70 replies to this topic

[robfenn]

Racing on the road is for spazzos, fact. Thanks to the light weight and configuration, the VX is practically unbeatable at the traffic light grand prix. You don't need to bother with high speed duels, you have the cool factor. You're not the one who needs to prove yourself... I do laugh when people write off Clios and the like, but as people have said, there are more elements to the VX than simply speed.

[NAP1]

I had a 182 before the VX and have to say I really liked the car. However the driving position is woeful and feels nowhere near as special as the VX when you get in it. In terms of general speed comparisons my VX feels quicker. I have forgotten what it felt like in standard tune but remember taking it for a test drive the day after selling the 182 and being a little worried that it would not feel as quick and I was not disappointed at all. I have subsequently added an ITG and Miltek which really seems to impact on the way the engine picks up in gear. I think speed in some cars can be deceptive, I had an S2000 which felt really quick when on cam but the reality is that its an averagely quick car The 182 is a similar sort of engine in that it picks up further into the rev range so you get this little kick of power which I guess is similar (but less pronounced) to a turbo. I find my n/a has far more usable power all of the time which suite my driving style. Go and test drive one.

[Code Monkey]

The VX feels faster than most things after you have bought it simply because you no longer have sound proofing, and general creature comforts, plus the banging suspension and sharp steering also helps make it all feel faster than it is. Ok so others will be faster, no matter what you drive unless it's the VeryBug but with all the cameras and the like about, sensation is what is important and the VX has this in spades. If it still feels slow buy a shed and drive the VX on the weekend it will feel even faster.

[tommy]

i was looking at what someone has wrote previously about bhp/ton fig. if a vx220 na was to be the same power to weight it would need to be 183bhp where some people here have got around 175bhp? is the surge of power say up too 100 pretty evenly matched?

[Mak1]

If you are looking for straight line performance (and IMHO there's nothing wrong in asking about this, especially as it's only one of the criteria you would use when making a decision on which car to purchase) then bear this in mind.
A stage2 VXT would only give a very similar performance to an M3 (not the latest one - the last one E36?) on a straight road.

Now I say only to give the original poster an idea of what to expect from a N/A or stanadrd Tubby. In no way does this reflect how I feel about the car as for me the sum of a VXT is made up of so many more desirable parts than straight line speed.

....Now where's courtnays phone number for that stage 4 upgrade? (only so it handles better you know, not for the extra horses )

Edited by Mak1, 10 March 2008 - 04:01 PM.

[gazcaddy]

It will pull away yes, but it doesn't exactly blow it away though does it? If you're in the M3 and you have the hundreds of hp and money spent you'd want it to have a lot more over a Clio than it does.

An M3 will blow the 182 away, there in a different league as they should be considering the price. The M3 5.5 seconds faster to 100 than the Clio. Put another way when the M3 hits a 100mph from a standing start the Clio will be doing aprrox 85mph (stats taken from Autocar), its a massive difference.

I have a video of a 182 v a Ford Focus RS and after 80/90mph the Clio gets left for dead, and an M3 is much faster than a FRS

Edited by gazcaddy, 10 March 2008 - 04:40 PM.

[NAP1]

It will pull away yes, but it doesn't exactly blow it away though does it? If you're in the M3 and you have the hundreds of hp and money spent you'd want it to have a lot more over a Clio than it does.

An M3 will blow the 182 away, there in a different league as they should be considering the price. The M3 5.5 seconds faster to 100 than the Clio. Put another way when the M3 hits a 100mph from a standing start the Clio will be doing aprrox 85mph (stats taken from Autocar), its a massive difference.

I have a video of a 182 v a Ford Focus RS and after 80/90mph the Clio gets left for dead, and an M3 is much faster than a FRS

Have to agree here, my 182 would match a 330 to 60 (not sure past that) but M3 is in a whole different place on performance.

[bennyboysvuk]

It will pull away yes, but it doesn't exactly blow it away though does it? If you're in the M3 and you have the hundreds of hp and money spent you'd want it to have a lot more over a Clio than it does.

An M3 will blow the 182 away, there in a different league as they should be considering the price. The M3 5.5 seconds faster to 100 than the Clio. Put another way when the M3 hits a 100mph from a standing start the Clio will be doing aprrox 85mph (stats taken from Autocar), its a massive difference.

I have a video of a 182 v a Ford Focus RS and after 80/90mph the Clio gets left for dead, and an M3 is much faster than a FRS

Have to agree here, my 182 would match a 330 to 60 (not sure past that) but M3 is in a whole different place on performance.

Maybe it's my definition of blown away. I'd say a TVR Tuscan would blow them away, but the M3's just not super quick like that. Up to 80 ish there's not that much in it. Agreed that over that though, it will steadily walk away.

[Anarchy]

Is a Clio V6 faster than cup?

anyway....

http://www.dailymoti...-speedster_auto

[danger7]

What is all this an overspill from other forums. Jeezzz The Clio & M3 boys are trying to take over the world oh bolluks put your clio/M3 up against this Speedster turbo. Yep 480 bhp - Garrett G28 very clever conversion, 0 to 60 3.5 secs 0-100 a staggering 7.5 secs

[mcewanslager]

Well I can give some feedback of where my VXT fits amongst hot hatches etc and other 'fast' cars as I've owned and driven them... here are my own mini league tables:-

Acceleration/speed
----------------------
1. Impreza WR1
2. VX220 Turbo
3. Renault 5 GT Turbo (180bhp)
4. Clio 172 Cup


Handling
----------
1. VX220 Turbo
2. Impreza WR1
3. Clio 172 Cup
4. Renault 5 GT Turbo


Looks/appeal
-------
1. VX220 Turbo
2. Impreza WR1
3. Clio 172 Cup
4. Renault 5 GT Turbo


Cost/Maintenance (higher = cheaper)
--------------------
1. Clio 172 Cup (circa 36-38mpg)
2. VX220 Turbo (circa 32-33mpg)
3. Renault 5 GT Turbo (circa 30mpg)
4. Impreza WR1 (circa 22-25mpg - £50 tank got me 200 miles!)


Comfort/gadgets
--------------------
1. Impreza WR1
2. Clio 172 Cup
3. Renault 5 GT Turbo
4. VX220 Turbo (The seats are comfy etc, but I recently did a 2 hour drive and found the harder ride bad on my lower back, and it actually has less in the cockpit than my 18yr old Renault 5 Turbo!!)


All in all, out of all the cars listed I would choose the VXT anytime, it's great looking, plenty fast (maybe not the fastest (in standard form)), amazing handing, and cheap to run in comparison to similar performance cars. It's definitely faster than my 172 Cup was (at any speed), but not quite as quick as the WR1 (but not by far, maybe a Stage 2 would be on-par??)...

bit random but how does the vx compare to a 5 gt for comforts? ie is the 5 harder to live with than the vx on a daily basis?

[smithers]

I used to have a 5gtt and they are pretty comfortable long distance, but then i don't find the vx too bad. major advantage over a vx is the noise suppression. my 5 was pretty quiet and probably the most fun car i've owned. throw it anywhere, gets out of shape and you could collect it pretty easily - wish i'd never sold it, I let it go for 2,250 and it was in great condition. should have kept it really most annoying thing was the position of the stereo as you couldn't read the display, and the heater fan in that was shite too