| Author |
Message |
Chet T16
Retroholic
Joined: 12 Feb 2004
Posts: 5685
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:21 pm |
|
|
|
|
Wicked Neo
FCS Event Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 3680
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:59 pm |
|
aye cheers roddy, those look good  |
|
|
|
|
Doc
Site Subscriber
Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 2929
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:05 pm |
|
dito  |
|
|
|
|
roddy21t
Site Subscriber
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 589
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:51 pm |
|
has anybody noticed the mistake in the R21t brochure ?  |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:11 am |
|
162 bhp, I thought they were 175. |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:39 am |
|
I forgot how bad the autocar write ups were!
Also the time they insist on using is from a knackered hatch, 8.9 secs top 60. The cabrio humped it!
Also cheap switchgear? compared to what an escort etc? i think not. |
|
|
|
|
roddy21t
Site Subscriber
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 589
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:03 am |
|
The last of the 21t's (ph3) where 165bhp due to having the cat, but the torque was still the same 199lb @3000rpm, but the quadra was still 175bhp as far as im aware,
I always though the switch gear was fine aswell, some writers just liked having a poke at the 19 me thinks,
There's still a mistake in there, all the 1916v owners should notice this. |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:09 am |
|
I see it now! thats a 16V chammy interior! |
|
|
|
|
roddy21t
Site Subscriber
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 589
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:12 am |
|
spot on Chris |
|
|
|
|
huwwatkins
Site Subscriber
Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 2317
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:17 am |
|
9.5 seconds 0-60 for a 19 wtf were they on? |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:19 am |
|
a knackered one thats what Huw!
or one needing its throttle adjusted! |
|
|
|
|
roddy21t
Site Subscriber
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 589
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:23 am |
|
Iv got an Autocar write up for the 21t and the guy says it takes the 21t 16.1 seconds to get from 100mph to 120 mph in 5th gear ........ i thinks not,
he must have been towing a Challenger tank then  |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:26 am |
|
lol
bit like the 1.4 19 outrunning the 16V which has lower gearing and more torque throughout the range than the 1.4. |
|
|
|
|
Dan
Site Subscriber
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 3547
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:46 am |
|
Autocar have said my 172 does 17.7seconds to 100! ive never done it in that! ive never seen anymore than a 16.5! |
|
|
|
|
Chet T16
Retroholic
Joined: 12 Feb 2004
Posts: 5685
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:52 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
