• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

[04x06] June 13th, 2004

RenaultFreak said:
the Clio is sick, I want a puppy too :twisted:
Click to expand...
I own the previous model, known over in the UK as the 172. It is one deranged puppy, and Clarkson's thoughts are pretty much spot on. I loved his comments about how the "the car will almost certainly fall apart before it makes you deaf and mad!"! The images of the Clio on three wheels acting as a 'tripod' are nuts.

He might have been just a touch scathing about the interior, but I do agree with him - it is cheap, not up to the standards of fit and finish as seen in the new Mini. However, when it comes to performance, it kicks the Mini square in the balls and bolts off into the distance!

As JC said, for the price, it is impossible to go faster for less $$. The Clio is not much in a straight line, but excels in the hills and twisty tarmac. Because the little bugger is so light (~1040Kg) and possess oversized brakes which never fade (brakes are from the Laguna, a VW Passat sized Renault sedan). Another bonus, over here in Aus, is that it is ridiculously cheap to insure, doesn't attract unwanted attention from idiots on the road (and the coppers) and offers good fuel consumption (8.7L/100Km with 'enthusiastic' driving). Good fun on the track as well, the light weight means that one can brake really late for corners.

TopGear 2003 Clio V6 mk2.mov 21.9MB

If anyone is interested, I've got a vid of the Clio 172/182's big brother, the mid mounted, V6 engined monster that the Stig spun across the finish line backwards when doing his timed lap. Apparently a very easy car to spin in the wet, supposed to be Porsche like. One was written off on the first day of the press launch of the mk2 model last year on a wet track.
[/i]
 
SpetsnazOp said:
When BMW is making 333hp out of a 3.2 V6
Click to expand...

Show me the BMW V6 which has 333hp! :lol:
There is no V6 in any BMW.

cya
Oli
 
its alll very nice but when u look at caterham R500, when they can get a 1.8 ltr to develope 230 bhp , u goto kinda think WOW whats going on with everyone else. And witha total weight of 460kg, u can just emagin how quick this puppy is

more details:

ENGINE
1.8 litre XPower K Series.
16 valve DOHC
Max Power: 230 bhp @ 8600 rpm
Max torque: 155 lbsft @ 7200 rpm
0-60 mph: 3.4 secs
Max speed:150 mph

TRANSMISSION
CLOSE RATIO 6 SPEED
1st: 2.69:1
2nd: 2.01:1
3rd: 1.59:1
4th: 1.32:1
5th: 1.13:1
6th 1.00:1
Reverse: 2.96:1
Final drive: 3.62:1

SUSPENSION
Front: Aerofoil section wishbones
Rear: de Dion axle located by lower A-frame and Watts linkage

BRAKES
Twin circuit split front/rear with low level warning system. Discs front and rear Handbrake operates on rear wheels.

STEERING
Rack and pinion, 1.93 turns lock to lock

WEIGHT
460kg

WHEELS AND TYRES
61/2J(f)/ 71/2J(r) x 13" lightweight aluminium wheels with Avon CR500 tyres.
 
SpetsnazOp said:
Renesis said:
Not me...

but seriously Jeremy was dumb.. the Solstice is awesome
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it is kinda weak for the amount of displacment (and this is a trend on american cars, look at the 4.6L ford V8 reviewed on topgear last week. When BMW is making 333hp out of a 3.2 V6, making 25 percent less from a 4.6 V8 is kinda sad.

ALSO

Does anyone know the song that was played in the first half of the Clio review?
Thanks in advance,
SpetsnazOP
Click to expand...
BMW can also make 360 horsepower out of that same 3.2 Litre I6.
 
peppy_toad said:
RenaultFreak said:
the Clio is sick, I want a puppy too :twisted:
Click to expand...
I own the previous model, known over in the UK as the 172. It is one deranged puppy, and Clarkson's thoughts are pretty much spot on. I loved his comments about how the "the car will almost certainly fall apart before it makes you deaf and mad!"! The images of the Clio on three wheels acting as a 'tripod' are nuts.

He might have been just a touch scathing about the interior, but I do agree with him - it is cheap, not up to the standards of fit and finish as seen in the new Mini. However, when it comes to performance, it kicks the Mini square in the balls and bolts off into the distance!

As JC said, for the price, it is impossible to go faster for less $$. The Clio is not much in a straight line, but excels in the hills and twisty tarmac. Because the little bugger is so light (~1040Kg) and possess oversized brakes which never fade (brakes are from the Laguna, a VW Passat sized Renault sedan). Another bonus, over here in Aus, is that it is ridiculously cheap to insure, doesn't attract unwanted attention from idiots on the road (and the coppers) and offers good fuel consumption (8.7L/100Km with 'enthusiastic' driving). Good fun on the track as well, the light weight means that one can brake really late for corners.

TopGear 2003 Clio V6 mk2.mov 21.9MB

If anyone is interested, I've got a vid of the Clio 172/182's big brother, the mid mounted, V6 engined monster that the Stig spun across the finish line backwards when doing his timed lap. Apparently a very easy car to spin in the wet, supposed to be Porsche like. One was written off on the first day of the press launch of the mk2 model last year on a wet track.
[/i]
Click to expand...

I know the Laguna, I drive one :wink: mk1 ph2

and the v6 video...I wish there was a bigger/better quality version of it, I drool over the thought of owning a v6 :)
 
My dad has a new Laguna (down know what type though).
When I was a kid my dream car was the Renault 5 Turbo (and the Audi Quattro).
One Renault I wouldn't mind owning when I have to settle down and get a wife and kids is the Espace F1 :lol: .
 
Likwid said:
I was happy to see Jeremy point out my biggest problem with the Mustang though. I can understand the current Mustang because its based on the 25 year old Fox platform. The new Mustang however still retaining the solid rear axle is just B.S. Its a cost savings Ford says but I know more then a few people that would pay extra for an independent rear suspension.... I believe, as I do with drum brakes, that old tech "money saving" parts dont belong on your companies performance car.
Click to expand...

As other people pointed out, Ford claims the reason the new Mustangs will get the soild is for the drag racing people.. True, but boy does it suck in the bends (my father owns an V6 02).
But the good thing Ford does have is the fact if you have the money to drop, you can get right now a Mustang with IRS, in the forum of the Mach 1 and SVT Cobra. They call come with IRS, but many people over look it them for the GT.
But we Americans need not worry... With the rise of the Ford GT, pride will be restored (BTW, i hope you guys read the article from July's Top Gear mag where they had a Ford GT do 200MPH+, and with its HP numbers soon to be bumped up)
 
Synaethesia said:
i agree with you zyran, im a big fan of squuueeeeeeeezzing ever gram out of car and sticking a hot poker up the arse of my engine to sqqqqqquuuuueeeezzzz ever horse out of it. Tis why im a big fan of Caterham cars, not many other cars can give a porsche a run for its money with a 1.8L vauxhall engine.
Click to expand...

It's not a Vauxhall engine, it's the 1.8 Rover K series. Declined in so many variants and used by so many English cars that it's difficult to keep track. Has powered the Elise since the beginning (and until the 111R/Exige 2 came out), still powers the MG TF, has powered the Caterhams for ages now as well, and I'm sure there are other cars too. Its advantage is that it weighs only 72 kg. And its hp figures go from the simple (120) to nearly the double (230 in the R500, but then it's totally useless under 4k rpm - this is what you get when using cams the width of needles).
 
Gimme some songs

Gimme some songs

Can anyone tell me any of the songs included in the Caddy CTS review?
 
While I'm here, albeit temporarily, allow me to indulge in a bit of thread necromancy if you will (I turned 25 on the date of the last post, I am now 38, and this was by complete coincidence the oldest post in the sub-forum) because this episode has recently aired again on Dave. Probably not for the first time this year, but it was the first time I'd seen it in ages.

The "can you run a car on poo?" segment has turned out to be amazingly prophetic. What they were really asking is "can you run a car on compressed methane?" which we all knew was possible at the first airdate, but specifically, "can you run a car on methane derived from cow manure?"

Nottingham City Transport, this year, has started doing exactly that. Well, not exactly, but they're running a new fleet of buses on "bio-gas", i.e. methane produced from cow manure (and food waste, or anything else that can be digested in a similar way) - doing exactly what Richard Hammond did 13 years ago with a converted Rover. The buses are easily recognisable as they're a facelift of the "Boris buses" driving round London, with that odd diagonal window on the driver's side.

So the next time anyone says Top Gear never did anything useful, show them this, bring them to Nottingham... ride on route 6, on the bus named after recently-retired cricket commentator Henry Blofeld, because it passes Trent Bridge on the way to Edwalton.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top