mates new toy

[harvey197]

not a clio but nice al the same, lovely drive down to perth to pick it up
low miles 2 owners from new, well taken care of.

 

[mark_1873]

The supersprint exhaust system is a must on these 8)

 

[A2ON]

R32right ? Amazing my friend has one with nos on

The reg of his is or was R30 TWD

The d looks like an "o"

 

[Ed...]

these are naughtily fast. i fealt like i was in a 1200 when i raced 1. absolutely wasted me. 4wd just to quick off the line. + the noise it made was orgasmic V6 rasp mmmmmmmmmmmmm memories. it was the mk5 shape thgh with the 182 style exhaust. no embarasment gettin smoked by that.

 

[A2ON]

^^ you Should be embarrased you tried lol ;-)

 

[ryan197]

strange that is, i raced a mk 5 r32 and absolutey blew it in my standard 172.

 

[A2ON]

^^ He wasent trying then

I know the 172's are light but something does not add up

V6
241 -250 bhp
4 wheel drive

 

[ryan197]

oh he was trying, i waited til the next lights, as they were on red, lined up side by side he pulled off, gave him a head start, it was raining, i spun up i 1st 2nd and 3rd and pulled past him then as soon as i gripped it was bye bye r32, also raced a standard astra vxr aswel, killed that aswel.

 

[ryan197]

and bhp doest mean anything, yoy try racing something like a 106 gti and be gutted they are still on your back bumper.

 

[mikey197]

Looks lovely mate, would definately look at getting one of these when the clio goes.

 

[maggie_197]

ya,very nice.

it will start the misses off whn she see,s this,her dream car 2 own,after her 197

 

[jaxx]

^^ He wasent trying then

I know the 172's are light but something does not add up

V6
241 -250 bhp
4 wheel drive

Well taken that model is a 2002 spec by the reg plate..

So 1552kg (how much!) and 237bhp = 152bhp/ton (source: Carfolio)

Clio 172 is 1050kg and 170bhp = 162bhp/ton (Source: Wikipedia)

So the power/weight ratios stack up..

And Clio = FWD so a fly to wheel loss of on average 12% so around 150bhp makes it to the road...

As far as im aware the Golf has a Haldex 4WD system, which is nowhere near as fancy as something an Evo or similiar will sprt with fancy diffs and stuff, so perhaps suffering between 15-20% drive train losses... in the middle that means 196ish to the road.

So the Golf is much more efficient at putting more power to the tarmac, but will be held back by its lardy arse, especially in the bendy bits.

Correct me if im wrong on any of my stats And yes ive used nominal OEM specs, i know its unlikely they will be that acurate

 

[pez1356]

R32's really arnt as quick as you think they're gona be, 0-60 on the new one isn't that impressive either i dont think. As was mentioned theyre pretty heavy cars.

 

[justjamie]

standard R32's arent really THAT quick. especially the mk5. my bro was all over the rear end of a mk5 32 in his polo 1.8T, an the lad in the 32 was deffo tryin, he had a disappointed bird in the passenger seat too

 

[Jim_Rs]

We have the new Golf R here at work and a Mk5 R32

The R makes the R32 look and feel old hat in a big way.

 

[mikey197]

We have the new Golf R here at work and a Mk5 R32

The R makes the R32 look and feel old hat in a big way.

Yeh but the new R is £33,000 which is serious amounts of money for a Golf!!! Much faster car on the cards for that much money, your talking M3 CSL for that kinda money.