new megane r26-r - Page 3

antony101 · 31-05-2008, 06:23 PM

let this be the final word.

I like the golf's, however they are aesthetically bland -no body can argue with this.

I still do not agree wth your times (steffo) I am sorry, no reputable magazine i.e Evo or Car have reported such times. Both of these magazines rate the megane as a better car, with faster acceleration.

We must agree to disagree. I could post 100's more videos of the megane flogging golfs but i will forego.

Thanks guys. Enjoy your r32 -rodp and i will enjoy my, my, hang on i know longer have a car I ride a bike!

Steffo · 01-06-2008, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3

Correction: It should be "faster than".

You are hardly in a position to nitpick other people's grammatical mistakes.

It wasn't a grammatical error, it was spelling. "Your," and "You're," are different words with different meanings... :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by antony101

let this be the final word.

I like the golf's, however they are aesthetically bland -no body can argue with this.

I still do not agree wth your times (steffo) I am sorry, no reputable magazine i.e Evo or Car have reported such times. Both of these magazines rate the megane as a better car, with faster acceleration.

We must agree to disagree. I could post 100's more videos of the megane flogging golfs but i will forego.

From what I've read, everybody says the Megane is a better track car then the Golf, but the Golf is the better package overall.

My times are not from reputable sources? Best Motoring isn't a reputable source? I see...

You could post hundreds more videos of Megane's flogging manual GTI Golfs, but DSG's... not bloody likely son. The DSG gearbox easily makes up for the GTI's 18kW/20Nm deficit. Superior technology. As the saying goes, quality over quantity.

loltastic · 01-06-2008, 06:49 AM

Here's your GTi Steffo,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj2R4EKqQWM

Nice 16sec pass - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yYsI...eature=related

Aaand, chopped again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIujY...eature=related

There's millions of vids on the net of all sorts of cars being chopped by other cars, doesn't mean it's a foregone conclusion does it. You have yer little DSG, I'll stick with my 6 speed manual, unless of course, Mitsubishi make their DSG box handle more than 470Nm, then I'll get an EVO X.

Steffo · 01-06-2008, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loltastic

Here's your GTi Steffo,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj2R4EKqQWM

Nice 16sec pass - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yYsI...eature=related

Aaand, chopped again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIujY...eature=related

There's millions of vids on the net of all sorts of cars being chopped by other cars, doesn't mean it's a foregone conclusion does it. You have yer little DSG, I'll stick with my 6 speed manual, unless of course, Mitsubishi make their DSG box handle more than 470Nm, then I'll get an EVO X.

So you post a video of a GTI racing an outright faster car on the freeway and losing, then you post a video of a GTI that's not using the launch control and doing who knows what and making a *d up noise just as the run starts... and then the final video totally owns you, an EVO that's known to be ~5.0/13.0 by reputable car magazines, against an R32 that's known to be ~5.9/14.2 by reputable car magazines and the EVO is unable to pull a car length on the Golf. In fact, watching it, he's unable to shake the Golf from his rear bumper. Nice work... oh wait.

http://www.dragtimes.com/Volkswagen-...lip-11707.html

Stock Golf GTI V doing 14.51 @ 95.02mph.

Its pretty easy for me to prove my point that the magazine times for them are slow and that they're performers within their class level. Your stupid comparison against the EVO means what? They're not intended competitors.

The difference between the vidoes I've posted and the ones you have is that I've posted direct competitors (Megane 225 vs GTI eg) whilst yours have been irrelevant crap (EVO vs GTI). Though the last one is funny, where the Bits'r'missin can't shake the IV R32. Nice chuckle at that one.

:

XBROO · 01-06-2008, 08:17 AM

Is this the ford forum? I must of click onto a link some where along the line. I'll just keep hitting back until I get back onto the ford forum. I didn't know the Sydney mardi gra had its own car forum.

loltastic · 01-06-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

So you post a video of a GTI racing an outright faster car on the freeway and losing, then you post a video of a GTI that's not using the launch control and doing who knows what and making a *d up noise just as the run starts... and then the final video totally owns you, an EVO that's known to be ~5.0/13.0 by reputable car magazines, against an R32 that's known to be ~5.9/14.2 by reputable car magazines and the EVO is unable to pull a car length on the Golf. In fact, watching it, he's unable to shake the Golf from his rear bumper. Nice work... oh wait.

http://www.dragtimes.com/Volkswagen-...lip-11707.html

Stock Golf GTI V doing 14.51 @ 95.02mph.

Its pretty easy for me to prove my point that the magazine times for them are slow and that they're performers within their class level. Your stupid comparison against the EVO means what? They're not intended competitors.

The difference between the vidoes I've posted and the ones you have is that I've posted direct competitors (Megane 225 vs GTI eg) whilst yours have been irrelevant crap (EVO vs GTI). Though the last one is funny, where the Bits'r'missin can't shake the IV R32. Nice chuckle at that one.

:

me dead you're an idiot mate. Did you even read my post? The point was that anyone can post stupid videos of cars beating cars, it doesn't mean anything. Also, I think a Golf R32 is a competitor for an EVO - they're both AWD, 4dr, and cost roughly $60k - Just the EVO outclasses it, except for maybe interior quality (gotta hand it to VW there) Anyway, you missed my point completely, whether deliberate or not, I'm done.

Steffo · 01-06-2008, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loltastic

me dead you're an idiot mate. Did you even read my post? The point was that anyone can post stupid videos of cars beating cars, it doesn't mean anything. Also, I think a Golf R32 is a competitor for an EVO - they're both AWD, 4dr, and cost roughly $60k - Just the EVO outclasses it, except for maybe interior quality (gotta hand it to VW there) Anyway, you missed my point completely, whether deliberate or not, I'm done.

You missed my point. I posted vidoes of two direct competitors racing - not unrealistic races that have a clear outcome!

Golf R32 and Lancer EVO are indeed competitors. You can either buy the Golf, and have a reliable, good on the fuel, comfortable, great daily drive or buy an EVO and have back-breakingly stiff ride, poor quality everything, drinks like a V8... but goes like stink around a track. Whenever they're compared by a mag, the results are the same - EVO faster, Golf better overall car.

loltastic · 01-06-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

You missed my point. I posted vidoes of two direct competitors racing - not unrealistic races that have a clear outcome!

Golf R32 and Lancer EVO are indeed competitors. You can either buy the Golf, and have a reliable, good on the fuel, comfortable, great daily drive or buy an EVO and have back-breakingly stiff ride, poor quality everything, drinks like a V8... but goes like stink around a track. Whenever they're compared by a mag, the results are the same - EVO faster, Golf better overall car.

This just proves to me and everyone else you have no understanding of actually subjectively comparing two cars YOURSELF. The EVO X is a much softer riding, more comfortable and more economical car than previous gen EVOs. Even the EVO 9 will average 10L/100km in a combined cycle, and down to 8L/100 on the highway, so don't give me that crap, Steffo. The interior quality in the EVO X is something that's been improved aswell, still probably not up to VW standard, but an improvement.

You are so biased against anything Japanese, I actually feel sorry for you.

Nikked · 01-06-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

You want my opinions on those cars?

EVO - Fast but rubbish. Great if you want to only go to the track though.

R35 GT-R V-Spec - Not out yet, but will be a moving computer like the normal GT-R. With pumped up press cars putting 70awhp+ extra down then the customer spec models, and manufacutrer BS about times, I can only laugh about the thing. Plus Keiichi Tsuchiya on Best Motoring drove it with all the computers off and said it was a wallowy, understeery boat. So its basically a CPU that you sit in and get carted around in. Whole lot of fun that isn't.

NSX - Overrated, slow, very thirsty, sold poorly because of it, overpriced, beaten by everything in its class bar the Ferrari F348tb it set out to beat - which they rectified in 1993 with the F348 GTB. By 2002 it was a joke... a HSV GTS could outdrag one and an EVO or STi of the year would hand it its butt on any circuit.

Probably one of the few people in the world disillusioned enough to say these things.

For starters:

-NSX was one, if not the first all alloy cars, more reliable then most ferrari's.
0-60 in 5 seconds and 13.4 1/4's would be nothing to laugh at 16-odd years ago, with only 200kw (Because of the gentleman’s agreement in japan) Are you saying that Ayrton Senna told honda to create a poor handling car? Is all aluminium, and a motor that can happily rev all day poor engineering? Why are they still commanding high prices worldwide?

...And thats all I can't be bothered arguing with a snobby tea-drinking monarchist.

loltastic · 01-06-2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikked

Probably one of the few people in the world disillusioned enough to say these things.

For starters:

-NSX was one, if not the first all alloy cars, more reliable then most ferrari's.
0-60 in 5 seconds and 13.4 1/4's would be nothing to laugh at 16-odd years ago, with only 200kw (Because of the gentleman’s agreement in japan) Are you saying that Ayrton Senna told honda to create a poor handling car? Is all aluminium, and a motor that can happily rev all day poor engineering? Why are they still commanding high prices worldwide?

...And thats all I can't be bothered arguing with a snobby tea-drinking monarchist.

I missed that post. NSX rubbish? GTR adding 70hpatw? WTF?! LOL! Go and watch any Best Motoring involving the NSX, it hands about anything its *** around Tskuba. The NSX-R way back when would run 12.6's, and it had probably the best chassis made to date. Jesus what a laugh.

Steffo · 01-06-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loltastic

This just proves to me and everyone else you have no understanding of actually subjectively comparing two cars YOURSELF. The EVO X is a much softer riding, more comfortable and more economical car than previous gen EVOs. Even the EVO 9 will average 10L/100km in a combined cycle, and down to 8L/100 on the highway, so don't give me that crap, Steffo. The interior quality in the EVO X is something that's been improved aswell, still probably not up to VW standard, but an improvement.

You are so biased against anything Japanese, I actually feel sorry for you.

I've never met an EVO or STi owner with a 10L/100km average. Anything 1 through 10 for EVO's or MY95 through 08 for STi's. Will let you know when I do though.

It may be softer and more comfortable then previous EVO's, but that's comparing it to its forebear. Compared to the Golf on the other hand, different story.

Even the EVO's biggest fans tell it like it is - its a cheap, badly made economy car that's very, very fast. You just sit in it and put your hands on the steering wheel, the dash, the door trims and you feel the cheap, crap materials and the flimsy build.

Here's a good one, according to the United States EPA, who test new cars fuel consumption and release their own figures, the 2008 Lancer Evolution gets 17/22 city/highway in mpg. The Golf R32 according to them gets 18/23. Their testing methodology is pretty relaxed, and especially favours torquey, low revving, tall geared cars.

17/22 mpg = 13.84L/100km city, 10.69L/100km highway.

18/23 mpg = 13.07L/100km city, 10.23L/100km highway.

^^ Those figures are more in line with real life.

Steffo · 01-06-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loltastic

I missed that post. NSX rubbish? GTR adding 70hpatw? WTF?! LOL! Go and watch any Best Motoring involving the NSX, it hands about anything its *** around Tskuba. The NSX-R way back when would run 12.6's, and it had probably the best chassis made to date. Jesus what a laugh.

The best chassis compared to what?

How about a Porsche Carrera GT? Has it got a better chassis then that? What about a Porsche-Dauer 962 LeMans? What about a McLaren F1? What about a Ferrari Enzo/Maserati MC12? What about a Ferrari F40?

Best chassis is quite a broad statement...

And 12.6?

Its really funny how the NSX only ever beat anything at home on Tsukuba. Everywhere else it was taken, it got whooped.

996 GT3 vs NSX-R 3.2

N/A 6 on N/A 6, and that's the best ever NSX stripper, but not for 911's...

996 GT3 RS vs NSX-R

Ouch!

2003 Ferrari F360 Challenge Stradale vs 2002 Honda NSX-R 3.2

Absolute, utter, domination there.

2003 Lamborghini Gallardo vs 2002 Honda NSX-R

Skyline R34 GT-R V-Spec vs NSX-R

And of course, Japan's best ever car. Notice how the track-pack, stripped out, NSX-R struggles to keep ahead of the GT-R V-Spec, which has a full interior, air conditioning, all the power luxo gadgets etc. That site, unfortunately, has no GT-R V-Spec N1's to compare to the NSX-R. The track-pack GT-R would do some further beating to the best ever Honda, and apparantley, best ever chassis...

1997 Honda NSX 3.2 vs 1994 Ferrari F355 Berlinetta

It seems unable to take out its competitors in anything. But its the best ever chassis?

mcnews · 01-06-2008, 10:13 AM

Front wheel drive.

I rest my case.

antony101 · 01-06-2008, 10:17 AM

Steffo you are incorrect - the megane is coming up leaps and bounds with respect to build quality. All my videos compared direct competitors so i hope you are not questioing them. Also if you are going to start comparing fuel consumption to win a PERFORMANCE oriented thread argument you should think again.

A firm ride in a megane or an evo is intentional to get maximum performance around a track or any spirited corner. The r32 and golf gti are more compromised packages attempting to be the best of both worlds but in my eyes not reaching either goal.

Sorry

Steffo · 01-06-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antony101

Steffo you are incorrect - the megane is coming up leaps and bounds with respect to build quality. All my videos compared direct competitors so i hope you are not questioing them. Also if you are going to start comparing fuel consumption to win a PERFORMANCE oriented thread argument you should think again.

A firm ride in a megane or an evo is intentional to get maximum performance around a track or any spirited corner. The r32 and golf gti are more compromised packages attempting to be the best of both worlds but in my eyes not reaching either goal.

Sorry

One of my good mates owns a 225 because I told him to buy one. His parents, my old man, my best friend's parents, and another bloke I know (thanks to me) have Golf 2.0 FSI Comfortline 6sp autos, all of them the same with differing colours (lol). The Megane build vs Golf build is not comparable, the VW trumps it.

lol @ stiff ride to be fast. That's not really the case.

Steffo · 01-06-2008, 10:24 AM

By the way...

: @ the bogan comments about the R26R being FWD so it must be "bad."

mcnews · 01-06-2008, 11:21 AM

No, just personal opinion. You see I can't possibly imagine any reason a driving enthusiast would want a front wheel drive car as to me they are the absolute pox. Some people like them, all power to them, I will never own one.

Bogan... Maybe... Guess the F6 could be seen as Bogan... The Pacer with 340 stroked to 386, manual, Brembos, Konis and track based suspension would probably be seen as bogan but as it weighs about as much as a little modern sports car but with more than twice as much power and brakes to match it is far from a straightline shooter... But hey we have an RX8 also (Only small sports car that could in desperate times take four adults if really, really needed - There are front wheel drive options but for me they are not options,).... And in the garage at the moment two single-cylinder 450s and a 1,340cc four-cylinder marvel of modern engineering. Am I a bogan? Maybe. Am I a 100% revhead that enjoys all things that go brrm? Most certainly.

By the way the want list for next car are in order of preference... Cayman S, Z4 or the new 1 series coupe with that great new twin-turbo donk BMW are trying to squeeze into everything they can.

Steffo · 01-06-2008, 11:28 AM

No its not the cars. Its the mentality, FWD is bad because I don't like it.

The RX-8 is not faster then a Clio Sport, forget about the Megane's. But its RWD so its meant to be faster?

Good FWD is not a bad thing at all.

And get the 135i Sport! They're surprisingly good value for a BMW. $71,400 for the manual. The closest thing it has to a competitor is the Nissan 350Z Track ($67,990) which the Bee Emm stomps.

mcnews · 01-06-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

The RX-8 is not faster then a Clio Sport, forget about the Megane's. But its RWD so its meant to be faster?

Good FWD is not a bad thing at all.
.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, it is no difference to me what is quicker. If it is front wheel drive, I simply wouldn't want it and it has zero appeal to me. Did you not read that. Or can you only quote magazine figures as outright statistics... A Porsche Cayman S is probably slower than some front wheel drivers... Which would you want to own and derive the most driving pleasure from?

mcnews · 01-06-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

And get the 135i Sport! They're surprisingly good value for a BMW. $71,400 for the manual. The closest thing it has to a competitor is the Nissan 350Z Track ($67,990) which the Bee Emm stomps.

It would depend on how they drive. I thought we would end up with a 350Z but when driving them back to back with the RX8 the Mazda was an infinitely more intoxicating and enjoyable drive and required a lot more of the driver which in a 'sports' car I like. You also have the plain dumb interior packaging of the Nissan compared to the interior design brilliance of the Mazda (as long as you are not taller than average that is!) . Nearly ended up with an S2000 Honda too actually. What I would really like is the S2000 engine and gearbox mated to the Mazda. Now that would be a seriously titillating drive.

Steffo · 01-06-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnews

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, it is no difference to me what is quicker. If it is front wheel drive, I simply wouldn't want it and it has zero appeal to me. Did you not read that. Or can you only quote magazine figures as outright statistics... A Porsche Cayman S is probably slower than some front wheel drivers... Which would you want to own and derive the most driving pleasure from?

I didn't post any magazine figures, FFS. Here, I'll quote myself...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myself

No its not the cars. Its the mentality, FWD is bad because I don't like it.

The RX-8 is not faster then a Clio Sport, forget about the Megane's. But its RWD so its meant to be faster?

Good FWD is not a bad thing at all.

And get the 135i Sport! They're surprisingly good value for a BMW. $71,400 for the manual. The closest thing it has to a competitor is the Nissan 350Z Track ($67,990) which the Bee Emm stomps.

Either I'm blind... or...

And no, there is no, nor has there ever been, factory standard production front wheel drive car faster than or as fast as a Porsche Cayman S. There's a faster one then the regular Cayman, its called the Megane R26 R Ultimate. Which would I rather own? The Megane. There's nothing cool about the 2.7 Cayman, and you'd always be wishing you had the S...

Steffo · 01-06-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnews

It would depend on how they drive. I thought we would end up with a 350Z but when driving them back to back with the RX8 the Mazda was an infinitely more intoxicating and enjoyable drive and required a lot more of the driver which in a 'sports' car I like. You also have the plain dumb interior packaging of the Nissan compared to the interior design brilliance of the Mazda (as long as you are not taller than average that is!) . Nearly ended up with an S2000 Honda too actually. What I would really like is the S2000 engine and gearbox mated to the Mazda. Now that would be a seriously titillating drive.

I love sitting in the RX-8 and the feel of the car, but I hate its engine. I'd love to see them stuff the MPS3's 2.3 Duratec Turbo into the RX-8. Now that would be a car... 190kW 380Nm, RWD, lighter then the MPS3... mmm

mcnews · 01-06-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Which would I rather own? The Megane. There's nothing cool about the 2.7 Cayman, and you'd always be wishing you had the S...

Well we will have to agree to disagree. I can't imagine how any driving enthusiast would want a FWD Renault instead of a Porsche. But if that's you, then well hey, enjoy it I guess.

loltastic · 01-06-2008, 11:43 AM

LOL, still going, k then.

NSX-R for you,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEr1RPzoBHU - Stomping an R34-GTR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGco3...eature=related - Stomping an M6.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6esFx...eature=related - Line ball with a 355 in the day.

On a circuit, one of the best road car chassis ever made, still to this date.

Steffo · 01-06-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loltastic

LOL, still going, k then.

NSX-R for you,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEr1RPzoBHU - Stomping an R34-GTR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGco3...eature=related - Stomping an M6.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6esFx...eature=related - Line ball with a 355 in the day.

On a circuit, one of the best road car chassis ever made, still to this date.

I've posted irrefutable data that shows the NSX is slower then its competition on the world's best racing circuits. You can keep thinking otherwise... but against its competitors, the NSX can hardly get out of its own way.

mcnews · 01-06-2008, 11:49 AM

The NSX is still a sexy car and a great drive though. Performance figures are only one part of the driving equation and to me far from the primary decision in any buying decision.

loltastic · 01-06-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnews

The NSX is still a sexy car and a great drive though. Performance figures are only one part of the driving equation and to me far from the primary decision in any buying decision.

Well yeah, but for its time, and for having only a 3.2 V6 with 206kW and stuff all torque, it really made up for all that with fantastic chassis dynamics inspired by Ayrton Senna.

Porsche or Renault? Umm... lol.

XR8-260 · 01-06-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

It wasn't a grammatical error, it was spelling. "Your," and "You're," are different words with different meanings... :P

Just like "then" and "than" are different words with different meanings? You seem to make many spelling and grammatical errors in your posts so don't be so harsh on other people who do the same?

plext · 01-06-2008, 01:45 PM

Shouldn't you lot be having your afternoon naps?

Getting a little tired of this foolishness.