Slowest "Performance" Brand Car ?

[willmagrath]

Efbe said:

willmagrath said:

Efbe said:

fabia vrs from 2003-7

130bhp from a 1.9tdi

I had one of these, and the torque meant it would keep up with a Civic type r of the same age without much trouble. Best car I've ever owned.

was the honda broken?

Mine may have been remapped when I bought it, but it did 0-60 in 7.2 pretty easily. Apparently skoda (VW) were very conservative with performance figures. Some owners were recording 155hp standard and very high torque figures. It was very quick in a straight line. When I had a play with the civic it was a rolling start from 30 odd but he couldn't shake me up to 75 ish. Very under-rated wee thing, should have never sold it!

[832ark]

captain_cynic said:

At least BMW makes it easy to differentiate between a badged M-sport and a M car. An M car has the M before the model designation (I.E. M4 or M240i) and the performance you'd expect. "M Sport" cars have it after the model designation (I.E. 116d M-Sport).

Its a £3000-ish quid option for badge snobs and has zero effect on performance, it's a body kit and interior upgrade.

Even then it’s not easy to differentiate, an M240i isn’t an M car either.

[Jakg]

Howard- said:

Mk4 Golf GTI

Winner.

2.0 N/A

115HP

0-60 in 10.2 seconds.

And it was actually sold as a GTI model (admittedly, only in the UK!)

[steviejasp]

V10 SPM said:

Paintwork by Jaffa

[culpz]

Jakg said:

Howard- said:

Mk4 Golf GTI

Winner.

2.0 N/A

115HP

0-60 in 10.2 seconds.

And it was actually sold as a GTI model (admittedly, only in the UK!)

Yupp, even the 1.8T wasn't worth of the GTI badge.

In fact, many went for the TDI variant and preferred it.

[culpz]

832ark said:

Even then it’s not easy to differentiate, an M240i isn’t an M car either.

It's usually classed as a M-Lite. However, it's definitely not a slow car. It's literally a remap away from M2 Performance, power-wise.

[JordanM200]

culpz said:

It's usually classed as a M-Lite. However, it's definitely not a slow car. It's literally a remap away from M2 Performance, power-wise.

I'm pretty sure the standard M240i is just as quick as an M2. Doesn't need the map!

[MorganP104]

This thread gives me the opportunity to moan about Citroen, specifically with regard to their devaluing of the marque's sporting brands.

I remember when the VTR and VTS badges were on cars young men would covet, and speak of in hushed tones.

Now they appear on all sorts of lardy DERV people carriers, as some sort of trim level, rather than a symbol of performance motoring.

[culpz]

JordanM200 said:

culpz said:

It's usually classed as a M-Lite. However, it's definitely not a slow car. It's literally a remap away from M2 Performance, power-wise.

I'm pretty sure the standard M240i is just as quick as an M2. Doesn't need the map!

No, the M2 is quicker, but not by much. A mapped M240i takes it past the M2.

[Balmoral]

willmagrath said:

Efbe said:

willmagrath said:

Efbe said:

fabia vrs from 2003-7

130bhp from a 1.9tdi

I had one of these, and the torque meant it would keep up with a Civic type r of the same age without much trouble. Best car I've ever owned.

was the honda broken?

Mine may have been remapped when I bought it, but it did 0-60 in 7.2 pretty easily. Apparently skoda (VW) were very conservative with performance figures. Some owners were recording 155hp standard and very high torque figures. It was very quick in a straight line. When I had a play with the civic it was a rolling start from 30 odd but he couldn't shake me up to 75 ish. Very under-rated wee thing, should have never sold it!

That rather large dollop of mid range torque meant that a Vetec could often be caught on the hop and vital seconds lost dropping down a cog or three and getting it up to "Yo", meanwhile the little Skoda has gone. I had similar encounters with Type R's and my (remapped) 320lb/ft.

[Exige77]

nbetts said:

Howard- said:

Mk4 Golf GTI

Yep. The 2.0 litre petrol version was appallingly slow.

The 1.8 turbo with 5-valves per cylinder was actually OK'ish, designated by the red little letter i on the GTi badge.

I had one of these , bought it from new and it really was a bit of a pudding. Build quality was good as were the Leather Recaro's but it was a bit of a pudding all round to be fair.

The 1.8 20V was (is) very bad. My wife still Keeps her beloved 1998 Mk4 as a spare car for dump runs.

Not worthy of the GTi badge.

[JordanM200]

culpz said:

No, the M2 is quicker, but not by much. A mapped M240i takes it past the M2.

Must be neck and neck, watching youtube videos, 0-200kmph in the M240i is 15.6, not sure on the M2.

[MC Bodge]

I suspect that very few buyers know how much power or performance their car has. I know when I've asked people about their (some fairly fast) cars, they haven't known or even whether it had a turbo.

The AMG A180 owner was possibly genuinely surprised (and disappointed) that his car wasn't faster than a small van. It looked the part when he ordered it.

[Balmoral]

Jakg said:

Howard- said:

Mk4 Golf GTI

Winner.

2.0 N/A

115HP

0-60 in 10.2 seconds.

And it was actually sold as a GTI model (admittedly, only in the UK!)

To put this in perspective, a 1.6L Austin Maestro took 10.4 seconds.

[Ares]

Buzypea said:

I never understood cars like this, all show and no go. Horses for courses though.

I much prefer it the other way around, no sporting pretensions but with plenty of poke under the bonnet.

Fancy being beaten off the line by a Transit connect in an AMG Line Merc. Ha Ha.

Look at the AMG Line A-Class next to the standard. The Standard looks crap in comparison.

Ditto with the BMW 1-Series SE Vs M-Sport.

People are allowed to buy a nicer looking variant

[Ares]

captain_cynic said:

At least BMW makes it easy to differentiate between a badged M-sport and a M car. An M car has the M before the model designation (I.E. M4 or M240i) and the performance you'd expect. "M Sport" cars have it after the model designation (I.E. 116d M-Sport).

Its a £3000-ish quid option for badge snobs and has zero effect on performance, it's a body kit and interior upgrade.

There is no difference between BMW's approach and Mercedes?

[JimbobVFR]

Efbe said:

was the honda broken?

All of your figures are from zero, 30-something or other would be better comparisons.

[Fast Bug]

Jakg said:

Winner.

2.0 N/A

115HP

0-60 in 10.2 seconds.

And it was actually sold as a GTI model (admittedly, only in the UK!)

That was really diluting the brand, turd of an engine for the time! The 1.8T wasn't too bad, the Anniversary cars with 180 bhp went pretty well in all fairness

[Ares]

rockin said:

V10 SPM said:

What's that strange rustling noise coming from Colin Chapman's grave?

Bank notes....?

[neil1jnr]

willmagrath said:

Efbe said:

fabia vrs from 2003-7

130bhp from a 1.9tdi

I had one of these, and the torque meant it would keep up with a Civic type r of the same age without much trouble. Best car I've ever owned.

Either you had yours mapped or the driver of the Type R was useless. I had a run against my mates EP3 Type R years ago in my old mapped Leon DSG with 200bhp/300lbs ft. The Leon was marginally quicker.