VX220 turbo

[Tom]

Driving back from Brands Hatch tonight, through Birmingham on the M6 I noticed a couple of very low down headlamps keeping pace with me.

So, I let off the throttle a bit, and saw it was a VX220. Excellent! I immediately dropped into 4th and floored it, and saw the same pair of headlamps keep pace, about 300 yards back, effortlessly up to about 90 leptons.

Had a really nice 20 miles or so of this, the Vauxhall keeping a safe distance, but not letting me go. Then I slowed down, opened the window and waved him past, so we could swap places.

Bugger me, I had to try really hard to keep up with him. He couldn't get away, but I did have to drop into 4th on a few occasions to stop him disappearing! We never got past 110 leptons, but by god was that fun!

BTW roads were pretty quiet and well lit, and we both slowed for traffic so to the killjoys.

So was this a regular VX220, or the turbo? I'm hoping it was the turbo tbh!

 

[Brynn]

Urg I hate the look of the VX220

 

[DaGaffer]

Regular VX I reckon, the turbo eats F360's on acceleration.

 

[old.user4556]

Well, driver skill comes into this too, but from what you're saying it sounds like it was a turbo.

The standard 150 bhp VX220 0-100 mph is 16.6 sec and top speed 136 mph - that's hardly supercar (infact only one second quicker than my old Clio 182, and slower top seed), where as the Turbo is 12.6 secs to 100 mph - that sounds a lot more like it, but i'd also go as far to say that a well driven VX220 might give a 4.0 Chim a run for its money on curves and track conditions, but you should really leave it for standing on the straights.

The 4.0 Chim is el rapido, and the VX220 turbo would stay with it on the straights. According to Evo, the Turbo's top speed is 151 and the Chim 4.0 152 - so fairly evenly matched at the top end.

Wouldn't say it eats 360's though Gaff, that's a bit pub talk .

 

[DaGaffer]

Wouldn't say it eats 360's though Gaff, that's a bit pub talk .

Seen it happen. True, driver skill comes into it, but you could tell the guy in 360 was trying to keep up and it just wasn't happening...

 

[old.user4556]

Considering a Ferrari 360 does a 10 second 0-100 with a 190 mph top speed (a whole 40 more than the VX220 turbo), for a car to be "eating it" for acceleration, it's going to have to do a sub 10 second 0-100.

i.e. Macca F1 or Koenigsegg which the VX220 turbo ain't.

Once the Turbo runs out of steam at 150 mph the F360 is going to just keep going and going.

 

[DaGaffer]

Considering a Ferrari 360 does a 10 second 0-100 with a 190 mph top speed (a whole 40 more than the VX220 turbo), for a car to be "eating it" for acceleration, it's going to have to do a sub 10 second 0-100.

i.e. Macca F1 or Koenigsegg which the VX220 turbo ain't.

Once the Turbo runs out of steam at 150 mph the F360 is going to just keep going and going.

0-100 and top speed are less relevant around a track (which is where I saw this happen) and in-gear acceleration is a far more relevant real-world statistic. On the Top Gear site they don't have a lap time for an 'ordinary' 360 (and the CS is much faster) but the VX turbo was only .3 of a second slower than a 996 Turbo. Maybe the VX I saw was running super sticky tyres or something or maybe the driver was uber-good, but that Ferrari wasn't keeping up.

 

[old.user4556]

I won't disagree with what you see; if you saw it, you saw it - but I wouldn't base two different drivers in differint cars as a basis to say a clearly slower car is quicker than the other for acceleration.

I wouldn't ever use Top Gear's website as a basis for comparison either, they haven't indicated which laps were a) wet or dry (a fair few were wet) or b) old stig or the new stig. Some laps are also in the summer, some not, so track & air temperatures will affect a fair few of those times.

Edit: the 911 turbo was indeed in the wet, with the VX220 turbo in the dry.

That thread also has the F430 (1 sec quicker to 100 mph that the F360) penned at 1:22 which is hugely faster than the VX220 Turbo's time, not even remotely close.

/open to forum

If a car is driven properly, should in gear times matter for a track basis; the driver should be in the correct gear for the corner + exit (imo anyway). Surely in gear times only matter on a day-to-day basis?

Discuss?

My old 182 was a screamer when it was on cam (between 5000 and 7200 rpm) and superb for sprints and track days, but below 5000 rpm the lack of torque was frustrating for town driving and the in-gear times were pretty poor (always having to change down). Still, it made an exciting drive as the car rewarded you for hard work, but it did get tiresome at times.

 

[Gumbo]

I'll just point out that the VX is a badly styled Lotus, then quietly leave the room....

 

[old.user4556]

*gasp* I know what you mean though, people will point and say "couldn't afford an Elise".