Noob performance question

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:10 pm

Is there a huge amount of deffernce between the VVC and the 2.0's coupes (turbo or otherwise)

I know there is on paper bhp differences, but in real life terms, is there much difference?

Cheers
Skelo

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:12 pm

see if you can get a trip in a coupe turbo, should answer your question...

5teve L · Post by **5teve L** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:16 pm

skelo wrote:Is there a huge amount of deffernce between the VVC and the 2.0's coupes (turbo or otherwise)

I know there is on paper bhp differences, but in real life terms, is there much difference?

Cheers
Skelo

In reliability no

VVC or 2.0 nasp is just not in the same class as the turbo though,turbo all the way

craigwint11 · Post by **craigwint11** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:47 pm

i had a 200 vi (vvc) before my coupe turbo. vvc was quick up to 60, and was alot quicker than i expected. i found it dosnt pick up as quick once you get past 70/80 (on a private dragstrip of course

). The turbo, once going, pulls like a train.
my vi used to do 30-35 miles to the gallon easy and cant recall it being very expensive to insure.. so in that way its better, but gotta be honest, having driven (got) a turbo.. a wouldnt go back!!

cocacola · Post by **cocacola** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:55 pm

HIJACK!!!

so how much diff would there be in my 620ti (with T28) and a similar coupe turbo?

C2K · Post by **C2K** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:59 pm

VVC would pwn 2.0 nasp, but even at 160 spec a Turbo would whoop it.

rover220 · Post by **rover220** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:06 pm

C2K wrote:VVC would pwn 2.0 nasp, .

not quite

Sheaf · Post by **Sheaf** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:14 pm

I've always got the impression vvc and t16 nasp were similar in performance but different in delivery.

Turbos are just plain rapid though.

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:14 pm

Once youve been in a turbo the VVC feels like a lot is going on under the bonnet, but not much is going on under the wheels..

ChrisD · Post by **ChrisD** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:10 am

I have to stand up for the VVC, it may not be as fast as the turbo but its not as far off as you would think lower down considering the 55bhp difference. (Yes, it would pwn a 220 nasp)

victor3 · Post by **victor3** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:46 am

rovex wrote:Once youve been in a turbo the VVC feels like a lot is going on under the bonnet, but not much is going on under the wheels..

C2K · Post by **C2K** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:37 am

rover220 wrote:
C2K wrote:VVC would pwn 2.0 nasp, .
not quite

YA RLY

Standard for standard, it would leave a Nasp behind - especially in something involving corners. You can't compare a modded nasp to a flat VVC - else you may as well talk 160 spec. Like for like, The T may have more torque but it's carrying over 100Keys of lard on top.

Even if it's not convincing, it don't matter if it's an inch or a mile.

Post by **Punx0r** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:26 pm

I wouldn't call it pwnage.

As said the VVC runs out of puff quite quickly. I found mine hit quite a barrier at 110.

I've not had them head-to-head, but a 420 nasp isn't much slower especially considering the weight penalty.

Rovertech 2.0

Noob performance question

Noob performance question

Re: Noob performance question