Because the answers handling and everyone already knows that… By stripping weight you’re increasing the horsepower/tonne of the first car too. No point adding power if you can’t put it down.
A rallye is never selling less than a GTI... a rough gti is fetching 4.5k atm. Maybe 5 years ago a rallye would have been 3k no chance now. Im actively looking for another sundance yellow gti atm
One of those is a gti for 5k like i said, the other is a left hand drive rallye on 125k obviously its going to be cheap that will have no boot floor or passenger footwell left soon enough 😂
This is exactly the problem with stuff like Rallyes at the moment. Prices are all over the place and half the decent ones disappear or get edited quietly.
I’ve been tracking individual listings so I get an email if the price changes or it gets marked sold, rather than trying to remember what it was listed at last week. I’m actually building a small UK tool that does this while you browse Auto Trader etc.
Weight is crucial to handling, all part of the power vs everything else argument and it's almost always everything else that makes the difference, unless the race is a straight line.
It's the fantasy that a luxury car with big headline power will be fast and rewarding to drive that is really at the crux of this, unfortunately by the time people have money for a new Porsche or Ferrari they're looking for a bit of luxury, too. Not that they're not fast or fun, but the power output would be misleading consider compared to some more affordable cars.
Stripping interior etc out of one car and leaving the other is unfair because ones now a useless tin car track car only and the other can be used daily.
Doing a series showing why handling mods, grip and weight saving would always be better is one thing, having a competition to see which is better when the answer is already widely known is daft.
Handling and lightness. Its been known for years. Look at Lotus. Look at the Alpine A110. Tremendous fun, lightweight cars and not more than 400bhp (broadly speaking)
An A110 would be quicker on a b road than pretty much anything despite having half or a third the bhp of supercars.
Years ago I went on a track experience day. I had a hot lap as passenger in a Lotus Elise, the 1.8 S1 model.
The pro driver thrashed it around the track passing everything that included AM DB7, Gallardo, R8, albeit driven by noobs but still, a well driven and well set up car can be very quick without the need for power.
I think there’s a balance to be had here and a 1.8 starting is already quick. If you took a polo gti and modified the engine massively, you’d have a 430bhp+ car that can’t put the power down properly however if you took an rs3 with Quattro and did the same you’d have a very different result since it’ll get the power down.
I prefer power mods personally since I don’t tend to put my foot down throughout bends since that’s how you crash but that’s definitely the more fun option.
My mother's Audi E-Tron SUV has 400hp and does 0-60 in 5.4 seconds, but since it weighs 2.7 tonnes, it handles like a boat (but much better than you'd expect, it's genuinely 'fun' to drive on account of it being hilarious)
But on a more practical level, I recently replaced my 40kWh Nissan Leaf with a 62kWh Nissan Leaf. For all intents and purposes they're the same car, but the 62kWh has more power, but more weight.
The 40kWh weighs 1580kg and has 148hp, whilst the 62kWh weighs 1750kg and has 215hp.
Whilst there's no doubt the 62kWh version is quicker, it also feels more sluggish. You can feel how much lighter the 40kWh is, and when you try them both back to back, you'd swear it was the quicker car.
Having chucked them both around the back roads, on the same set of tyres, the 40kWh is more 'fun'. It's only once you're above say 40mph that you can feel the extra power.
PS: I like to drive EVs because they're cheap and quick.
Off the line, it doesn't feel that quick, on account of it weighing the same as an average American, but when you're already on the move, the pick up is quite surprising.
Despite it having a sports mode, and air suspension that can lower itself down, it's obviously not built for smashing around the back lanes, but it will do it if you want.
It will also do a 4 wheel skid around a mini roundabout if you're feeling particularly childish, not that I'd ever try or condone such a thing.
I'm getting an EX30 in the new year, and the upgrade from single to dual motor wasn't that much. So now I'm getting 428hp instead of 260hp for the same battery.
It'll be my daily driver as I intend to get a old 2-door and do what they suggest in the post, upgrade it for handling and then it becomes the weekend car.
I looked at leasing something a bit bigger and newer, but when I saw how much I'd be spending over the the contract, I was surprised. It was something like £15k, and I wouldn't own the car. So I just bought a used 62kwh Leaf for under £9k!
I do 60-70 miles a day, most days of the week. If I charge at home, that's £1.40 a day, but if I can charge at work, it's free.
Even if I got a diesel that averaged 60mpg, I'd be spending £7.50 a day.
It doesn't make financial sense to even go down the shitbox route, I'm saving nearly £2k a year in fuel costs alone.
The cheapest 62kwh leaf for sale that’s not written off is 7k and that’s with 130k miles on it. Toiching 10k for a decent one. There are plenty of quicker cars to be had for cheaper, saying you’re buying it because it’s cheap and quick feels like a weird justification.
Oh definitely more, but you could buy a faster more engaging car for 3-5k, have thousands left to run it and still be financially better off. I’m not saying there’s not any arguments for EV’s, but cheaper and quicker can definitely be found elsewhere.
Because the answers handling and everyone already knows that… By stripping weight you’re increasing the horsepower/tonne of the first car too. No point adding power if you can’t put it down.
Give me series 2 106 Rallye and I'll wring every last ounce of speed out of that.
Give me Golf R and I'll get bored stiff driving it.
10/10ths Vs 4/10ths.
[deleted]
Theyre about 10k lol a gti is cheaper and slightly quicker but rallye alot lighter and 8v vs 16v
[deleted]
A rallye is never selling less than a GTI... a rough gti is fetching 4.5k atm. Maybe 5 years ago a rallye would have been 3k no chance now. Im actively looking for another sundance yellow gti atm
[deleted]
One of those is a gti for 5k like i said, the other is a left hand drive rallye on 125k obviously its going to be cheap that will have no boot floor or passenger footwell left soon enough 😂
This is exactly the problem with stuff like Rallyes at the moment. Prices are all over the place and half the decent ones disappear or get edited quietly.
I’ve been tracking individual listings so I get an email if the price changes or it gets marked sold, rather than trying to remember what it was listed at last week. I’m actually building a small UK tool that does this while you browse Auto Trader etc.
If useful: https://trackcaralerts.com
I really shoot myself in the foot never looking on there. Looks like I'll have a 106 Rallye soon...
I’d agree so you’d have to make sure they’re the same weight so no weight save options.
However I’ll admit the moment you’re using good tyres it’s game over. Unless the horse power figure difference is big.
Weight is crucial to handling, all part of the power vs everything else argument and it's almost always everything else that makes the difference, unless the race is a straight line. It's the fantasy that a luxury car with big headline power will be fast and rewarding to drive that is really at the crux of this, unfortunately by the time people have money for a new Porsche or Ferrari they're looking for a bit of luxury, too. Not that they're not fast or fun, but the power output would be misleading consider compared to some more affordable cars.
Stripping interior etc out of one car and leaving the other is unfair because ones now a useless tin car track car only and the other can be used daily.
That's not true, I've had a stripped out car as a daily before and it was great
Tyres alone would make a massive difference
Its not that clear cut, it depends how you are measuring what is faster and what the starting platform is.
Good point. YouTube is famously a platform where people only go to watch videos about topics that have not been covered before.
Doing a series showing why handling mods, grip and weight saving would always be better is one thing, having a competition to see which is better when the answer is already widely known is daft.
Been done before, tires make the biggest improvement followed by weight. Been a while but i think engineering explained did a video on it.
Hi Colin Chapman
Solved problem, it’s handeling and consistency that wins.
Also, donut did a few series like this, high-low or something
High low wasn’t that just cheap parts vs expensive parts
It was but the first one in particular was a fun series to watch.
Handling and lightness. Its been known for years. Look at Lotus. Look at the Alpine A110. Tremendous fun, lightweight cars and not more than 400bhp (broadly speaking) An A110 would be quicker on a b road than pretty much anything despite having half or a third the bhp of supercars.
Years ago I went on a track experience day. I had a hot lap as passenger in a Lotus Elise, the 1.8 S1 model.
The pro driver thrashed it around the track passing everything that included AM DB7, Gallardo, R8, albeit driven by noobs but still, a well driven and well set up car can be very quick without the need for power.
I assumne they don't call out upgrading the brakes,because that's a given for both options? Right? RIGHT ?
More importantly; which makes a car more fun?
I think there’s a balance to be had here and a 1.8 starting is already quick. If you took a polo gti and modified the engine massively, you’d have a 430bhp+ car that can’t put the power down properly however if you took an rs3 with Quattro and did the same you’d have a very different result since it’ll get the power down.
I prefer power mods personally since I don’t tend to put my foot down throughout bends since that’s how you crash but that’s definitely the more fun option.
Solid idea
More power makes it faster in the straights, less weight makes it faster everywhere else. This has been pretty well known for over half a century.
I do think this would be an interesting series though.
Yes yes yes
Handling, always! Being tight in your seat. Then good brakes. Good tyres. Power last.
Driver training wins every time.
I’d bet my 320bhp mini is faster round a track than my old M340i would be. With me in the driving seat anyway.
The answer is both.
But round a track with a lot of turns, handling. Round a track with a lot of straights, horsepower.
But in order to gain the most, you absolutely need both.
My mother's Audi E-Tron SUV has 400hp and does 0-60 in 5.4 seconds, but since it weighs 2.7 tonnes, it handles like a boat (but much better than you'd expect, it's genuinely 'fun' to drive on account of it being hilarious)
But on a more practical level, I recently replaced my 40kWh Nissan Leaf with a 62kWh Nissan Leaf. For all intents and purposes they're the same car, but the 62kWh has more power, but more weight.
The 40kWh weighs 1580kg and has 148hp, whilst the 62kWh weighs 1750kg and has 215hp.
Whilst there's no doubt the 62kWh version is quicker, it also feels more sluggish. You can feel how much lighter the 40kWh is, and when you try them both back to back, you'd swear it was the quicker car.
Having chucked them both around the back roads, on the same set of tyres, the 40kWh is more 'fun'. It's only once you're above say 40mph that you can feel the extra power.
PS: I like to drive EVs because they're cheap and quick.
Incredible, I guess these days you need 700hp to make an SUV feel genuinely quick.
Off the line, it doesn't feel that quick, on account of it weighing the same as an average American, but when you're already on the move, the pick up is quite surprising.
Despite it having a sports mode, and air suspension that can lower itself down, it's obviously not built for smashing around the back lanes, but it will do it if you want.
It will also do a 4 wheel skid around a mini roundabout if you're feeling particularly childish, not that I'd ever try or condone such a thing.
I'm getting an EX30 in the new year, and the upgrade from single to dual motor wasn't that much. So now I'm getting 428hp instead of 260hp for the same battery.
It'll be my daily driver as I intend to get a old 2-door and do what they suggest in the post, upgrade it for handling and then it becomes the weekend car.
I looked at leasing something a bit bigger and newer, but when I saw how much I'd be spending over the the contract, I was surprised. It was something like £15k, and I wouldn't own the car. So I just bought a used 62kwh Leaf for under £9k!
I do 60-70 miles a day, most days of the week. If I charge at home, that's £1.40 a day, but if I can charge at work, it's free.
Even if I got a diesel that averaged 60mpg, I'd be spending £7.50 a day.
It doesn't make financial sense to even go down the shitbox route, I'm saving nearly £2k a year in fuel costs alone.
The cheapest 62kwh leaf for sale that’s not written off is 7k and that’s with 130k miles on it. Toiching 10k for a decent one. There are plenty of quicker cars to be had for cheaper, saying you’re buying it because it’s cheap and quick feels like a weird justification.
But how much do they cost to run?
Even if I couldn't charge for free at work, the 20k miles I do would cost under £400
Oh definitely more, but you could buy a faster more engaging car for 3-5k, have thousands left to run it and still be financially better off. I’m not saying there’s not any arguments for EV’s, but cheaper and quicker can definitely be found elsewhere.
Not really.
20k miles at 40mpg is over £3k in fuel alone.
If I bought a car for say £5k, and managed to average 40mpg (highly doubt), id then basically be at the price I paid for my Leaf.