Quick car

I know that really. ;-)

However, I still think turbo cars 'feel fast' largely becauser the power arrives in one big lump rather than smoothly over most of the rev range. A big torquey car will actually cover the ground faster for a given level of 'smoothness' - a turbo might be faster in race mode where you don't mind shaking your passengers up, but that was the whole point of the first post - you don't want to be revving the nuts off it to go anywhere fast.

I've driven one. They go alright and they corner alright. IMO they don't give you any sensation of involvement, which makes them a bit dull. OTOH a

1.9D Citroen ZX is a lot slower but feels relatively joyous in the bends due to passive rear steer.

In all seriousness, if you buy something 15 years old, fastest of the range and in mint condition, you'll suffer zero depreciation, which is nice.

Dave Walker (of CCC and PPC and every other tuning mag fame) reckons V-tec is a bit of a marketing / fuel economy exercise. You can move the switchover point down a couple of thousand revs, still have a smooth running engine and get a better power curve. However, you lose the v-tec kick in the back as it comes onto cam...

And as for turbos, some barely feel turbocharged. The VAG 1.8T just feels like a much bigger engine than it is.

I have a Fabia vRS. It's not a *massively* fast car, but feels very quick and will surprise a lot of other drivers. It's very quick accelerating in one gear, rather than 0-60, as the rev range is a bit limited, but there's shitloads of torque. On a A road that isn't *too* twisty you can leave a lot of the traffic.

Overall, for price/performance/practicality/economy, it's a fantastic car. 40-60mpg, 5 seats, 5 doors, and good fun. I'd reccomend it.

130 horses, lots of torque. Not as light as you might think, but still good fun.

I think they should have a stage two driving test licence for cars over

90BHP. Too many bloody idiots out there with all the gear and no idea.

Graham

Indeed- it doesn't take much practice to keep the throttle slightly ajar rather than shut completely and the turbine spinning abit or apply some alittle sooner than you might otherwise.

Tim. .

That would work for me.

I'd still rather have stump-pulling torque from 1000rpm, though... maybe I should get a supercharger.

Or replace my airfilter with one of those electric superchargers, that should work...

I like the fact it mentions the 12W fan motor:-)

Over 90BHP? That would exclude a great many ordinary, not vary fast cars. It would, for example, exclude my wife's very-slightly-warm hatch Lupo. A certain power-to-weight ratio, maybe, or even a limit of 150bhp, perhaps. 90BHP excludes a 1.8 litre mondeo, FFS.

Ordinary today, perhaps, but still a very powerful car in comparison to just ten years ago. How is it that a 1.8 Sierra with only 66 BHP was perfectly acceptable 15 years ago, but not today? I drove one recently and even at 18 years old it was perfectly ok and plenty of power around town. On the motorway it was more comfortable at 80 than a 2003 Mondeo and even at motorway speeds accelerated past other traffic with the greatest of ease with hardly a touch of the pedal, even when going up hill. 150BHP is ridiculous unless you are a car nut.

Graham

I class most newish things with under 170 bhp as "slow".

I try to make sure my cars have /at least/ 200 bhp and 200 lb ft - and that's not enough.

Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Graham, managed to produce the following words of wisdom

It's to do with weight.

A 1.8 Sierra weighs around 1200Kg. A 2003 Mondeo weighs in at around 1500 Kg, so the Mondeo is like the Sierra with three 16 stone blokes built in.

I'm a believer that the best cars to drive have equal BHP and Lb/ft. This is why I don't like diesels.

For a car to be nice to drive it should have at least 100 bhp + 100 lb ft for each 1000 Kg. Anything less is not good enough.

Not the average commuter, Tesco shopping driver then. Its those people finding themselves in a powerful car that bother me.

Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Graham, managed to produce the following words of wisdom

I do think there should be a power (and torque) to weight restriction on cars new drivers are eligible to drive though. 70 bhp / 70 lb ft per tonne would be fine.

No way did a 1.8 sierra only have 66BHP, not even in the wildest of anti-ford dreams. 1.3 metro engine was 63BHP ffs.

clive

Hence I suggested the Croma.

200bhp, 236lb ft torque (at 2000rpm) all weighing in at a little over 1500kg. Awesome fun!

And it's diesel......

Very true- and, going back on topic, the Fabia vRS is starting to attract too many of them. While not spectacularly quick, it's 130BHP,

229 ft/lb, and 1.3 tonnes. It's also relatively cheap to insure, and easy to remap to 180bhp. This means a good few get put on their roof or in the scenery by people with less driving experience and skill than you might want. Overall, it's a safe handling car, in a predictable, FWD, understeery kind of way, but the torque will unstick the front wheels easily, and the acceleration (compared to say one of your 45BHP tesco-trip cars) will send you into a corner rather too quickly, if you're being a bit daft. This means insurance rates are rising for them.