30-70 Times...

Not really...

-- JackH

Reply to
jackhackettuk
Loading thread data ...

Yea, I don't get why Honda have to add Vtec to an N/A engine - and only get the same power as mine, which pulls really well from about 2,750rpm up to

5krpm where it goes extra bonkers to the 7,250 shift light. If I had a side by side in 6th at like, 50mph, against my mates 03 plate Civic Type-R, mine would pull away from his - he commented on how much gruntier lower down mine was than his when I very first got it at the obligatory CIHAGM fest a new car receives. As by comparison his pulls averagely at best up to 6krpm where it goes balistic for 2krpm before you have to change.

Of course Tim was referring to the S2000 engine (although he gave it 4 extra bhp), which is a decent engine stuck with truely ridiculous gearing, in a twitchy chassis. In 2nd you don't even get to Vtec till somewhere around

60mph - so if you want to do a quick overtake on the main road, you have to use 2nd gear ffs! And god help you if it's damp and you ht Vtec (accidently or otherwise tbh....) Now, if that engine was in the CTR, with it's gearbox, it would be much more useable, and much more loved. Although I beleive it's a very expensive unit to produce alonside the CTR engine so the sticker price would probably jump a few K heh.

Re: your point about tuning being very expensive. Yup, after the standard exhaust and filter setup, which don't do hardly anything on a CTR - unless you're willing to have a car loud enough to genuinely cause you hearing damage. You can't just remap the stock ECU iirc either - you have to go for something like a Hondata add-on, that can be dealer or home tuned, or a Hondata reflashed replacement ECU, and neither of these things are cheap or simple. Or if you're flush, how about a Jackson Racing Supercharger? Between £4-5k fitted and setup by TDI North, and you get a genuine

290-300bhp, easy peesy. Or for not too much less money, how about some Toda cams? Ok, your engine will idle like a pig in the winter, but it probably won't stall, and the lack of torque below about 5.5-6k might be irritating - but she'll fllllly like the wind above that :-D

We learnt all that when our mate got his Astra Coupe Turbo remapped for £150, and gained 30bhp and some big amount (60 or 80lbs/ft peak) of torque. Was just a standard load and go generic remap, but completely transformed the car, really truely made it a whole different ball game. The 4th gear,

30mph, foot down leaving 30 zones is just awesome - there is a split second of lag and then it just pulls its skirt up and flys for the horizon! The lack of lag is impressive, I know I said it was a split second, but it's only noticeable by him really as he knows the car so well, and as a passenger you'd never notice - when I drove it he had me concentrating extra hard, just so I knew what he was talking about heh. It was virtually non-existant.
Reply to
DanB

Hehe, read my other post for my S2000 thoughts. It just needs 25mph lopping off of each gear - who the f*ck needs to do 85 in 2nd? Imagine how much faster it would be with that gearing. Although in my quick Google to get some figures gave me this -

formatting link
From 2004 onwards, the yanks got a 2.2 litre engined S2000, 240bhp instead of 236bhp and...

"2.2-liter engine displacement (increased from 2.0 liters) Horsepower and torque band increased 4- to 10-percent between 1000 rpm and

8000 rpm with useful high performance power now starting at 3000 rpm. Transmission gear ratios revised (4% lower on gears one through four)"

Which resulted in -

"Between 1000 rpm and 8000 rpm, available torque and horsepower increase between 4 and 10 percent. Additionally, useful power for high performance acceleration begins at about 3000 rpm compared to about 6000 rpm on the

2000 - 2003 models. The performance improvement at lower rpm ranges can be attributed to the increase in displacement and revised valvetrain tuning. Lower gear ratios on gears one through four further magnify the new performance characteristics of the engine."

Now why don't we get that one! I considered an S2000 before the Vee, but I decided despite it been quite quick, it was going to drive me mental with its MegaLong gears. That and it was really dull inside. I know the Vee was awful inside, but it doesn't matter half as much as it does in a ragtop, as people will see it all the time :-)

Reply to
DanB

Any gains from weight loss would be nulled by excessive slipping of the clutch and the application of make up in the rear view mirror.

*********************************************************

Meh, I have no problem letting her drive my car, she's never kerbed one of my wheels, or slipped my clutch when I've been there, and she's not a 'make up checker' type of person at all - not to say she doesn't like to look nice and she drags herself round looking like a scarecrow heh, she just doesn't wear a lot of make up :-)

And when she was driving to visit me every day in hospital in Leeds, about

65 miles from our house, straight down the A64, dual an single carriageway, she once said "Have you ever noticed at about 95 in your car, one of the vents whistles? It goes away if you go over about 105, but I don't really like to go over 100 in case I get caught. " :-)

Oh, and she owns an '05 600cc Hornet as well - but cos of her time often taken up by me being ill, and her only been a fair weather rider, it's only done about 2k. We bought it at a year old with about 1,500 miles on it. She and I both passed our full licences the year before, and after a year 'sharing' my XLR, we part ex'd that for the Hornet, so it's mainly hers as she paid the £2k on top of the price we got for the XLR.

Planning on selling it if you're interested :)? Judging by a TOG valuation, and prices for similar ones (it's just had a full MOT and 2nd service) it'll be going up for about £2,750 - sod all really for a bike which is basically as new. Tyres have monster chicken strips hehe! The only thing letting it down is it was serviced at 1 year old, as part of us buying it, by the supplying dealer, but they didn't stamp the book - so we only have proof of the 1 service and MOT just done. But after that 1st service, it was used quite a lot, then it pretty much stood for a year till

2 weeks ago when it was serviced and MOT'd - and it needed a new battery of course heh.
Reply to
DanB

If it's damp, you keep the revs down, there's plenty of power below 5000 rpm and you can drive it in a "normal" 1500-4500 rpm fashion like any other car.

However, not having VTEC means you get comments like this from Evos Clio 197 vs MINI cooper S review.

"The biggest let-down, however, is the engine. It sounds wonderfully potent at the top end and that's where the real action resides. But, below 5000 revs, forget it. You continually have to change down when you don't really want to, and sometimes even then it's not enough - second gear out of a hairpin really should be adequate but, under fire from the Cooper S, it never was. It isn't a relaxing motorway car, either, the engine hitting a frenetic 4500rpm at barely 85mph. The Cooper S isn't exactly silent at this speed, but it doesn't have you reaching for a phantom ratio."

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Well yea, but to be fair, mine is still faster low down than my friends CTR - so all that serves to prove is that a Mini is just a lot better than a CTR. Also, it's a reasonable bet that the press R27 they were using didn't have a lot of miles on, as they were new out, and reports from Clio197.net and Cliosport seem to suggest that the dyno shows these engines need a good

10k to loosen up. Besides, that part French 1.6 T in the Mini is great, owners reporting close to 200bhp on standard, non-Works ones on the rollers - and Evo found the same on their long term tester, which I'm sure as an avid fan you're aware of.

Also, that 4,500rpm @ 80 comment - that's just a plain lie. Just over

4,000rpm is correct, and mine has the older spec gearbox. The new ones are about 300rpm lower than this. And I like how you ignored all the comments praising the chassis, brakes and everything else, and the fact that it still got 4 stars. What do Evo give your Diesel barge - seen as you obviously think their reviews are accurate :-) ?
Reply to
DanB

Oh p.s. -

Bad form I know, but IIRC Tiff an Plato are your heros ;-) ?

formatting link
(Clio 197 Cup (mine has the same setup) spanks new MCS JCW)

Reply to
DanB

Yeah it is. Torque is a waypoint on the GPS map to power. With the right gearing, you can have as much or as little torque as you need...

Oversimplification of course.

Reply to
DervMan

Quite a different engine though.

Plus it isn't a hot hatch. Whilst it may drive you mad with the tall gearing, that is kinda the point, though.

That's the Honda in it, though.

Lovely handling, snappy close to the limit too.

Reply to
DervMan

Excuses, excuses...

Autoexpress: 4000 at 70. Autocar state 18.9mph/1000 in 6th, that's 4232RPM at 80.

As for the E class, the nearest model they reviewed was the E500:

"Past notions of geostatic build quality and timeproof materials took a bit of a battering with the previous E-class and even the current C-class, but this new car re-establishes the notion of a permanent Benz. The bodyshell is so stiff that a finger placed between door-top and roof-edge remains entirely unsqueezed however bumpy the road. Textures are tactile, switches are smooth, actions are beautifully sprung and damped."

"Back to that pneumatic drive. With 306bhp to haul a car slightly lighter than before, thanks to aluminium suspension arms, bonnet, front wings, bootlid and more, the effortless E500 is missile and cocoon in one. It's not as crisp-edged and mind-focusing as an M5, nor could it be with its five-speed autobox, but the steering is smooth and feel-full, the cornering balance on the new four-link front suspension is exemplary"

"The new E - any version - is a deeply covetable car. Better than a

5-series? It's somehow airier, leaner, handier, more complete... so, yes."
Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Mega tall gears means decent top speed and reasonable economy and refinement in everyday driving.

The limit is way beyond where most people will take them to on a dry road.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Peak torque figure might surprise you, but its not at 2100rpm.

I had a go of a Civic Type-R. I didn't think all that much to it, I felt it was fast, but dull and clinical. I think Tim is talking about the engine in the S2000. I want one of those.

Reply to
Douglas Payne

Tiff Needell driving Williams vs 197 -

formatting link
:-) Tiff says -

"The new Mini may have been king of this market sector, but I think it's just been shown a clean pair of heals... By the Clio 197"

And you seemed to not reply to, and snip the video of him and Plato both saying the Clio was better, and it was a second faster round the track?

4232rpm is closer to 4000 than 4500 :-p

Although I still don't think it's that high.

That's not even close to yours :-)

Reply to
DanB

But that's just it - they're not mega tall. They're tall, but not excessively so.

If you want excessively tall, try a late 80s 911 Turbo.

I'm sure it is.

Reply to
DervMan

You don't think it's that high... but you're wrong..? Meh that doesn't make any sense.

Reply to
DervMan

The 197 is lighter, has special tyres and probably smaller than the MINI - track times are relevant but I reckon inconclusive - I'd reckon that 1s is down to tyres, the MINI has runflats. Also the Clio has a big advantage when being scored overall by being a cheap car.

I do. When I'm sat at 2200 rpm at 80mph in a car with a bigger frontal area than yours, an extra 500kg and 20 fewer BHP yet a higher top speed. Must be a lot of drag on that Clio hence needing the low gearing, the drag will be from attempting to creat downforce to stop it killing its drivers.

No? About the same weight, 120bhp more, 60 lbft more, other than that they're the same and comments about handling and drive are applicable.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

It's ~500rpm of the red line for a proper engine. ;)

Reply to
Depresion

List price of mine was £18,550. Tyres are Continental Sport Contact 3s.

Heh, sorry I wasn't saying "It's not that high" - I meant "I don't remember it been that high" - I hadn't driven it for a month before Friday!

It has a low top speed because the rev limiter is only just a bit over there. Although I have a video of mine doing 137 gps :-) I'm starting to think though, mine has had a gearbox under warranty after October '07, as they have longer ratios. 3 people on C197.net have had gearboxes too, and they got the longer ratios. If I could I'd go and drive it now and look :-)

They have the same suspension/chassis setup?

Reply to
DanB

What? Of course it does. What I thought, was wrong. I made a mistake. My memory was inaccurate. What reason do you have for all the latest shots you've been taking at me? Have I done something to upset you?

Reply to
DanB

Gearboxes a weak point?

Pretty much - Elegance / Classic is the same suspension, Avantgarde is lower.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.