Page 2 of 9

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:07 pm
by Si_GTi
polosilver wrote:
1litreheater wrote:Thats worth knowing because im liking the yellow 106 gti's and its either one of those or polo gti next !
What car do u drive stuart_hatch cause theres quite a few on ur picture thing and they all look nice ?
Buy a 106 gti if you want speed, buy a polo gti if you want speed and comfort, quality, decent spec and safety.

Phill.
Plus, you have a much greater chance of finding a looked-after Polo GTi that hasn't been thrashed to within millimeters of it's redline on every journey, than finding a looked-after Pug 106 GTi. From what I've seen and heard, the 106s aren't always very well looked after :?

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:25 pm
by PhilGTi
I hate the kind of people that drive 106 GTi's, for that reason alone id never have one. Plus, ive only seen 3 Polo Gti's in the flesh up here in Newcastle, wereas ive seen 3 106 GTi's in 1 journey!

Phill.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:35 pm
by 1litreheater
Yeah i think id just buy the 106 gti then realise its nothing special and wish id brought the polo gti !
Ne ways its a long way off till i get a new car, im sticking with my baby for the moment !
And i think my next car might be a ford escort mexico 1.6i mk1 ne way, love em "!

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:51 pm
by stuart_hatch
1litreheater wrote: What car do u drive stuart_hatch cause theres quite a few on ur picture thing and they all look nice ?
Just 2 :P

A 1996 Series One Peugeot 106 1.1 with every electrical goodie there is

and a 1996 Polo 1.9D CL

Prefer the polo tho!

Allthough, if my 106 looked like this:

Image

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:10 pm
by 13twelve
and pugs are french...

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:52 pm
by 1litreheater
That is a very nice car !

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:21 pm
by polopowah
can't believe i've missed this thread
I have a 1L polo
rite performance wise i can beat my friends 1.3 Ford Ka thats with the induction kit, stainless exhaust and 16's
theres just so much pickup for such a small engined car!
-Ben-

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:53 pm
by stuart_hatch
polopowah wrote:can't believe i've missed this thread
I have a 1L polo
rite performance wise i can beat my friends 1.3 Ford Ka thats with the induction kit, stainless exhaust and 16's
theres just so much pickup for such a small engined car!
-Ben-
Tbh even tho a ford KA is a 1.3 its bloody slow, im not suprised your polo can beat it!

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:13 pm
by SteB
i got a 895cc mk1, 0-60 in 22 seconds... couldnt even beat a milk float. nuff said.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:19 pm
by dubpolo
i went from my 1.0l MK 4 to my GTi :twisted:

i can say the 1.0L is Shit slow!

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:09 pm
by polo69
1.2 8v Corsa is all i can remember. 1.1 Fiesta i think.

There is this 1.1 Cinquecento about here, and this thing flies like f**k. It can beat 1.4 Corsa Sports and other 1.4's. I tried it on but it raped me. I just go along for the fun of it, whether i get bummed or win.

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:39 am
by Tahrey1043
Surely any 1.4 engine would beat a 1.1, regardless of its make ?
New to this game are we?
Depends on....... (big breath)
Fuel type!
Age of engine and how well it's been maintained
Age and efficiency of engine design....
Differences between how manufacturers tune their engines (and variations upon these same plans over time / use in the model range) for certain purposes
Size and weight of the car
Torque - power balance (...and how many valves it has)
Carb vs Injection vs Multipoint injection vs common rail vs FSi
Whether the owner has tuned it in any way
Natural aspiration vs mild turbo vs big turbo vs twin turbo vs supercharger
Number of cylinders, even
Gearing
Grip (inc tyres and fwd/rwd/4wd)
Driver skill
etc.

Just for a little comparison here, amongst older cars, a 1.2L Corsa used to offer up all of about 44BHP (slightly worse than a 1043cc polo), exactly the same power output as an 899cc (0.9L) Panda or Cinquecento (not seicento!) and similar torque / revs too if i remember.... The italian engine being quite efficient in extracting power from a small capacity whereas the americo-german lump was a bit soggy in that regard.
When you then consider the cars those two engines were put in, or could be put in... let's stick a cinquecento next to a 5 door nova saloon just to make things dreadfully unfair. I think you can spy the weight difference there, plus the gearing on the italian number is a lot shorter and closer, giving it a lot of ass whupping power even if it's worse for economy and comfort vs the taller, wider cruising gears on the nova.
1.2L vs 0.9L not being too much different from 1.4 vs 1.1....

A couple other examples......
The old Rover 25s were available with a range of engines, including a pair of 1.4 16v injection units that produced either 81 or 104 horsepower. I never did figure out what the difference was between them, but they were sold concurrently for at least 3 years. Perhaps it was a typo and the less powerful one was actually an 8v?

1272cc Polo GT (8v, but MPi with 75hp) in that fairly light, 3 door frame vs a 1598cc Astra (8v, Spi, all of 70hp) in a stodgier 5 door frame, plus the weight of PAS, A/C etc. The torque-power balance is more towards the torque in the astra, but despite the extra displacement it doesnt make a great deal more of that either. 1.6 vs 1.3 isnt quite as wide a gap but it's still telling - the larger engine has less peak power and probably a slightly worse torque/weight ratio.

1272cc Polo G40 (8v, but MPi with a sodding great supercharger and intercooler mashed onto it - 113hp and super torque) vs pretty much anything unblown under 2 litres.

Toyota Yaris slipping in nicely between the Panda and the Nova, kicking the ass of the GT and Astra with 70hp extracted from all of 999cc - though the torque is definately a sore point in japanese engines of this nature, that doesnt matter so much when you're thrashing it at high revs. Plus, again, it's lightweight.

Plus having test driven a couple-a-three 1.4 escorts, i then went back to the 1.05 polo and found it feeling (even if not being) a whole lot quicker..

and as stated, it would be nipping at the heels of a 75hp (displacement unknown but probably about 1.3) pug 1007 simply because of the weight of the doors.


dino wrote: Would beat everycar off the light up to about 30 where i would stick to the limit and they dont.
Ah, try birmingham sometime, its classic.
Love how i'll cane it away from a light (2 lanes inexplicably going into 3 then back down to 2 some way after the lights), having scooted round the empty right lane just to jump 10 places ahead, get ahead of the pack by the time i reach for 2nd, reach a nice cruising speed (anywhere from limit -3 to limit +6) and block change to 5th, then get all the numptys of the world and their wives tailgating me at a say-your-prayers distance in the left hand lane when the right one is still free. Freaking blood boilers.



Agreed that the 1.0 is shhhhhugar slow, but its not the size of your milk float's battery but what you do with it that counts. Doubt that very many people in this country as a whole ever use their engine's full potential...

And hell, i could beat a 1.3 Ka on my pushbike. Or in an 895cc polo.... ;) (22 seconds? would have thought the weight advantage might knock a little more off the power disadvantage than that, oh well.... bet it can hold the speed like a mini). The Ka was a dumping ground for a whole load of unsold and otherwise unsaleable old bits and pieces from previous Fiesta lines, most especially engines including the ancient pushrod jobs.

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:01 pm
by polopowah
very informative read mate :D
But my 1L aint s**t slow! i aint avin that :P though top end speed kinda sucks
-Ben-

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:20 pm
by stuart_hatch
Ok its not the slowest car, but say drive a 1.4 16v or a gti polo for a week and go back to a 1 litre, man it will feel slow

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:48 pm
by polopowah
true, u kinda get use to the speed of your own car, and considering the national speed limit is 70 and it does 100... then im happy 8)