Agree with Sambo, my mk2 wasn't too far off my mates 172 until you got to a slightly longer stretch, just lacked the grunt (but that was only with 130 bhp so not unexpected!)
Spend the money on advanced driving lessons/lessons on how to actually "Drive" and then go get some life insurance or some massive balls,and take him up a back road. Performance Stats on paper might favour him,but with a good driver behind the wheel of the Mk3,i see no problem as to why you wouldnt give him a run for his money.Unless the driver of the typeR is also a very good driver,then your fuked.But its all down to whos the got the most bottle.
Not a lot of help when trying to compare two different cars then is it... Got left behind by an ep3 on a straight road, love type r's and would expect to spend a fair bit on both handling and the engine to be able to keep up with one in most situations.
Honda Type "R" I really like em not the newest one but the slighty older model I was very impressed with it on the straight not great round bends though.Never drove a clio and wouldnt want to be honest no mater how fast it is but from what ive seen on the net etc the clio is quicker than most hot hatches out there but its french so I wouldnt touch one with a barg pole Give me a mk1 gti any day for fun and on a twisty road the mk1 would be there with either of em
They maybe are 2 different types of cars but take 2 different types of drivers(one who can drive and 1 who "can" actually drive) and the small differences of the cars mean hee-haw.
I had a complex about getting my Clio 172 being a VAG man for over 5 years.. (Still am a vag man having a mk2 16v too). After a year of getting in the Clio smashing it a new ass hole, hurting it, and giving it a world of abuse, all i have had to do is service the bloody thing, which is a better record than any VAG car I have owned! Its better equipt than a Civici Type R and cheaper! - BUt of course peoples egos are far more important than a guenuinly fantastic little car..! Having a 16v golf too there is NO chance of any 16v mk2 or mk3 having a go on the straight or the twisties! Unless its a properly prepped engine with a good budget behind it! And a lot of suspension work too.. Back to the subject though, seriously it would cost a lot of money, and development work to get near a type R.. engine wise, some silly compression, lot of revs, big cams and some strong harware to keep it all together, with some heavy headwork.. management being a nessessity too
Didn't cost me that much. Having said that, the weight saving has meant a lot of the comfort has now gone; and it was a Mk1, not Mk2. So its possible, whether a stripped out, fast, Mk1 is an overall better car than the Civic Type R, is another issue. Its genuinely faster though.
The clio 172 is a fantastic little car.. theres no doubting that. However the interior is tacky and its a bit too in your face. Its mostly driven by people called Kyle or darren who gel their hair forward or shave half of it off, whos ideal night out is drinking WKD's in oceana wearing waistcoats... and it will soon be extinct after they have all been forced into lamposts after traffic light GP's But seriously.. it is a great car The biggest factor in driving (not street driving) is knowledge of the road. I have beaten pretty much everything on the roads near me as i have been driving them for 6 years since i was 17... so i know every pot hole and lump, and know what speed to take every corner. Theres no doubting that those cars are faster than mine but you cant use that speed if you dont know the road.
one of my mates has an 02 plate civic type r and my mk1 blows it away without trying and mines basically the same as pauls but on twin 45's - only kr cams and straight through exhaust but no interior (bigger brakes and coilovers too). another friend has an astra vxr which is quicker on the straights but as soon as you get to some of the twisty welsh roads up here he disappears behind me!
Both the Honda and the Clio should be quicker both are far newer cars than the Mk1 and Mk2 gti ok the mk3 stopped in 1997 or early 1998 but still theres a big difference in age more so with the mk1 and the mk2.To compare the honda and the clio to either cars is really a statement to how good the mk1 and mk2 are.Ive got to say the mk3 aswell as ive got one . Its a well known fact that the Mk1 gti set the standard of most hot hatch cars to date and yes I do think you would have to spend some kind of money to beat a Type R or a Clio etc etc but the fact is the mk1 and mk2 were doing what the clio and the honda are now 20 odd years ago and still the humble Gti gets compared to, two hot hatches of this standard just shows how great a car the golfs are
You could spend as much money as you like building a car that may 'beat' a type r civic. let's say you go down the mk2 route with ABF engine, cams, suspension upgrade etc. etc. and you could 'beat' a type r. I would still rather be the type r owner!! Newer car, better styling, more refined, safer I could go on.....
It does seem that many people DO spend large amounts of money on their Mk2s (and Mk1s) and the car is no quicker. The reason I can say this is I've spend not such a large amount, and am already at the performance level to beat today's opposition; so those spending more must be spending it on things I didn't. Putting it another way, you need to tread carefully through the minefield of modifications you can do. Talk to people who have done it. Do research, don't just take things at face value. Question why a particular component, or manufacturer of aftermarket part, was chosed over another.
it's being compared by us!!! VW enthusiasts!!!! ha ha. People arn't sat down the pub saying "yeah I test drove a civic type R the other day, didn't buy it as I want to see what a stripped out Mk2 with an ABF and coilovers drives like first" The mk1 opened up a whole new market of cars, but the clio was doing hot hatch better than any VW was in the 80's, and the civic when introduced quite frankly showed VW what a modern hot hatch should be like - the MK4 1.8T with a massive 150 bhp was all it was doing at the time.
The 2 cars aren't really comparable. It depends where your passion lies - an older car which you want to work on yourself, tinker with, modify etc. Or a new car (and the price tag to go with it) which has a warranty, newness, modern safety kit, etc.
^^^ totally agree, I would personally love a mk2 golf again so am not putting them down. And if your in love with your mk2 and want to add bits and pieces and improve it etc to try and make it as quick as the new machinery then even better. I only commented because sometimes people have there VW blinkers on!!!! and admitting some little french box with a gash interior would run rings round your pride and joy is difficult. I am the first to admit that a 306 GTi takes the micky out of my lardy mk3 [:^(] I could have bought one if I wanted too - sometimes a car is more than just outright performance....
I bet if I went onto a Honda Civic Type R forum they'd be saying the Type R is faster than a Golf Mk1 and they prefer the Honda.
