Superloop

The lack of reading the data we've been referring to never ceases to amaze me.

The figures you refer to i.e over 10 seconds to get to 100 from 60 in WRX

What has this to do with ANYTHING when the site states that the Clio also takes over 10 seconds to get to 100 from 60 Durrr

Standing 1/4 figures for both cars look dodgy (So does the 17.7 for the clio) but if your gonna use em so am i.

markus_UK

I guess my take on this is a boring old fart …

When I was younger – speed was everything – the 0-60 being the most important thing of all.

If you simply compare speed (say 0-60) and nothing else then what I am hearing is that the Clio 172 and a standard WRX are close. However it depends on the criteria you are looking at ….

Suppose I have been overtaken by a 20 year old in a Clio and we both then pull into a garage …..

Boy “Ha ha … you think your fast, my Clio has just pissed all over you mate ….”

Me “ ..oh really … well my car went to ASDA this morning with wife and baby, took a full load of shopping on board, stopped off at the dump to get rid of some grass cuttings, then did a quick burn on the way home…..”

Boy “ ya what ? whats cool about that ?????”

Me (pats his head) “….one day you will know me old mate”.

Mark

My04 WRX PPP

davyboy

WTF!

RB5_245

Without the snappy diff in the clio and with the aid of 4wd you might have held on to that. Or gone into a tank slapper and hit the barrier

The clio is not a slow car but the power curves are very different, the fat midrange of the impreza gives it a big advantage. When driving a clio cup I always felt like I was just waiting for it to pick up, then the red line approached and nothing had happened.

A good example of this is that a couple of friends of mine have audi's ones an S3 and ones an old S6(2.3 turbo). The S3 is 225bhp and the S6 is 235bhp. Although on paper there's not much in it the S6 is much faster in the real world. Even though the power to weight ratio is less, it has an astronamical amount of torque.

'Power wins arguments, torque wins races'

Dave

scoobyboy1

iTrader: (16)

Yeah but the scoob has more tuning ability, decat a clio and decat a scoob, then see the diffrence in Bhp and torque, youd have to spend loads more money on the clio to get close to 220bhp, as my mate has a clio 172 with 8K spent on the engine to take it to 220bhp. Spend £8k on a Bugeye wrx scoob and you would be looking at 350+bhp. Not having a dig at any Clio Sport owners, think they are brilliant cars, just that most people who have scoobs dont leave them for standard for long, ive tried, and it didnt work.

DBY

Still it will be pissing with rain for the next six months and at the traffic lights they will sit there with the front wheels spinning and the dashboard traction control light lit up like a christmas tree!! With the WRX even in the wet you can side step the clutch at 5k and disappear into the distance, game over i'm afraid thats why the WRX with four wheel drive is such an effective all year round weapon of choice.

Regards

John

mmuuzzzzyy

looks like ive opend a ''can of worms''

I currently have a 206 gti (which is pants) and have been looking at bug eye wrx's for some time now. Managed to get decent insurance quotes £988 fully comp with 'privilege'.

Still havent found a 'blue one' with low milage for 12k though!

Now.... i had a punto GT b4 my 206 gti and compared to my 206gti, the punto GT i had seemed to be far faster/safer for overtaking even though on paper they had same torque and bhp.

I am wanting a quicker car than my 206 and as ive wanted a wrx for a long time now thats what i have decided i want.......i think.

Not botherd about racing from the lights just want to overtake quickly.

If you had a 172/182 side by side with a standars wrx both doing 40mph and both drivers put their foot down would the subaru pull away????????

Dracoro

Who originally came out with this rubbish statement? It means nothing as power (if we're talking bhp) is calculated from the torque figures. Or do you mean that all these diesels with 300lb torque will beat a Formula one car which currently run about 250lb torque!!!! It's all about gearing and revs when coming to winning races (ultimately the higher the bhp the better).

Jonto

no it wouldn't !

I had a punto GT3
a scooby MY00
and now a clio cup !

scoobyboy1

iTrader: (16)

have you considered a classic shape Impreza Turbo, Could pick up MY00 now for about £9k with low miles then if you dont want to go to mad on performance mods with the extra 3K you were willing to spend on the bug-eye you could get uprated brakes , coilovers and get the car ecutekd. not only would you have a car with performance but youll have really good allround car.

mmuuzzzzyy

Mods would bump my insurance up though by quite a bit..........andme and the wife i have a baby on the way so i wouldnt want to be paying megabucks at this moment in time

mmuuzzzzyy

???? what wouldnt.......

........doesnt matter i understand what ur saying now....

a wrx wouldnt pull away from a 172 in gear from 40mph.

RB5_245

you're comparing a diesel to a formula 1 car.

Or do you mean all these formula 1 cars with 700bhp will beat a top fuel dragster with 5000lb/ft of torque @5.5-6k rpm because it has shorter gearing

Dave

Sprint Chief

Perhaps its something to do with the 6000bhp that the dragster has got!

Integral under the power curve defines acceleration, period!

bluepolarbear

The pre bug eye's were significant quicker than the bugeye by several seconds to 100mph. Having had both they are very different cars. The MY99 I had was a quick car the bugeye isn't. The MY99 isn't much slower than a MY04 STI.

The bugeye still has the edge at most traffic light grand prix but once rolling especially in the 60 to 100 band won't gain / gain significantly on any big engined petrol or latest diesel turbo in things like BMW, Audi, VW etc.

The differences between torque bands etc translate to driveability and not outright performance, hence why BMW 330D Sport or a big V8 is effortless to drive as it has torque throughout the rev range.

0-60 times are for pubs only. The only real measure of the speed of a car is 0-100-0. If you can do that sub 20secs you have a quick car, if you can't you don't - dead simple.

MY99 can, bugeye can't.

RB5_245

On the other hand I might have just been pointing out the stupidity of comparing an f1 car with a diesel road car.

Sprint Chief

... on the other hand Dracoro might have been making an extreme comparison to show why comparing torque figures to understand acceleration doesn't work? If you compare the power figures (and weight, admittedly) you get an accurate reflection of the vans acceleration and the F1 cars acceleration. If you compare torque... you learn nothing. And here endeth the lesson.

mmuuzzzzyy

Cheerz mate given me plenty of food for thought b4 parting with my reddys.

Suppose i will have to test drive both......only thing that puts me off the uk2000 is the fact that it is 2 ''model shapes'' old now and sooner or later the price of them will drop significantly. I think.

I like the RB5 but you cant get a low milage(under 40k) for 12k

bluepolarbear

I've been lucky all my cars have been company cars so not worried about depreciation and running costs other than fuel.

I guess it depends what your after. The <MY00 are seriously quick cars by 99% of other car standards the MY01 is only quick especially below 60mph. On some of my favourite roads overtakes in the MY99 are just not there in the MY01. Having said that the interior is so much better in the MY01 (but still not brilliant). The MY01 is the runt of the litter in my opinion - things have started to approve again year on year. The MY99/00 I think are the pinancle in terms of outright performance.

RB5_245

WRC. Easy as that, because they have to drive in a (almost) real world situation they need a car that is fast in the real world. so they have a bucket load of torque.

Power is a useful indication but means little outside the pub.

Oh and sorry, this went way off topic.

Dave

Dracoro

I thought the reason why WRC cars had so much torque is because the legislation restricts it to 300bhp max. I remember the old rally cars used to run less torque but higher revs and better gearing. Remember the 600bhp monsters of the 80's.

The point is, as Sprint Chief points out, that comparing torque figures doesn't mean much. You need to know the gearing and rev capabilites to know how fast the car is (then on top of that, there's weight, drivetrain etc.)

RB5_245

I suppose this is an argument.

Back to the subject in hand. For that sort of money you could be looking at a quite new seat leon cupra R, I'd say that would have the edge over both the scoob and the clio in acceleration terms.

Dave

mmuuzzzzyy

Cheerz again but just 2 more question i promise

Is the uk300 just a wrx with ppp and a few body mods ?

Is the wrx with ppp comparable with a my00 or is the my00 still a quicker car in all situations?

cheerz
muzzy

FrenchBoy

UK300 = WRX with body kit and no PPP

Yes its comparable in terms of pace but not handling (classic being lighter and handling better). In terms of interior theres no contest.

mmuuzzzzyy

Thought all wrx's had the ppp.
Must be because all uk300 ive seen for sale the owners have put the ppp on later

Sprint Chief

Hadn't noticed this thread still running!
WRC have breathing restrictors that limit the air flow to a certain rate. For a given air flow rate, you get a certain amount of oxygen, which means you can only burn a certain amount of fuel - which limits power to a fixed value. It does not limit torque. This is the ONLY reason WRC cars have such a low power output, they are constrained by the rules.

Simple physical law: acceleration equals power divided by (mass times velocity), a=P/(mv). This ignores the effect of rolling resistance, drag etc. but then torque doesn't affect these! The mistake some people make is to get sucked into peak power figures, as opposed to the integral under the power curve. Peak torque is simply another point on the power curve and is used as a first cut measure to power band width, but this is a second order effect, and even then it is unlikely a modern well designed car will have gearing smaller than the power band.

Happy to take it elsewhere if anyone is interested in understanding the relationships between power, torque and acceleration better!

Pavlo

Hey, he ain't the Chief for nothin !

Cosworth427

Torque is the term people use to try and sound smart when they talk about cars, but they don't really have a clue!

"WRC. Easy as that, because they have to drive in a (almost) real world situation they need a car that is fast in the real world. so they have a bucket load of torque.

Power is a useful indication but means little outside the pub."

I bet you torque alot in the pub.

Cosworth427

WRC cars can make 200 + HP at low as 2000 RPM. So if there is a 300 HP max rule on a rally car, you are allowed to make 787 lbs ft of torque to get 300 HP at 2000 RPM, the torque values at RPMs above this would need to be reduced to remain at 300 HP of course.

Here here! It's the differential in power required (to reach x vehicle speed and overcome resistances) and power available that determines acceleration in a car.

jasonius

iTrader: (1)

Have had experience of both 172 and WRX 04 and although the 172 was quick the scooby is in a different league.


This seems to be confirmed by the EVO mag comparison of the best sub £20k performance cars (see their web page-road test archive).