyone says my RT is rapid. ive had 16v owners with me and mate mate swears its been chipped. but im 3rd owner and other 2 owners were grannys so i doubt it but the RT is swift and everyone around me knows it. but 16v is the way. ive been in a couple of 16v and wasnt really impressed

 

[Ben j]

they are really unimpressive unless u rev them to the limiter! they have no power till after 4500revs so revvin to like 7000 is must! as soon as they drop out that powerband they die badly

if u can afford it, get a valver definatly! u wont be dissapointed in the performance and handling

 

[Lunner]

RSis are alot closer to valvers than alot of poeple think

My RSi has run a quarter miles in 15.8...not far off what valvers will run it in, may i add thats only wiht a zorst and an IK

 

[Andyvalver]

A valver is worth paying the insurance costs. Ive had 2 rts and they were great. They are fast for what they are until you drive a valver. Same goes for the rsi. They are quite quick on paper but if you drive a valver you will be suprised at the difference. (16v). Valver all the way. Flared arches/ bonnet buldge and a nosie to die for.

 

[Clarkie172]

my valver was a lot quicker than an rsi i drove and mine was down on power

get a valver deffo!

 

[Andi RT]

did you know that the williams bonnet is slightly larger bulge than valver?

 

[Liam_Dynamique]

lol @ Andi pulling random made up facts and figures from thin air!!

 

[Andi RT]

no they are, got the haynes manual and it says they are.

 

[Daz]

Haynes doesnt mention the Williams... only to say it doesnt cover it.

 

[Chris1.4RT]

Id be very very surprised if the bonnet was different.

The engines are the same size externally arent they? Just an overbored 1.8 arent they?

 

[Daz]

Quote: Originally posted by Chris1.4RT on 13 February 2005
Id be very very surprised if the bonnet was different.The engines are the same size externally arent they? Just an overbored 1.8 arent they?


Yea.

 

[Ballcrusher]

not realy the crank is differant and the gearbox-head even the block

 

[Dan_mk1]

Quote: Originally posted by Andi RT on 11 February 2005
i keep up with valvers upto 60ish then they easily pull away

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My Fecking arse!!!!

 

[Ben j]

Quote: Originally posted by Andi RT on 13 February 2005
did you know that the williams bonnet is slightly larger bulge than valver?

if u say so
but its not

 

[Andi RT]

would you all like me to take a photo of the written text then post it,

or perhaps scan it???

just going by the text people

 

[tadpole]

What page is it on, cos ive got my haynes here.............



Just to add to the discussion - id go for the valver if you can afford the extra, it is so much better that my old 1.2 (obviously) and also you cant beat it for looks and road presence imo.

 

[Ben j]

haynes is b****cks tho. the two cars have identicle bodies. its just whats underneath thats different.