Mk2 Vee is easily sub-6.0 seconds to 60. 5.8 seconds officially, but in my experience if you nail the start well you're talking around 5.5 second, and then into 3rd at 65+. My 172 was nippy, but it wasn't that fast in a straight line. Above 60 then the Vee would start pulling ahead more.
Obviously chuck a corner in tho' and I can assure you I ease off more in the Vee than the 172 because you're never quite so sure .
Vee isn't about that tho' .
p4ers how many tones do you have in your car?
It shouldn't be a huge surprise. The Mk1 was officially 6.3 to 60, but was timed at 5.8 on tests by a couple of magazines. Mk2 has a shorter gearbox hence its official 5.8 time. Must admit my experience is based on a videoed dash and so is off the clocks which I'll admit isn't a scientific measure. The real point I'm making is that getting to 60 in a Vee in sub-6.0 seconds isn't a huge challenge. Do it too often though and your clutch won't last long ... hence why I've only done it the once in any serious way! In a battle between zero wheel spin and the engine, the clutch is the weak spot by design and unlike Clarkson we can't give it back at the end of the day!
LOL ... time code from the video is clearly exact, but clocks are the weak point, so a bit more educated than a guess. Either way I was pleased with how the Vee ran at the time, but as I said not a regular trick to try.So 5.5 is just a guess. Sub 6 seconds is a very good run.
In the right hands a MK2 v6 would leave a 172/82 for dead.
I would like to see the "around 5.5" run, standard.
Anyone fitted coilovers to a V6?
300 kg heavier makes it not that much quicker even with the extra power, however it is slightly faster.
Cornering Clio 172/182 would be better as you need quite a bit of skill for fast cornering in a V6, mainly as its a short car with all the weight in the middle - makes a great pivot point for spinning.
you appear to have failed on the avatar text update
You mean there are V6 haters on CS . I wonder what it'd take to wind them up . Who'd do something like that?runs to take cover form the v6 haters now lol ............. have fun
LOL... Tbh how? Unless iv typed figures into calculator wrong :S
(~177bhp v ~1070kg)
They don't do anything for me at all. I've never liked them.
and YES Mr Roy Munson, we all know where you stand on the V6, you must have said it about a thousand times mate, at LEAST
pmsl - per TON not per TONE
Per Tone...!? Naa don't know what your on about, has always been per Ton..
I think Ali is avoiding this thread!
RWD and more power to weight and torque is always going to get a better start than FWD. Always.
I only intended to find out which one would be quicker round, say a track. I assumed the V6 would be quicker in a straight line as it basicly has the same figures to the Alfa 147 Gta I went out for blast with with my 172 yesterday, I just didn't know what the v6 was like on corners and if once rolling on a general b-road, track and if there would b much in it. I'd always have a V6 over a 1*2, simply for renault sport heratige, extreeme looks, beautiful V6 noise etc etc even if it was slower. Didn't mean to open a can of works lol!