VX Rearended - Maybe written off

That site looks like user submissions and thus should not be trusted. Case in point, the BMW 330i appears 4 times - with times ranging from a suprisingly quick 15 seconds to a really rather slow 20 seconds.

1997 Volkswagen GTI 2.0 33.17 s
Click to expand...

I did LOL at that, though.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox said:
Those figures can't be right, that makes a VX220 no quicker to 100 than my 530.
Click to expand...

From http://www.letstorquebhp.com/rwd.asp.

The figures, whilst theoretical, are usually pretty accurate and are certainly what you'd expect given the bhp/ton of the 2 cars:

Exige S2 - 219 bhp/ton
VX220 - 168 bhp/ton

As an aside, looking at the site your 530 puts out 146bhp/ton and is 19s to 100.
 
Trojan said:
From http://www.letstorquebhp.com/rwd.asp.

The figures, whilst theoretical, are usually pretty accurate and are certainly what you'd expect given the bhp/ton of the 2 cars:

Exige S2 - 219 bhp/ton
VX220 - 168 bhp/ton
Click to expand...

Don't get me started on that site and how it takes no account of areodynamics and gear ratios :p

As an aside, looking at the site your 530 puts out 146bhp/ton and is 19s to 100.
Click to expand...

I have the original Autocar road test, where they timed it at 17.6 seconds to 100, in the wet (Which is why the time was very similar to the less powerful 528), at the MIRA testing ground with Racelogic test gear. ie, accurate, not theoretical.

Thats a point - wonder if similar data is available for the Exige. I bet it is. Time to search :p

Edit: No, but the original 96 Elise was properly figured at 0-60 5.5 and 0-100 17.4.

Also, wow, what did Lotus do to the 111R? 0-60 slightlu quicker, 5.1, but 0-100 13 seconds!
 
Last edited:
Trojan said:
From http://www.letstorquebhp.com/rwd.asp.

The figures, whilst theoretical, are usually pretty accurate and are certainly what you'd expect given the bhp/ton of the 2 cars:

Exige S2 - 219 bhp/ton
VX220 - 168 bhp/ton
Click to expand...
Yea, looks pretty accurate to me. We're down as 0-60 in 3.32, 0-100 in 8.49 which is about what it should be, and 461.84 bhp/ton.
<Just noticed that the PerformanceBox is £311, but we'd also need the £76 battery as the Westfield has no fag-lighter, but then we could record proper times! With and without Launch Control...>
 
Last edited:
eidolon said:
You don't *need* the 111R, the 111S is also an excellent car and not a huge deal slower (0-100 is still only 14 seconds)

The sound of 2nd cam on the 111R is worth the additional cash though :D
Click to expand...
Can I book a passenger ride for the next motors meet you attend?
 
http://www.muncher.org.uk/porsche

Nice to drive, reasonably quick, certainly no slouch but not as fast as my VX. Brakes are very, very good, suspension is soft enough to ride over bumps and make quick work of bad roads, but is too soft for me, too floaty at speed.

The steering is a very quick rack, but does lack feel. Seats are pretty comfortable, driving position OK but I'm experimenting with it. Returning about 20mpg. Built quality is good, but some occasional odd noises.

Steering wheel is too big, roof nice, looks nice, I like the colour and may have the VX done the same colour... Doors require 2 pulls to open for some reason from inside, is pretty comfy and doing big miles in it wouldn't be hard.

However, it's just not sharp enough for me to consider buying one. It's easy to drive it fast, over the same roads I'd have had a dry mouth afterwards and really have to concentrate. I'd sure this requires concentration but you'd really have to be pushing it very, very hard to require that. In terms of it's target market it's almost certainly the best in the world at doing what it tries to achieve.

That said, I still love driving it!


IMG_0630.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom