PSML!

 

Classics are the way forward ,ditch the lardy new ages

 

my 220bhp WRX has edged out a few 330ci's so ipso facto 323i's are faster than 330's which is all a bit weird

I thought the 120d was the fastest production BMW out at the moment judging by the way failing sails reps and YTS estate agents seem to drive them

 

Here are some performance figure from the latest Evo magazine.

BMW 325i SE 0-60 7.1 secs
131 bhp/tonne
Max speed 149mph

Impreza WRX 0-60 5.5 secs
161bhp/tonne
Max speed 143mph

Impreza T2000 0-60 5.4secs
177bhp/tonne
Max speed 144mph

No figures for the BMW 323iSE but it won't be quicker than a 325i SE. But the BMW does have a higher top speed than both Impreza's which isn't much use when on the roads.

 

I have a standard bug except panel filter, I have yet to be beaten, I see off clios.civics and big beemas, what you all talking about

Had a blast with a focus st thought it was a very even race, dropped behind at around 5-6000 revs but then caught him.

Proper fraggles bring on a poxy bmw anyday.

 

Looks like they both had their hand brakes on, i've seen my nan go quicker than that.

 

Stats everywhere, of which none really mean anything.

 

I think that the real question here is: How can you have a "race" with a half-full cup in your cup-holder?

If that had been me, I'd have to spend the week removing Mountain Dew from the back seat.....

 

Who's reality needs checking??

 

I've often driven our 325 auto touring back to back with my Scoob. It doesn't suprise me.

On paper they are worlds apart in BHP, tourque, 0-60. etc.

But you know what? There isn't that much difference in the real world especially between 40 to 100. And that's with a mildly modded UK classic. With a stock WRX bugeye it would fair even worse

Also the 528auto is the same, apart from it handles better than both, and it only loses out at low speed as it bogs down from the over-tall gearing. Once up and running it keeps going and going until it reaches top speed, whilst the scoob's acelaration gets lethargic above three figures.

 

ive seen more speed up kate moss`s nose
were they worried in case they went over the speed limit, cos they only appeared to be doing about 70 in the closing stages

 

Did seem like a gentle cruise down the motorway.

 

Thats crap. a corsa diesel would give them both a beating

As for top speeds, mine has been over... well over 150 once and only once, never again unless on a track! Only wanted to know if my childhood dream was do able in an impreza!

It barely gets over 70 now as I know it does it with ease and mpg goes way down town with any speed over 55!

Also its safer to keep steady.

Its not been beaten at the lights when some businessman in a bmw tries to skip traffic (like most of them do)!

BMWs, lovely cars, but they are no jap fuel guzzlin engine roarin monster are they?!

 

lets face it. The subaru turbo wrx, sti, 2000, rb5, p1, bug eye what ever one u choose has to be in my humble opinion the best car in the world, no? mpg aside. I mean, 4wd, awesome performance, sound great, look great, reliable, inexpensive, practical....if someone had said to me 20 yrs ago, you can have all that for between 2 and 20 grand I would not have believed it. I paid 3k for my r reg turbo 2000 and all its had in a year is new front tyres, oil and plugs. only one down side, group 20 insurance! and getting flat with mi other half so its got to go, nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!! found myself looking at a nice sensible audi, hmm, I thought, 40 mpg, nice and roomy get a pram in the boot.................help! I know, I'll tell her no one buys scoobys in summer
cause, er, hmm, dunno

 

 

PMSL.

 

Monster??

Newer age WRX's are no quicker than a Clio 172!

 

yes they are

 

Yours, perhaps, but "they" from factory are not.

 

What do they do 0-100 in 18 seconds or so?? - surely a WRX comfortably beats that (unless its a hot day)

Oh yeah - trust me a feckin' Clio 1.2 would p*** all over mine at the moment - its sat on the drive with a knackered gearbox - damn Scooby reliability

 

Anyway back to the original post - i would imagine that a 323i would struggle against a Scoob - even a Bugeye But.....its not always as clear cut as power to weight - once speeds get higher. I used to own an A6 2.8 Quattro - and it was a right heavy old barge 0-60 in 7.7 (ish) but once on the moto.... er Bruntinthorpe it was a different matter. Things like aerodynamics and gearing comes into play - my 200bhp Audi would cane my 275bhp Classic once above 120-130 ish or so, even though it was a lot, lot heavier and less powerful

Scoobs seem to hit a bit of a brick wall after 140 or so (well mine does) and after that it creeps to its top speed, My Audi roared past 140 with ease.


***The above test was carried out at Bruntinthorpe proving ground***

 

Chief - exactly. In gear performance is REALLY what matters. I don't recall ever going to a track day or to Nurburg where 2 drivers agreed to 'stop' mid-lap, just so they can do a standing start race against each other. If they did I'd imagine the scoob would fair alot better than it seems to do at track days at the moment.

The 172 Cup Vs WRX thing has been discussed at length on here. The Scoob is quicker 0-60 but the 172 Cup is quicker to 100. It doesn't take a mathematic genius to work out that in gear the Clio not only gains the lost ground from the 0-60, but actually passes the WRX by the time 100 is reached. There are alot of people in denial, but you can't blame them after spending 15 grand on their monster whooooosshhh-chissshh machine and being outpaced by Nicole and Papa in a French shopping trolley.

 

Yeah, right!!

Agree that power to weight can be misleading (so can the fabled transmission losses, which never seem to amount to as much as people sometimes suggest)

I well recall a drag race on one of JC's videos including a line up of exotica including Ferraris, Lambos, Porsches, TVRs, Astons etc... and a Caterham with a 2.0 touring car engine. JC said that smart money was on the Caterham with its incredible power to weight ratio roaring into an easy lead off the line, but being caught up by the power houses with much more oomph and better aeodynamics in the later stages of the race....what happened?

The TVR and Porsche turbo wiped the floor with the lot of them from the outset, The Caterham was at the back of the field.

Ns04

 

To be honest i think (and i will get flamed here) The standard Scoob has gotten overweight and a bit wobbly in its old age (a bit like me ) where as the clio especially the Trophy's and Cups are quite track orientated - unfortunately i think Renault have f***ed up big time with the new Clio - same ole same ole - bigger and heavier, when will car makers get with it - it took 20 years for VW to realise that going heavier all the time the way forward with the Golf - finally with the MK5 Golf GTi - not perfect but a step in the right direction.

 

[quote=Senior_AP]
The 172 Cup Vs WRX thing has been discussed at length on herequote]



Your not kidding i've just done a search

 

Although I'm in complete agreement about the bugeye WRX's lack of mid range grunt and inability to shake off even modestly powered cars when moving I feel that there is one discipline where even the bugeye does well.

The traffic light GP. A well launched Impreza will take on and beat most things. In my experience though the ones I've had a crack at have no idea how to do it properly.

 

[quote=The Chief]Now try Type R vs WRX!!!

Ns04

 

It's not the weight thats the problem, it's the failure to increase power. People that moan about how heavy the cars are nowadays need to take a reality check. The reason they are heavier is because they are safer, stronger, stiffer and much better equiped. Give me a newage of and outdated (Classic) anyday

 

Problem is, you can -of course- increse power to meet increases in weight, but that does nothng to address the penalty that weight imposes on handling, breaking, fuel consumption etc...

Ns04

 

I'm sure Gordon Murray would disagree with that