Vauxhall Corsa 1.4 SRi

Showbizdave's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 25/08/2003

I would like to see you have a go at my corsa gsi!

Reply to this comment

Last Dragon's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 06/09/2003

I agree with you m8 if you put the mods i have that are in my review then you will go i bit faster im thinking of puting a eco valve on mine it will give better mpg and it also gives more speed throgh the box have fun.

Reply to this comment

Rif's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 10/11/2003

Well, where to start. Its a 5 door, so it dont turn heads, and (dare i repeat the phrase) it ISN'T a 'babe magnet'. However, it's pretty rapid. You can beat a VTR? NO! if u managed to keep up wiv it, try turning a corner n realising u cars twice as high n got VERY soft suspension! Now i AM a boy racer, n ive got a 1.6, so can i race u? By the way its a civic 1.6 16v v-tec, 2 door coupe. Dropped 60mm with 18's on. Full exaust system and full pipercross induction kit. PHEW i feel better with that of my chest!

Reply to this comment

Showbizdave's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 11/11/2003

What i forgot to tell u people is that mine ain't standard either. It does 0-60 in 5 secs with a flick of a switch! (No lie, tested on track, of course). And by the way it is lowered all round. Oh and yes i can insure it as im 23 with full no claims.

Reply to this comment

Showbizdave's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 11/11/2003

I am getting rid of my car anyway as im getting too old for this boy racer lark, plus the fact i need something more economical. Besides its not 0-60 that makes a car its the torque it produces. Thats why im going to look at a new Seat Ibiza Sport TDi 130 this week! I do agree with u though mate your 1.4 will not stand a chance at any decent 1.6 litre cars especially your V-TEC. He might of beat a VTR off the lights by a couple of hundred yards but what he didn't say is that the VTR flew past him as soon as he reached 40mph! I have nothing against the corsa 1.4 16v as it is a fast car FOR A 1.4, plus its cheap to run, ideal for a young lad who wants to be different. Good on you mate

Reply to this comment

Y960051's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 13/11/2003

civic v-tech!! wow!! er not!! m8s got one not even that fast got spanked by a vts!!! ok vts's r fast but come on shouldnt get beat dat bad?? it aint got 5 doors its got 3 (read the caption under photo???).
 anyway ive recently lowered my corsa by 45mm all rnd, blacked out the windows and put 17's on it. so its lookin fine!!
 ive also put a k&n induction kit, straight thru pipercross exhaust system, superchipped and had the engine polished and re-bored!!!!
 so come and have a go if u think ur fast enough??? as long as it aint past ur bedtime wot wiv u drivin a civic and all

Reply to this comment

Pj Ss's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 17/01/2004

I have got a rover 214 running on 18" crome spinners ! Dropped 60mm spax all round ! Twin 45s wiv 2 pipercross filters ! Kent Kammed ! 4 branch manifold connected to my 6" SS through pipe ! Superchipped !

Reply to this comment

Rif's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 25/01/2004

haha y960051, don't if you noticed, but a civic 1.6 and a VTS both have the same engine in, except that a VTS weight 800kg, n the civic coupe weighs over 1400, so of course its going to be faster. the only reason I can beat a VTR is because its an 8v. besides, the v-tech is faster top end because of its high lift cams kickin in after 4,000 revs, reducing the mpg by 10mpg. Do your homework.

Reply to this comment

Wallpaper's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 05/02/2004

Yea thats nice and all but u know you said bring it on to any 1.6 cars... well i have a escort RS turbo, id like to see you beat that m8!!! oh yea and i forgot it has 160bhp!!! HAHA

Reply to this comment

Cankucuk's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 09/02/2004

be fair guys! I am also driving a Corsa. Dont try to compare a 1.4 corsa with modified 1.6s. Confess that it is a fast and durable standart car, if you compare with other standart 1.4s as well as with some Standart! (not all of them) 1.6s. But it is good to see that it is in such a conversation which at least proves that this car has really something to say.

Reply to this comment

Gundard's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 07/04/2004

false, the saxo and civic have different engines, the civic has a vetec engine which is awsome after 2500 rpm and would cane a saxo vtr/vts.

Reply to this comment

Rif's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 08/04/2004

False, the v-Tech engines ony fire off after 3,500 revs, because this is where hte high lift cams kick in. However, unless its the VTi version of the civic, the VTS will beat it, also the VTR beats the LSi civic too :) but not the SRi :P

Reply to this comment

Matty64's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 20/04/2004

Firstly, a 1.4 corsa is a good little car, relaible, and easy to drive. Its not fast, just a bit nippy lower down. secondly, ive got a Saxo Vts and they're not quite as quick as a civic 1.6 vti. But it depends more on the drive, as they're pretty close up to about 120 mph (then the Saxo falls behind).

Reply to this comment

Jaylee2000's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 03/06/2004

I used to have a Seat Ibiza 1.4 CLS (lighty modded) and that kept up with a Corsa 1.4 up to 90mph. For what the Corsa is they are nippy. I now have a Civic coupe non Vtec, yes the VTR beats me off the lights but once I hit 60, the VTR has no chace (I know many people with VTR's). The VTS are fast, ok the Civic coupe are heavy, but a 1990 (H Reg) civic 1.6 VTI hatch can murder the following VTS, 205 1.9 Gti, 106 Gti, Astra Gsi, 2.5 V6 vectra, 2.5 V6 Calibre, Seat Ibiza Gti, Golf VR6 and will give a Escort RS turbo (170bhp) a run for its money.

Reply to this comment

Corradovr6T's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 08/09/2004

The day a standard 1.6 vti civic can 'Murder' a 2.8 golf VR6 i will eat my hat!

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 12/12/2004

I to used to own a 1.4 sri mine was the 8v non ecotec rubbish. I raced other 8 valve models and always pulled away. Also 1.4 16valve sris were no problem. Most pulled me up asking me if I had a 1.6 under the bonnet. I did race a 106 gti 120bhp with my 93bhp sri. 0-50 he was ahead from 60-80 I would stay with him. Considering he had almost 30bhp more than my car he never really left me by much. If you want to race a 1.6 try racing a nova gte/gsi corsa gsi and you will be destroyed mate.

Reply to this comment

Corradovr6T's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 14/12/2004

No 1.6 nova gte or 1.6 corsa will ever 'Destroy' me, I wouldn't bother racing one as I dont race on the road, but im pretty sure my stage II vortech supercharged 3.0l corrado VR6 would easily dispense with either.

Reply to this comment

Jaylee2000's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 14/12/2004

Can someone please remind me how much or should I say how under powered a 2.8 VR6 engine really is, not even 180bhp. Coupled along with a really heavy chassis and engine that weighs a tonne, they are no match for a much lighter hatches, esp an EK9 type R (185 bhp on a 1.6). But seriously a VR6 should be pushing well over 230bhp, why did VW make them under powered + hardly any miles a gallon.

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 17/12/2004

Your vr6 is a heavy underpowerd car for the size of its engine. Why is it all these people with the heavy cars seem to believe they are so quick when they beat the odd corsa or saxo that is standerd. A vr6 golf or corrado is very heavy and from all the years I have been going to track days or street cruises www.cruise-central.com I have allways seen them get destroyed by smaller lighter cars with less power and evan bigger cars. Fact is they are rubbish cars that no one buys. There not performance cars and you can get better cheaper more powerfull cars that can easily out perform it. My mate has a 2003 seat leon cupra which has 1.8 turbo 180bhp which on a motorway would put any vr6 to shame because I have seen it happen, after 125mph the vr6 started to fade behind. Tell you what stop picking on the small boy racers and try picking on the big boy racers and I myself would be glad to race your car against my mk3 gsi 2.0 turbo 263bhp.

Reply to this comment

Corradovr6T's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 17/12/2004

Specs for Cupra R (225) - From Evo Magazine
 
 Bhp/rpm 180/5600
 Lbft/rpm 173/2100
 Bhp/ton 163
 0-60 mph 7.1
 Max mph 140
 Ratin 4 stars
 
 Specs Corrado Vr6 - From Evo Magazine
 Bhp/rpm 190/5800
 Lbft/rpm 180/4200
 Bhp/ton 156
 0-60 mph 6.2
 Max mph 143
 Ratin 5 stars
 
 
 Although I think the Cupra R is a great car and have driven one with an AMD remap and was very impressed, the 225 is hardly any more impressive than a stock corrado vr6, so I doubt the 180 is any better....
 
 I dont think the corrado is an all amazing car, I was simply stating that a 1.6 Corsa is not going to stand a chance, and I'm not going to start spouting horse power numbers for my car because I'm not into 'mines faster than yours' arguments, either way 263bhp astra sounds fun fun fun.

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 20/12/2004

You have got the figures wrong mate, the Cupra r 225 has 225bhp my mates ain’t this model it’s the 180bhp Cupra version 20v t 0-60 is 7.7 secs and top speed is 142mph it’s 0-60 might not be that quick but I have been in his car at 100mph and past the 140mph and the way in which it does this is very impressive for just 180bhp. From what I have seen of the cars like yours they never impressed me because they always seemed to get left. Maybe the engines needed a good tune up or something. As for the Cupra r 225 the 0-60 is 6.9 and top speed is 150mph, Evo magazine issue 070 page 163. As for the Corrado vr6 0-60 is 6.2 and top speed is 143mph so the vr6 is faster 0-60 1.5secs quicker than my mates and 1mph top end so 0-60 it will have my mate but top end its only 1mph quicker even though the vr6 is a 2.8 and the Cupra is a 1.8 as for the Cupra r 225 the vr6 is 0.7sec quicker 0-60 and Cupra is 7mph quicker top end. This is why I don’t get why the vr6 is such a big engine that should have a lot more bhp and 0-60 should be under 6secs and top end should be 150mph it can get left by smaller engine cars or just about leave smaller engine cars. As for my Astra gsi turbo 0-60 is about 5.6 and does 158mph (estimates) anyway mate as I said you must have a pukka vr6 compared to what I have witnessed in the past.

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 21/12/2004

vr6t the 1.6 comment I first made weren’t directed at you either it was the geeza with his 90bhp Corsa that is so fast and said he will take on any 1.6 90bhp and its that fast ay? I had a sri and it had a little over that but 0-60 on a sri is over 10secs its also funny how a few comments later he has more than 90 bhp and his 0-60 is almost half the proper 0-60 time?

Reply to this comment

Murgy007's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 21/12/2004

Jaylee2000 - What car have you got now? Have you ever driven a VR6?

Reply to this comment

Corradovr6T's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 21/12/2004

I do agree with your opinion that it is underpowered for its engine size, what you must remember though is that this engine was revolutionary being that it is a 15 degree V6 and only has 2 valves per cylinder, VW were originally going to fit the VWM Manifold which gives a lot more torque and horse power but for some reason they didnt, i have a shrick VSR fitted and it makes a hell of a difference even without any other mods but at £1500 it is very expensive, if you want a car thats cheap to modify DO NOT buy a corrado VR6, i have spent on the dark side of £8000 on my engine alone, if you want cheap power buy an import 300hp scoobie off ebay....

Reply to this comment

Murgy007's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 21/12/2004

The VR6 is not underpowered, what are you comparing it to? Which other V6 engine from the early 90's creates more power? Fuel consumption not bad either, my VR6 does only 2 miles to the gallon less than my Renault 19 16v. The VR6 will get beaten by other cars on track days because they dont start really performing until they hit about 60 mph and I will admit standard suspension and 1/4 mile times are poo. As for the Seat on the motorway has it ever crossed your mind that if the car ran out of steam at 125mph it was probably a gti with VR6 badges on it? My car is completely standard and will do 147mph on the flat no problem, also the Seat is nearly 10 years more advanced than the VR6.

Reply to this comment

Samm's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 21/12/2004

Ok I have a Corrado VR6, not turboed like yours though, that must be "interesting" my car weighs just over 1200kgs so no, it is not heavy in the grander scheme of todays machinery that is laden with safety/technology features. It produces 190bhp & 180pounds of torque. I actually bought the VR6 over more powerful machinery- Nissan 200 & MR2 Turbo, it's not a manic car, it's very refined and effortless performance. But unlike the golf, the Corrado has a good chassis so is good in the twisties despite it's big engine- I used to have a 205 1.9 with a good suspension kit and a standard and my Corrado still has better handling. You have to remember this engine was designed a long time ago so none of today,s 4 valves per cylinder and VVT etc, but it's a very robust unit and if looked after will easily see 200k+ I've got nothing against people owning small cylinder cars- I drove bangers for three years to clock up the NCB so I could get the VR6 but don't try and make out like it is something it is not, and if you'r into modifying, get something that is good and 1.8+ and mod that, not a 1.4, thats just a waste of money. The guy that is looking at an Ibiza TDI 130, get a chip on that and you will have a powerful car and a huge grin! but chipping a n/a 1.4 is pointless.

Reply to this comment

Andyvr6's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 22/12/2004

Quote: 'Fact is they are rubbish cars that no one buys.'
 
 Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
 
 Try reading some Corrado reviews in the motoring press, better still, drive one- see how rubbish they really are! Jeremy Clarkson actually wore a black armband on Top Gear when Corrado production ceased, and did you happen to see the 'Future Classics' feature last series? 'nuff said.
 
 Come back and make some comments when you REALLY know something about cars!

Reply to this comment

Jaylee2000's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 22/12/2004

Ok I do drive a civic and it’s only a 1.6 SOHC non-vtec, but against a car with a similar engine and chassis size I rarely fall back, it had been modded a bit. Even with a 2.0L Celica GTi 5th generation there is not much between us up to a 110. Yes I do get hammered from smaller cars such as the 106 Gti, the first car I owned was a 205 Gti, very quick off the mark but top end wasn’t that good.
 
 And just because I don’t own a big engine car doesn’t mean I haven’t driven one. I have driven a Toyota Supra 3.0L non-turbo and the new M3. I have been in a 911 turbo (420+bhp) and 200SX (just under the 300bhp margin) and a 2.2 Vtec prelude about 250bhp. I am comparing the VR6 with a non-turbo 300ZX, supra, older M3, the 406 V6 and if we want to use 4 cylinders then a Prelude 2.2 Vtec.
 
 I have also driven the Golf 2L Gti (R reg) and was not impressed with the car.
 
 Please don’t say that a VR6 or in that matter any petrol 2.5L or bigger V6 is economical, economic in what sense? That you get about 20 – 25 mpg combined if you ‘really’ take it easy. A work colleague has a VR6, no mods and it's heavy on fuel, and a friend owns a Mazda MX3 1.8L V6 again this drinks petrol. The only V6 that is economical is a diesel.
 Murgy007 please realise that Honda were getting 160bhp from a 1.6 block back in 1989 (B16A) and 220bhp from the H22 series engine in 1991, so age doesn’t really count.

Reply to this comment

Murgy007's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 23/12/2004

Buy one mate, then you will know what I am talking about. Fuel consumption in my car is excellent for a 2.8 V6, because I am not forever changing gear and nailing my car to reach 60mph. You can compare figures on paper all day but put 5 people in the 160bhp Honda and 5 people in the 174bhp VR6 and see what happens, the VR6 will still hit 140mph where as the poor Honda will be puffing and wheezing at 110mph, it would get anhialated. As for comparing a gti to a VR6, well I rest my case, you can't really know that much about cars to make that kind of comparison.

Reply to this comment

Samm's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 23/12/2004

On my 20 mile drive to work which I only drive like a granny if there is traffic, I get 29mpg on average, not much less than my 205 except it is miles more comfortable and a lot quicker. Honda v techs are good, I know as I've driven a Civic Type R 500 miles but you only get the real benefit from it if you rag it, they don't have much torque so you have to rev past 5,800 rpm every time you want to make quick progress.

Reply to this comment

Ice White Socks's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 23/12/2004

I had a Vauxhall 1.4SRi- loved it- nice colour nice seats, nippy etc- couldn't recommend it enough. I used to regularly beat 1.6 GSi's etc.
 
 Changed it for a Corrado VR6 funnily enough. It's not the lightest car around but it's an absolute cracker- bags of pace and torque. Pulls straight to 145 without any worries. Top speed was 158 when pulling away from an Audi S3 that probably cost four times what my car's worth. The Corrado VR6 is a legend and that's all there is too it. I have a 180 bhp Cupra as a company car- Doesn't even come close to the Corrado in any way.

Reply to this comment

Jaylee2000's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 24/12/2004

Murgy007, ok I'm not too clued up on VW etc, I tend to like JDM cars, but 174 bhp from a 2.8L engine...., you cannot compare it with a 1.6, remain realistic. I think everyone reading this would agree. A 2.8 will of course have more top end due to displacement. Have you ever been up against the 2.2 SIR Prelude, more evenly matched.

Reply to this comment

Samm's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 29/12/2004

Well I bought my car also over a 2.2l Prelude, the Prelude was a good car but didn't feel special, when the VR6 goes past 3k revs it sounds amazing but in the Prelude it just spunds, well like a 4cylinder but it's a good car. Of course there is another car that would be better to compare the Corrado (2.9) with, the Fiat Coupe 20V Turbo- in a straight line the Corrado will not stand a chance, I have been in one and this thing will make any hot hatch seem sluggish 1/4m=13 seconds and thats straight out the box! But of course, as soon as you get to the twisties, the Corrado will anhialate it! Oh and the fuel economy is a hell of a lot worse on the Fiat than the Corrado!

Reply to this comment

Warrenbwalker's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 13/01/2005

The guy with the corsa 1.4 is seriously delluded. And the guy that thinks that nobody buys VR6- Why do corrados and golf VR6's still command relatively high prices on the used market??? Why do they have dedicated forums, and still manage a listing in Evo car Mag- dont see the 1.4 corsa in there???!?!? Mines running 200BHP and its quick- quickest hatch ive owned and I know people with supercharged VR6's (corrado and golf) and they are scary!!!! ;-) You will always get more power from a turbo'd 2.8/2.9 than a 2 litre running the same pressure. A corsa is a car for mothers and their kids not a performance car...

Reply to this comment

Mitchy's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 18/01/2005

VR6 Corrado boy.....
 
 Why have you given the stats for a Cupra (180bhp) and quoted them as being Cupra R (225bhp)?

Reply to this comment

Jaylee2000's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 19/01/2005

warrenbwalker.....
 
 Almost every ‘sports’ car have dedicated forums, the reason why they are still expensive is because there are a rare and you don’t see them often, well not up here in the poorer north. Yes 2.8/2.9 turbo will always have more power than a 2.0 turbo as standard, that’s obvious...I have never disputed that. My discussion was about N/A engines, but if you want to compare forced induction I don’t hear of many VR6 over 1000bhp, unlike skylines!!! So lets not get silly and keep the discussion on more realistic issues.

Reply to this comment

Corradovr6T's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 19/01/2005

My bad, pasted wrong info.
 
 
 Model Price Engine cyl/cc Bhp/rpm Lbft/rpm Bhp/ton 0-60mph Maxmph evorating
 
 SEAT Leon Cupra R 225 £18,000 4/1781 222/5900 206/2200 164 6.9 150 4

Reply to this comment

Samm's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 19/01/2005

A remapped 225 will easily out run a CVR6 in a streight line

Reply to this comment

Warrenbwalker's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 20/01/2005

A Peugeot 607 is rare but they dont hold their value! ;-) Its because they are still sought after, i had major hassle trying to find a nice one but it took me ages as they were sold almost as soon as they were advertised. BTW have you seen Dubsports motors? A skyline or supra with 1000BHP would be a lovely proposition, especially when you would need the engine rebuilt every weekend. please dont say that it would be an ok everyday car- as race spec skylines run much less than that and they need to be rebuilt after every race!! Granted the std 8V GTI is not lightning quick, if you had driven a VR6 (corrado or Golf) maybe you would understand why people cherish them so much. I owned a jap car for 10 months in between my many golfs and it was awful- horrible design, horrible garish interiors, and cheap feel plastics, and i dont think honda has ever made an aesthetically pleasing car (bar the NSX) They are very reliable though. The new civic type r is nice, however ive already shown a few my exhausts....Amazing what a chip and a straight through exhaust can do......:-) The VR6 is certainly far from the best car on the planet but its damn good, and deserves credit, unlike a corsa 1.4. The GSI version even got slated for being a terrible handler....EVO magazine qouted the Astra GSI as: 'having a chassis made from toilet paper and old socks'. As far as overall driving ability goes you cant beat a corrado VR6...

Reply to this comment

Murgy007's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 20/01/2005

Never come up against a Prelude, dont tend to race old men!! All that matters is I am happy with my car, it has its good points and bad points. The 174bhp figures in the back of a magazine mean nothing, the VR6 is a great driving experience as is driving a lot of the other cars mentioned in these discussions, the car that is not a good driving experience which is the reason why we have all posted here is the Corsa 1.4. I have just read the top article again and I cannot stop laughing "Good Points - acceleration" LOL.

Reply to this comment

Jaylee2000's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 21/01/2005

Some of the guys and girls reading this may remember Top Gear when Jeremy Clarkson reviewed the Yellow skyline from a tuning garage up in Scotland, it was running about 1000bhp. The thing that surprised him was it has never broken down since being tuned up to that level and was used as a daily driver. I also have a vid of 950bhp golf from Germany, it was black with a chequered flag, and that was amazing. But we can only dream of those cars. Yes I agree most jap interiors are cheapy but Lexus are really nice, my civic’s interior may not be the best but anything was better than my P reg seat Ibiza which was horrible.

Reply to this comment

Shawp's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 09/02/2005

Saxo vts, slammed 40mm, toyo t1-s tyres, fse boost valve, superchip, green forced air induction kit, full miltek exhaust with 4-2-1 manifold and de-cat, interior fully stripped out, reverie carbon fibre race seats, i'l have you a race!!!

Reply to this comment

Warrenbwalker's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 11/02/2005

If it doesnt break down first!

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 11/02/2005

As well as my 263bhp mk3 astra gsi I have a standerd weekday mk3 astra 2.0 16v which is standard apart from a k&n. It just runs 154bhp big diference from the turbo. Its still quick 0-60 7.5 secs and have got 145mph and still had more in the revs. As for the handling comment I dont care I got the turbo for that. Anyway the gsi is up for sale as I am after a 1.6 civic sir. Very quick for a 1.6 has 170bhp standered. You dont have to change gear as quick as the 2.0 gsi its faster and cheaper to run. If any one is intrested in the gsi its a j reg good condition 115k has two rear spoilers,15"original fan blade alloys plus spare, tints x2 imobolizers had 2 owners £1000s in reciepts 12months m.o.t £1500 reply here. westmids (its not the turbo its the sfi)
 
 Anyway back to the vr6?? Rubbish. My mates just sold his for a honda civic 1.6 sir. Ok the engines designs are old on the vr6 but so is the honda civics 1.6 vti and sir which produce 160bhp and 170bhp that shames most bigger engine manufacturers. The vr6 is almost twice the size. I did go in the vr6 and I do agree it does have a lot of torque but its more of a smooth driving car. And if you are geting left by smaller cars up till 60mph there is some thing wrong there because 0-60 in under 7 secs isn't it. I haven't got it in for vw I had an mk2 16v and it was one of the best cars I had just think the vr6 could of been a lot better than it is. The handling is better than I thought after being in my mates, so I take that bit back - it's the performance!

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 13/02/2005

Oh yeah BMW 325i has 192bhp this is the j-s reg model and thats a v6 2.5 not 2.8 or 2.9 and this came out in 91. This is why I think vw could of pushed the bhp up a lot more. Also considering! Anyway as I said I take back some of the comments I made about the car, and yeah I have now driven one. Not that fully impressed and I still wouldn't buy one.

Reply to this comment

Murgy007's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 14/02/2005

Probably could have squeezed a bit more out of the engine, the shrick manifold would have helped if VW hadnt decided it wasnt going to cost too much. Bookfigures are 7.5 seconds to 60mph. As I have said before, you can look at bhp figures all day but put 5 people in the civic and the bhp figures mean nothing. As for the BMW this is a proper V6 engine, the golf is not. The engine in the golf is a VR6 - maybe you should do a little bit of reading about this engine.

Reply to this comment

Murgy007's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 14/02/2005

Oh by the way, rather than looking at the 0-60 times take a look at the 30 - 100mph times for the VR6. Believe me or not but an M5 could not leave me the other day until we hit 100mph, do you think your Astra would have kept up?

Reply to this comment

Warrenbwalker's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 14/02/2005

For a start the 325i was produced up until 95(and later badged a 323i)was 170BHP and the 328i was 193BHP. I think only on E46 cars the 325 produced 190 BHP (as i think it then came with a 24V head) so there isnt that much in it.
 And your mate who sold his VR6 for a civic must be a very 'rare' individual. Most people usually get better cars when they sell their current car. Is it possible he couldnt afford to run it? They arent cheap to run. To be fair i dont mind the Astra and think it looks quite nice standard- but the problem is most have either been 'chavved' up or have suddenly imploded into a ball of rust. Finding a nice one is hard. As stated before im not saying the VR6 is not perfect but this hatchback was released in 94 and was a pretty much unheard of combination for a hatchback in those days- and dont forget it wasnt meant to be a trackday car - it was meant for cruising the autobahns. The VR6 is fairly quick- the reason it doesnt feel so rapid is because of the power delivery- it is super smooth! I have owned 2 mk 2 GTI 16 Valves and thought they were amazing and easily a better trackday car than the VR6, but you cant beat the power delivery of the VR6.

Reply to this comment

Audi3Point2Quattro's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 14/02/2005

bought a vr6, with bmc, full ss exhaust (cat back), shrick manifold, amd chipped, lowered on fk konigs, at last rr, 198bhp 191ft/lbs, 0-60 6.6 seconds.
 
 im sorry, but its a decent car, although an expensive engine to modify, and its power/weight is not that great.
 
 however...
 
 nothing beats the sound of a vr6 at 5000 rpm's powering its way past you.
 nothing beats the feeling when you floor it and the front of the car lifts up
 nothing beats the raw power you feel.
 
 thats what makes it a 'car'

Reply to this comment

Samm's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 14/02/2005

Maybe you should try a Corrado VR6, ok a 200 is better VFM but the Corrado is another step up from the Golf VR.

Reply to this comment

Corradovr6T's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 15/02/2005

"Corrado VR6 with bmc, full ss exhaust (cat back), shrick manifold, amd chipped, lowered on fk konigs, at last rr, 198bhp 191ft/lbs"
 
 Thats pretty poor for the mods you have, I had only SS zaust and AMD remap and made 204bhp and 199lb/ft on the rollers.
 The shrick should take your torque up another 10 or so...
 
 
 Also
 nothing beats the sound of a vr6 at 5000 rpm's powering its way past you.- The sound of a 290bhp supercharged vr6 ;o)

Reply to this comment

Warrenbwalker's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 16/02/2005

Thats not bad for a golf VR6 - thats probably what it is... Would be expecting a few more horses though ;) Mind you at the stealth rr day that I went to 2 weeks ago I was seeing (nearly) standard cars putting out 185 - 192 BHP!!!

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 16/02/2005

No vr6 is going be any trouble for the astra gsi turbo to keep up with unless it has 290+bhp so dont be silly here. The astra is alloy lighter than the vr6. 0-100mph its still very quick as I have left cars with more power than a vr6 in the mid range power. Its a mark 3 astra not 4 so its not that heavy. As for the sound of the vr6 who cares, whats the point in sound without performance. As for the bmw my dad owned the 2.5 a few years ago and it was not no 170bhp it was 192bhp it was the l kreg model the start of one of the newer shapes e36? I'm not sure. All I know is the one before it came with 170bhp. My friend changed his vr6 because the car was having problems with the fueling and a few others. He has the honda because its more reliable, easier to tune and cheaper to run and faster. Of course the 1.6 honda isn't going to be as quick as the vr6 with four adults against the vr6 with four adults but the fact is its not as far off as you may think. And for a 1.6 its far more advanced than the vr6 and with a few mods can stay right next to the vr6 at high speeds. As with trying to tune a vr6 is a lot more expensive and the perfomance changes dont go up as quick as the honda. As for the vr6 and m5! Dont direspect bmw by trying to say the m5 had trouble geting away from you. That was all down to the driver. Your moving into a different league right there.

Reply to this comment

Punto Gt Turbo's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 17/02/2005

You'll blow me away with your 90bhp, take it you've not come up against a punto gt which is a 1.4 turbo with 136 bhp as standard.

Reply to this comment

Murgy007's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 17/02/2005

How can you possibly talk about reliability running a vauxhall???!!!!!!!!!!! Dont make me laugh, My mate has a mk 3 Astra turbo and its running 230bhp, it is constantly knackered, too much power for the engine. Another mate has a mk 4 astra turbo (calibra turbo engine), he runs over 300bhp out of his and I cannot keep track of the amount of head gaskets he has blown. I wonder if the bloke with the corrado that is tuned to 290bhp has this problem!!!
 If you dont have problems with yours maybe you have got a cos cast head. These can handle the power but are like rocking horse poo and there is little power to be gained. I could get better power figures out of the golf for less cash than you could out of the Astra. When asking about keeping up with me I was on about the day to day astra you are trying to sell, you are bound to beat me in the turbo, that goes without saying, my golf is used on a daily basis and I never have any problems with my car. I bet if you used the Astra turbo everyday you would spend a fortune on repairs. Oh by the way how many Astras do you know of with 250000 miles on the clock - I rest my case!!

Reply to this comment

Warrenbwalker's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 17/02/2005

Hmmm, seeing as your so called Astra is running a hear say "290 BHP" it would be interesting to see you in a quarter mile with a friends mk3 golf 2.9 4x4 Syncro with supercharger which should be running around 290BHP and similar torque..... I would be great fun watching your Astra lose its sills half way down the straight. Or if you really fancy a challenge what about dubsports 900BHP twin charged VR6 engined mk 3 Golf. Seriously though with regard to the BMW- I think you should check www.Parkers.co.uk for specs - the 325 did not have 190 BHP. The 328 did...... And I dont know many true golf owners who would ever swap to a japenese car after owning something German. I owned a Nissan Almera GTI for 9 months after owning a string of 10 dubs. I did this as I was spending far too much money modding Golfs. After 9 months I had to have a golf VR6 again. I do like the feel of a turbo kicking but you cant beat the feel of 6 pot motoring compared to 4 pot.... Its in a different league mate. I nearly bought an Astra GSI but bought the Nissan as it got much better reviews than the Astra- comparisons new and owners comments

Reply to this comment

Ice White Socks's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 17/02/2005

Spliff1star- Your obviously a bit misinformed so I'll quote you direct from the VR6 vs 325i coupe Autocar test ' if you need further convincing of the VR6's pace, consider its shattering 30-70mph sprint of 5.7 secs. Put into perspective thats faster than a BMW M5 and as fast as an Aston Martin Virage and way out of the 325i's league, which trails by more than a second' maybe comparing the VR6 and its M5 rival of the same age isn't so silly after all eh??

Reply to this comment

Samm's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 17/02/2005

Depends what you are after, of course you can go and get a 1.8T IHI conversion and have 350+bhp with 4wd and it would eat the astra for breakfast, personally I wouldn't touch an Astra with a barge pole, straight line speed is very good but most enthusiasts love the handling of a car and when I tried an Astra GSI It was a bit scary really how bad it was, If I was going old school hatch I would get something similar to the 205 MI16 I had, but thats just because I prefer N/A but some people prefer turbos- especially for tuning.

Reply to this comment

Audi3Point2Quattro's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 17/02/2005

Yep, the vr6 is outshined by many cars, but you have to remember i'm talking about a naturally aspirated engine, put a vr6 on a turbo and the APD guys have got 500BHP out of one, give it two engines in a mk3 shell (saw one at the gti international last year, I think its dubsport) and that is very powerful. I think when it comes to small cars with lots of attitude the astra's with turbo's are great, the vr6 is more refined, its a comfortable drive, looks okay (okay, not compared with a mk2), sounds great (hey you save money on buying a stereo LOL) and will see most younger boy racers off quite hapily. I dont know many people under the 25 mark who drive m3 and m5's (not the newer ones anyway), those are very very good cars and I would happily trade a vr for a m3 (probably + £30000, vr is worth nothing on second hand). The vr is a practicle golf with decent power, its had great reviews (if you discount the shoddy old granny handling) so it ain't that bad.

Reply to this comment

Murgy007's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 18/02/2005

Thank you ice white socks for confirming what I said was true about the M5

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 19/02/2005

Since when did you hear me say i'm comparing the astra that I sold. Thats standard - its only slightly over 150bhp and I have had 2 astra gsi mk3s within 3 years and the only problem I had was the radiator leaking. As for the gsi turbo I never said anything about reliability with that either. I said the gsi turbo is for perfomance and the standerd gsi was for normal driving. So try reading correctly. Obviously you have never had a turbo car. They will always have probs if they have not been fitted with the right parts, checked over regalur and the engine is set up to handle the power. Maybe thats where your mates are going wrong. I have had a new headgasket new turbo many parts replaced because they had gone / blown but if you have the money to replace them you replace them dont you. If you buy a turbo car its never cheap to run everyone nows that. Mines running fine and have not had a problem with it in about 8 months. Leave your power gain talk to some one with a non turbo car. There are four m5s so which one are we talking about here??

Reply to this comment

Murgy007's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 21/02/2005

Try reading correctly! One of the same age, which makes it the 88-96 model.

Reply to this comment

Samm's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 21/02/2005

I think he was referring to the M5 that was around when the Corrado came out- early 90's, oh and lets not forget, the Corrado VR6 also easily outshone the 200bhp Nissan 200 & Probe V6 and of course the 325 as mentioned, so at the time it was about the best out there in it's price range.

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 23/02/2005

Murgy007 I also forgot to mention if your friend is only running 230bhp from his 2.0 turbo redtop he definitely hasn't got his engine set-up correctly because the engine has 201bhp standard so another 29bhp shouldn't stress the engine. Also a Calibra turbo engine is the same redtop turbo engine which would be in a Astra mk3 gsi conversion, so your mate with the mk3 engine should be identical to the mk4s yeah!!? The Astra gsi turbo is the last mk3 gsi Vauxhall made. The r-reg model with 36,000 on the 2.0 ecotec engine it came with. The 2.0 turbo redtop conversion had 41,000 on the clock which is very good considering it was out of a k-reg Calibra I did 6,300miles with the Astra gsi turbo before it was sold to its new owner. So if the car still had the original engine it would only have 42,000 miles with the new engine it went with just 47,000 miles. Now for an Astra mk3 that's very low. There are a lot of mk3 gsi's/turbos out there with very high miles as my standard j-reg gsi had 115,000miles on the clock. But it's not always about how high the miles on the clock are. It can also be a good engine and if serviced and maintained correctly will be fine. A lot of vw cars have high miles on the clock and people don't really look at that when buying one because they know 90% of them will keep going on forever. My friends vr6 was in that 10% the mk2 gti I had was an h-reg with 150,000 on the clock when I burnt it, but I wasn't bothered about that. It had a few minor things that needed doing to the engine along the way just like the standard Astra gsi did. Its a bonus if you find a vw vr6 with just 25,000 on the clock nowadays that seems very low and I would like to no what reg that is?? Or are you talking a new golf or something? I used to use the gsi turbo 7 days a week mate and it never cost me a fortune apart from the usual things that go now and again on a turbo engine. I started driving the other non turbo gsi in the week because I never wanted to build up miles on the turbo as I went to uni in Leicester from Birmingham 5days a week, I would also like to know what golf you are talking about that you can get more power than the Astra. As for warren b walker my dad had a Almera gti for a couple of months. I drove it once and I loved it. Its by far better build quality than the Astra, handling and looks as long as it has the full gti kit. But its not as fast as a standard mk3 gsi. And the gsi turbo was for performance its a lot quicker than the Almera, can handle a lot better due to the mods it had. I wanted a Nissan Almera gti it had everything but just never had the performance from the engine for me. I now have a Nissan pulsar which is 10 times better than the Astra gsi turbo was. But the Astra gsi turbo was still a great car, and I can proudly say that no vr6 could touch it for the years I owned it no matter what you all want to say about the vr6.

Reply to this comment

Warrenbwalker's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 24/02/2005

Think your on your own there mate..... A VR6 will always have a much larger following than an Astra GSI...... It will also be around for a lot longer too!!! Personally the only thing I like about the Astra was the look of it (and they were quite quick in their day- for a 2 litre 16V) Nissan almera I owned was a good car- not particulary quick (nearly on a par with a golf GTI 16V) but the handling was brilliant- more like a mk2 golf!!! Nissan Pulsar GTIR are quite cool though- expensive when they go wrong though!!! Ive heard stories of clutches costing 1500 quid!!!!

Reply to this comment

Samm's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 24/02/2005

Check out the corrado forum, there is a 350BHP 4WD Corrado that would eat any Astra for breakfast lol, and plenty of Supercharged VR6 Corrados with 280+bhp aswell. There are also a few MK3/4 golfs kicking about with the KKK04 & IHI conversion=350bhp WITH r32 4wd Syncro so be careful not to make swooping generalisations.

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 27/02/2005

Did yuo read my previous comments? No vr6 unless it has 280+ bhp would have been any match for the astra gsi turbo I had. And with regards to the gsi being good in its day - I know it was but i'm talking about the 20.16v turbo sfi engine here which was the conversion engine that was in my mk3 gsi. I raced a few vr6 golfs and corrados and I left them. I do not know what bhp they had or what mods had been done to the engine. This is the point i'm trying to get across. Im not saying the mk3 astra is an all round better car than the vr6 or almera. I'm saying that all the years I owned the astra gsi turbo no vr6 was a problem at the lights, on a motorway or at track days for me. Yeah there are going to be vr6s out there with more bhp/better engine setup than the astra gsi turbo that could eat the astra for breakfast. But I was never approched by any in all the years I had the gsi turbo. This is one of the reasons why I dont rate the vr6 performance wise. When people are getting offended and saying silly things like the astra gsi turbo would have no chance against a 350bhp and beyond vr6 or golf with two vr6 engines.Of course it would have no chance. I did say the almera did have better handling than a standard astra gsi as the gsi's handling is rubbish. The fact is that unless you do engine upgrades, turbos, supercharge, superchip? Whatever there are always going to be cars that will out perform other much more expensive or bigger engined cars. I'm not saying the astra gsi turbo I owned was the fastest thing on the road but anyone that has been in a car that could do 0-60 in the 5 sec bracket and would pull in all 6 gears and easily reach 160mph in an astra mk3 could not say that was not impresive. Yeah its not the same quality as a vw but it was a good car for what it was.
 I dont really know to much about pulsars just yet. But I had mine fully checked over before I burt it. Everything is either hks upgrades or spoon.this doesn't mean things will not go wrong with the pulsar. Parts for example gearboxes can be costly in most cars I think if you know the right people then its not to bad. I got qoutes for an f28 gearbox for the standerd gsi for £350-£406 from cowboys eventually got it for £160 recon unit including fitting.

Reply to this comment

Warrenbwalker's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 01/03/2005

Ok, lets look at this in a fair way. Vauxhall never made a Astra GSI mk3 Turbo. The Astra GSI was near enough discontinued when the VR6 came out but if you put both standard cars against each other, you would be disillusioned in saying that the GSI was a better car. The VR6 had better handling, power, acceleration, and buld quality. Admittedly I personally feel the GSI was a more sporty looking car than the vr6.
 pulsar gtir are good- I test drove one a while back....

Reply to this comment

Murgy007's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 01/03/2005

I think the reason you got everybodys back up is because in an earlier statement you said VR6s were rubbish, this obviously is not the case. I like my mates Astras, really really quick but I also like my VR6 (more).

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 02/03/2005

Ok ok maybe the vr6 isn't rubbish completely like I said. Vauxhall never made an mk3 gsi turbo from the factory I know. The standrd 20.16v engine was taken out and replaced with a cavalier c20let unit. The standard mk3 gsis to come out the factory started in 1992 on a j-reg and up to 1997 on a r-reg i'm not sure what the vr6 stopped at or how long its production was. I have seen h-reg corrados not sure the vr6 engine was put in them at that reg. The mk3 golf came out on a j-reg and I dont think the vr6 engine was put in those until a few years later. You couldn't really stack up the factory gsi against a vr6.0-60 from the mk3 gsi is 7.5 has bhp 153 and top speed on paper is 137mph but most people who have owned a vauxhall with the sfi engine and have pushed it can see 145-150mph. The handling of the car wasn't as good on the mk3 as it was on the mk2 and you cant really compare build quality to a german car. But I did read some comments about the quality of the corrados interior not being as good as some of the golfs. Comments made by corrado owners. The conversion engine which was in the gsi was a far better spec and a vr6 could match it in standard form unless it had some good engine modifications. The gsis turbos handling was excellent. I dont think that vauxhall stopped production of the mk3 gsi because of the vr6. The pulsar drives better than the gsi turbo, feels more solid, handles and is better built. You get more respect in the pulsar than you do in an mk3 gsi. As 99% of people wanted to race you. The gsi is a nicer looking car than the pulsar as the pulsar is more in your face.

Reply to this comment

Samm's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 03/03/2005

You are right, some corrado owners (not me) have commented how they prefer a MK2 golf interior to a Corrado, but obviously not if it was a Storm. Mine is a 92 on kreg VR6 and I think it came out on a j plate for the VR, neither the vr or gsi had good handling which was the main gripe, of course you can improve it but it is'nt the same as having a good chassis like the Corrado. Although it is fair to say Pulsars don't look nice they have the X factor which Evo/Scooby don't mainly because you see one on every street. Only problem I've heard of is very weak transmissions and why on earth did they put the intercooler on the engine? that was clever!

Reply to this comment

Warrenbwalker's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 04/03/2005

Even though the VR6 wasnt a great handler standard it still had feel and would let you know when your approaching its limits (which admittedly werent great standard!) thats one of the reaons it got 4/5 in Evo magazine and its still listed along with the great golfs like the mk1 GTI, mk2 16V and mk3 16v..... I've driven many cars and always after driving another car I get back in my VR6 and it still feels great :-) There are many hot hatches these days that beat the standard VR6 but theres not many that have that engine config, its nice to cane it sometimes but when you just want to drive smoothly it really comes into a world of its own being a 6 pot.... BTW Scooby's also have their intercooler mounted on top of the engine. :-)

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 06/03/2005

I did see a storm corrado selling for 9grand in the auto trader? Whats so specail about them? The trader selling it never stated much about the car. I was just shocked to see it selling for so much. I am new to the pulsar as i said. I dont know much just yet. I have been to london and back in it so far with no probs apart from being stoped by police 4 times on the way back. I think the car does draw a little to much attention. Where as both astras just looked like astras with a bodykit and bigger rims.

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 08/03/2005

I think the intercooler being mounted on top of the engine is why the pulsar has such a big bonnet bulge/air intake. Its not as comfy cruising as maybe the vr6 or even my astras were as the ride is very harsh. I would like to know more about this storm vr6? What extras does it have over the standard? And when did production end for the vr6.

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 08/03/2005

Oh yeah the BMW 325i e36 1990-1994 has 192bhp it uses the m40 engine not the m20 engine that has 170bhp which is found in the e30 model. The e46 3251 uses a m54 engine and produces exactly the same 192 bhp. (performance bmw page 112 model guide) so I was right in the first place.

Reply to this comment

Cam121's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 09/03/2005

Still on the subject of small 1.4 'hot' hatches I need some advice! Just passed my test and like the look of the 106 xsi and the corsa sri 8v (hence why I found this thread!) I reckon the 106 is the better car as its quicker and easier to mod (well so I think) but I wanted to know which is actually best performance and reliability wise because I dont want it spending most of its time in the garage and you guys seem to know what you're talking about so post your opinions or if you think theres a better option for similar money i.e £1500, with average insurance aswell.

Reply to this comment

Corradovr6T's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 10/03/2005

My advice to any new/young driver is to get something that is nice to drive, cheap to insure and doesn't attract too much attention.
 Going for something fast is out of the question and riced up shopping trolleys are just awful.
 Get yourself something reliable, cheap to run and build up your no-claims before going for a 'fast' car.
 The 106 xsi isnt too bad, just dont 'max' it up ;o|

Reply to this comment

Samm's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 12/03/2005

If you can stretch to an Ibiza 130 tdi I would defo get one and remap it at jabba. It is group 7 insurance so no probs there and it will be very quick indeed.

Reply to this comment

Cam121's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 06/06/2005

well thought id let you know what i bought, i got myself a megane coupe!

Reply to this comment

Dave Ellis's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 05/07/2005

Sorry, but I couldn't let the "fastest 1.4 on the road" comment pass. Don't get me wrong, my mate has an SRi, with a few engine mods and a tweaked ECU to give him about 115 bhp, and that is a fairly quick car, but even his tuned model doesn't compare to the manic AX GT I owned last year. It was standard apart from the peco big bore 4 back-box, and yet it was more than a second quicker to 60 than his corsa (mine was just under 8, his was just over 9) and similar top speeds were acheived (around 120 - 125mph).
 So, the lesson to be learned here is that if you are looking for the most speed out of an engine size, go for and old car! The reason my AX was so quick (stuffed RS Turbos, VTRs, XR3/2i's, MX 5s, SRIs, even a brand new 3 litre tubo diesel 3 series beemer (I know he was giving it because he was going sidewas trying to catch me down my favouite road), and my personal favourite the police Mondeo ST220...) was because it was designed by a small french monkey (try taking one apart and you'll know what I mean) and built in 1988. When there was no need for crumple zones or airbags or any other health and safety nonsense, meaning my car weighs about 800kg (and whoever said a saxo weighs that little is lying) and goes like stink.
 However, I would not claim to own the fastest 1.4 either, because we are forgetting the legendary Metro GTi: 1400 cc, 16v, 110 bhp, silly acceleration, and the insane Uno Turbo and Renault 5 GT Turbo, all of which are 1.4's, all quicker than my AX, and therefore a lot quicker than your corsa.
 I would love to offer you a fair, 1.4 vs 1.4 race to prove my point, but once again my GT is on my drive awaiting more money to be poured into it, this time on the heater matrix, and cooling system in general, and a new head gasket. But it will be back, and if you should see an '88 white AX behind you (cos you sure as hell won't catch me...) unless you've got something serious, please don't waste your time (Saxo VTR owners, I'm looking at you here...)

Reply to this comment

Spliff1Star's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Written on: 03/02/2006

just read ur comment i once owned a tigra 1.6 16v and sum1 in a ax gt raced me at the lights.the tigra had 120bhp at the time and i think his car was standard. he stuck with me all the way until 70mph and only after that was i pulling away. i know the ax gt is fast. forget 1.4s a 1.3 toyota starlet gt or galanza v is quicker than them all. or the charade ggti 1.0 turbo

Reply to this comment

Vauxhall Corsa 1.4 SRi Reviews

Performance

Practicality

Reliability

Value For Money

Media Gallery for Vauxhall Corsa 1.4 SRi

Latest Reviews

Guest's Response to Tarlyt's Review

Motorsportsz's Comment

P4Ul 10's Response to Gunsmokethomo's Review

Checkerz18's Response to julianbrader's Review

Nel1986's Response to l1uka's Review

Patrickbateman's Response to Hank's Review

Tuscan03's Response to spliff1star's Review

Spliff1Star's Response to spliff1star's Review

Tuscan03's Response to spliff1star's Review

Spliff1Star's Response to spliff1star's Review

Gsifan's Response to spliff1star's Review

Tuscan03's Response to spliff1star's Review

Tetley's Response to spliff1star's Review

Spliff1Star's Response to spliff1star's Review

Gsifan's Response to spliff1star's Review

Spliff1Star's Response to spliff1star's Review

Gsifan's Response to spliff1star's Review

Spliff1Star's Response to spliff1star's Review

214099_Spud05's Response to spliff1star's Review

Spliff1Star's Response to spliff1star's Review

Psychocorsa657's Response to spliff1star's Review

176891_Bombom101's Response to spliff1star's Review

176891_Bombom101's Response to spliff1star's Review

Latergatoron's Response to spliff1star's Review

Sunday Driver's Response to spliff1star's Review

Sunday Driver's Response to spliff1star's Review

Psychocorsa657's Response to spliff1star's Review

Spliff1Star's Response to spliff1star's Review

240355_Adyatsri's Response to spliff1star's Review

Matbob's Response to spliff1star's Review

Tuscan03's Response to spliff1star's Review

Spliff1Star's Response to spliff1star's Review

Tetley's Response to spliff1star's Review

267856_Urnigga's Response to spliff1star's Review

Ritchard's Response to spliff1star's Review

Tuscan03's Response to spliff1star's Review

Tuscan03's Response to spliff1star's Review

Tetley's Response to spliff1star's Review

Spliff1Star's Response to spliff1star's Review

Tomspanner's Response to spliff1star's Review

Psychocorsa657's Response to spliff1star's Review

287936_Theaftermath1987's Response to spliff1star's Review

288549_Mave89's Response to spliff1star's Review

Adrian7000's Response to spliff1star's Review

Clublandkid's Response to spliff1star's Review

Maniacboyracer's Response to spliff1star's Review

Psychocorsa657's Response to spliff1star's Review

Maniacboyracer's Response to spliff1star's Review

308782_Johnboy18's Response to spliff1star's Review

Psychocorsa657's Response to spliff1star's Review

362668_Rsturbo88's Response to spliff1star's Review

377925_Ricky222's Response to spliff1star's Review

Mrfantastic's Response to spliff1star's Review

458140_Coop3R140's Response to spliff1star's Review

Peaky7's Response to spliff1star's Review

Craig22's Response to fothers25152037's Review

Johnygee2's Response to fothers25152037's Review

Cannondale's Response to fothers25152037's Review

P4Ul 10's Response to gordyl32's Review

Spliff1Star's Response to last dragon's Review

176891_Bombom101's Response to last dragon's Review

Showbizdave's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Last Dragon's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Rif's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Showbizdave's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Showbizdave's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Y960051's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Pj Ss's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Rif's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Wallpaper's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Cankucuk's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Gundard's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review

Rif's Response to 112574_ally.'s Review