topshot_2k
Banned
Registered: 1st Dec 03
Location: Northampton Drives: Pug GTi-6
User status: Offline
|
i would comfortably put money on a 172 being quicker around a track than a standard 106 gti or VTS
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
there are vids that would prove otherwise
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
I'd vote the 106 personally.
|
topshot_2k
Banned
Registered: 1st Dec 03
Location: Northampton Drives: Pug GTi-6
User status: Offline
|
depends if the driver is a complete novice
|
Scotty C
Member
Registered: 6th Nov 05
Location: Kidderminster Drives: 1.6 16v Sport
User status: Offline
|
I love how This thread is about Pulsar's and clio's and yet 106 GTi's STILL come into the discussion 
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by topshot_2k
i would comfortably put money on a 172 being quicker around a track than a standard 106 gti or VTS
why is it a 2.0 corsa gets slated due to the weight of the engine and it would be shit on a track compared to a 1.6 corsa yet a 2.0 clio would be much better than a 1.6 106?
|
mwg
Member
Registered: 19th Feb 04
Location: South Lakes
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Monster
I love how This thread is about Pulsar's and clio's and yet 106 GTi's STILL come into the discussion
I think I may responsible for that this time
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Monster
I love how This thread is about Pulsar's and clio's and yet 106 GTi's STILL come into the discussion
How quickly a thread gets out of control over something that has nothing to do with the threads intentions make me piss myself!
|
SXi_Tim
Member
Registered: 11th Mar 03
Location: South Yorkshire Drives: RS3, LET B
User status: Offline
|
I think everyday on this forum there is a thread about 106GTi's
|
Scotty C
Member
Registered: 6th Nov 05
Location: Kidderminster Drives: 1.6 16v Sport
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cupra Steve
quote:
Originally posted by topshot_2k
i would comfortably put money on a 172 being quicker around a track than a standard 106 gti or VTS
why is it a 2.0 corsa gets slated due to the weight of the engine and it would be shit on a track compared to a 1.6 corsa yet a 2.0 clio would be much better than a 1.6 106?
Because the clio was desgined to carry the weight of the 2.0 lump, the corsa was not.
|
Dave A
USER UNDER INVESTIGATION - DO NOT TRADE
Registered: 10th Dec 03
Location: County Durham
User status: Offline
|
because a 2 litre clio actually was designed to have that engine in new from the factory so the brakes and suspension is up to the job from standard rather than a tatty old corsa shell with a 15 year old smoky oil burning stove transplanted in with Gmaxspastik suspension and 10 year old rusty cavalier brakes.
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SXi_Tim
I think everyday on this forum there is a thread about 106GTi's
and this is the best one http://www.corsasport.co.uk/board/viewthread.php?tid=342763
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave A
because a 2 litre clio actually was designed to have that engine in new from the factory so the brakes and suspension is up to the job from standard rather than a tatty old corsa shell with a 15 year old smoky oil burning stove transplanted in with Gmaxspastik suspension and 10 year old rusty cavalier brakes.
point taken! FPMSL @ Gmaxspastik
|
Scotty C
Member
Registered: 6th Nov 05
Location: Kidderminster Drives: 1.6 16v Sport
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave A
because a 2 litre clio actually was designed to have that engine in new from the factory so the brakes and suspension is up to the job from standard rather than a tatty old corsa shell with a 15 year old smoky oil burning stove transplanted in with Gmaxspastik suspension and 10 year old rusty cavalier brakes.
FLOL You really hate valvers don't you!!
|
Stu
Member
Registered: 3rd May 00
Location: Madchester UK Drives: 2014 BMW M135i
User status: Offline
|
0-60 is a bad way to get a performance cars figures I think, you should look at the 0-100 really.
Clio 172 - 17.65
Pug 106 - 23.81
Pulsar GTI-R - 15.26
[Edited on 27-02-2007 by Stu]
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
Well my encounter with one was rolling from about 50mph, and there was nothing in it!
|
Scotty C
Member
Registered: 6th Nov 05
Location: Kidderminster Drives: 1.6 16v Sport
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stu
0-60 is a bad way to get a performance cars figures I think, you should look at the 0-100 really.
Clio 172 - 17.65
Pug 106 - 23.81
Holy fuck, thats quite a difference 
Must be down to the torque differences after 60+mph
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stu
0-60 is a bad way to get a performance cars figures I think, you should look at the 0-100 really.
Clio 172 - 17.65
Pug 106 - 23.81
Pulsar GTI-R - 15.26
[Edited on 27-02-2007 by Stu]
well my 106 got a 15.3 1/4 mile @91 mph so there was no way it was 23 seconds to 100
[Edited on 27-02-2007 by Steve]
|
Dave A
USER UNDER INVESTIGATION - DO NOT TRADE
Registered: 10th Dec 03
Location: County Durham
User status: Offline
|
no, im just sick of people bringing sheddy bodged transplants to Vsport and expecting me to fix the wiring that has been covered in melted selloptape. and they always leave a puddle of black oil on the floor.
the C20XE engine is a great engine, just depends who does the fitting and if proper brakes and suspension is used to match.
sadly 80% are sheds.
|
Stu
Member
Registered: 3rd May 00
Location: Madchester UK Drives: 2014 BMW M135i
User status: Offline
|
I just use the same website for all the stats I use. Would be even better if it gave some in gear figures tho! 
I just think 0-60 is a bad way of gauging a cars real performance. There are too many factors 0-60 that dont give a true representation of what a car can do.
|
corsa sam
Member
Registered: 14th Jul 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stu
0-60 is a bad way to get a performance cars figures I think, you should look at the 0-100 really.
Clio 172 - 17.65
Pug 106 - 23.81
Pulsar GTI-R - 15.26
If you look at those figures a Clio 182 and a Pulsar aint guna be that far apart on the road???
[Edited on 27-02-2007 by Stu]
|
Stu
Member
Registered: 3rd May 00
Location: Madchester UK Drives: 2014 BMW M135i
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by corsa sam
quote:
Originally posted by Stu
0-60 is a bad way to get a performance cars figures I think, you should look at the 0-100 really.
Clio 172 - 17.65
Pug 106 - 23.81
Pulsar GTI-R - 15.26
If you look at those figures a Clio 182 and a Pulsar aint guna be that far apart on the road???
[Edited on 27-02-2007 by Stu]
Yeah, totally agree. A bit of an off boost moment in the GTI-R and the Clio would be there! Afraid the 106 would still be a long way back tho!
|
corsa sam
Member
Registered: 14th Jul 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stu
quote:
Originally posted by corsa sam
quote:
Originally posted by Stu
0-60 is a bad way to get a performance cars figures I think, you should look at the 0-100 really.
Clio 172 - 17.65
Pug 106 - 23.81
Pulsar GTI-R - 15.26
If you look at those figures a Clio 182 and a Pulsar aint guna be that far apart on the road???
[Edited on 27-02-2007 by Stu]
Yeah, totally agree. A bit of an off boost moment in the GTI-R and the Clio would be there! Afraid the 106 would still be a long way back tho!
Yeah mate im glad you found those stats makes me feel beta
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stu
quote:
Originally posted by corsa sam
quote:
Originally posted by Stu
0-60 is a bad way to get a performance cars figures I think, you should look at the 0-100 really.
Clio 172 - 17.65
Pug 106 - 23.81
Pulsar GTI-R - 15.26
If you look at those figures a Clio 182 and a Pulsar aint guna be that far apart on the road???
[Edited on 27-02-2007 by Stu]
Yeah, totally agree. A bit of an off boost moment in the GTI-R and the Clio would be there! Afraid the 106 would still be a long way back tho!
id say 0-100 on the 106 was nearer the 18/19 mark hardly miles bac kis it 
like i said has always been pretty level when against my mates 172 in the past ON A STRIP
[Edited on 27-02-2007 by Steve]
|
Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
He let you keep up Steve.
|
