Cheap Route

-westy- · 8 Apr 2007 at 15:36

digitalwolf said:
How different is the suspension on the RS compared to 170?

I am aware they are based on the same setup but the 306 is quite a bit heavier.

Not massively heavier, but enough to make a difference.

Same basic principles of driving though

£15-18 a week of fuel is nothing really, When I was in college I was spending £40+ a week

digitalwolf · 8 Apr 2007 at 15:38

-westy- said:
Not massively heavier, but enough to make a difference.

Same basic principles of driving though

£15-18 a week of fuel is nothing really, When I was in college I was spending £40+ a week

I used to, but a few of my mates are on £1000+ a month and have their own cars so they pick me up.

I agree it is nothing and thats how I like it tbh

agw_01 · 8 Apr 2007 at 16:26

[TW]Fox said:
So that'll be 'none of the mod cons of the Coupe' then given electric windows can hardly be described as 'mod cons'.

Oh do be quiet, a bad choice of word

I don't need aircon, traction control or integrated bum warmers to enjoy my car thank you very much

digitalwolf, book time was 8.3. I could quite easily get 8.5 second runs (G-Metered)

Enfield · 8 Apr 2007 at 16:42

digitalwolf said:
Why? Does it not feel that fast?

Or is it the thought in the back of your mind that you could lose it if you push it to far?

At first it feels fast but you get used to it quickly, same with any car I guess.

But out of the five cars i've had the 306 was probably the most boring along with my 205 DT.

My 205 GT was most fun, my rallye will be once the suspension is sorted. But don't get a 205 though because you'll be forever fixing it.

My Fiesta 1.6 Si 16v was a pretty good car apart from the rust. Handled well, brakes felt like brembos compared to all my other cars brakes.

Didn't find it exciting though. I guess it was the gearbox that let it down, it had long ratios, the clutch was heavy and the steering feel was non-existant. No tuning potential though.

digitalwolf · 8 Apr 2007 at 16:50

Enfield said:
At first it feels fast but you get used to it quickly, same with any car I guess.

But out of the five cars i've had the 306 was probably the most boring along with my 205 DT.

My 205 GT was most fun, my rallye will be once the suspension is sorted. But don't get a 205 though because you'll be forever fixing it.

My Fiesta 1.6 Si 16v was a pretty good car apart from the rust. Handled well, brakes felt like brembos compared to all my other cars brakes.

Didn't find it exciting though. I guess it was the gearbox that let it down, it had long ratios, the clutch was heavy and the steering feel was non-existant. No tuning potential though.

I was thinking of getting the 1.9DT 306 as it should be reasonably cheap to buy and run. Phase 2.

Anything you recommend for <£2k that isn't a big car like a 406/Mondeo/Vectra ?

Enfield · 8 Apr 2007 at 16:56

Depends what you can get insured one really.

Honda Prelude
CRX
Civic

Volkswagen Golf 1.8 Driver mk2 (i found insurance to be good for this, didn't get one though).

digitalwolf · 8 Apr 2007 at 17:01

Enfield said:
Depends what you can get insured one really.

Honda Prelude
CRX
Civic

Volkswagen Golf 1.8 Driver mk2 (i found insurance to be good for this, didn't get one though).

I'd love a prelude........I really really would.

But insurance gp means no chance until i've had my license for 2 years.

Not sure on the Civics tbh. VTEC the way to go though?

cymatty · 8 Apr 2007 at 18:07

digitalwolf said:
Would a VTS leave an St170 in a drag to 100mph?

No, it may be the other way round especially at higher speeds.

GT3 · 8 Apr 2007 at 18:22

cymatty said:
No, it may be the other way round especially at higher speeds.

Nope apart from at stupid speeds (120+) perhaps the VTS is quicker.

PMKeates · 8 Apr 2007 at 18:26

GT3 said:
Nope apart from at stupid speeds (120+) perhaps the VTS is quicker.

Are we talking Saxo VTS vs Focus ST170?

The Saxo'll be quicker in 1st and 2nd, to about 60, then as speed picks up the gap will reverse and widen, and the ST170 will be a fair bit faster.

cymatty · 8 Apr 2007 at 18:31

Evo have timed the 2 cars to 100mph, the st170 is nearly 2 secs quicker.

GT3 · 8 Apr 2007 at 18:32

PMKeates said:
Are we talking Saxo VTS vs Focus ST170?

I was assuming so and my VTS is a lot quicker at lower speeds and not much in it but has the edge at higher speeds than this bloke at works st170. Even did a full on 0-100ish once and i was a few car lengths ahead.

cymatty · 8 Apr 2007 at 18:33

GT3 said:
I was assuming so and my VTS is a lot quicker at lower speeds and not much in it but has the edge at higher speeds than this bloke at works st170. Even did a full on 0-100ish once and i was a few car lengths ahead.

Then the bloke at work can't drive.

PMKeates · 8 Apr 2007 at 18:52

cymatty said:
Then the bloke at work can't drive.

Clearly.

At high speed, the ST170 must be faster. There's just no way good gearing can make up for a 50hp shortfall. I can only assume, GT3, that your friend is not using remotely the right gear :confused:

GT3 · 8 Apr 2007 at 19:12

Good gearing and a 300kg weight advantage and the fact that most vts/gtis are pushing nearly 130bhp and you can see its not quite as clear cut as you may think. That gives the VTS nearly 140bhp per tonne and the focus about 136 per tonne. Also didn't Ford soup up the RS press cars? Maybe they did with the ST170 press cars too...

Either way, look what just arrived

muhahaha

PMKeates · 8 Apr 2007 at 19:31

GT3 said:
Good gearing and a 300kg weight advantage and the fact that most vts/gtis are pushing nearly 130bhp and you can see its not quite as clear cut as you may think. That gives the VTS nearly 140bhp per tonne and the focus about 136 per tonne. Also didn't Ford soup up the RS press cars? Maybe they did with the ST170 press cars too...

Either way, look what just arrived

muhahaha

For starters, the gearing may be "good", but the ST170's gearing isn't bad.

Not to mention that a 348kg weight advantage is going to make little difference above 100 MPH.

Official figures, btw:

Focus: 133hp/ton
Saxo VTS: 128hp/ton (139hp/ton with a suspect 130hp)

I can agree that at low speed and general applicability of acceleration, the VTS is going to be the quicker car. When it comes to straight line "down the motorway" stuff, the ST170 is going to be pulling a fair bit ahead.

digitalwolf · 8 Apr 2007 at 20:45

GT3 said:
Good gearing and a 300kg weight advantage and the fact that most vts/gtis are pushing nearly 130bhp and you can see its not quite as clear cut as you may think. That gives the VTS nearly 140bhp per tonne and the focus about 136 per tonne. Also didn't Ford soup up the RS press cars? Maybe they did with the ST170 press cars too...

Either way, look what just arrived

muhahaha

GT3,What 0-60 / BHP stats are you trying to achieve with your VTS?

GT3 · 8 Apr 2007 at 21:00

160-165 bhp, sub 900kg so looking at high 5's going on what other cars have got at santa pod last week especially with the diff to help with traction. But mainly looking to get the handling spot on than all out performance.

digitalwolf · 8 Apr 2007 at 21:10

GT3 said:
160-165 bhp, sub 900kg so looking at high 5's going on what other cars have got at santa pod last week especially with the diff to help with traction. But mainly looking to get the handling spot on than all out performance.

Cool, i'd love to that lol.

s0ck · 9 Apr 2007 at 16:07

What's the quarter mile time for a '170? VTS is about 16 seconds, isn't it?
Google is telling me 17.9 for a '170...
Despite the obvious power deficit something is telling me the VTS would win.