sgcooby

Silence from the clio camp.

sgcooby

The mental barrier?? Is that the one where your limited knowledge has now been exposed and therefore the disscussion is over? Untill you come up with more drivvle.

davyboy

Yeah, you're right, a WRX is faster.

Happy now?

sgcooby

It never bothered me. I allways claimed they were about the same. It was you guys claiming you had handed scoob drivers their ****. Im still of the opinion they are the same speed in most situations, or at least so close it doesnt matter, but im happy you have finally admitted it.

JCScooby

is it not always been said that torque is the most important figure rather than BHP, but people use BHP as its easier to understand?
Its a question, not a statement.

Senior_AP

My drivvle was summarized by you when you said "there'd be very little in it".

We both feel the same on this point, so why the attitude???

Senior_AP

The only place I've handed WRX's owners their **** is on the Nurburgring - but I never said that on this thread until now.

On a flat out drag there was very little in it between my track car GTi-6 and a standard new age WRX - in fact there was nothing in it at all, contrary to the denial club that see a red flag like a fierce bull in a spanish arena.

It's funny, it doesn't bother me that my car is equally as quick as a WRX, seemed to really **** off the WRX owners though. For that I can only offer my apologies and recommend they get faster car if it grates that much.

sgcooby

H ha ha ha.
Re read your own threads i think you will find its you with the attitude problem.

You only calmed down when you realised you had lost your argument so you tried to say that my argument was your opinion all the time. LOL. Not the case. You have stated the clio was faster from the outset. Only now, after giving me attitude earlier, do you seem to have changed your mind.

Diablo

I think anyone reasonable would agree there is nothing in it

Figures from a source I trust say

WRX (225ps) 140 mph, 5.5s 0-60, 16.1 0-100, 5.8 30-70
Clio 182 138 mph, 6.3 0-60, 17.0 0-100, 5.8 30-70

In other words nothing in it aside from the traction advantage of 4wd

Although based on those you could argue that the Clio is slightly slower

PPP the WRX and the gap would be bigger.

The clio is also, what, 8K cheaper..LOL....

sgcooby

Hmmmmm. Thought you said a minute ago you have the same opinion as me??? You've no attitude hear have you.

Senior_AP

"very little in it but the Clio is faster". It's what I've said all along and it's still what I'm saying now.

It's ok that a WRX is slightly slower than a Clio, hot hatches have come on along way in recent years.

sgcooby

And again. How does this compare with my feelings that both cars are the same you idiot.

sgcooby

Shall i continue??????

Senior_AP

"very little in it but the Clio is faster".

"very little in it but the Clio is faster".

"very little in it but the Clio is faster".


Should I type in bold, italic and underline it as well???

You guys are legends. PMSL.

sgcooby

In nearly all you posts you have attitude so if i respond with attitude you can hardly complain can you. The only banging of heads off the wall is being done by everyone else about you. You simply ignore everyone elses comments and keep changing your own mind about what you think your opinions are. How can you possibly say we have the same feelings on the matter when you still repeatedly go on and on about the clio being faster. Are you sober???

Senior_AP

My first post, and my last post correlate - along with every other post I've done. Never said the CLio is MASSIVELY faster at any point. Stop charging at the red flag and just read what I put (ignoring the attitude).

When all is said and done, there is very little in it. So litle that it's negligable - however the Clio is slightly quicker. If the WRX was slightly quicker I have no doubt that Clio owners would accept that. Funny how some WRX owners struggle to do the same.

As I said, hot hatches have come along way in recent years concurrent to the performance regression of the WRX.

sgcooby

You based your original argument from a technical point of view. Un fortunately several people posted who clearly have far more technical knowledge than you and you were shown up as someone speaking about something you know little about. How do you respond. By repeating your opinions 3 times on the same post and offering to put them in bold font etc to really give them more credability. Excellent come back. Your special needs teacher will be proud.

chris n`nic

I`m sorry m8 but how can you say you haven`t an attitude? You say one thing, someone else says another. But hey you nust be right and iirc you are the one who keeps calling people names so you must be on a higher level

Chris

sgcooby

I actually said i responded with attitude as well, i didnt deny it. Well your mate senior-ap thinks im right too so you must have other opinions. He claims hes had the same opinion as me from the start so how have i been saying different things from everyone else??? By the way do you both write your posts together pressing keys alternately or is one of you in charge of the keyboard as its in your Mums house? Whos the boss? Chis or Nic?

Senior_AP

I've no bother which is the quicker car, I own neither and have no intentions of owning either.

If the WRX was quicker I'd be backing that car and it's owners up.

john banks

It would surely be a drivers' race if it was dry and the cars were rolling. The only special things about the WRX are its tunability (which is ridiculous) and traction, but they are both things I prize heavily.

chris n`nic

Lol and again you drift off at the end of your post.....what a star

Chris

sgcooby

If you are being honest you never claimed that ,the clio and wrx were similar and that they were both quick and that it didnt bother you, untill very late on in this thread. At the outset you were campaigning strongly and with attitude that the clio was faster. If it didnt bother you why did you go on about is much and get stroppy about it? Nothing wrong with attitude as it keeps the forum exciting but dont claim that you werent bothered which car was quicker as you have only just started saying that now. Plus others are happy to leave it as both cars are very similar with convincing arguments for both cars but you keep going on and on about the clio being faster. Its your opinion which you are entitled to and it obviously does bother you as you were getting worked up about it and keep bringing it up.

Senior_AP

The debate is down to a technical level now (apparently). So the driver has to be of equal skill.

I can name many things the WRX has over the Clio, it's arguably a better car in every respect - but the debate is down to which is quicker in gear.

I think we've comcluded that there is so little in it that it's negligable even if you were nit picking.

The Clio wouldn't have it by much - maybe a bit of bumper ahead or a headlight lens ahead something silly like that.

sgcooby

Thanks. Glad you admire me. Its nice for you kids to aspire to greater things.

jonc

I can't believe this thead is still going.!! its like punch and judy.

rexabusa

sorry mate but i also hammered a clio 172 in my93 wrx, was very surprised at how quick it was. i crunched fourth and little clio slipstream me to 130 and still at races till140. it slaughters my other mates vr6 va va voom eh

sgcooby

If you hammered him how did he stay with you to 140mph?????

Diablo

LOL

Don't worry mate, Senior AP is a bit of an ****

Not in a bad way, more in an amusing sense

Diablo

Mate,

On a purely technical level, the WRX would be slightly ahead of the Clio based on the stats I posted.

I completely agree there is so little in it that the debate is, however, pretty worthless.

I wouldn't (now) touch either with "yours" TBH. Imagine having spent £20k on (run with me on this) a 225ps rally "monster" and have some chav in a £12k Clio glued to your **** to 140 mph

Likewise the Clio - sure its fun, stupidly quick for the money, and the cup's are reputed to handle very, very well, but its still a ****box £6k shopping trolly at heart, built by a manufacturer with, lets be honest, a dismal record for quality and reliability.

Which is why my cash is (shortly) going into a small, quality, turbo diesel with nothing to prove and bucket loads of torque. And which will be, in the real world of busy roads, crap surfaces, speed cameras and SPECS, to all intents and purposes as quick as either the WRX or the Clio, probably as much fun, considerably better built (and nicer place to be)