renault clio sport could not pull on my old saab
15 December 2005, 11:34 PM
#481
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok guys i think i can settle this, just checked bbc top gear lap times of track and the stig(we all know who he is) subaru impreza sti 1.30.4 clio v6 1.36.2 i rest my case (or am i asking for trouble)
16 December 2005, 06:25 AM
#484
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Some country and western
Posts: 13,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rexabusa
ok guys i think i can settle this, just checked bbc top gear lap times of track and the stig(we all know who he is) subaru impreza sti 1.30.4 clio v6 1.36.2 i rest my case (or am i asking for trouble)
That would have settled it........
.............only we are not comparing either of those cars!
Dave
16 December 2005, 07:38 AM
#485
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sunny Aberdeen
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jasonius
Oh you are Soooooo mis-guided and obviously very mis-understood (hence the you replys you seem to generate from every other poster)..!
You're constantly taking a little dig at people then plead innocence and mis-interpretation when they have a go back FFS..!
Someone has already mentioned slapping you up a bit and at the rate you're going it won't be far off, but of course you're a keyboard hero, so in reality we must remember you're probably only 14 years old which explains the ****e you come out with..!
I am truely sorry if I have mis-understood you in anyway and for calling you a **** wit when clearly you are still going through puberty..!
FWIW I am a big scooby fan, but that doesn't stop me from being a realist and mean I go around wearing rose tinted glasses..! Do some research after you've finnished your homework, if mummy will let you stay up after 9pm..!
You're constantly taking a little dig at people then plead innocence and mis-interpretation when they have a go back FFS..!
Someone has already mentioned slapping you up a bit and at the rate you're going it won't be far off, but of course you're a keyboard hero, so in reality we must remember you're probably only 14 years old which explains the ****e you come out with..!
I am truely sorry if I have mis-understood you in anyway and for calling you a **** wit when clearly you are still going through puberty..!
FWIW I am a big scooby fan, but that doesn't stop me from being a realist and mean I go around wearing rose tinted glasses..! Do some research after you've finnished your homework, if mummy will let you stay up after 9pm..!
16 December 2005, 07:56 AM
#488
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sunny Aberdeen
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Karl 227
I'd still beat you around the ring in an old Golf though 
16 December 2005, 09:12 AM
#490
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rexabusa
ok guys i think i can settle this, just checked bbc top gear lap times of track and the stig(we all know who he is) subaru impreza sti 1.30.4 clio v6 1.36.2 i rest my case (or am i asking for trouble)
172 Cup Vs Bugeye WRX
182 Vs blobeye WRX
16 December 2005, 09:26 AM
#491
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rexabusa
ok guys i think i can settle this, just checked bbc top gear lap times of track and the stig(we all know who he is) subaru impreza sti 1.30.4 clio v6 1.36.2 i rest my case (or am i asking for trouble)
16 December 2005, 09:29 AM
#492
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sunny Aberdeen
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
A 911 is faster than a Mondeo, not really relevant though in this debate.
172 Cup Vs Bugeye WRX
182 Vs blobeye WRX
172 Cup Vs Bugeye WRX
182 Vs blobeye WRX
16 December 2005, 09:34 AM
#494
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Clio is quicker than a WRX and a Saab is quicker than a Clio.....
As such, a battered old Saab is quicker than both a WRX and a Clio.
We have a winner!!!
Clio would still be best of the 3 on track though.
As such, a battered old Saab is quicker than both a WRX and a Clio.
We have a winner!!!
Clio would still be best of the 3 on track though.
16 December 2005, 09:48 AM
#495
BANNED
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Playing mind games since back in the day! :D
Posts: 1,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
As a Clio is quicker than a WRX and a Saab is quicker than a Clio.....
As such, a battered old Saab is quicker than both a WRX and a Clio.
We have a winner!!!
Clio would still be best of the 3 on track though.
As such, a battered old Saab is quicker than both a WRX and a Clio.
We have a winner!!!
Clio would still be best of the 3 on track though.
http://www.cecilsrentarookie.co.uk/
when I was younger and more stupid. Reckon you poncy tarmac only boys would get eaten alive in your french tin boxes.
16 December 2005, 11:12 AM
#497
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Karl 227
I'd still beat you around the ring in an old Golf though
16 December 2005, 12:32 PM
#498
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by crush her
Nope, 182 was 2 seconds faster 
With that said I think it's safe to say the 182 would beat a WRX.
16 December 2005, 12:44 PM
#499
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a Clio v6 mk2 and have has Scoobs and 2 Clio Cups. The Cup is about as quick as the Vee but is not as civilised and very raw.
The vee is a work of art, the v6 sound track is to die for all the way to the red line. It pulls nicely in sixth from 30mph. I bought at the right time, 18k for a 11mth old car that cost 30k new. The values have stabilised, only 300 were made.
The vee is a work of art, the v6 sound track is to die for all the way to the red line. It pulls nicely in sixth from 30mph. I bought at the right time, 18k for a 11mth old car that cost 30k new. The values have stabilised, only 300 were made.
16 December 2005, 12:52 PM
#500
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sunny Aberdeen
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
So, a 182 was only 3.8secs slower than an STI
With that said I think it's safe to say the 182 would beat a WRX.
With that said I think it's safe to say the 182 would beat a WRX.
16 December 2005, 01:09 PM
#501
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes but it wasnt
and if it was the scoobs times would slow as well so i reckon the gap would stay pretty much the same .
At combe last time it was a monsoon all day and the quickest 2 cars were a focus and a mini,,they were very modded but still only front drive,,this age old comeback from scoby owners "yeah but what if it was wet" is very misleading ,i used to have a sccoby and if it was wet i had to slow down same as every one else,,i had to brake earlier and gentler ,i had to turn in at slower speeds with reduced apex speed,the only advantage is you can get on the power earlier without spinning the wheels.Who drives like that in the wet anyway.
and if it was the scoobs times would slow as well so i reckon the gap would stay pretty much the same .At combe last time it was a monsoon all day and the quickest 2 cars were a focus and a mini,,they were very modded but still only front drive,,this age old comeback from scoby owners "yeah but what if it was wet" is very misleading ,i used to have a sccoby and if it was wet i had to slow down same as every one else,,i had to brake earlier and gentler ,i had to turn in at slower speeds with reduced apex speed,the only advantage is you can get on the power earlier without spinning the wheels.Who drives like that in the wet anyway.
16 December 2005, 01:12 PM
#502
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sunny Aberdeen
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mg driver
yes but it wasnt and if it was the scoobs times would slow as well so i reckon the gap would stay pretty much the same .
At combe last time it was a monsoon all day and the quickest 2 cars were a focus and a mini,,they were very modded but still only front drive,,this age old comeback from scoby owners "yeah but what if it was wet" is very misleading ,i used to have a sccoby and if it was wet i had to slow down same as every one else,,i had to brake earlier and gentler ,i had to turn in at slower speeds with reduced apex speed,the only advantage is you can get on the power earlier without spinning the wheels.Who drives like that in the wet anyway.
and if it was the scoobs times would slow as well so i reckon the gap would stay pretty much the same .At combe last time it was a monsoon all day and the quickest 2 cars were a focus and a mini,,they were very modded but still only front drive,,this age old comeback from scoby owners "yeah but what if it was wet" is very misleading ,i used to have a sccoby and if it was wet i had to slow down same as every one else,,i had to brake earlier and gentler ,i had to turn in at slower speeds with reduced apex speed,the only advantage is you can get on the power earlier without spinning the wheels.Who drives like that in the wet anyway.
AWD would count for something though surely if not the entire time deficit. If in deed there would be a time deficit at all. Lets not go there again.
16 December 2005, 01:13 PM
#503
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mg driver
yes but it wasnt and if it was the scoobs times would slow as well so i reckon the gap would stay pretty much the same .
At combe last time it was a monsoon all day and the quickest 2 cars were a focus and a mini,,they were very modded but still only front drive,,this age old comeback from scoby owners "yeah but what if it was wet" is very misleading ,i used to have a sccoby and if it was wet i had to slow down same as every one else,,i had to brake earlier and gentler ,i had to turn in at slower speeds with reduced apex speed,the only advantage is you can get on the power earlier without spinning the wheels.Who drives like that in the wet anyway.
and if it was the scoobs times would slow as well so i reckon the gap would stay pretty much the same .At combe last time it was a monsoon all day and the quickest 2 cars were a focus and a mini,,they were very modded but still only front drive,,this age old comeback from scoby owners "yeah but what if it was wet" is very misleading ,i used to have a sccoby and if it was wet i had to slow down same as every one else,,i had to brake earlier and gentler ,i had to turn in at slower speeds with reduced apex speed,the only advantage is you can get on the power earlier without spinning the wheels.Who drives like that in the wet anyway.
4wd is best.......on ice, gravel, snow, sand and mud.
On a tarmac road, I'll stick to 2 wheels me hearties!!
Last edited by Senior_AP; 16 December 2005 at 01:15 PM.
16 December 2005, 01:14 PM
#504
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sgcooby
It was only a joke. AWD would count for something though surely if not the entire time deficit. If in deed there would be a time deficit at all. Lets not go there again.
AWD would count for something though surely if not the entire time deficit. If in deed there would be a time deficit at all. Lets not go there again.The time deficit is only a small one....
But a deficit never the less.
16 December 2005, 02:23 PM
#505
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Half way up
Posts: 4,791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sgcooby:
You've been a member (and you acertainly are a member) for little over a month and of your 305 posts the vast majority contribute absolutely nothing constructive to this board. In fact on every thread you have posted on you have had a go at someone and pleaded innocence when they respond in kind..!
Of all the drivel you've come out with since joining, I cannot find one post that contributes to the good of this board. Maybe you are modelling yourself on PS Lewis, I don't know, but at least he occasionally has a valid point and believe it or not, would be missed if he stopped posting. You, however would NOT..!
As a NEWBIE you'd find it a wiser approach to try helping instead of baiting, you'll last (live) longer..!
PS of your 305 posts, nearly half have been on this thread FFS..!
You've been a member (and you acertainly are a member) for little over a month and of your 305 posts the vast majority contribute absolutely nothing constructive to this board. In fact on every thread you have posted on you have had a go at someone and pleaded innocence when they respond in kind..!
Of all the drivel you've come out with since joining, I cannot find one post that contributes to the good of this board. Maybe you are modelling yourself on PS Lewis, I don't know, but at least he occasionally has a valid point and believe it or not, would be missed if he stopped posting. You, however would NOT..!
As a NEWBIE you'd find it a wiser approach to try helping instead of baiting, you'll last (live) longer..!
PS of your 305 posts, nearly half have been on this thread FFS..!
16 December 2005, 02:52 PM
#506
BANNED
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Playing mind games since back in the day! :D
Posts: 1,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As some seen to be too prissy to consider a bit of contact/racing along with your track days I'll gloss over the fact you 'aint got game and put up a couple of relevant figures from Autocar magazine.
WRX wagon on track 51.6 seconds
Clio Cup on track 51.4 seconds.
So pretty even really and that's a wagon which as we all know is a bit slower. Start looking at 54 plate PPP for 13K V 13K Clio Trophy and I reckon the 'lowly' WRX would beat it on track and with an average driver at the wheel, hand the Clio it's *** on a plate on real world wet n slippery surfaces. Another plus point is that although you'll look like low life chav scum in the WRX at least it'll probably keep working long enough to do some serious miles in. Also you won't look like you borrowed the birds car 'cos you can't afford your own.
and put up a couple of relevant figures from Autocar magazine.WRX wagon on track 51.6 seconds
Clio Cup on track 51.4 seconds.
So pretty even really and that's a wagon which as we all know is a bit slower. Start looking at 54 plate PPP for 13K V 13K Clio Trophy and I reckon the 'lowly' WRX would beat it on track and with an average driver at the wheel, hand the Clio it's *** on a plate on real world wet n slippery surfaces. Another plus point is that although you'll look like low life chav scum in the WRX at least it'll probably keep working long enough to do some serious miles in. Also you won't look like you borrowed the birds car 'cos you can't afford your own.
16 December 2005, 03:47 PM
#507
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sunny Aberdeen
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jasonius
sgcooby:
You've been a member (and you acertainly are a member) for little over a month and of your 305 posts the vast majority contribute absolutely nothing constructive to this board. In fact on every thread you have posted on you have had a go at someone and pleaded innocence when they respond in kind..!
Of all the drivel you've come out with since joining, I cannot find one post that contributes to the good of this board. Maybe you are modelling yourself on PS Lewis, I don't know, but at least he occasionally has a valid point and believe it or not, would be missed if he stopped posting. You, however would NOT..!
As a NEWBIE you'd find it a wiser approach to try helping instead of baiting, you'll last (live) longer..!
PS of your 305 posts, nearly half have been on this thread FFS..!
You've been a member (and you acertainly are a member) for little over a month and of your 305 posts the vast majority contribute absolutely nothing constructive to this board. In fact on every thread you have posted on you have had a go at someone and pleaded innocence when they respond in kind..!
Of all the drivel you've come out with since joining, I cannot find one post that contributes to the good of this board. Maybe you are modelling yourself on PS Lewis, I don't know, but at least he occasionally has a valid point and believe it or not, would be missed if he stopped posting. You, however would NOT..!
As a NEWBIE you'd find it a wiser approach to try helping instead of baiting, you'll last (live) longer..!
PS of your 305 posts, nearly half have been on this thread FFS..!
16 December 2005, 10:33 PM
#510
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
These slow blobeye WRXs are quite puzzling. I have seen figures for one with £1250 of mods plus Andy F remap, and it shows 30-90mph in 3rd gear in 7.4 seconds (which incidentally is 1.7s quicker than an M3 CSL in its 3rd gear, and still 0.2s quicker if the CSL runs through the gears), and a Clio Sport 182 at 14.2 seconds. Between 50-70 and 70-90 the mildly modded WRX accelerates through these intervals in half the time that the Clio takes. The listed weight for this model tested was 1080kg.