Oh it was.
That's s**te. Try 7.3 to 60. The Zetec-S is 7.6.
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.
Ta, G.
Getting what you paid for, something being cheap and something being "good value" are different things.
I'd wait, save up, sell my gadgets, and get the Honda Civic Type R.
Given what the Clio is I'd still get the Civic.
I don't like the Civic nor the Clio and I can only base my conclusions on the Clio on the older 172 model.
Power is irrelevant, the way it feels, heh that got me.
Honda Civic Type R.
Better drive. Better ownership experience.
but then decide not to get the type R once you see the fuel eco and no diesel option :)
I'd not get one with my own money...
Er, so what you're saying is that the ST220 has a higher top-speed than the Clio. Well duh.
The Clio would absolutely *annihilate* the ST220 on your average bendy road / race track / drag race / anything !
Performance above 130mph is not performance.
If you're under the impression that the ST220 is quick, then you're living in a dream world :)
First you claim the CTR has a terrible engine, then you spout that s**te.
Shut the f*ck up.
Ta, G.
You said an ST220 was quicker round a track than a Clio 182 - that was frankly a comedy statement of crap :)
His point about the CTR engine was that its revvy and gutless below about
5.5krpm - which is true. It must get quite annoying on a daily basis having no low down grunt what so ever.
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.
Ta, G.
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.
Not a chance.
Not as well as a car that was specifically setup to be thrown around a track (surprising that, eh).
The Mondeo is essentially a tourer, even the 'sport' versions.
Yes. If you use the top end of the power band.
Fun starts at 5,500rpm. Fun ends at 7,500rpm.
Been a few years since I left school, but I still make that a difference of 2,000rpm...
Ok, the corner is over there :)
i overtook a ST220 once when we both past a lorry, the guy looked a bit surprised to see me pass him as well as he was still building up speed :-P
shame the nobber had to try and prove a point by overtaking me on the slight blind bend further down though!
Some picsof my focus in GT4 :)
ROFL !
....and is a steaming sack of poo, compared to any other 16v 2.0 Turbo lump.
Why choose VTec, when you can choose forced induction ????
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.
That was why I wanted, and still want a later, VTEC Prelude. Sensible drivable round town, looney when revved.
gangsta!
we sold a focus at work today, forget the year but had 165k miles on the clock, reserve was £800 for it.i was tempted but i'm not sure on a Ford with
100 miles on the clock :)
Yes it is.
The TI lump is already way down on torque, cos of the limiting valve.
Do your comparison again, but use a normal 280Nm 2.0 Turbo engine :)
in news: snipped-for-privacy@news2.newsguy.com, "Nom" slurred :
Yebbut, the point is that the Ti wasn't anywhere near being gutless, and since the type R is only slightly less gutsy, neither is that.
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.