Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

VTS whooping a 12 second Skyline ;-)

  Was a Clio 1.8 16v

I think its the feel Adi. A VTS doesnt feel anywhere near as quick (power deliverly more even maybe, suspension harder but quieter) to drive as a 16v.

Ive heard that a Pulsar owner says that his car doesnt feel that quick cause it is so heavy and a nearly standard R5 gives you more thrills when accelarating!

So as long as your car feels quick u will think its quick.

I think mines quick :D but i want a turbo!
  mk2 172

mikey, cant believe you put even power delivery and vts in the same sentence

aaron - yeah was chuffed with that time at the time
  Was a Clio 1.8 16v

Well how would you explain how the VTS feels slow compared to a 16v. Its something to do with suspension and the power feed from the pedal.

For instance; set you revs to 4grand in first or 5grand in second in a 16v then floor it. Now that feels FAST! A VTS simply doesnt feel that fast.

I dont believe that a VTS has a more un-even power deliverly than a 16v! Im only goin of what a mate says of his Dads VTS plus racing them. When the 16v gets on the boil after 5grand it can move and goes bilistic through 6 to 7grand! Whereas when racin a couple of VTSs they wouldnt push forward when they got into the zone but have a steady and even acceration pace through the rev range; gradually getting quicker with the revs. Catch me dift. Ive never drove one by the way, but i get a good idea from all the new cars ive driven, plus my mate can be trusted. Wrong?
  mk2 172

well mine must be different to theres then cos mine leaps forward at 5k, ask clio 16v boys mate with a modded 16v;), soon as i hit the power i reeled him in. all the saxo boys go on about the power band. its about time i beat another valver anyway, hopes seem to be getting high again:cool:
  mk2 172

about 16.2-16.5, although thats with mods, some can get a bit quicker like aarons but id say that was a fair average

how come your VTS can do it in 14.8 though? Didnt think there was that much difference in performance.

My valver just about beets my mates VTS. You really need to keep the valver at boiling point though as the torque in the VTS is so much better. But when the valvers going it slowly reals in the VTS!
  Was a Clio 1.8 16v

Must just be the feel in the car with it being very quiet over bumps or imperfections on the road & the engine not grunting as much. Better balanced suspension so the front end doesnt sit up when flooring it, etc.

A louder noise through suspension fools you into thinking one car is quicker than another cause youd expect it to be goin faster cause the bumps are causing louder noises.

Do you agree with that Craggy? Im sure im not the only geezer who thinks a 16v FEELS quicker than a VTS, or am i? Oh well. :confused:
  mk2 172

possibly mate but all these things you say apply to the vts, but it doesnt pin you back like my williams, ie, front end lifts, surge of power, but it whistles and screams, doesnt sound deep. but i dont think valvers feel fast to be honest like vtss, possibly feel a bit faster, but hey, feel can be decieving, just watch that little 1.6 make the speedo move fast

  Was a Clio 1.8 16v

Yeah thats my point. The way to tell ur goin quick in a VTS is by watching the needle on the speedo move, whereas u can feel it MOVE in a 16v.

Feel is decieving, thats also my point mate. A 16v decieves you into thinking ur traveling faster or accerating quicker due to the reasons stated in my last post.

My question for u is do you have more fun (more of a rush) planting ur foot in a VTS or 16v/Williams?