Gurney
|
Scirocco R20Looks interesting. Surprised though that with 261bhp it can only do the (ok meaningless) 0-62 dash in 6.4s. Rather light in the scheme of things too. Still, I like. It's a shame that the V6 now seems to have bit the dust as a performance engine though 
|
Frank Bullitt
|
Not surprised on the 0-60 - those front tyres will be like a pair of catherine-wheels at full-chat; it's essentially the S3 engine without quattro.
|
Twelfth Monkey
|
The loss of a six-pot and 4wd is a pity, but the 0-60 time is probably conservative. VW's figures usually are.
|
"him"
|
Does it have a limited slip diff?
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
It's got VW's XDS electronic diff, which isn't quite the same thing
|
Nice Guy Eddie
|
It's odd that the Audi S3 does 0-60 in 5.7 with what I assume is a heavier car with the same engine. My car has 30bhp less and takes 6.8 so I would think that the Scirocco figures are more acurate.
|
"him"
|
| Nice Guy Eddie wrote: | | It's odd that the Audi S3 does 0-60 in 5.7 with what I assume is a heavier car with the same engine. My car has 30bhp less and takes 6.8 so I would think that the Scirocco figures are more acurate. |
The Audi also has a driven rear axle though...
|
scamper
|
| Frank Bullitt wrote: | | Not surprised on the 0-60 - those front tyres will be like a pair of catherine-wheels at full-chat; it's essentially the S3 engine without quattro. |
Not so sure. My Gti chipped, could handle 240hp plus off the mark easily in anything but really damp conditions.
|
"him"
|
| scamper wrote: | | Not so sure. My Gti chipped, could handle 240hp plus off the mark easily in anything but really damp conditions. |
The thing is to get those times a side-stepped clutch would be required, and hence wheelspin would be an issue.
I have always said they should do a "road tester/lunatic" time and a "this is my car/clutch" time and publish both!
|
ALF
|
This is why one should look at 0-100 figures not 0-60's - the first few yards is everything for the 0-60, but rarely relevant on the road.
|
Guitar Zero
|
I saw this and it's depressing.
Instead of finding ways to extract polar bear friendly performance via the usage of the engineering tedium aka, the in line 4 cylinder - why can't they work out a way to make excessively musical engines that don't wipe their arses on the still beating hearts of displaced penguins ?.
Ford have collectively pussied out of continuing the 5 cylinder petrol engine lineage ( a tip no doubt taken from the book " how to make your model line up as appetising as a cold bottle of piss ") so the market is there for the taking.
The anti speed wetties are going to win the war, so if I'm going to be electronically tamed to stick to 50 mph via the electrodes attached to my testicles, can I at least get to 50 mph as sonorously as possible ? (like an S8 V10 mit sportzen exhaustenfluggen please).
|
Matt
|
I'm actually hoping those sound boxes that Lotus are developing for hybrids make it onto the after-market, so I can get a very loud six-sounding one to cover the mooing from the Astra.
|
Stuntman
|
I think it's disappointing that the Scirocco R20 isn't 4WD. Probably means that the Golf R20 won't be either.
Both are now off my notional 3rd car list, which now reads S3, RS3 or TTRS.
|
Gurney
|
| Guitar Zero wrote: | I saw this and it's depressing.
Instead of finding ways to extract polar bear friendly performance via the usage of the engineering tedium aka, the in line 4 cylinder - why can't they work out a way to make excessively musical engines that don't wipe their arses on the still beating hearts of displaced penguins ?.
Ford have collectively pussied out of continuing the 5 cylinder petrol engine lineage ( a tip no doubt taken from the book " how to make your model line up as appetising as a cold bottle of piss ") so the market is there for the taking.
The anti speed wetties are going to win the war, so if I'm going to be electronically tamed to stick to 50 mph via the electrodes attached to my testicles, can I at least get to 50 mph as sonorously as possible ? (like an S8 V10 mit sportzen exhaustenfluggen please). |
Exactly, Donk for PM.
|
scamper
|
| Stuntman wrote: |
Both are now off my notional 3rd car list, which now reads S3, RS3 or TTRS. |
Third car? 
|
Eff One
|
I rather like the look of this - essentially a TTS without 4WD for about £7k less. I can't see traction being a major issue - if my late 90's Fiat Coupe could get 228 lb/ft down I'm sure this can cope with 30 more. If it's accurate that kerbweight is impressive.
For me this is much more appealing than an R32 which was always far too bloated and thirsty for my taste. I'd take a quarter of a ton less lard, better handling and lower consumption over a sonorous engine note any day. In any case, I was pleasantly surprised by how fruity the TTS sounded from the outside - hopefully this is more of the same.
|
Twelfth Monkey
|
| Eff One wrote: | | ....over a sonorous engine note any day. |
I only hope that your Alfa is now in the hands of someone who appreciates such things!
|
Eff One
|
| Twelfth Monkey wrote: | | Eff One wrote: | | ....over a sonorous engine note any day. |
I only hope that your Alfa is now in the hands of someone who appreciates such things! |
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a great engine - but not at any cost. The 156 GTA is neither overweight nor excessively thirsty, nor does it have a cheaper, lighter sibling that is its performance and dynamic equal. You could level all those accusations at an R32, which would rule it out for me.
Anyway on paper and in pics the R20 has a lot of appeal for me - more than the Focus RS which even in that lovely blue is just too Max Power.
|
Twelfth Monkey
|
I do agree about the Focus's image. The mk1 RS was so much more subtle.
|
Pkh72
|
| Stuntman wrote: | I think it's disappointing that the Scirocco R20 isn't 4WD. Probably means that the Golf R20 won't be either.
Both are now off my notional 3rd car list, which now reads S3, RS3 or TTRS. |
I think my disappointment would be compensated somewhat by the fact my 3rd car would be either an S3, RS3 or TTRS. 
|
ALF
|
| Guitar Zero wrote: | I saw this and it's depressing.
Instead of finding ways to extract polar bear friendly performance via the usage of the engineering tedium aka, the in line 4 cylinder - why can't they work out a way to make excessively musical engines that don't wipe their arses on the still beating hearts of displaced penguins ?.
|
Indeed. Most have given up the fight - but BMW have not, and this pushes me towards their products. 39mpg combined and sub 200g/km from the latest 330i saloon is seriously impressive!
|
"him"
|
| ALF wrote: | | ...39mpg combined and sub 200g/km from the latest 330i saloon is seriously impressive! |
And almost certainly unattainable...
But I guess if it keep the "E-Weenies" off our backs and still lets us drive interesting cars, then it must be a good thing!
|
Guitar Zero
|
Never mind sub 200 carbons - try sub 180 !
I've been sniffing around LCI E60 530Is and I was staggered to find that not only does the 272 bhp 3.0 have the same carbon rating as the lower tune 3.0 and 2.5 (in the 525i and 523i respectively), it's only 178 g/km !!. This is only 4 more than my manual D5.
For some inexplicable reason (black magic and voodoo probably), the auto version is less carbon-a-rific (new word - I claim dibs) than the manuals.
BMW may have lost their way with many things - but shit hot, up to the minute, greenies and governments can go piss up a rope powertrains is not one of them.
By way of comparison, an XF 3.0 petrol produces 249 carbons, but only offers 240 anaemic horsies. That's £425 a year in road tax in other words.
|
