just driven a proton, and loved it!

Andybtsn · 23 Dec 2006 at 12:45

6.3 seconds :eek:

agw_01 · 23 Dec 2006 at 12:52

That can't be right?!?!

Looking at the weight and power, I'd be inclined to suggest 7 seconds.

Mine does it in 8.4 (G-Meter) and that's about 1150kg with 136bhp.

ajgoodfellow · 23 Dec 2006 at 13:27

One of the few good Protons - just goes to show what Lotus can do. Reminds me of the Lotus Lada featured on Top Gear!

Axeboy · 23 Dec 2006 at 13:32

Nice enough cars, basically a Colt Gti

I remember insurance was silly when they came out... which, along with a reasonably high asking price, killed it sale i think.

I remember seeing it at the motorshow, caused quite a stir at the time.

poosemon · 23 Dec 2006 at 15:15

6.2 seconds and your lupo kills it?? i think 6.2 is a bit optimistic tbh

benneh · 23 Dec 2006 at 15:31

poosemon said:
6.2 seconds and your lupo kills it?? i think 6.2 is a bit optimistic tbh

It's more like 8.5.

penski · 23 Dec 2006 at 15:31

agw_01 said:
Didn't they used to use the Proton's in Rallying?

It was the Satria wasn't it? That's all Google brings up.

They rallied the Wira (Lancer Evo with a different badge) a few times over here...

*n

agw_01 · 24 Dec 2006 at 00:04

penski said:
They rallied the Wira (Lancer Evo with a different badge) a few times over here...

*n

Ahhhh, that's the one.

Just got a bit confused with the GTi badging.

gurusan · 24 Dec 2006 at 10:20

that 0-60 does seem quite generous. 133 hp ?

yawn

Lopéz · 24 Dec 2006 at 10:33

gurusan said:
that 0-60 does seem quite generous. 133 hp ? yawn

Why is 133bhp yawnworthy? It depends what car it's in. Golf GTI, Escort RS Turbo, Peugeot 205 GTI, Renault Clio 16V, Daihatsu Charade GTTi, Suzuki Swift GTI...... all under 140bhp but none of those are what you'd call "

"

gurusan · 24 Dec 2006 at 10:37

because honestly, anything under about 150whp per ton is pretty boring to me.

Lopéz · 24 Dec 2006 at 10:46

gurusan said:
because honestly, anything under about 150whp per ton is pretty boring to me.

That's a very strange thing to say. Do you have every car you drive strapped to a dyno to work out the power at the wheels before you can decide if it is boring or not?

How about cars like the Polo G40 that hover right on the 150bhp/ton mark? Do you run them through a weighbridge first to find out if they excited you or bored you?

Just seems a hilarious concept to judge how enjoyable a car is to drive based on one statistic. Surely driving pleasure is not something that can be quantified with statistics?

KevMarks · 24 Dec 2006 at 15:59

I have a proton compact. Basicly the same car as the satria. Fantastic car, tons better than the saxo it replaced.

gurusan · 24 Dec 2006 at 17:51

Lopéz said:
That's a very strange thing to say. Do you have every car you drive strapped to a dyno to work out the power at the wheels before you can decide if it is boring or not?

How about cars like the Polo G40 that hover right on the 150bhp/ton mark? Do you run them through a weighbridge first to find out if they excited you or bored you?

Just seems a hilarious concept to judge how enjoyable a car is to drive based on one statistic. Surely driving pleasure is not something that can be quantified with statistics?

I've driven plenty of sub 200hp cars in my time...they were exciting when I was 15-16, but then got boring very quickly.

Also, a 1.8T Polo has only 147bhp and a kerb weight of 1.2 tons. which equates to roughly 100whp per ton. There certainly is more to a car than just power figures but I just don't enjoy cars that don't have enough power for their handling ability....cars like the MX5....a wonderful vehicle but it's extremely underpowered. One of the slowest cars I've driven. If I were to buy a mx5 I would probably get the 1.8 and turbocharge it or just swap in a rotary turbo 13b

Gaijin · 24 Dec 2006 at 17:55

They are rubbish. Because they are Malay.

Axeboy · 24 Dec 2006 at 17:59

Why pick the Polo 1.8T, its probably one of the least 'hot' hatches.

The G40 is far more fun imo.

When I was driving Skylines at the age of 7, it got boring very very quickly... so I started flying planes at 12.

Rich1988 · 24 Dec 2006 at 18:02

Axeboy said:
Why pick the Polo 1.8T, its probably one of the least 'hot' hatches.

The G40 is far more fun imo.

When I was driving Skylines at the age of 7, it got boring very very quickly... so I started flying planes at 12.

Yea same here at 15 I was a deep see treasure hunter but I got bored very quickly of that, so now im an astronaught

gurusan · 24 Dec 2006 at 18:04

Well I'm not even driving now...so to be honest I would gladly drive a 100hp car.

I sold my car and dropped my old life to come here and study motorsport engineering. I'm poor and car-less here but studying what I REALLY want to study.

Lopéz · 24 Dec 2006 at 18:21

gurusan said:
I've driven plenty of sub 200hp cars in my time...they were exciting when I was 15-16, but then got boring very quickly.

Also, a 1.8T Polo has only 147bhp and a kerb weight of 1.2 tons. which equates to roughly 100whp per ton. There certainly is more to a car than just power figures but I just don't enjoy cars that don't have enough power for their handling ability....cars like the MX5....a wonderful vehicle but it's extremely underpowered. One of the slowest cars I've driven. If I were to buy a mx5 I would probably get the 1.8 and turbocharge it or just swap in a rotary turbo 13b

Who mentioned a 1.8T Polo? :confused:

I said Polo G40.

The MX-5 is far from "extremely underpowered" and I seriously doubt it is one of the slowest cars you have driven.

Where did you drive all these cars when you were 15-16?

Andybtsn · 24 Dec 2006 at 18:22

Axeboy said:
Why pick the Polo 1.8T, its probably one of the least 'hot' hatches.

The G40 is far more fun imo.

When I was driving Skylines at the age of 7, it got boring very very quickly... so I started flying planes at 12.

Yep, the G40 was an awesome car in its tile just awful handling let it down

Still would and does give lots of cars a run for their money. I've had three of them little bad boys.