7.9 to 60 isn't mind blowing.
Not compared to some other cars mentioned on here but its going to be quicker than the 106.
7.9 to 60 isn't mind blowing.
Not compared to some other cars mentioned on here but its going to be quicker than the 106.
I wouldnt be so sure. About the same, of the 106 might just be quicker
Going by what was mentioned the 106 had more like 137bhp and only weighed 850kg, whereas the ST is 150 and weighs 1137(according to parkers) so the bhp per ton in the 106 is much higher

Ah ok - didn't read that it was as near 150bhp. Probably little difference then.
I am blown away that in a motors forum people are seriously discussing 0-60 and bhp per tonne as to decide how quick a car is.
...
I went out in jonnycoupes dc2 at a rr day a while back and it was absolutely brutal. However it's only a 1.8 and has no torque so it must have actually been crap.
I strongly advise some of you lot to actually drive these cars and not just make sweeping statements !
Or Im thinking wait a while and get a tastefully modified DC5...
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1113500.htm
obviously a non import though

Or Im thinking wait a while and get a tastefully modified DC5...
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1113500.htm
obviously a non import though
you wont get a policy on a DC5
.If you actually put legwork into your insurance hunting, you could be pleasantly surprised in what you can insure.
Too slow compared to what exactly? Your 106?!
his 106 had 165bhp/ton