samm_cvr6

hmm, maybe he was driving like an idiot as he had 'gay' matters to attend to with his boyfriend! LOL. :lol:

not tto keen on that LSD intefeering, I've heard there's a lot of torque steer and can be a bit of a nhandful at times to keep in a straight line! definitley a drivers car that RS, just wish it had a bit less technology and was a bit hardcore. I read somewhere, can't remember about all the wires and if you put all the wires on the RS end to end it would be something like a mile long! yea, the C VR6 may have it in top gear but I wouldnt' fancy racing one of these things off the lights thats for sure.Especially as there are probably quite a few kicking about now with that 285bhp upgrade!!!! :wink:

and no updates as to if/when they will test the FQ400? ahh, the dilemma between buying a classic or a less special but more capable, modern machine? I would probably bottle it, getting anything older than the C.

The RS seems to be a bit quicker(see figures below), nice car but the money is better spent on a nice Cupra R for 15k, rather than a nice RS for 18+k. 1992 Year 2002 1240 kg Kerb Weight 1278 kg V-6 Type S-4 12 valves total Valves 16 valves total 2 valves per cylinder Cylinders 4 valves per cylinder Normal Aspiration Turbo 2861 cc Displacement 1988 cc 187 BHP 212 181 Torque (ft/lb) 229 150.81 Power to Weight (bhp/ton) 165.88 0-50mph 6.40s 0-60mph 6.30s 17.70s 0-100mph 16.40s 15.10s 1/4 Mile 14.80s 93mph Terminal Speed 98mph 27.50s Kilometre 26.20s 145 Top Speed (mph) 144 FWD Drive FWD

never really liked the look of the 944, I do like that 928 tho. 5.0 V8! How much would a nice example go for?

yea sounds good. I had a 924 but it wasn't much cop as you probably know. Thought about the 944 before I got the C but unless it's an S2 or Turbo, I'd much rather the C. :wink:

LHD G60- may well of seena thread you posted as I'm sure this subject has been raised before. I thought the VR has wider tires as well as track? This will more than make amends for the increased weight and most Corrados have after market suspension these days anyway so it's a pretty good set up. Yea those CTR boys crack me up, a friend of mine has one and he is much more honest about it's capabilities. e.g if you go on to the typ-r.org you will see numerous stories about slaying R32's,M3's, Boxster S's and M3's!!! it's a very good car but come on, it's not that good.... :wink:

have also seen different figures aroud but it's not as heavy as you might think. Think EVO mag quotes 1237 and askracing 1240. It's only around 20kg heavier than a CTR, if anything at all.

I went in a 172 cup and the thing can wheel spin like mad in 2nd! theres a few going round that have had the rear seats stripped out aswell and pushing 200+bhp so be careful! plastic front end may not be such a bad thing, BMW do it on some of their cars I think, helps get a more even weight balance. 0-60 the cup may well beat a VR but 1/4 mile should be a different story although still pretty close.

yea black & silver look good but like yourself, I woul prefer a blue with low miles than black/silver with high miles. I am going to try and hang on to the VR for 2 more years if I can, it is tempting with all these nice cars about tho! The S3 styling is spot on, nice clean lines, very subtle and understated with nice rims and you can probably see off 99% of cars if needs be!! How does the old mpg compare to the C?

no shame in being beaten by an old boy race car, just cos they are quicker in a straight line and maybe even round twisties, doesn't mean it's a better car. My old MI16 would of seen off my VR6 no probs, but it's not the point, the bloody thing was so badly built that I don't really think it's cost effective to tune, and of course it attracted all the other boy racers who wanted some. :wink:

I seem to remember the Stig doing a very quick lap in the CSL, the handling looked phenomenol, I suspect that carbon roof is really helping to keep the centre of gravity really low. I will try and see if I can tell next time I watch TG, what the difference was between the two. Of course they are entirely different cars, which is why I am always intrigued as to how they compare....

hmmm, I wonder if an FQ340 is quicker than a CSL??

Ithe M3 won! and the evo driver was being a complete tw*t and was made to eat a huge serving of humble pie. And what a beautiful sound that M3 engine makes. Just for the record, the EVO beat him off the lights(4WD) but boy is that M3 quick. Anyone tell if it might have been a CSL? I thought the CSL has a carbon roof but didn't look like that from the vid.

Saw this on the Type R forum in case you haven't seen. If you haven't I won't spoil it but I think we all know the moral of the story! :wink: http://individual.utoronto.ca/JDean/M3vsEVO.wmv

I had same problem. It may well just be moisture/oil that is burning, particularly when it gets hot/higher revs. I don't want to alarm you but my car was blowing white smoke before it needed rebuilding, tho there may well be plenty of other explanations for your car. Is it misfiring? just before mine went, I think the cam broke because it had drained the entire sump even tho I just changed the oil a few days before with 4/5 litres of fresh oil!!! If it starts but doesnt accelerate properly and feels horrible to drive this is major but sounds like your C may have a different prob... :wink:

Lovely ride, I don't care about the BMW image, they make very good cars. So what is the spec? Is it an M3/EVO? :wink:

don't think you will get a 130 or 150 PD tho! :cry: However, I came very close to buying a Nissan 200 Touring before i got the C, it had 270bhp from just a few mods, it was a flying machine! But it ain't all about speed! 8)

I don't think 5k will get you a decent mk4 TDI. So would maybe settle for a 2000 spec Coupe 20V Turbo, if indeed that can be had for 5k, haven't checked prices...

Yea true, but the 8v feels quicker in low revs, similar to a 205 1.9 It just became a bit tiring in the 16v, having to take it beyond 4k every time you wanted to make it shift. But I'm sure the 16v was the quicker car if you were to take it to a track. :wink:

I guess it depends on how hard the car has been driven, a rebuild at 100k is fairly soon, mine was rebuilt at 134k. I had a MK2 8V & 16V, in a funny sort of way I actually preferred the 8V, more low down torque. I can only recommend a VR6, I easily get as much mpg as in the 8V, it's so much more effortless so you don't feel the need to drop down gears as much.

RX7's now you'r talking, if you came from another planet youu would never guess it was a jap motor! I've always loved 300ZX's but think they look seriously date now. Any evo from 5 onwards with Active YAW control would be great, FQ400 OH YES!!!! You have to admire these Jap tuners, they have apparently had 1200bhp from a Supra, enough to make a Mclaren F1 look like a Micra!!!! :wink:

I wouldnt't say any of them look as good as a clean Corrado but NSX,ITR,CRX & Supra do look good.

The CTR will give a C a run for it's money round a track no probs and may even beat it, if you'r willing to drive it hard it is very rewarding, of course I would prefer a Cupra R 225 but the CTR is very good, the revs seem to climb much quicker than in the VR, must be a lighter flywheel or something.I read some of the stuff on that forum tho and I think they are kidding themselves even thinking that a CTR will lose a S3 225 :lol:

Oh the old 225 TT thread ay, that was a laugh. I have driven the CTR for over 400 miles and I have to say I really liked it, may well even buy it if I was after a modern hot hatch, it's great VFM even better than the 182 and holds it's value well. :wink: