Faster than a Golf R32??? !!!

[dazzyvr6 0]

vr6 8 seconds to 60?? sorry mate your quite a bit off,i think evo had it as 6. something seconds and dont forget the clio weighs as much as a bean can and build quality of a ...clio!!

[vr6to182cup 0]

hhahahaah, and where the hell did u read that from?! tell you what, pop down to ktek, ill put your on the rollers free. then we can have a race yea!

[dazzyvr6 0]

seems like your only here to cause trouble mate,you not one of the barry boys are you by any chance

[corradovr6sc 0]

vr6to182cup - What mods gave you 240 bhp?

[veeDuB_Rado 0]

If you know your Corrado's and you are a nut, you will KNOW that a vr6 will do under 7 secs 0-60

[JoeNose 0]

The Clio 182 does get a good rep in the press, 'old-fashioned hot hatch style.' I've no problems believing it's great to drive either, despite the fact you sit much too high.

 

You are wrong about the 0-60, the VR6 figure is 6.7 seconds, although some sources quote less. Also, so many of the VR6s around now are modified many will be faster than this. Renault's official (and probably consevative figure) for the 182 Cup is 0-62 in 7.1 seconds, by the way.

 

I can still see some Clios reaching 60mph ahead of a standard C, depending on driver and circumstances, but past 70mph the tables would be turned. Overall it's quite a good match. I certainly don't think you will be "destroying" any VR6s anytime soon ;)

[StormVR6 0]

8 seconds 0-60?? Your VR must have been fecked :lol:

 

Not only would I destroy you, but my car actually looks nice, hasn't been built by the French, looks nice, wont fall apart, looks nice, is more comfortable, looks nice, nowhere near as noisey and did I mention it looks nice.

[bcstudent 0]

Neither the Vauxhall XE "red top" engine or the turbo version had anything to do with Cosworth although it is regarded as a rather good lump

 

That's definitely not true. I'm not sure exactly to what degree Cosworth were involved in the project but they definitely designed the cylinder head used on both the XE and LET 'red top' engines. They also manufactured the earlier 'Coscast' heads until Vauxhall moved production in-house. It is a widely known fact that the later Vauxhall-built cylinder heads are prone to failure.

 

As far as I know the 2.0 16v 'red top' engine was never used in a Cavalier badged as an SRi. The GSi received that particular engine. In a drag race between a NA Cavalier GSi and a Corrado VR6 would result in a victory for the Corrado, but not by the margin you may expect. The Cavalier GSi is a very capable car in a straight line and in the bends - not to be underestimated. I can't imagine what the 4x4 Turbo version is like!

[StormVR6 0]

The Cavalier GSi is a very capable car in a straight line and in the bends - not to be underestimated.

 

I can second that, I once was very impressed by one that gave it all in a fracas years back, I still done him comfortably though!

[Joe M 0]

Sounds like a lot of hate for the clio 182 here. I can honestly say that I couldnt keep up with a 182cup around Oulton Park in the wet, and there was nothing in it down the straights up till about 110mph. This was 5 days after my car was remaped to 223.5bhp and half my interior was stripped out.

[samm_cvr6 0]

You absolute jokers.

I love 172 Cups, which are quicker then 182s, but above 60, you have no chance, and what does that say about the Clio which was built 9 years later? Not a lot, as much as I love it. I would still get a remapped 225 Leon, to 270+bhp if I were looking at a modern hatch, lets see how your little cleo keeps up with that???

Plus, the Cleo only has 5 gears, is very badly built and unrefined. More of a thrasher,weekend/track car.

So who has the n/a 190bhp valver then?

Yes, 240bhp is poss from a n/a VR... why not?

And telly our friend with his pikey/chavalier to duss with his SRI, you might not even leve him that much o the straights, but he will be uindersteering like anything round the corners.

And R32- Hmmm, anyone who has a CVR6 running in very good condition will testify, the R32 is going nowhere in a race.

[JoeNose 0]

I don't know about hate, but quite a few C owners seem to not take them seriously 'because it's a Clio.' They should. The new Trophy in particular with it's very fancy Sachs dampers is reputably blisteringly quick around a track.

 

It's just a shame it looks so...Clio-ish. Lets face it, the car looks odd, and is about as sexy as Lemmy's warts. that's part of the reason why owning a Clio is just not on the same scale of cool as owning a Corrado.

[samm_cvr6 0]

As much as I liek the Clio, it is still 4th choice in that category.

You have better all round cars such as

1)Leon R 225

2)Fooucs ST 170

3)CTR

[bcstudent 0]

I can't believe that the Focus ST170 is a better car than the Clio 182. Don't get me wrong, I hate Renaults, but I feel the newer breed of Clio is suffering slightly under the reputation of the older model. I hear the 182 is a fantastic driver's car although I've never driven one myself.

[samm_cvr6 0]

yea, the 182 is probably slightly quicker then an ST170, but as an every day car, I would defo take the ST170 no doubts there, but the good thing about the 182 is it is a fair bit cheaper, especially 2nd hand.

[bcstudent 0]

And telly our friend with his pikey/chavalier to duss with his SRI, you might not even leve him that much o the straights, but he will be uindersteering like anything round the corners

I love the Corrado...I do...otherwise I wouldn't own one. However, this is exactly what I mean about underestimating the Cavalier. The jury is still out on the exact model of Cavalier we're talking about, but if it's the GSi it's a significantly stronger opponent than it's being given credit for, especially in the corners. Why exactly is the Corrado less likely to suffer from understeer than the Cavalier?

[Storm77 0]

I'd steer well clear of k-tek in that case - they obviously aint got a clue.

 

I've got the better of a 172, but not come up against a 182. Besides, they're for girls called NICOLE.

[bcstudent 0]

I know a guy with a Renault 5 Turbo who's constantly piling money into the rusty old shed; I'm pretty sure he's paying the K-Tek wages single handedly. I'm assuming it's the same company.

[samm_cvr6 0]

172 Cup VS Corrado VR is nothing in it before 60 anyway.

But we are talking about a Cavalier SRI, not a Calibra Turbo here, won't be much trouble to see off, but yea, there won't be a massive gap in it.

[bcstudent 0]

But we are talking about a Cavalier SRI

Are we though? If it has a C20XE 'red top' engine we're not. If it is the SRi then you're right, it's got no chance.

[vr6storm 0]

before i post my comment id like to say a little about my background.

i work t k-tek performace tuning and have worked there 7 years, i know a fair deal about cars and performance. up until feb i owned a vr6 corrado

 

 

now correct me if im wrong (which i know im not becuase i have had my old car tested many times) the vr6 is around 8ish to 60 and 19secs to 100. .

 

 

what you've worked there 7 years and still cant spell a main part of the company's name :?: :twisted: :D :D

 

 

vr6 0-60 of 8-ish secs..............and that was yer old car which you've tuned to 240bhp?????......................summats not right :wink:

[bcstudent 0]

I would expect 240bhp and FWD to equate to a serious lack of standing-start grip! Might explain it :)

[Kevin Bacon 5]

I've driven my mate's Clio 182 (not Trophy spec) and they are feckin quick off the mark, much faster 0-50 than any standard Corrado, inc the VR. At about 60 the VR's torque and gearing start to come into affect and you're not really in a position to even think about overtaking the clio until about 110mph. The Clio's throttle response is instantaneous and it will easily take a VR off the line, it's not quite 6 seconds to 60, about 6.3-6.5 as a rough guesstimate.

 

Bear in mind the Clio 182 is 1050Kg (200kg lighter than a VR) and only 8hp shy with 150 lb/ft. Quite a nifty engine, stainless 4 branch manny, variable cam timing etc and they chip to 202hp/168lb/ft with a cat back, easily.

 

The trophy spec 182 with ultra-high spec Sachs racing remote resevoir dampers isn't even worth bothering with cross country, no matter what spec your C is.

 

And now comes the crux. Plastic wings, noisy engine and brittle, tacky interior. It's not something I can live with and is why my mate is selling his at a 5K loss over 18 months. Yeah Renault may have designed it it to fold up and pass ENCAP frontal collision tests, but I tell you this, I would rather be in a german car when it comes to the crunch, especially in a side impact. Clio doors and A/B pillars may aswell be toothpicks in a side impact.

 

I admire what it can do but it's most definitely not a car I aspire to owning.

 

The Corrado was good 10 years ago but accept it.....other marques have caught up and surpassed it....and the Clio still uses a torsion beam! So that's two fingers up to the folk that harp on about independant suspension all round and RWD. It can out corner a current shape M5 and run rings round a Type R Civic.

 

Vauxhalls - the red top MK2 and MK3 Astras are 163bhp with about 150ish pounds. Superb engines.....but they ARE cr@p handlers in standard form. No question. The later eco spec yellow top 136hp 16Vs were better balanced cars.

[bcstudent 0]

Vauxhalls - the red top MK2 and MK3 Astras are 163bhp

I'd question that statement as I believe them to be 150bhp. As a previous Mk2 GTE 16v owner I can testify that the Astras were, indeed, dangerous cars in the handling department. The Cavalier GSi, on the other hand, was very capable and I'd wager a match for a stock Corrado.

[vr6storm 0]

I've driven my mate's Clio 182 (not Trophy spec) and they are feckin quick off the mark, much faster 0-50 than any standard Corrado, inc the VR. At about 60 the VR's torque and gearing start to come into affect and you're not really in a position to even think about overtaking the clio until about 110mph. The Clio's throttle response is instantaneous and it will easily take a VR off the line, it's not quite 6 seconds to 60, about 6.3-6.5 as a rough guesstimate.

 

Bear in mind the Clio 182 is 1050Kg (200kg lighter than a VR) and only 8hp shy with 150 lb/ft. Quite a nifty engine, stainless 4 branch manny, variable cam timing etc and they chip to 202hp/168lb/ft with a cat back, easily.

 

.

 

without a doubt the clio 172/182 is just awesome and can easily devastate a mildly tuned VR of any description..........i think its only match would be a s/c'd VR and even then it would be extremely close

 

but much as they're raved about by just about every petrolhead you can't escape the fact its probably the worst place to put your money due to fairly savage depreciation for such a well respected car too