V6 rivals

[Jon1978]

This is from another thread - how can it be right?

Quote: Originally posted by James on 14 February 2004

Thats great news but now all you have to do is overcome your biggest rivals.

Cup & Williams.

Bye bye V6 <>



What?

How can the Cup (and believe you me, I love and worship my Cup) possibly be a rival to the V6?

 

[spirez]

i dont think theres much difference power/weight wise

 

[Paul_P1]

Jon, hes being sarcastic, V6 has a p/w/r of 182BHP/tonne, same as STi Scoob(give or take a few). 0-60 5.5 and 0-100 less than 15s!

 

[paddymph]

1/4 mile time on these new ones?

 

[BenR]

the MK1 V is horrid in std form and a cup/172 would be faster jsut about everywhere.

 

[Paul_P1]

Nobody knows the 1/4 mile time yet paddy, dont think anyones run one, it wont hang around though.

 

[specialK]

James was just being sarcastic, as Paul says - trust me, there is no comparison ! Paul you will be very pleased when you get it !!

 

[Daz]

Impreza WRX (STI? PPP?)

Evo VIIIs

... are probably more "in league"

 

[JAY172]

drove the standard mk1 v6 at work and to be honest i was quite dissapointed,it wasnt as fast as i thought it would be and i think the cup would give it a run for its money.the mk2 however is suppossed to be a big improvement.i havent drove the demo yet as its always stuck in the showroom but the sales manager who run it for a few weeks says it goes loads better than the mk1.

 

[specialK]

Evo VII FQ would also be a good rival !

AMG Mercs also - SLK 32 certainly !

 

[BenR]

The evo would muller is sorry, but the MK2 is a drastic improvement.

Everybody goes on about the rear on the MK1 being poor, and it was...being the front of a lag v6 with the steering locked. But the front of the mk1 was vauge, soft, and very erm......uninspireing.

 

[JAY172]

the ones ive drove when you get a lot of speed up they seem to wander around a lot and dont inspire you with confidence.

 

[Dash]

John I told you when you Pmd me that I was (quote myself )

"Of course I am being sarcastic"

 

[Mike T]

My MK1 has MK2 suspension and its lowerer and stiffened and has an additional rear anti roll bar - Ive driven the same car with bboth and there is no comparison - they got it very wrong firs time!

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by Jon1978 on 14 February 2004




How can the Cup (and believe you me, I love and worship my Cup) possibly be a rival to the V6?

Well compared to the mk1 V6, a Cup is bl00dy close in terms of straightline performance (until silly speeds) and actually quicker round a circuit, so yes a Cup can rival a V6 in the real world.

When my Renault mate had his mk1 V6 and I was driving one of the first Cups about (still on trade plates ) we went out to do some AP-22 runs and on the road comparisons between the two, with a mk1 & a mk2 172 along too to get a full family comparison.

The V6 could not shake the Cup at all...



However the mk2 V6 is quicker than its predecessor and handles better too, so this could well be a different story. Now as you lot know I recently drove his mk2 V6 (same guy), and yes it was a nicer car to drive and felt very sure-footed on the road, was also that bit quicker.

Still dont think it would beat a Cup by miles though and it depends sooo much on who was driving which car!

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by specialK on 14 February 2004


Evo VII FQ would also be a good rival !

The Clio would get eaten alive...

 

[specialK]

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 15 February 2004

Still dont think it would beat a Cup by miles though and it depends sooo much on who was driving which car!

since we have both sat in the garage, I guess this statement will be tested reasonably soon - and the Cup is not a slow one, nor is it std. so it will be interesting to see what happens!

 

[Clart]

how many clios do u have??? thought u had another black one

 

[specialK]

we do!!

 

[specialK]

we now own only 3 - cos I sold my yellow 172 just before Xmas

 

[CraigV6]

Why is speed the only thing folk seem to discuss when talking about a V6/172/182/Cup comparison?

The V6 is as rare a car as I have come across, so makes it much more desirable than your baby brother alternative.

It is also a far better looking car than its rather bland looking alternatives. The V6 is one of the most stunning cars I have seen.

So what you can keep up with a V6, I care not. Nor does anyone else as they dont pay any attention to your Cup/172/182 when in close proximity to a V6.

In my opinion this is not even a debate.

If all you guys are concerned in is speed, get yourselves a Nissan Sunny GtiR.

 

[Paul_P1]

Exactly!!!!

 

[BenR]

ok guys..........

 

[Paul_P1]

Whats supposed to mean?

 

[BenR]

a post on speed, then somebody gets touchy about it being about more than speed.....

whats wrong with talking about pure speed.

Looks is another thing all together.

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by CraigV6 on 15 February 2004


Why is speed the only thing folk seem to discuss when talking about a V6/172/182/Cup comparison?

Because in this case that is the topic of conversation...

 

[v6Max]

BenR, you say the v6 is horrid in standard form - are you referring to handling, engine or both?

Handling is definitely an issue which is why mine is on different tyres and KW variant 3 all round. Improvement is amazing, much less vague, good turn in etc.

Engine is definitely lacking the power to match the looks but I can forgive it a lot for the noise especially with a proper induction kit and exhaust.

Not looking for a flame battle here but you and Jay172 seem to know what you are talking about and I am always keen to learn more about the v6 as I start on the upgrade path! (Not sure that I will ever do the MikeT supercharge thing though).

Last thing, if the topic is speed forget cars and get a bike (preferably one with an engine in it then experience real speed - and terror, cold, impracticality etc, etc.

 

[Chris n nic]

Quote: Originally posted by v6Max on 16 February 2004


Last thing, if the topic is speed forget cars and get a bike (preferably one with an engine in it then experience real speed - and terror, cold, impracticality etc, etc.

Or get a jet...or the Space Shuttle blah blah blah....

At the end of the day the topic is quite clear. I love the V6 and have driven my m8s a lot. And yes it looks superb and turns heads everywhere. But I have raced against his V6 when I just had a IK on my Cup and from 80 to over *10 I was still with him. He even moved over as he thought I was going to pass him!

Chris

 

[crono33]

i wouldnt be so sure.
a AWD will have an advantage on slippery conditions (wet, gravel etc) and 0-60 figures of course but on the twisty stuff a standard but properly set and properly rubbered clio williams will be a vey bad customer. it is light, plenty low down torque, quick and nimble, good brakes. AWDs weight a lot( i have a delta integrale, which weights almost 400kg more than my williams), lose 30% in the transmission and are not so quick turning in. also, driving a clio is easy, driving properly a turbo AWD it is not easy at all.

about the V6, i think at over 40k euro it is way too expensive for the performances it offers. and i have heard and read not very nice reports, both perfomance and reliability wise.

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 15 February 2004
Quote: Originally posted by specialK on 14 February 2004Evo VII FQ would also be a good rival ![/QUOTE]The Clio would get eaten alive...   

 

[Dash]

Performance ? Its a darn sight quicker than walking.

Reliablity ? Ssssssssh, bleedin thing. Ive had mine 2 years now and the damn fog light broke. They ought to be more reliable dont you think?

 

[Tom]

Fog light? aww man did you write renault uk a letter?

thats just not on, spose your be telling me it used oil next!!

 

[viceroy]

Quote: Originally posted by specialK on 15 February 2004

we now own only 3 - cos I sold my yellow 172 just before Xmas

How could you?

 

[v6Max]

Quote: Originally posted by crono33 on 16 February 2004






about the V6, i think at over 40k euro it is way too expensive for the performances it offers. and i have heard and read not very nice reports, both perfomance and reliability wise.

Whether it is too expensive or not depends on what your expectations are of the car. If we are talking about handling and performance then for less then 10k you could get yourself a Caterfield that will outperform and out handle anything in the Renault range (if driven properly). Some of that 40k is definitely going towards the percieved exclusivity of the car. It is not really worth 40k but then it is dubious that any of us pay what a car is really worth.

At the end of the day it depends on what you looking for in a car. For me I had done the fast FWD and AWD thing and I wanted to go RWD but did not want to go for the more obvious choices. I liked the challenge of driving a car which Top Gear labelled as dangerous, What Car criticised for small rear seats (shows how much they know) and has no TC.

As for the performance and realiability issue. The first thing is it definitely looks faster than it is. The Mark 1 is not that fast and its performance seems to be somewhat variable given by the different figures listed by Evo, Car etc, etc. As for realiability I am not so sure, maybe I have been lucky but all mine has done is get a bit creaky. It does get driven properly and last year did 3 trackdays, 2 driving training days and 20,000 miles and yet had one service, never needed any oil and never complained.

I guess the last thing is, from the trackdays I have done one of the major things I have learnt is the car means bugger all. I have watched people in £250 scrap yard Sierras out drive and be "faster" than 911s and other supposedly fast cars. On one of the driving days I did the instructor in his Golf TDi with bald front tyres was unable to be caught by anybody despite being 2 up and being chased by an M3, Boxster and me.

Back on topic... Clio Cups are fast around a twisty track, easily faster than a Mk 1 v6 (if driven properly). Cannot say anything about Mk2s because I dont have one. As for the Evo/Scooby thing - scoobys are quite fast, Evos at ten tenths are faster.

 

[specialK]

Quote: Originally posted by viceroy on 16 February 2004

Quote: Originally posted by specialK on 15 February 2004

we now own only 3 - cos I sold my yellow 172 just before Xmas

How could you?



sorry, but in order to get away with buying the V my yellow baby had to go !!! I was sad to see it go - loved it to bits as everybody on here knows !!

 

[philip]

Hi all, I have a fastish cup used very often on track, but I agree with some of the comments from the V6 guys: Although the power/weight on my cup (200) is probably better than on the V6, thats not how the comparison should be made:

the V6 looks fantastic. It is rear wheel drive and you can probably have some fun drifting it on full lock. the v6 will sound very different from a 4 pot engine. there are 190 V6 Mk2 in the Uk so its residual value will be a lot greater. It will definitely become a classic. in a word, it has WOW factor.

There are zillions of cups on the road (anyway a lot more than 190). To your average granny they look like any other normal clio, theyre difficult to maintain in a drift unless your unusually gifted.

The reason I have a cup is purely for track use economics. In the worst case of a bad crash, I can financially write off the car, whereas writing off a £25k V6 would be a bit more painful.

I love the V6. I May buy one and get myself a 2nd hand cup racer to trailer behind it

 

[BenR]

Quote: Originally posted by v6Max on 16 February 2004


BenR, you say the v6 is horrid in standard form - are you referring to handling, engine or both?

Handling is definitely an issue which is why mine is on different tyres and KW variant 3 all round. Improvement is amazing, much less vague, good turn in etc.

Engine is definitely lacking the power to match the looks but I can forgive it a lot for the noise especially with a proper induction kit and exhaust.

Not looking for a flame battle here but you and Jay172 seem to know what you are talking about and I am always keen to learn more about the v6 as I start on the upgrade path! (Not sure that I will ever do the MikeT supercharge thing though).

Last thing, if the topic is speed forget cars and get a bike (preferably one with an engine in it then experience real speed - and terror, cold, impracticality etc, etc.

To put it simply, yes as std form its horrid. They basically cut the back side off a clio and drove a V6 laguna front into the gap and welded it up. THey jsut locked the steering, and thus there is flex on the track rods. Hence the flappy rear end.

Suspension upgrades will make it better, but not great. We look after a MK1 v6 with loads of suspension changes and slicks and its still a bit flakey....

Shame, it could of been a great car.

But the box is nice, and the engine is fine, if underpowered.....and the noise, i agree, is very nice.

 

[007]

The Mk1 V6 may look better than a Cup but if you sitting behind the wheel does that really matter?

I mean all you see is dashboard!

I often wonder about cars that look great but when you are where your meant to be - in the drivers seat it doesnt matter what it looks like.

Im not having a go a people that own MK1 V6s just I find the inside of cars very dissapointingly designed compared to the outside.