[Ant FR]

I was a little shocked by this, but EVo tested it in this months mag and came back with 0-60 of 7.6 secs, not great in my opinion, but they do state that the S needs an extra gear change to get to 60,

[kevkbuk]

Interesting... Considering they said it was the fastest Mini they had driven including the GP in a previous issue...

Never tested any of my cars 0-60 times but I would say my Works is certainly no slower than the normal S which the review would suggest.

[FergusM]

7.6 ?? is that not slower than mini claim for standard one ?..pretty sure they quote 7.1.

Still, Evo do it with a full tank of fuel, and a passenger so maybe closer to real life.

[Lordy]

i have noticed that the car is slower, if you have any passengers on board, so im now looking for a very small girlfriend !!!!! who's dad owns a petrol company.

i have done some small tests on 0-60 , and i dont need an extra gear change to get to 60, but i do have the jcw kitt and the GTT mods -
0-60 = about 6.4 - 6.6 but still not run in the JCW kit , will do this weekend tho, as its going to the lakes to be battered about those great roads.

also the noise from having both the GTT and then the JCW changed , and is now about the loudest i would want the car to be .

[T-bone S]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lordy (original)

i have done some small tests on 0-60 , and i dont need an extra gear change to get to 60, but i do have the jcw kitt and the GTT mods -
0-60 = about 6.4 - 6.6 but still not run in the JCW kit , will do this weekend tho, as its going to the lakes to be battered about those great roads.

What GTT mods do you have - the cat mod, de muffler? and what else?

I'm pretty surprise at the result too. - Wonder what the rest of the spec was? - how much wheel spin they created - how bad the shifting was - you could go on and on -

Most important figures to me is 30-70mph in 3rd or 4th. That really where you can tell the power of an engine. Also having driven a couple of standard cars and a couple of JCW's - I know that my spec is fine - very happy with what I'll be receiving.

Also - how did it fair in the group test against the clio? - my copy is at home - I must have left this morning before it arrived

[jamesbeaumont]

I read a magazine, I forget which one, but they had a track test of the Clio R26 vs the CTR vs JCW S and the Corsa VXR. They said the JCW was much faster than the standard car and reached 105mph on the straights, a whole 5mph more than anything else! However it wasnt the fastest round the track as it was let down by a problem with heavy braking. CTR came first but then it was Matt Neal driving...more than a slight advantage for the CTR!

[DerekH]

Yes this was a shock but is it not a typo should be 6.6 surely, also car mag last week Matt neal test drove against a few cars and suprise is the Honda civc was the best well that was as fair as letting the drivers past him on sunday to block someone else not that im a lover of the Seat driver but he does make the racing good.

[msh441]

Considering Per Schroder of Grassroots Motorsports has repeatedly demonstrated sub 6-second 0-60 times in the STOCK R56S... combined with the fact that I was in the mis 6's at Seattle raceway last month pre-JCW kit (and I'm not great launching with runflats)... I would say theres either a serieous issue with that particular EVO journalist's driving skills, or his proof reading abilities.

[Ant FR]

Quote: Originally Posted by DerekH (original)

Yes this was a shock but is it not a typo should be 6.6 surely, also car mag last week Matt neal test drove against a few cars and suprise is the Honda civc was the best well that was as fair as letting the drivers past him on sunday to block someone else not that im a lover of the Seat driver but he does make the racing good.

i would'nt read into anything that uses Matt Neal to test it. The git probably ended up knocking all the other cars off the track on the test and then got involved in trying to wreck someone elses championship chances,,,,,,,,he may be best sticking to test driving from now on seeing as he can't race touring cars sanely.

rant over


Anyone spot that i am still ****ed with Mat Neales appaling antics at last weekends touring car races where he took it upon himself to wreck Jason Plato's championship campaign by being a tit.

Oh and not surprised the CTR came top, keep the car int he redline and it is amazing, off vtec and its rubbish!

[jamesbeaumont]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ant FR (original)

i would'nt read into anything that uses Matt Neal to test it. The git probably ended up knocking all the other cars off the track on the test and then got involved in trying to wreck someone elses championship chances,,,,,,,,he may be best sticking to test driving from now on seeing as he can't race touring cars sanely.

rant over


Anyone spot that i am still ****ed with Mat Neales appaling antics at last weekends touring car races where he took it upon himself to wreck Jason Plato's championship campaign by being a tit.

Oh and not surprised the CTR came top, keep the car int he redline and it is amazing, off vtec and its rubbish!

Agreed Interesting, did you know his touring car isnt a vtec? I found that odd but fair I guess

[DerekH]

Ant Fr totaly correct if that was any other race he would have had drive through or investigated the race mashalls should have dealt with it , Im no lover of Plato but as he said the forth Vauxhall was playing dirty

[scone]

Read EVO today and there was only one thing that shocked me, and that was the Works laptime around Bedford which was 1min 30.8secs. To put that into context heres a few other lap times.
Astra VXR 1min 33.15 secs
BMW 130i M sport 1min 31.7 secs
Mk5 Golf GTI 1 min 33.75 secs
Focus ST 1 min33.9 secs
In fact the only hot hatch that managed a quicker lap was the new S3 and that was only by .4 of second , not bad really considering it has nearly 70 more bhp and 4 wheel drive.

[T-bone S]

I noticed that too - very very impressive!! - no mention of an LSD in the spec and on Run-Flats!!

Just goes to show how balanced the car is - good brakes and good power and pace through corners

[TallAndy]

I wouldn't worry about numbers on paper, if your happy with your conversion and it feels quicker then thats all that matters imo

[*Jason*]

Quote: Originally Posted by TallAndy (original)

I wouldn't worry about numbers on paper, if your happy with your conversion and it feels quicker then thats all that matters imo

Sensible answer. Its far too easy to get suckered into number chasing with a consequent depletion of your bank account.

[antonyc31]

Quote: Originally Posted by *Jason* (original)

Sensible answer. Its far too easy to get suckered into number chasing with a consequent depletion of your bank account.

Also in agreement

In real world situations with passengers, shopping, differing fuel loads, tyre type and condition not to mention driving ability and roads type it does not really matter that much

[wow]

Does anyone have this article in PDF format.

[Parc77]

I think its simply a typo...as in the knowledge bit at the back of the mag its down as 6.7 secs (most probably the wrong way round...i.e it IS 6.7). It beat the range topping Clio it was up against and was said to be quite a bit quicker in a straight line...Clio's 0-60 time was 6.9secs.
However as probably already mentioned the 0-60 times are far from the be all and end all of everything.

[T-bone S]

I don't think there is a typo - the article states they they required 3rd to get to 60 so if the driver had a "slow" shift then that is the probable source of time loss.

In the Knowledge at the back of the mag they quote the BMW figures - which usually are a bit conservative tbh.

[djtex]

There is no possible way that figure is correct, I can get 60 out of mine in 2nd gear. Besides, why on earth would the car be faster in all conditions than a standard S but half a second slower to sixty?? It just doesn't make any rational sense.

Plus Evo are likely to have drivers capable of extracting decent times, I have managed to get a 6.9 out of my own and I'm no expert.