Has anybody had a go against one of these? My brothers mate reckons his 220 is going to keep up with the bro's RX7 TT, I cant see this somehow but does anyone know any different?:dance:

Rover drivers are girls eh? Thought girls whinged and played top-it with each other. The only person around here i see doing that is you. If rovers are grandad cars, then mazda's are hair dressers cars. zoom zoom zoom ;)

i didnt say rovers were grandad cars.

mine wouldnt been seen dead in one.

 

steve

Hmm. doesn't look like wit is your strong point. You have a serious problem with Rovers don't you? IS it because grandad doesn't like them, then you must? :rolleyes:

 

What basically is the grandads car? its a 214, 414, 216, 416. These cars are the lower end spec models. And you know what?? They're actually HONDA designed. Like some of the engines. You're talking about a derivative 3 door model using the same floor pan and front end.

 

I'm not here to try and finish a flaming war, i just recommend you look at a few things before you start typing crap again.

 

 

This is the winner of the last TOTB FWD ;) And look at all the girls around it.

Sorry - slight mistake. Thats the Fastest FWD car in the UK at USC ;)

And THIS is the winner of TOTB2 class A - picture taken from http://www.an-racing.co.uk.

 

well here is my gobstopers worth

 

i think you will find some of the more powerful 220 turbo's out there will give the rx7 a run and then beat it for its money pound for pound think the rover is the better option by far there are 220 turbo's doing 0-60 in 4.9 secs aswell but with say a rolling start in second think the more tuned rover will beat the rex i know this aint what ya wanna hear but sorry to say deal with it lol:D

 

tez

i agree with you there is nothing wrong with that

not my cup of tea but ok

i just personly dont like rovers

i agree a 220 turbo is quick but its different type of quick

the one ive been in feelslike its going to blow over

after about 120 i no there good for 150 cause ive been in one at that sort of speed.

but would have felt safer on a goped.

when i was 17 i had a mg miastro but son grow out of it.

you oveasly luv your 220 each to ther own.

 

steve

fair comment the first sensible reply lol;)

 

do like rx7 nice cars out of this world engine also like the 300zx rovers can be a bit unstable at speed few suspension mods sort that out tho and with more power are a right laugh to drive. cheers tez

:rofl: :rofl:

tez

can you help see you use expresion tom cat

is that what they cal the roof panels

or what they call the turbos

 

steve

From what I found, the 220 Turbo is 1200kg, which is only 20 kg lighter than the RX-7. Not that much lighter then.

 

Why do they have different classes in TOTB? Because a Rover 220 Turbo will not stand a chance against the RWD and 4WD cars. And if you go off engine size would that Rover stand a chance against a Mitsubishi EVO or Subaru STi?

 

You can make ANY CAR fast with money. Get the same amount of money spent on that Rover in you pic on modding an RX-7 and it would probably be pushing out over 600mph. Not bad for a 1.3 litre engine.

 

I have seen modified old Minis go fly past R34s on a track, but what would you rather drive?

 

And back to the original point. Can you tell me why you think a Rover 220 Turbo standard 0-60 in over 6 seconds, can keep up with a RX-7 standard 0-60 in 4.9?

its the coupe mate with the roof panels yeah nick name for them is the tomcat turbo

 

tez

so is a non turbo a tomcat as well??

 

steve

if you up the power on a rover 220 turbo to the same of a rx7 the rover will do the same 0-60 and from a rolling start where traction wouldnt be an isssue the rover would pull away from the rx7 this would also be the same as an evo or sti with rolling start 220 turbo would beat it traction is the only difference

 

tez

any coupe (with the roof panels)

 

is nick named the tomcat so you were correct yes

But I think you have to ask the question when does a make of car no longer regarded as that car? Would you call a Rover with a Skyline engine in, a Rover? Would you call a Rover with, new forged pistons, rebored, huge turbo, stronger head, better cams, better valves, new crank, shorter gear ratio striped out interior to name a few mods, would that still be a Rover? In reality besides the body there would only be a hand full of parts which where Rover.

 

Stuart

fair comment there but you can get 280 bhp rovers with all rover parts bar the turbo but then the turbo was made by garret so is the larger t28 lol

 

tez

Quite simply, standard vs standard, an RX-7 is faster.

 

However it was the attitude of "Rovers are rubbish, why would you want one" etc etc that caused some folk to defend the Rover. The Rx-7 is faster to 60 granted, it has a bit more poke, and a much better drivetrain for launching, everyone knows FWD is the worst type of drive for coming off the line.

 

Comparing in gear times, 30-70 through gears, 20-120 sprint etc, this would show that the Rover, while still being slower, probably wouldnt be that much behind a standard Rx-7, considering you can get a very tidy coupe Turbo for £2500 if you shop around, thats pretty good in my book.

 

It also doesnt mean the Rover cant beat an Rx-7, I've attended track days with 3 differnt rx-7's in the drivers club I use, never had one catch me or pass me yet, and I have passed a couple. I hardly have a huge spec either, 210 BHP, 215 lb/ft at the very most, and thats me being optimistic. Runs the 1/4 in 14.4 @ 98mph as well.

 

PS-someone said on page 1 a standard 200SX S14 is faster? Nope, sorry, similar I think, with the Rover edging it, modified one was neck and neck over 4 1/4 mile races with me, 2-2 by the end of the day, withno more than an inch in it in any of the races. It has more mods than my Rover does.

 

SO, as to the original point, standard vs standard an Rx-7 is faster, but the Rovers are not as poor as you lot seem to think. For instance, if with my little mods I can do the same 1/4 as you say a Z does it in, and this is from a standing start where the Rover isnt any good as we've already assertained, considering the Z ( I assume your referring to the 300ZX TT) has notable more grunt as standard, and still notably more grunt than my spec, consider what would happen from a rolling start, your z would be getting a fright to say the least if it was standard, obviously this is standard vs mildly modified, but it's hardly a piss poor car that doesnt have the right to be considered fast now is it?

 

Ross

aye :D

 

Your comment about TOTB, this is my point. you're racing 2 cars out of each others league. Rwd, 4wd, Fwd. Still, you can't beat that meastro ;)

give that man a badge and call him star nice one ross

Originally posted by t16

if you up the power on a rover 220 turbo to the same of a rx7 the rover will do the same 0-60 and from a rolling start where traction wouldnt be an isssue the rover would pull away from the rx7 this would also be the same as an evo or sti with rolling start 220 turbo would beat it traction is the only difference

 

tez

 

It wouldnt do the same 0-60 at all. As you said, traction is as much as a question from a rolling start, but 0-60 it is. There is no way a FWD car can do the same 0-60 as a car with the same weight and power but RWD.

Traction would pay a larger part on a damp road or on a road with corners. Life is not a flat straight road. Do you think a Rover coupé with the same power as an RX-7 would keep up with it around a track?

 

Then if you are then taking about rolling starts and the Rover doing better, you have to take gear ratios into account. What is the gear top speed of a Coupé then? I read its 149mph, but I think that is the terminal velocity, while the RX-7 will keep going to over 160mph.

there is a coupe turbo with 280 bhp that does 0-60 in 4.9 secs and going around a track all depends on the driver dont it.

 

tez

Originally posted by SRRAE

 

You can make ANY CAR fast with money. Get the same amount of money spent on that Rover in you pic on modding an RX-7 and it would probably be pushing out over 600mph. Not bad for a 1.3 litre engine.

 

I have seen modified old Minis go fly past R34s on a track, but what would you rather drive?

 

 

Blimey that is fast ;)

 

Id rather drive the mini.

 

As for FWD cars, its all about setting them up properly, remeber the F2 rally cars? (you should know about them) they were fwd and had as much traction as you needed by way of a *good* limited slip diff, and regularly kept pace - if not beating - the 4wd cars, on dry tarmac of course.

Buy a similar diff for any FWD car and they beat down a rwd car.

unless the rwd car had lsd too ;) then yr back to square one.

Originally posted by t16

there is a coupe turbo with 280 bhp that does 0-60 in 4.9 secs and going around a track all depends on the driver dont it.

 

tez

 

There is also a skyline which does 0-60 in 2.2

skyline that does 0-60 in 2.2 now yr just being silly lol on that comparison theres a nova that does 0-60 in 2.8 (nova) wasnt a spelling mistake LOL

 

anyway can we agree to disagree that rover 220 turbo's are not as slow as you first made out and that they are not just driven by old people and would give a rex a run for its money

 

tez

Firstly I have not heard any one say the rover is a shit car.

 

Ross has hit the nail on the head though. You are compairing a modified car to a non modified car. Talk of mild modded Rovers running 250-280bhp. Thats between 25% and 40% more than standard. Do the same with the RX-7 and see if you still have an argument.

 

When talking about racing a RX-7 or any other, you are working on the presumtion that the other car is not modified. For example it is easy to mod a Z to just under 400bhp.