So how come..........

sevenfourate

sevenfourate

Devotee of OCD
Paid Member
.....a 2007-2010 Honda Civic Type R is a couple of hundred KG heavier than an RS200; has the same BHP basically - yet supposedly is quicker 0-60 AND has a higher top speed (Both by not 'small' margins).

Look. I wanted a Clio. I dont give a crap if the Clio is understated or the Civic figures are pumped up.


Just wondering how with everything going for it [On paper] the Clio is outperformed. Better gearing for 0-60 on the Civic and a slipperier shape ?



To be fair for its size, weight and power - the Clio's figures on paper aren't 'great'. What gives ?
 
Slightly off topic but these type Rs can be tuned with pretty decent results for a N/A car too. Looks like it's just a far superior engine than the Clio's
 
I ain't knocking the Clio. Christ - i've had one a week.

But to think "our cars" are the fastest, best handling, most sorted hot-hatch out there (In every dept) is ....well....naive ?

Just wondering why 2 cars so closely matched [As you expect for 2 competing cars of the same era] the performance from what should be a superior package is quite lack-lustre..........


Is it the same in the "Real-World" ???????
 
Our cars eats up the type r 07-10 ,the funny thing is the previous type r(02-03) was better( i think atleast)
Tbh the engine there might be better in almost every spec.. But especialy the models you mentioned i dont think its a properlcompetitor to our( especially for the cup)
Want modern car that seem like it took( just maybe) the crown from clio? Fiesta st ,and if you want you can tune its *** !
For me? Clio anytime
the sound the feeling the screaming engine ( its things you dont have in the little fax turbo engines haha)
The bottom line is- all these cars pretty close each other so.most of the time its individual choices .and just a tip in this kind of cars you realy dont need to look for the faster 0-60 ( especially when the diff is only 0.1-03)
 
Last edited:
Legend@wheels said:
Our cars eats up the type r 07-10 ,the funny thing is the previous type r(02-03) was better( i think atleast)
Tbh the engine there might be better in almost every spec.. But especialy the models you mentioned i dont think its a properlcompetitor to our( especially for the cup)
Want modern car that seem like it took( just maybe) the crown from clio? Fiesta st ,and if you want you can tune its *** !
For me? Clio anytime
the sound the feeling the screaming engine ( its things you dont have in the little fax turbo engines haha)
The bottom line is- all these cars pretty close each other so.most of the time its individual choices .and just a tip in this kind of cars you realy dont need to look for the faster 0-60 ( especially when the diff is only 0.1-03)
Click to expand...


I'm nearly middle-aged, insurance aint a problem and if i'd wanted 'fast' for £10k i could have bought hat-fulls of cars that were faster on paper, on the road and in real life. Its fun and character i wanted, and being a French Hot-Hatch man; guess what won. No one needs to defend the Clio. - i've just bought one too remember :smile:

That still don't change the fact for its size and power the Clio performance figures are less than 'top of the tree', and perhaps not quite what you'd expect.

Back in the day even; Cosworths, Supra 3 litres, GT-Fours Early Subaru's etc were all right around the 200hp mark. And all those were 150mph cars. Most quicker to 60 too..........

Just saying.
 
I aint worried. 80% of my driving is stuck behind the car in-front, going to work at 50mph anyway.. Just a rhetorical question as such........
 
gearing and drag/aero will be 2 factors....

having said that if you look at the in gear acceleration figures iirc the clio is quicker!

and from personal experience it cant stop as good :drunk:
 
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Clio's 0-60 time is compromised by having to pop an extra gear change in at 57mph but that could be wrong. If it is that would explain why the 0-60 time is down (up?) but it's irrelevant on the road/track.
 
To be fair, the F4R isn't particularly a torque monster... It's not going to be anywhere near as fast as something with a turbo.

I raced an EP3 and it started to pull away, ever so slightly, but certainly was pulling. FN2? No chance.
 
Johnny 99 said:
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Clio's 0-60 time is compromised by having to pop an extra gear change in at 57mph but that could be wrong. If it is that would explain why the 0-60 time is down (up?) but it's irrelevant on the road/track.
Click to expand...
I think that's to do with the revised gearbox for the 197/200 as they had shorter gears compared to the early 197 boxes. I've got one of the early ones and it'll do a little over 60 in 2nd gear.
 
Last edited:
Meh what does it matter? Comparing standard cars there's not a lot in them, yes the type r is more tuneable out the box, but it's also not as good in the corners, braking performance nor as good looking. But go on a type r forum and I'm sure they'd tell you 20 reasons why it's better than the Clio and how they beat them on the track etc etc, just like we have :wink:
 
My first Clio was a 182 and the guy at work had an ep3 , we had few races and it pulled away from me in third and fourth. My next car was focus rs mark 1 212bhp and I raced an ep3 and pulled away in every gear easily. After owning a Clio v6 and evo 8 mrfq340 I have just purchased a 200 cos I have a soft spot for Clio sports. I love it but I just can't help thinking if Renault made it somewhere between 210 and 220 bhp standard it would be perfect.
 
Because what the paper doesn't tell you is that the handling is unbeatable in it's class standard vs standard :jase2:
 
It matters absolutely none Chris. Arguing over a few (Potential) mph top speed difference, and a couple of tenths to 60 will provide no winners. And as a biker - if i merely wanted "quick" i would have just bought a 220mph Hayabusa for £3k........

Perfect counter Warren ! I'm an owner - i CHOSE to buy this car. The handling / ride and fun factor being just one reason why. Purposeful looks, great choice of colours, well specced, not ridiculous money being some of the others.

No one need take this personally, me 110% seriously or get "Clio protective". Whilst i still maintain my thoughts are valid and the performance figures alone are 'sub-par' compared to some of its peers, my topics across many forums are often done to provoke thought, interest. alternative views and hopefully participation. If you've chimed in - i've succeeded :smile:

BTW - do ANY of the 197 / 200's REALLY do 60mph in 2nd or is the speedo merely showing 60....and as mentioned; when timed properly to 60mph another gear-change to 3rd is required adding a few precious tenths to that all important 0-60 magazine / advertising brochure figure......
 
to be really picky the ctr should be compared to the megane and not clio197/200....Honda don't have a gti jazz....:coffee:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom