An interesting read...

Well the standard VXR is a 2006 developed car. The 200 is a 2009 developed car. 3 years is a lot in terms of car development.

Yes, but the 197 is a 2005 developed car and wipes the floor with the VXR.

Even the 'Burg isn't night and day when compared to the 197 and that's six years newer...
 
Yes, but the 197 is a 2005 developed car and wipes the floor with the VXR.

Even the 'Burg isn't night and day when compared to the 197 and that's six years newer...

The 'Burg is a much faster, better handling car than the 200 though going on what the press guys say.

They just say that the drive isnt as involving.
 
It's a cracking car, don't get me wrong I'm not slating it. I just think that because it is such a jump from the original VXR to this one it's been pumped up a bit in the press. The 200 is a better all-rounder than the 197, but it's not as much of a jump. If you get what I mean?

I had a look at a 'Burg at Oulton Park last weekend and they are bloody nice. Very well specc'd, nice range of colours and options etc., no doubt it's a good car. In a straightline no doubt it'd probably be a bit quicker than a 200 and no doubt the in-gear times probably make for more impressive reading. But I'm sceptical that around a track or down a nice B-Road it'd be faster than a 200.

Slightly off topic, but the new ''Astra'' or GTC or whatever they're calling it is stunning in the flesh. And massive. :smiley:
 
Vauxhall focused their ''Burg'' development on the chassis department and did a good job (about time, it took them 5-6 years). The VXR was just a 1.2 with bigger engine and stiffer suspension, awful really and that comes from honest VXR owners. God bless understeer...

However, £22+k for the ''burg'' one? Ultra expensive (not a fun of the £21k Raider either).Stick an LSD to a 200 with cup chassis and come again. And if someone wants to go even further, have an AST kit fitted and redefine. Still it's gonna be chaper than £22k, and most importantly...quicker.

Needless to say that even though the ''burg'' is indeed faster than the clio, the press reported ''we still think we'd take the Clio 200''.
 
That's the thing that gets me mainly....I want to see how they would compare with an LSD on the 200 Cup...

Let's face it, they completely change a car, even with the handling characteristics of the clios, but it's just the expense.
 
Nobody pays RRP on new cars any more. A lot of people got them for £17k. So that argument is a mute point really.
 
You can easily identify the "drivers" and the "casuals" in that thread. The drivers are forming their opinion based on driving experience and are honest enough to admit the Corsas flaws against the Clio in real life conditions and vice versa. The casuals (cruisers, posers etc), who lack the experience to efficiently push their own vehicle on the road/track, are primarily complaining about looks and the lack of a turbo..innit. As a result they resort to focusing primarily on manufacturer figures and lap times set by professional drivers on a race track. It's a very detached way of forming an opinion. :001_huh:

I've driven both and the Corsa is a sweet car and well built but just felt too soft and torque steery. The Clio felt better honed as a hothatch i.e. it felt noticeably more poised and balanced in its ability, hence why I bought one in the end.
 
What is Ganting??? The Clio looks Ganting

It's Scottish slang which is usually only used to descibe something that tastes rotten.

It's not ganting though...its gantin (with no g at the end :lol:smile:

:wink:

As for the Corsa, I really like the look of them but I dont think I could own one. Purelly as they draw so much attention. It's getting some great reviews though.