vtr as quick as rsi

  1. Newbie Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 8
    #1
    My brother has a clio rsi tht is rapid as fuk. it accelerat like shit of a shovel hitting 60 in around 8 and a half seconds its got a cat back exhaust and a filter on it...........how much power does a standard clio rsi have??? would a vtr be able to keep up with it???
  2. Saxperience Forum Bum Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 4119
    #2
    don`t know how much power it has, but i would think the rsi is faster than the vtr.
  3. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Dec 2005 e-hollywood Posts: 17160 toyata hilux
    #3
    its a 1.8 8v and 110bhp iirc so a bit of breathing it will be quite nippy
  4. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 7705 Saxo VTS
    #4
    Engine Size 1783 cc
    Cylinders 4
    0-60 mph 8.6 s
    Power Output 110 bhp
    Valves 8
    Torque 150 Nm
    Top Speed 121 mph

    Would have a VTR quite easily if driven right when you hit 3rd..
  5. Established Member Joined: Jun 2007 Bristol - St George Posts: 2364 Mk2 Saxo VTS
    #5
    I dunno thats a tight call........it be like a mk1 VTR vs a mk2 VTR

    Cos its like an extra 10bhp between the VTR and Clio
  6. Saxperience Forum Bum Joined: Dec 2005 Wolverhampton Posts: 3000 MK1 VTR TURBO
    #6
    the rsi is a very fast car. my mates was allot faster than my standard vtr
  7. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Nov 2005 Coventry Posts: 17782 Fiesta ST150
    #7
    close call i'd say. MK2 is ment to be 9 seconds 0-60. go to Santa Pod or York Raceway and find out
  8. Established Member Joined: Jun 2007 Bristol - St George Posts: 2364 Mk2 Saxo VTS
    #8
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Baz View Post
    close call i'd say. MK2 is ment to be 9 seconds 0-60. go to Santa Pod or York Raceway and find out
    Yeh thats why i reckon there wont be much in it really........its not like the Clio has a massive power difference

    Plus still have a VTR over one anyway not all about speed its bout looks to

    It be like the race i had 2nyt........me in my mk2 VTR against a mk1 VTR.....though a mk1 VTR is only like have sec slower to 60 i still beat him with ease........though its usually down to the driver of the car
  9. Saxperience Forum Bum Joined: Dec 2005 evesham, worcs United Kingdom (England) Posts: 3813 197 cup
    #9
    my friend had an old 18. 16v clio that was fast
  10. Newbie Joined: Apr 2007 g-town Posts: 15 sweet saxo vtr
    #10
    performance wise that i kno of i only have a de cat exhaust and filters on my mk1 vtr but can still go flyin past mk2 sorry had to stick up for our mk1s
  11. Established Member Joined: May 2007 My House in Burton on trent near derby Posts: 1025 Saxo 1.1 96 Saxo VTR 2000
    #11
    me m8 has 1 and we had a bit of a race on our private track and it was just pulling away from my vtr
  12. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Apr 2006 Ashford Posts: 25611 LY R26
    #12
    RSi will piss you all day long.
  13. Saxperience Forum Bum Joined: May 2006 Kent Posts: 3669 Fiat Seicento, MK2 Furio 2000 X, Pug 206
    #13
    What about the weight difference?
  14. Infrequent Poster Joined: Oct 2006 darlington, Co Durham Posts: 156 mk1 & mk2 vts and leathered mk2 vtr
    #14
    rsi is that the one that looks like the williams. with breather mods they pull on sandard mk2 vts on the road i've never had a play with one off the line.
  15. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Aug 2004 West Mids Posts: 15392 '98 EK9 N1
    #15
    Its the 1.8 16v that looks similar to the Williams. The RSI (1.8 8v) is more like the base
    model Clios.

    RSI no flared arches:



    Valver:




    Dont think a VTR would be up to an RSI imo.
  16. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Mar 2007 Reading Posts: 8980 French tin can
    #16
    Not a lot of difference in BHP from those stats. For straight line acceleration, it would depend on the weight to determine which one would (for example) do a 1/4 mile the quickest.
  17. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Aug 2004 West Mids Posts: 15392 '98 EK9 N1
    #17
    I would imagine the clio would be lighter? The valver weighs in at 980kgs so I
    imagine the RSI to weigh less. VTR weights 920kgs I believe?
  18. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Mar 2007 Yorkshire Posts: 5415 Saxo
    #18
    955kgs for the Clio!


    Cant see a stock VTR beating it tbh....... 110bhp Vs 98bhp unless theres a few corners then the clio is fuct... they handle like shit.
  19. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Mar 2007 Reading Posts: 8980 French tin can
    #19
    Putting all other things aside, the VTR would need to be a lot lighter to do the same 1/4 mile time. If there is 12 BHP difference, I would have thought the VTR would need to be easily 100 kg lighter to compete.
  20. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Apr 2006 Ashford Posts: 25611 LY R26
    #20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by andyvts98 View Post
    rsi is that the one that looks like the williams. with breather mods they pull on sandard mk2 vts on the road i've never had a play with one off the line.
    .....RSi's are slower than VTS.

    RSi are faster than a VTR though by a noticable difference.

    Williams and Valvers are faster than a VTS.
  21. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Mar 2007 Yorkshire Posts: 5415 Saxo
    #21
    vts is 7.1 and vtr is 9.5 iirc
  22. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Apr 2006 Ashford Posts: 25611 LY R26
    #22
    I read it as 7.7 and 9.1 but figures seem to variate whereever you look
  23. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Mar 2007 Reading Posts: 8980 French tin can
    #23
    If you are talking about 0 - 60 times, then you're pushing your luck with "7.1" me thinks...
  24. Infrequent Poster Joined: Oct 2006 darlington, Co Durham Posts: 156 mk1 & mk2 vts and leathered mk2 vtr
    #24
    i see never new they did a stelth clio the valvers are only quicker than standard vts.
  25. Infrequent Poster Joined: Oct 2006 darlington, Co Durham Posts: 156 mk1 & mk2 vts and leathered mk2 vtr
    #25
    just found the spec sheet for the rsi http://carinfo.autold.com/car-renault_clio-rsi-18.html
    it would be close
  26. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Apr 2006 Ashford Posts: 25611 LY R26
    #26
    tbh - played about with an older mates Williams 2,
    2 litre 16 valve thing.
    Both of us had no cat and an airfilter (as if it makes much difference anyways)
    the williams was nothing on my VTS,
    exactly the same.

    Although,
    mine is a late 2001 and his car is a much older car....
    cant remember the reg plate.
    with double the miles also.
  27. Super Moderator Joined: Feb 2004 Tonbridge United Kingdom (England) Posts: 38236 Vtr, 172, throttle bodied track slut
    #27
    williams were fast in the day, but are not really fast now, they have dated quite badly.

    a vts should beat it comfortably, the 2.0L engine in the williams is a great block but after being in a few i cant see what all the fuss was about tbh.

    fantastic looking and running cars, BUT not the B all and end all some owners make you think they are.
  28. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Apr 2006 Ashford Posts: 25611 LY R26
    #28
    yeah - too true.
  29. Infrequent Poster Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 154
    #29
    Well im sorry, but the majority of yous are wrong!

    My close mate has a 96 Phs2 Rsi (110bhp) and on the 1/4 i beat him in my Mk2 Vtr 3 times in a row! I was running 16's all day and the best he could pull was a 17.1!

    Dnt get me wrong, they are quick cars but the majority of them now have high miles and tierd engines! There are so many variables with cars to make a straight comparison!

    My advise to you and to all the others that keep making these threads (is my car faster than this, can this car beat that etc) Get on the 1/4 or for an all round comparison, the track and let the best man win!
  30. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Dec 2005 e-hollywood Posts: 17160 toyata hilux
    #30
    my tired engine still beats 172s thankyou lord
  31. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Jul 2007 West Sussex Posts: 7566 CLS63 AMG
    #31
    RSi and VTR would be very interesting. Would have thought the RSi had an edge, but like it has been said, most have tired engines by now, and so many of them are modified anyway, hard to do a fair comparison. Williams vs VTS would be another brilliant contest, would have thought again the Williams would have the edge though... then again, most of those ancient things are well past their prime now anyway so would be no surprise if a late low/medium miles VTS running on 98 Oct would win.
  32. Newbie Joined: Apr 2007 g-town Posts: 15 sweet saxo vtr
    #32
    dont kno bout a rsi but my mk1 vtr is as quick as a 1.8 16v xr2i
  33. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Dec 2005 e-hollywood Posts: 17160 toyata hilux
    #33
    i doubt it mate
  34. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Apr 2007 Bournemouth Posts: 15289 '04 VW Transporter.
    #34
    dont no a lot bout the 8v but the 1800 16v's would piss over a vtr, if driven properly should cain a vts too.
  35. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Jul 2007 West Sussex Posts: 7566 CLS63 AMG
    #35
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MiniGibbo View Post
    dont no a lot bout the 8v but the 1800 16v's would piss over a vtr, if driven properly should cain a vts too.
    If both are stock I seriously doubt a 1800 16v could "cain" a VTS. Reason I'm quite sure is that my mate has a 2006 Fiesta ST 2.0 and my totally standard VTS (with a rattling loose exhaust I might add!) easily has the same acceleration as that up to legal speeds, seriously...