|
Originally Posted by New_scooby_04
No, but true, alas *sobs* ;) :D
Ns04 |
Classics are the way forward ,ditch the lardy new ages:p
|
:lol: my 220bhp WRX has edged out a few 330ci's so ipso facto 323i's are faster than 330's which is all a bit weird :confused:
I thought the 120d was the fastest production BMW out at the moment judging by the way failing sails reps and YTS estate agents seem to drive them ;) |
Here are some performance figure from the latest Evo magazine.
BMW 325i SE 0-60 7.1 secs 131 bhp/tonne Max speed 149mph Impreza WRX 0-60 5.5 secs 161bhp/tonne Max speed 143mph Impreza T2000 0-60 5.4secs 177bhp/tonne Max speed 144mph No figures for the BMW 323iSE but it won't be quicker than a 325i SE. But the BMW does have a higher top speed than both Impreza's which isn't much use when on the roads. |
I have a standard bug except panel filter, I have yet to be beaten, I see off clios.civics and big beemas, what you all talking about:wonder:
Had a blast with a focus st thought it was a very even race, dropped behind at around 5-6000 revs but then caught him. Proper fraggles bring on a poxy bmw anyday. |
Looks like they both had their hand brakes on, i've seen my nan go quicker than that. :lol1:
|
Originally Posted by Daz1121
Here are some performance figure from the latest Evo magazine.
BMW 325i SE 0-60 7.1 secs 131 bhp/tonne Max speed 149mph Impreza WRX 0-60 5.5 secs 161bhp/tonne Max speed 143mph Impreza T2000 0-60 5.4secs 177bhp/tonne Max speed 144mph No figures for the BMW 323iSE but it won't be quicker than a 325i SE. But the BMW does have a higher top speed than both Impreza's which isn't much use when on the roads. Stats everywhere, of which none really mean anything. |
I think that the real question here is: How can you have a "race" with a half-full cup in your cup-holder?
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d9...ountaindew.jpg If that had been me, I'd have to spend the week removing Mountain Dew from the back seat..... |
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-6G4...subaru%20loses
Mad, those 323's only have 190bhp and weigh about 1500kg!! |
I've often driven our 325 auto touring back to back with my Scoob. It doesn't suprise me.
On paper they are worlds apart in BHP, tourque, 0-60. etc. But you know what? There isn't that much difference in the real world especially between 40 to 100. And that's with a mildly modded UK classic. With a stock WRX bugeye it would fair even worse :lol1: Also the 528auto is the same, apart from it handles better than both, and it only loses out at low speed as it bogs down from the over-tall gearing. Once up and running it keeps going and going until it reaches top speed, whilst the scoob's acelaration gets lethargic above three figures. |
ive seen more speed up kate moss`s nose:Whatever_
were they worried in case they went over the speed limit, cos they only appeared to be doing about 70 in the closing stages:wonder: |
Originally Posted by bobsru
ive seen more speed up kate moss`s nose:Whatever_
were they worried in case they went over the speed limit, cos they only appeared to be doing about 70 in the closing stages:wonder: :lol1: Did seem like a gentle cruise down the motorway. |
Thats crap. a corsa diesel would give them both a beating :lol1:
As for top speeds, mine has been over... well over 150 :brickwall once and only once, never again unless on a track! :nono: Only wanted to know if my childhood dream was do able in an impreza! It barely gets over 70 now as I know it does it with ease and mpg goes way down town with any speed over 55! Also its safer to keep steady. :thumb: Its not been beaten at the lights when some businessman in a bmw tries to skip traffic (like most of them do)! BMWs, lovely cars, but they are no jap fuel guzzlin engine roarin monster are they?! :thumb: |
lets face it. The subaru turbo wrx, sti, 2000, rb5, p1, bug eye what ever one u choose has to be in my humble opinion the best car in the world, no? mpg aside. I mean, 4wd, awesome performance, sound great, look great, reliable, inexpensive, practical....if someone had said to me 20 yrs ago, you can have all that for between 2 and 20 grand I would not have believed it. I paid 3k for my r reg turbo 2000 and all its had in a year is new front tyres, oil and plugs. only one down side, group 20 insurance! and getting flat with mi other half so its got to go, nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!! found myself looking at a nice sensible audi, hmm, I thought, 40 mpg, nice and roomy get a pram in the boot.................help!:freak3: I know, I'll tell her no one buys scoobys in summer
cause, er, hmm, dunno:Suspiciou |
Originally Posted by nik52wrx
It was said in humour, surley you must have a humerous side?
I didn't really think you would get a nose bleed f.f.s. It has been said before that Americans can find the English humour a little difficult to follow. You can suggest that the British sterotype of having bad teeth as long as i can suggest that the American equivalent is obese :norty: My teeth are perfect thanks to visiting my dentist every six months, the state of other peoples teeth doesn't concern me :D |
Originally Posted by sleeve32
lets face it. The subaru turbo wrx, sti, 2000, rb5, p1, bug eye what ever one u choose has to be in my humble opinion the best car in the world, no? mpg aside. I mean, 4wd, awesome performance, sound great, look great, reliable, inexpensive, practical....if someone had said to me 20 yrs ago, you can have all that for between 2 and 20 grand I would not have believed it. I paid 3k for my r reg turbo 2000 and all its had in a year is new front tyres, oil and plugs. only one down side, group 20 insurance! and getting flat with mi other half so its got to go, nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!! found myself looking at a nice sensible audi, hmm, I thought, 40 mpg, nice and roomy get a pram in the boot.................help!:freak3: I know, I'll tell her no one buys scoobys in summer
cause, er, hmm, dunno:Suspiciou PMSL. |
Originally Posted by Criss
BMWs, lovely cars, but they are no jap fuel guzzlin engine roarin monster are they?! :thumb:
Newer age WRX's are no quicker than a Clio 172! |
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
Monster??
Newer age WRX's are no quicker than a Clio 172! yes they are:D |
Originally Posted by The Chief
yes they are:D
|
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
Yours, perhaps, but "they" from factory are not.
Oh yeah - trust me a feckin' Clio 1.2 would p*** all over mine at the moment - its sat on the drive with a knackered gearbox - damn Scooby reliability |
Anyway back to the original post - i would imagine that a 323i would struggle against a Scoob - even a Bugeye:) But.....its not always as clear cut as power to weight - once speeds get higher. I used to own an A6 2.8 Quattro - and it was a right heavy old barge 0-60 in 7.7 (ish) but once on the moto.... er Bruntinthorpe:) it was a different matter. Things like aerodynamics and gearing comes into play - my 200bhp Audi would cane my 275bhp Classic once above 120-130 ish or so, even though it was a lot, lot heavier and less powerful
Scoobs seem to hit a bit of a brick wall after 140 or so (well mine does) and after that it creeps to its top speed, My Audi roared past 140 with ease. ***The above test was carried out at Bruntinthorpe proving ground***:) |
Chief - exactly. In gear performance is REALLY what matters. I don't recall ever going to a track day or to Nurburg where 2 drivers agreed to 'stop' mid-lap, just so they can do a standing start race against each other. If they did I'd imagine the scoob would fair alot better than it seems to do at track days at the moment.
The 172 Cup Vs WRX thing has been discussed at length on here. The Scoob is quicker 0-60 but the 172 Cup is quicker to 100. It doesn't take a mathematic genius to work out that in gear the Clio not only gains the lost ground from the 0-60, but actually passes the WRX by the time 100 is reached. There are alot of people in denial, but you can't blame them after spending 15 grand on their monster whooooosshhh-chissshh machine and being outpaced by Nicole and Papa in a French shopping trolley. |
Originally Posted by The Chief
***The above test was carried out at Bruntinthorpe proving ground***:) Agree that power to weight can be misleading (so can the fabled transmission losses, which never seem to amount to as much as people sometimes suggest) I well recall a drag race on one of JC's videos including a line up of exotica including Ferraris, Lambos, Porsches, TVRs, Astons etc... and a Caterham with a 2.0 touring car engine. JC said that smart money was on the Caterham with its incredible power to weight ratio roaring into an easy lead off the line, but being caught up by the power houses with much more oomph and better aeodynamics in the later stages of the race....what happened? The TVR and Porsche turbo wiped the floor with the lot of them from the outset, The Caterham was at the back of the field. Ns04 |
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
Chief - exactly. In gear performance is REALLY what matters. I don't recall ever going to a track day or to Nurburg where 2 drivers agreed to 'stop' mid-lap, just so they can do a standing start race against each other. If they did I'd imagine the scoob would fair alot better than it seems to do at track days at the moment.
The 172 Cup Vs WRX thing has been discussed at length on here. The Scoob is quicker 0-60 but the 172 Cup is quicker to 100. It doesn't take a mathematic genius to work out that in gear the Clio not only gains the lost ground from the 0-60, but actually passes the WRX by the time 100 is reached. There are alot of people in denial, but you can't blame them after spending 15 grand on their monster whooooosshhh-chissshh machine and being outpaced by Nicole and Papa in a French shopping trolley. To be honest i think (and i will get flamed here) The standard Scoob has gotten overweight and a bit wobbly in its old age (a bit like me:D ) where as the clio especially the Trophy's and Cups are quite track orientated - unfortunately i think Renault have f***ed up big time with the new Clio - same ole same ole - bigger and heavier, when will car makers get with it - it took 20 years for VW to realise that going heavier all the time the way forward with the Golf - finally with the MK5 Golf GTi - not perfect but a step in the right direction. |
[quote=Senior_AP]
The 172 Cup Vs WRX thing has been discussed at length on herequote] Your not kidding i've just done a search:brickwall |
Although I'm in complete agreement about the bugeye WRX's lack of mid range grunt and inability to shake off even modestly powered cars when moving I feel that there is one discipline where even the bugeye does well.
The traffic light GP. A well launched Impreza will take on and beat most things. In my experience though the ones I've had a crack at have no idea how to do it properly. |
[quote=The Chief]
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
The 172 Cup Vs WRX thing has been discussed at length on herequote]
Your not kidding i've just done a search:brickwall Ns04 |
Originally Posted by The Chief
To be honest i think (and i will get flamed here) The standard Scoob has gotten overweight and a bit wobbly in its old age (a bit like me:D ) where as the clio especially the Trophy's and Cups are quite track orientated - unfortunately i think Renault have f***ed up big time with the new Clio - same ole same ole - bigger and heavier, when will car makers get with it - it took 20 years for VW to realise that going heavier all the time the way forward with the Golf - finally with the MK5 Golf GTi - not perfect but a step in the right direction.
|
Problem is, you can -of course- increse power to meet increases in weight, but that does nothng to address the penalty that weight imposes on handling, breaking, fuel consumption etc...
Ns04 |
Originally Posted by Martin2005
It's not the weight thats the problem, it's the failure to increase power. People that moan about how heavy the cars are nowadays need to take a reality check. The reason they are heavier is because they are safer, stronger, stiffer and much better equiped. Give me a newage of and outdated (Classic) anyday
I'm sure Gordon Murray would disagree with that:) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:32 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands