valver 0-100 times

[2 live]

so its closer to the 1998 2.0 than the 1764 1800 lol.......nearly



thort itd had a 2.0 crank in as well tbh.he was sayin summat bout havin to grind metal out the castin so the mains n crank would fit IIRC

 

[Adams_16v]

im not 100% sure what he said mate to be honest, but he seems to class it as a 1.8 and its fookin quick! lol marco reckons that a 2.0 with the same work would eat it alive just by the extra torque tho so im guessing its not quite 2.0 spec

 

[dannyt]

Good point what was i thinking....for some reason thought a second was a long time!lol...it might be in the bedroom!

Anyway ill have a go and see what she can do it in but id say 21 could be something to aim for!

Danny

 

[Snufty]

Read this and you will see that this clio 16v we are talking about is still an 1800 the at 1794cc

oh yeah, is that right, trying to get one over on the Down Lo are we??????
like marco says, the power/weight is the key for 13 sec runs, ju if your on for bodies and pipers you the man!!!!!!!! BUT it aint as simple as that, you need about 225+/ton to break 14 secs, so you want to be down to 900kgs with 210bhp!! technical aint it!!!
that valver of mine is runnin sweet buddy, since its been on bodies it never run so sweet!!! even on the 285s it ticks over at a lovely 900rpm, better than standard, spose ill spill the beans on spec secrets now that your joining the maran clan and all that, my engine is the same as a F7R, just with a 9.5mm shorter stroke, i got 82.7mm bore with willy pistons in it,(but with a 83.5mm stroke insted of the willy 93mm) so its still a 1.8 just not the 1764cc as standard, its got 1794cc,it also uses a Megane head which is heavily modified. so i might not have as much torque bottom end but above 4000revs it pulls like a train and blows willys away for a passtime!!! cant wait to meet up buddy, and we can have some fun when your cars done!!!!

Mk1 for fun

 

[Brazo]

http://letstorquebhp.com/fwd.htmhttp://letstorquebhp.com/fwd.htm



Am fully aware of the limitations of this site but it appears to be spot on compared to vbox mag results for the RS clio range.

1.8 16v is quoted as 22.94 for 0-100 which is a tad fatser than what Ben H was quoting above. Yes cars will loosen up and become faster with miles but have to agree with Mitchy on the 1 second 90 -100!http://www.cliosport.net/forum/smileys/smiley4.gif

 

[Nick Read]

Standard valvers will do 0-100 in 21-23 seconds. Standard Willys 2-3 seconds quicker and can sneak in just under 20 seconds. Remember these cars were built in the early 90s and at that time, those sort of performance figures were pretty hot. Nowadays they are put in the shade by things like the 172/182, CTR, Focus RS etc which are running closer to 200bhp and tend to do 16-19 seconds pretty easy. Anything below 15 seconds is damn fast for a road car. You might say those new hot hatches are heavier, so old valvers and Willys should be able to match them for power-to-weight, but the fact is that at 100 mph, weight isnt so much the issue, power/torque is the decider. Thats why Caterhams dont do 200mph.

Of course both valvers and Willys can be modded to go faster, lots of us have done it, but a filter and exhaust wont get an otherwise standard valver to 100 in under 20 seconds.

The best way to get 0-100 timing done properly is to go quarter miling and then try and work backwards from that. If you can quarter mile at over 100mph then you knock off a bit to get back to your 0-100 time. If you quarter mile at 90 odd mph then add a few seconds, depending on how far off you are. My rough rule of thumb would be for every 2mph under the 100, add *at least* another second, plus an extra second just for good measure. So say you quarter mile in 14.5 seconds at 92mph, add another 5 seconds to get your 0-100 of 19.5. Look at ANY set of road car performance figures and you will see that 60-100 takes almost double the time 0-60 does, a lot of cars take far far longer. This is another worthwhile thing to remember for any car, in any state of tune. E.g. 0-60 = 7 seconds. Multiply by 2.5 to get a rough 0-100...7x2.5=17.5 Which conveniently is near enough to real life figures. And it works the other way round too...if you think you are doing 0-60 in 7 seconds, first check that to see if you are anywhere near 17-18 seconds for the 100. If not, then keep dreaming LOL

 

[JayR]

Haha like iv said before i didnt say mine was accurate at all and held my hands up that its 99.9.9% out so im not dreaming!!!Lol

I just asked weather you guys thought it was accurate or not!!!

Either way doesnt really bother me, if id clocked a vid of 0-100 in 26 secs i would have posted asking if it was good or not because the point of the thread was to ask what the times were!!!

 

[Martin]

No ones having a go at you mate just debating the 0-100 times I think...

 

[dimmadave]

my rt doesnt even do 100!

 

[JayR]

Before posting this thread i knew nout about the supposed book times for the valvers and willys but i still cant believe both cars take as long as stated to get to the 100!!!

it just seems odd that both are sub 8 second cars to 60 but take more than 12 secs to climb the other 40mph considering they are fairly powerful cars!!!

 

[Dan_mk1]

I wouldnt say theyre powerful mate, the only reason they are quick is because they weigh bugger all! Most rep mobiles etc have the same power as a valver/willy.

And like Nick mentioned earlier, the closer you get too 100 the less weight comes into play and its about power/torque etc