scoobysnacks

A standard UK Scooby from 99/00 would leave them both behind in a straight line (and in the bends). I believe Autocar tested the Scooby at around 5.5 to 60 mph and 14.5 to 100mph. The Clio and Civic just can't match that. Remember, the Scooby had/has about 230 bhp as standard (according to some dynos anyway...) despite what Subaru say and it used to be a fair bit lighter than it is now.

[Edited by scoobysnacks - 10/5/2002 12:05:00 AM]

db

0 to 100 times accoring to EVO

CLIO CUP = 17.7
WRX (MY01) = 18.3
Impreza Turbo (S reg) = 14.6
CTR = 16.9

others

Cooper S = 21.3
Leon Cupra R = 19.2
Focus RS = 14.9

In gear times

3rd/4th/5th/6th
CTR
30-50 - 3.8/5.1/7.2/10.6
40-60 - 3.9/5.3/7.0/9.7
50-70 - 3.8/5.5/7.1/9.7

Clio Cup
30-50 - 4.3/5.7/8.3/--
40-60 - 4.2/5.7/8.2/--
50-70 - 4.1/5.8/8.4/--

WRX
30-50 - 3.8/7.1/13.4/--
40-60 - 3.9/5.7/11.2/--
50-70 - 4.0/5.7/9.0/--

Impreza Turbo (S reg)
30-50 - 3.5/6.5/11.4/--
40-60 - 3.2/5.2/9.4/--
50-70 - 3.3/4.8/8.3/--

Focus RS
30-50 - 3.4/6.0/10.7/--
40-60 - 2.9/4.6/8.7/--
50-70 - 3.1/4.2/7.1/--

I'm in the process of buying a CTR. It was a toss up between CTR and Cooper S. CTR is quicker, CTR is far more practical and also I would imagine the CTR is alot more reliable.

d

[Edited by db - 10/5/2002 11:19:15 AM]

chris-s2000

I know, I know, its been done before, but am still looking for the definite answer to:

Outright straight-line performance: standard uk scooby (my 99/00) against a civic type r against a clio 172.

I used to own a clio, so am wondering if these other two offer a significant performance advantage...

cheers for your opinions guys!

RB5#295

I reckon the Scooby only gets the lower figures because of the traction it gets off the line. I don't know, but I'd guesss that in-gear times are far closer. I also reckong the Clio handles pretty well, although ultimate grip may be less.

Fen

LG John

Straight line to 100mph totally standard:

The scooby would be ahead with the civic snapping close at its *** and just after that would be the clio chomping on the civic's ***. Any form of driver error from any car could sway things but the scooby driver could get away with more as he has more power to call on and a more forgiving power band.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

6 speed boxes for you
Now compare your 6th to everyone elses 5th (CTR) and you will notice that its not as quick
6 speed boxes are good for though the gear power, not as good as in gear power as you would think due to shorter ratios so you cannot really compare a 5 speed box against a 6 speed box unless your comparing 6 to 5 etc.

Tony

fatherpierre

Post this on civic and clio bbs.

The civic will be faster on its bbs

The clio will be faster on its bbs.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Agree with you there Father
I think that some of the unrealistic times of the WRX that are posted there are also from a car thats not run in (they get into the high 15's/low 16's to 100mph when they are run in ) and also gear for gear the subaru is a quicker car, the 6 speed box makes you think that the in gear power is better and it is but if the other car has longer ratios then the 6 speed car aint any competition and shouldnt really be compared to a car like an Impreza.

Tony

MooseRacer

All very well, but why compare such vastly differently priced cars? I don't understand why people try and compare hot hatches with Scoobs - totally differnt cars/driving experiences. IMHO

MooseRacer

And if you want to know which is quicker over any road apart from a dragstrip the answer is simple - the Scoob. 0-60, 0-100 its all total bo55ocks in the real world.

RB5#295

The comparison is quite real for me. Do I want to run a 3+ year old Scooby or is there so little in it in terms of performance and fun that I'd be better with a new Clio?

Fen

MooseRacer

Fen - see above, on paper performance is similar yes, but real world performance from A to B any Scoob will be quicker than a Civic or a Clio.

I guess if you factor in running costs, depreciation etc then it may not be so clear cut.

Honda Integra Type R owner BTW, not some biased Scoob nut

Robertio

iTrader: (1)

From personal experience; while overtaking (50-100mph, so 3rd and just into 4th) a 172 was near identical to my old MY00

MooseRacer

round the twisties, on unfamiliar roads, in the wet?

db

I agree with all your points, we are talking about margins of difference for 'on the limit driving'. in the real world, taking into account everyones different driving styles and that some drivers are better than others, all cars are on an equal par. IMHO

The reasons I'm going for a CTR are as follows.

Cheap
Bang For Buck
Practical (even with a baby)
Reliability
Never owned an n/a performance car, so fancied something like the Type R for a change.

Just my two peneth.

by the way, my previous cars are a 98 scoob and an Sti V.

d

MooseRacer

I guess you've got to consider whether you're going to mod the car or not? I imagine it's cheaper to get more bhp from the Scoob (certainly true of the Civic, not sure about clio?)

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Well if its practicallity that your after then 4 doors, big boot and lots of room inside, the scoob wins

Tony

db

TonyBurns, not really, with a scoob there are

Big Servicing Costs
Big Insurance
Big Petrol bills.

Enough said, I've been there before.....

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

db,
if your getting a WRX from a UK dealer then its 1 year intervals and not 6 month service intervals it does reduce the cost a little but that said, some people also say that a car like the civic drinks nearly as much fuel as a scoob would love to know how thou but seriously, have you thought about the SEAT Leon Cupra R? all 210bhp and 5 doors?

Tony

Tim-Grove

Nice to see the Clio even compared to a Scooby a few years ago this topic would have been dismissed as crap. Off the line the Scooby (New one that is) would spank a Clio/CTR no probs(4x4), but from a rolling start (e.g. 30-100) a Clio/CTR wouldn't be that far behind. Not trying to start a war hear, I love Scoob’s and want one in a year or two but I don’t think that the Clio/CTR should be pushed aside as inferior cars.

Tim.

Fugu

Cupra is almost as lardy as the WRX in standard form.

DB
Don't let that TonyBurns geezer try and put you off buying the CTR.
You check any thread on here relating to the car, its obvious he's not a fan.

Amazed he hasn't mentioned how much better the GTI-6 is yet.

DB, I've owned a CTR for 6 months, done about 10,000 eventful miles - insurance aside, its cheap to run and mega-reliable. Bounces about a bit on bad B roads but hey, thats half the fun.

Type R

I don't think there is anything in it, my JDM CTR matched a standard Scoob in twisties, in the wet, in a straight line, only problem I have is 60-100 where the Scoob breaks away a little, but then I gain at 100 all the way to 146mph, so I guess the new CTR would too.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Fugu,
no doubt you think that the CTR is quicker though the gears than a Seat Leon Cupra R, and yes it is, but in gear the SEAT whoops CTR *** by serious ammounts
The CTR is a rev happy car, great fun but it isnt a car that you can be lazy in (ie just floor it in a gear) you have to change and go and to me thats a sign of bad performance (and having owned a few more performance cars than most id have to agree )
The 306 GTI-6 was a bench mark, if it wasnt for this car you probably would have never seen a 6 speed Civic nor one with 197bhp (something that a GTi-6 was capable of and was down tuned to suit! )
But the CTR isnt quite as good an all round car as people make it out to be, it is good but it isnt excellent.

Tony

MooseRacer

Tony, what on earth makes you think the 306gti inspired the current CTR?

Honda were making hot Civic's producing over 100bhp/litre way back in 1991. If anything the current CTR doesn't quite match upto them.
As for in gear performance, it is more subjective, the honda feels slow when out of the VTEC zone simply because it is so manic in the upper reaches. A quick look at in gear performance figures (and by all means take the Civic's 6th gear times) bears out this widely held perception.

bumcrack

I Raced a CTR off the line in my99 impreza and it was neck and neck up to 140 on a long straight motorway. I had to start behind him at the lights, so I had to wait for him to move and I couldn't use the 0-60 advantage the Impreza had. Once rolling there's nothing in it, and I giv'it some.
Fast car for the money, I was shocked.
Impreza now sold

Fugu

Excellent for the money, hey Tony.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Moose,
thats what im saying
If Peugeot hadnt have put a 6 speed box in a GTi i dont think many people would have found how good it was, it keeps the car on the boil basically and leaves you up there in the power band
A 6 speed box definately suits the CTR better than a 5 speed box, the lack of low down torque makes the older VTEC's rather boring to drive when your out of the power band (ie most of the rev range) and having proved this to a 1.8ltr vtec that did try it on with my scoob, i outpaced him in 5th from 70mph, he couldnt catch me and needed to down it a few gears to get the engine on the boil
The point is, is that its not the engine that makes the CTR, its the gearbox for if it would have had a 5 speed box it wouldnt have been as energetic as it is now

Tony

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Fugu,
The Clio Cup is excellent for the money but the CTR doesnt have some of the creature comforts that a car in its class should have (ie aircon) and thus the reason its cheapish (so adding aircon puts it in the same bracket as every other hot hatch )

Tony

Fugu

Tony,

The only car you can reasonably compare the CTR to in its class is the Cupra R and that doesn't come with decent seats as standard. Anyway its not just a question of creature comforts, factor in durability, reliability and build quality and the Clio Cup should be £3000 cheaper and IMO - is also excellent value.

Being a torque-meister, you're not going to like the extra work required to get the best out of the Honda engine but you can't deny, you end up with a similar result on the road. Look at the original question about differences between the cars in STANDARD form. I am interested to see the comments about performance differences between the older scoob and the CTR. Does the fact that someone mentioned this in the first place suggest that the old scoob is better/quicker than the new one?

Jeeees....I'd better do some work now.

SJobson

I changed a MY99 UK Turbo for a Civic because I preferred the accessibility of its performance - if you're in the wrong gear, change down; you still have to change gear in the Scoob to avoid turbo lag, and it's breathless at the top end. Once rolling, I don't think there's anything in it for performance - the Scoob feels like it's bullying its way through the air above about 80mph where the Civic flies. Anyway, I prefer the throttle response of the Civic.

As for not comparing like with like for 6 speed gearboxes: 6th in the Civic is almost exactly the same ratio as 4th in my old Scoob. But the Honda revs higher (and more happily) - try getting 146mph out of the Impreza in 4th What you need to compare is what people actually use, and the UK Impreza's gearing always felt too high to me - I was always changing down from (quite high) 5th on the motorway because the in-gear performance was poor, it had turbo lag and poor throttle response.