3am, dry empty roads. It was coming off a roundabout, 40mph in second, along a dual carriage way of approx 1.5 miles long, avg speed about 130-140. (hitting 150 at a point). There was then a roundabout, a sharp bend and another roundabout, at which point we (in the ST220) had to retire to go home.
We were taking a right at the last roundabout and the Clio was coming round the last bend.
The reason the Clio gets to 60 0.4 of a sec quicker than the Mondeo is due to a 450KG weight defecit. The first second or so is where the Clio will shift. From a rolling start (say 15mph) the Mondeo would be off and at 100 quicker than the Clio. The Mondeo is also an handles incredibly well.
When it fires over 1200KG to 60 in 6.6 seconds? Saying that only 2000rpm of the rev band is useful is panties. OK it develops it's 200PS @ 7400rpm, but it must have a decent whack lower down than that.
I'll stand by my statements until I'm proved otherwise. Danke.
in news: snipped-for-privacy@individual.net, "DanTXD" slurred :
Well, yeah, but it was Nom, doing his popular scared-of-revs old geezer act. The civic engine isn't gutless at low revs at all - it's a very tractable and fairly torquey 2.0 NA lump, which just happens to be able to rev like a bastard. It has as much low down grunt as any other 16v 2.0 NA lump.
You're not wrong - the ST220 is one lardy bastard, especially given it's mediocre power output.
In any case, what does 0-60 have to do with anything ? It's merely a measure of standing-start traction, and has nothing to do with real-world performance.
I say again : "Er, so what you're saying is that the ST220 has a higher top-speed than the Clio. Well duh."
Who gives a monkey whether it's faster over 100mph ? I don't know if you've ever actually driven on any real roads, but if you had, you'd see the opportunities for sustained 100mph+ are few and far between. The Clio would have no problems at all keeping up with the ST220 on an average A to B jaunt !
Er, not compared to the tin-box Clio !
What about when it fires over 1200Kg to 60 in 6.6 seconds ?
It does have no low down grunt what so ever. The end.
It does, compared to a boggo 2.0 NA engine.
But compared to a nice 2.0 forced induction lump, or some larger-capacity V6, or a high-powered-diesel lump, it's got the pulling power of a wasp with it's nads trapped in a vice. And funnily enough, it does a rather good impression of one too !
Go ahead. I shall do the same.
By the way, you are aware that the ST200 costs approximately TWICE as much as the Clio ?
in news: snipped-for-privacy@news3.newsguy.com, "Nom" slurred :
Well, yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you about preferring a turbo, just with the statements that the type R lump is gutless s**te. It produces over 75% of the torque of the stock Ti lump (rising to 85% at peak), which isn't bad, and does so right across the rev range from just above tickover to 7000+rpm, which is very good.
A lot of people buying hot hatches want something which is fundamentally sensible, but which can be quick and fun when you want it to, and the civic does that. The engine _would_ be better if it was turbo'd, but as it is it isn't a bad compromise, and nowhere near as bad as yours and Dan's comments would suggest.
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.