![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
Ollie has already said roughly what power and weight his car is, and the power to weight was almost identical to the RS4.
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
Tbh, I can well believe he kept in touch with it.
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members
rhamps wrote:No offence but i do test driving and did tests on RS4 against evo 8 and porsche boxster s etc and the audi handled so well it was the best by far on a wet handling track.![]()
So RS4 was twitching and you just caught up with it?????????
It must have been really broken(crap car) and crap driver
(as proved when he went onto hard shoulder) but still the audi should still have no problem leaving you for dust round corners and on straighs.
![]()
Ollie@SkyInsurance wrote:
No offence to you, you may have test driven every production car under the sun but have you have driven a Mk1 with 250+ BHP?It's a serious piece of kit and should not be under estimated
![]()
Ollie@SkyInsurance wrote:
No offence to you, you may have test driven every production car under the sun but have you have driven a Mk1 with 250+ BHP?It's a serious piece of kit and should not be under estimated
![]()
No offence to you, you may have test driven every production car under the sun but have you have driven a Mk1 with 250+ BHP? It's a serious piece of kit and should not be under estimated
aw11rally wrote:So for those who doubt the little mk1.5 I recomend they try a well sorted one.I'd guess mine puts out over 200bhp at the wheels but it is still very easy to drive, even in the wet if you have fast reactions.
I never expected to get anywhere near a 996 turbo, but to keep up I was seriously chuffed.
My smile lasted the next 50miles, I doubt he felt the same.
Kongaroo wrote:That 996 guy must have been pretty shocked when he didn't leave you for dust![]()
Although I am surprised that a 996 turbo couldn't pull away.
I was very suprised.In my little write up I was trying to be careful and not just say.
.
.
.WOW MY MK1.5 IS FASTER THAN A 996 TURBO.
.
.
.
because Porsche in my opinion make great cars and the 996 Turbo is seriously seriously fast.
I was just trying to highlight how fast a decent mk1.5 is.
aw11rally wrote:I was very suprised.In my little write up I was trying to be careful and not just say.
.
.
.WOW MY MK1.5 IS FASTER THAN A 996 TURBO.
.
.
.
because Porsche in my opinion make great cars and the 996 Turbo is seriously seriously fast.
I was just trying to highlight how fast a decent mk1.5 is.
If we were on a straighter road or a motorway I wouldn't have stood a chance but on the A/B roads of North Wales at between 30 and 60ish(the speedo doesn't actually work) the MR2 did itself proud.
I was flat in 2nd 3rd and 4th and the Porsche didn't get away until he started taking stupid risks.
I am looking forward to a stand alone ECU with better fuel and boost control then I might be able to reel him in.![]()
I can but wish.
PW@Woodsport wrote:
I've been banging the 1.5 drum for years about how quick they are but it's always seen as sales pitch, great to see them being used in anger![]()
Kongaroo wrote:
So would I be correct in saying the Mk1.5s are about 1050kgs to 1100 in weight then? I'm just curious how much weight the turbo swap adds.
Lauren wrote:Kongaroo wrote:
So would I be correct in saying the Mk1.5s are about 1050kgs to 1100 in weight then? I'm just curious how much weight the turbo swap adds.
1050kgs is what a t-bar weighs.1030kg for a MK1a
(the lightest MK1).
An SC with t-bars is 1185kg IIRC(so no lightweight!).
My old SC conversion based on a sunroof MK1b was 1010kg though that was stripped out.
![]()
Not sure on the weight of a MK1.5 but would have to guess it's at least as heavy as an SC.![]()
So, they aren't really that light.