Would you pay 19k for this???

Have you driven many turbocharged performance cars? I have, and not one of them didnt suffer from annoying laggy throttle response.

Big NA engines are (IMO) a much nicer drive, at least my experience of them has led me to actually not really want another turbocharged car.

This is the reason a lot of people will go for a nice V6 or V8, rather than a small capacity turbocharged equivalent.
 
[TW]Fox said:
6 cylinders > 4.

6 cylinders turbocharged > 4 cylinders turbocharged.

It's that simple, minidan :p
Click to expand...

I'd go as far to say that i'd prefer a 6 or 8 pot over anything turbocharged, unless somehow the turbo had zero lag (which i am yet to experience)

This is obviously assuming that the NA engine was adequately powerful :)
 
i havent driven any 'big' engines but a fair few small turbo engines. i just have a thing for turbos. i have been in 3 2.0l turbo vauxhalls and they dont feel verry laggy at all, as someone stated when they test drove the vx220 turbo thing. turbo minis/metros AR?E laggy but it doesent bother me i am not a lazy driver. its just poeple opinions i supose and thats mine tho i do admit i have limited expeeriance, i hated diesels untill i drove my old nova and now i want another.
 
theres a mini with a V6 in it a mate was goign to buy it, i havent seen what quarter mile etc it hits or anything tho, he had an XE in it before the V6, its fwd, there is also one or 2 V8s, lots of bike engines, vtecs, and ONE 2l turbo that i know of that does run and drive but its not on the road yet.

132.jpg

just cos i wanted to post a pic lol

like i said tho i admit i havent been in a car with a big engine(over 2l) but i have been in small cars with 2l turbos and big cars with 2l turbos.
 
Last edited:
hmm u show any average joe that clio and they will think its just a chavved clio.

its not a supercar and never will be.

"Originally Posted by [TW]Fox
6 cylinders > 4.

6 cylinders turbocharged > 4 cylinders turbocharged.

It's that simple, minidan "

and i always thought the lancer evo was a 4 pot with a turbo? strange how its rated higher than the equivalent 6 scubaru then eh?
 
mr jamez said:
I have been in that car, it was awesome :) (only V6 mini I know of)
Click to expand...

V6 Golf?
Anyway i think it was intended to be "super car" not "supercar" evos scoobies et al would cane it and even they aint supercars supercars are lambo's ferrari's porches zondas F1's bugattis etc it has to have 3.5L + engine to be close to supercar territory
 
Ultra_Extreme said:
V6 Golf?
Anyway i think it was intended to be "super car" not "supercar" evos scoobies et al would cane it and even they aint supercars supercars are lambo's ferrari's porches zondas F1's bugattis etc it has to have 3.5L + engine to be close to supercar territory
Click to expand...

Since when does a supercar have to have a 3.5 litre engine or greater?

F40
959
288GTO

The original Lotus Esprit was classed as a supercar and that had a 2.0 engine in it.

I See your point though. :)
 
Morba said:
It might belong in another category of 'great because of its history' like a 6r4.
Click to expand...
The 6R4 and 5GTTurbo rally specials are rather more than great because of their history! Both are massively capable even against modern machinery.

Do you apply the same thinking to cars like the 205 GTi and Golf GTI's? Only great because of their "history"?
 
Jez said:
I'd go as far to say that i'd prefer a 6 or 8 pot over anything turbocharged, unless somehow the turbo had zero lag (which i am yet to experience)

This is obviously assuming that the NA engine was adequately powerful :)
Click to expand...

Looks like your just comparing big hp cars though.


Theres other areas where a Turbo car makes sense

Weight? size of car?

Last track day at haynes in the fiesta showed near zero lag with awesome pull out of the corners, comparing it to a 1.9 gti 205 that was there the fiesta was light years ahead..even though hp would have been around the same.

in areas like this a small compact and powerfull engine is a bonus.
 
Not comparing anything particuarly special, say a turbocharged 2.0-2.5 at around 270-300bhp, vs an NA 4.0 at the same power. I know which i'd rather drive going on the lag ive experienced in every single turbo car ive been in and/or driven :)

If there is a way of killing the lag off then thats great and i am sure i would love it, but it doesnt seem to be implemented on the more common turbocharged cars (impreza's, evo's, 200sx's, MR2T's, Astra turbo's, calibra turbo's etc)
 
With 19K that 255 would never even enter my head. I clicked on the link, but came back to it later and thought I was looking at a cup before reading the title again.

I dont *think* I've ever seen one on the roads - but could have and never realised. Supercar looks it has not.

As a car, though, I appreciate it. And as a company, Renault, I applaud them and their decisions to build such cars and clio cups/trophies, megan trophies. Not that I'd buy any of them either, but will no the less mourn their loss when they stop being built.
 
Last edited:
Jez said:
I know which i'd rather drive going on the lag ive experienced............ but it doesnt seem to be implemented on the more common turbocharged cars
Click to expand...
It is on new cars such as the mk 5 golf GTI. But they arnt making the turbo do as much work as with the new astra, so of course there will be less lag I suppose.

Anyway, your argument of 2.0lT vs 4.0 n/a is pointless as one is cheap and affordable power and the other is still exotica to own.

I would always chose a n/a engine of equal power over a turbo charged engine - provided it didnt weight too much (no old american 6l V8s putting out <300bhp please). I think everyone on this forum would. However when the only V8s available cheaply seem to be old Rover V8's that dont have much power and you tend to have to shoe horn them into the car you want yourself, I think you can see why most of us will stick to 2.0l turbos.
 
I think you are getting me from the wrong angle here Trickle, i LIKE turbocharged cars, my last car was a 2.0 Turbo MR2 and i liked that very much. It was merely in response to minidan's failure to understand the need for larger capacity engines when you can turbo a smaller one :)
 
For 19k i could get myself a mint R33 GTR, and have change for an induction upgrade and a full HKS exhaust system, and lots of nice wax :D :D

The v6 clios cost too much new (~25k) and even for 19k its still a little hatchback. I could by a GTI-R (upgrade from my SR) and make it stunning, and more reliable with the cash.

Christ, there are soo many better cars to get with 19K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom