Trackday: What car......

Overlag · 12 Apr 2007 at 02:47

......would you strip out and use as a track day car?

gotta be within reason, and reasonable costs. Just wondering what cars you guys would use, and what would be the first things you would change.

I at first was "dreaming" a old Mk5 Fiesta Zetec S, however my mate pointed out a M3 at the same cost would have much more potential, other than it being 120k miles instead of 40k on the fiesta. So what car would you want, and how much would you set aside for it?

MikeHunt79 · 12 Apr 2007 at 03:22

205gti... throw a 160bhp mi16 lump in there, and a few other tweaks, and you have a light, fun and fast track car.

GFX707 · 12 Apr 2007 at 03:31

Jaguar XJ40....preferably the V12 but almost any would do.

Clarkey · 12 Apr 2007 at 04:20

you are kidding right?

as for a car, cheap, fast, not falling apart, choose 2 if you want something half competent.

paradigm · 12 Apr 2007 at 07:27

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. My choices would boil down to either:

1) A Citroen Saxo VTS - Stripped out these hold the road stupidly well

Positives:

Cheap - both to run and to repair
Handle awesomly - be it dry or wet they just fly round bends
Great on technical circuits - the twistier the better

Negatives:

low(ish) top end, so pretty bad at long sweeping circuits
FWD

2) BWM E30 325i (Sport) - Stripped to the bare road legal minimum

Positives:

RWD Goodness
Cheap to buy
Nice amount of top-end

Negatives:

Expensive to repair
Can have snappy handling, one minute you have the car under control, next its gone!

Think I'd get the E30 tbh.

TomO · 12 Apr 2007 at 08:09

two cars that i used to / currently own and recommend:

- stripped out 200sx (s14a) - lots of potential here.
- westfield (or something similar)

Zip · 12 Apr 2007 at 08:10

MK1 MR2

Gibbo · 12 Apr 2007 at 08:46

Hi there

I can recommend a BMW 325i, 525i or the more powerful versions. They are perfectly balanced and so easy to drive on the limit, very controllable even the much older models from the 1990's.

lordrobs · 12 Apr 2007 at 09:52

It would be a 205 GTi for me :cool:

jimblowscash · 12 Apr 2007 at 10:23

a suzuki swift gti, a ford capri , MR2 mk1 , mk 1 golf gti , old 3 series bm
or for 1500 quid build yourself a locost 7 or similar rwd kit car

( |-| |2 ][ $ · 12 Apr 2007 at 11:14

A caterham 7 would do anything listed above, well aside from the westfield that is. Just as cheap too.

Dangerous Dave · 12 Apr 2007 at 12:31

One of the quickest track cars I have ever seen lap at Knockhill is a Citreon AX with a tuned VTS engine init. Its stripped to the max, roll cage and slammed with 4 pot brakes. I recon it must weigh 500kg tops so with 150bhp out of the engine a nice 300bhp to the ton. Evos/M3s/supercharged R32 couldn't keep up or even catch it, knockhill has a twisty bit which runs in its favour but even on the straight it can keep in front however the quicker cars can close the gap but it practically doesn't have to slow down for the corners so the gap is then regained and extended. Wouldn't want to stack it mind you however next year I'm considering picking up a battered VTS Saxo/106 GTI as a track car will probaly trailer it there though so it will be stripped to the utter max.

TripleT · 12 Apr 2007 at 12:40

TomO said:
two cars that i used to / currently own and recommend:

- stripped out 200sx (s14a) - lots of potential here.
- westfield (or something similar)

Have we seen your new Westfield yet? Or have I missed it.

I'd be biased and go with a 306 Rallye (Or Xsara VTS for cheapness cos looks don't matter on the track

).

I feel they offer more top end than the smaller conterparts whilst still being nice and chuckable. Maybe supercharge it for a few thousand :cool:

(Engine doesn't really respond that well to cams and like if you look at cost/bhp).

GFX707 · 12 Apr 2007 at 14:06

Clarkey said:
you are kidding right?

as for a car, cheap, fast, not falling apart, choose 2 if you want something half competent.

Why would I be kidding?

Overlag · 12 Apr 2007 at 14:27

GFX707 said:
Why would I be kidding?

cos its a tank, not a "race" car

Clarkey · 12 Apr 2007 at 14:30

a huge barge of a car with a massive boat anchor of an engine, for the track?

thats all the feeding this troll is going to get....

GFX707 · 12 Apr 2007 at 14:34

I am a troll? You are the one being rude.

Strip out all the weight (as per original post) and you have a humoungous 260bhp engine. This thread was about what car I would personally choose.

XJ6s are surprisingly nippy. Compare the 0-60 of a V12 6 litre XJ40 and some 70hp hatchback.

Can't remember the exact details but 0-60 in around 6 seconds. What can your ford fiesta do? OK, so there are inevitably corners on a racetrack, but we are still talking discs versus drums and tyres that are actually capable of 140mph as standard and a car that can do 150 versus a car that would be lucky to get past 100.

Plus, old XJ40s are far better than any mundane little hatchback of an equivalent price....and far safer too. Remember, this thread was about personal choice. They look cool painted up too. They also happen to be a very popular choice for "banger" racing as it is.

Maybe I just don't like hatchbacks

Overlag · 12 Apr 2007 at 14:56

GFX707 said:
I am a troll? You are the one being rude.

Strip out all the weight (as per original post) and you have a humoungous 260bhp engine. This thread was about what car I would personally choose.

XJ6s are surprisingly nippy. Compare the 0-60 of a V12 6 litre XJ40 and some 70hp hatchback.

Can't remember the exact details but 0-60 in around 6 seconds. What can your ford fiesta do? OK, so there are inevitably corners on a racetrack, but we are still talking discs versus drums and tyres that are actually capable of 140mph as standard and a car that can do 150 versus a car that would be lucky to get past 100.

Plus, old XJ40s are far better than any mundane little hatchback of an equivalent price....and far safer too. Remember, this thread was about personal choice. They look cool painted up too. They also happen to be a very popular choice for "banger" racing as it is.

Maybe I just don't like hatchbacks

A: brakes wouldnt stay standard
B: just because tis V12 doesnt mean its great. 260bhp isnt that good... BHP/ton would be quiet low
c: fiesta was just an example, but it isnt 70bhp, it would be around 110.
d: the jag is huge, massive lump, and very poor aero.
e: most tyres on modern cars can do over 140mph anyway, but again, if it was a pure track car, it would have cut slicks on it

GFX707 · 12 Apr 2007 at 14:58

Overlag said:
A: brakes wouldnt stay standard
B: just because tis V12 doesnt mean its great. 260bhp isnt that good... BHP/ton would be quiet low
c: fiesta was just an example, but it isnt 70bhp, it would be around 110.
d: the jag is huge, massive lump, and very poor aero.
e: most tyres on modern cars can do over 140mph anyway

We are still talking about 154bhp/ton if my calculations are correct. That's standard weight, i.e without stripping anything out.

Like americans say "aerodynamics are for people who can't design engines"

nicRob · 12 Apr 2007 at 15:16

That was actually said by Enzo Ferrari

Ok, the XJ may have some power, but it's still a barge, and I don't think it's exactly comparable in terms of handling to the other cars mentioned in this thread