Faster than a Golf R32??? !!!

[bcstudent 0]

After reading back through this thread I feel like a spokesman for Vauxhall :)

[vr6storm 0]

After reading back through this thread I feel like a spokesman for Vauxhall :)

 

burn the heretic!!!!!! :twisted:

[bcstudent 0]

I'll get my coat. I'm no Vauxhall fan but I think it's clear that I have some serious respect for the ability of the Mk3 Cavalier GSi.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

They were defo 162 or something hp (actually, 157 rings a bell) as I remember my Dad looking at getting one as his company car in 1991, but he opted for the Cavalier SRi (2.0) instead which was 4K cheaper.

 

Cavalier GSI 2000s are OK providing the rear bushes are sound, otherwise they're just as bad as the Astra, if not worse.....and I've beaten one cross country in my C fairly comprehensively anyway.

 

The 4x4 turbo cav and calibras are the ones to watch out for....so long as the diffs haven't, or are about to sieze up, which was common on neglected examples. You soon knew when booting it in 2nd off a roundabout and felt and heard a nice graunching noise under your feet, by which time it was too late, you're on the phone to the AA for a tow truck.

[vr6storm 0]

They were defo 162 or something hp (actually, 157 rings a bell).

 

 

try 156bhp kev........... :wink: thats ringing a bell with me

[bcstudent 0]

They were defo 162 or something hp (actually, 157 rings a bell)

Hmmm, well mine was definitely 150bhp. The owner's manual quoted 152PS (150bhp) and 195Nm (144 lbft).

I've beaten one cross country in my C fairly comprehensively anyway

That may be so but with two different drivers it's hardly a conclusive test of the ability of one car over another in that situation...the rear bushes may have been worn on the Cavalier too :)

[samm_cvr6 0]

You sure a 182 chips to 202? I mean, it is essentially a remapped 172 anyway, albeit with sports exhaust...

And after driving a CTR, I don't think it will run rings around it, maybe on a more un even road, but on a track there will be sod all in it.

But who cares anyway, it's built out of tin cans although I do still really like it...

[Kevin Bacon 5]

156, yeah that'll do Rodders :-)

 

LOL, you definitely are a Vauxhall fan BCStudent! Well, I've yet to drive any cavalier, and I've owned a few, that feels half as competent on the road as a C. The Corrado has miles more mechanical grip and and far better steering feedback.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

You sure a 182 chips to 202? I mean, it is essentially a remapped 172 anyway, albeit with sports exhaust...

And after driving a CTR, I don't think it will run rings around it, maybe on a more un even road, but on a track there will be sod all in it.

But who cares anyway, it's built out of tin cans although I do still really like it...

 

Yep, I forgot to add you need higher lift cams to achieve that 202 hp aswell. Morego do the conversion for £1800 fitted, or £1250 supply.

 

OK, running rings was a slight exaggeration but the Civic's electric steering is rubbish, and I've driven one too, and the Clio feels much better as a driver's car.

[bcstudent 0]

LOL, you definitely are a Vauxhall fan BCStudent! Well, I've yet to drive any cavalier, and I've owned a few, that feels half as competent on the road as a C. The Corrado has miles more mechanical grip and and far better steering feedback

Have you ever owned (or driven) a GSi though?

 

'Mechanical grip'....now there's a consultant's phrase if ever I heard one :)

[samm_cvr6 0]

I reckon the Clio may be more fun to drive, but I dont think it would lap quicker then a CTR, which has in tests, beaten an S2K, all be it by a ve+ry small amount. Probably more tuneable then the Clio too, if the one spiker G60's 350bhp n/a one is anything to go by....

[mr.ots 10]

I have no real comment to make on the bhp and Lb/ft figures, you could go on all day about this ones got more bhp than this one and this one get to 60 quicker than this one, although I must say the guy fro K-tek is seriously deluded about the c 0-60 times!!!

 

The c vr is more than quick enough to 60 has a decent top speed but above all it has real character and attracts attention because of it's relative rareity and good looks. I don't even think its worth making the comparison becuase the c and the newer cars being discussed are a generation apart. Having said that it's interesting the comparison is being made in the first place and that goes some way to demonstrate how good the c at 10+ years old really is.

 

I wouldn't swap mine that's for sure!

[StormVR6 0]

Having said that it's interesting the comparison is being made in the first place and that goes some way to demonstrate how good the c at 10+ years old really is.

 

Good point, I agree mate, the C will hold it's own for many years to come.

 

If you look back over the last 50 years cars haven't really got much quicker at all, all the technology at our disposal hasn't made a big difference in the way cars are made. Jaguar developed the disc brake over 50 years ago and still it is not bettered (apart from the disc now being ceramic), MacPherson invented the MacPherson strut 55 years back and it is still widely used (yep and the C) to this day. Is the new Ford GT any better than the old GT40?

 

As far as I'm concerned cars just seem to be looking cheaper and more boring as time goes on, just loaded with pointless gimmicks, supercars aren't really a giant leap from supercars 20 years ago (Testarossa, 959) and indeed 30 years ago (Berlinetta Boxer, Countach).

 

I still love the now nearly 20 year old BMW M3, Lancia Delta Integrale and the amazing Audi Quattro, all of which I'd much rather have than some new crud.

So anyway this is why the C will never look stupid against it's modern/future equivalent. :)

[Storm77 0]

Yep, i'm with you on that one Mr. Ots, the fact that we're pitching the C against today's best hot hatches (and there's not much in it IMO) says it all!

[vr6to182cup 0]

back again, just thought id say that i agree on the build quality, but i suppose if your not bothered about that (like me) then its all about fun. and just to correct an older statement, the dif between the 172 and 182 are the inlet and exhaust manifold not the ecu, although it has obviously been remapped for the manifold changes. i had trophy suspension fitted to mine the other day and WOW. im so confident nothing can touch me all the time, im hitting around 260bhp now with my ktek turbo and im so chuffed... next up is deffo the leather trophy buckets from recaro!

[BigTartanJudge 0]

Just discovered this thread and makes interesting reading. So vr6to182cup, what's been done to your Clio182 to give 260+BHP, take it it's turbo'd (or are you talking about a R5 GTT ??

 

What did you have done to your NA VR6 to give 240BHP? You would need to spend a SUBSTANTIAL amount on any VR6 engine to give 240BHP without forced induction i.e. we're talking set of cams, remapped ECU, big-bore throttlebody, CAI kit, variable intake manifold and the rest etc. e.g exhaust (total approx. maybe £3000 ish if you get discounted bits and all done at same time)

 

Most I've heard of (without overbore / displacement increase i.e. 3.0 - 3.1L - more serious wedge including forged crank and pistons plus new rods) was a VR6 running approx. 230BHP (all the above mods and more).

 

Cheers

[bcstudent 0]

So vr6to182cup, what's been done to your Clio182 to give 260+BHP, take it it's turbo'd

 

im hitting around 260bhp now with my ktek turbo

 

We'll make a detective of you yet!

[samm_cvr6 0]

Hmm, 240bhp from a VR is not that much, from a Corrado VR anyway,

I reckon a Schrick=15, cams=15, axhaust,filter and remap=20, so theres 50bhp with only about 2k....

[bcstudent 0]

I think your estimates are way out. There are plenty of cars on this forum with that spec. that don't make 240bhp.

[samm_cvr6 0]

from my estimates, I would say 230, not 240, I was prob being a tad optimistic

[BigTartanJudge 0]

Pretty sure there is a guy on here with Shrick manifold, cams, throttle body, remap, induction and exhaust and only 225BHP.

 

And yes bcstudent, that's what I thought, hence why I said "I take it it's turbo'd", because he mentioned "my K-Tec turbo'd" but also wanted to confirm whether Clio 182 or Renault 5 GTT....so don't need to be a detective thanks.

 

Oh yeah, and if you can get a new Schrick manifold (£1300 plus fitting), AMD or whoever else remap (£450+ and fitting), Schrick cams £600ish plus fitting), BB throttle-body (£150 plus fitting), full exhaust (£350 fitted), CAI £100-£150 fitted) including fitting for all this for £2000 then I'll eat my hat. There's no way you would get all these new parts and fitting for £2000, period.

 

Cheers

[dazzyvr6 0]

never heard of second hand and fitting yourself then?the only part you cant do yourself is the remap,and you dont need shrick cams..isnt there a gb around £400 for cams somewhere

[Storm77 0]

I'm a bit concerned that this thread is selling the C bit short on performance. :( It hasn't rolled over and died for the new hot hatches just yet! Don't wanna harp on about 0-60 times too much but 6.7 secs as standard is still higher than the Clio cup (6.9), MK5 GTI (6.9), Leon cupra r (6.9) etc, etc. Plus, Chipping the VR to get that extra 20lb torque puts you up with the Civic Type R. I've raced a type R and there wasn't anything in it up to 80mph, and then it started pulling away (civics rule between 6 and 9000 revs!).

 

Are people saying that the C's can no longer hit its' claimed speed these days, cos i'm pretty sure mine can?

[dazzyvr6 0]

the corrado is still way up there,ive had many a tussle with the boy racers in there clios and lets just say it was no match,i just pulled away with relative ease,as for the type r's,once the vr gets up there theres nothing in it

[samm_cvr6 0]

exactley dazz, there was only a post on here a couple of days ago, with a shrick on ebay for £400, you can get "other" performance cams for about £250, so thats £650......hell, lets just go mad and say it's £1,000. And I could defo fir these mods myself and I don't even consider myself to be good with the spanners......

so then you just need say a blue flame exhaust for £250/ Magnex for £280, lets say its £1,280, filter for about £150, your at £1,430 and remap, well you dont have to go t amd and pay turbo remap prices!