by "pip bip - choose Corrour" (hhgttg69)
Published 06/14/2017 at 04:30
by "pip bip - choose Corrour" (hhgttg69)
Published 06/14/2017 at 04:30
Tags: Renault 5
STARS: 4
Renault 5 turbo
"FSI - alcohol enthusiast with a car problem" (fuelstratifiedinjection)
06/14/2017 at 04:35, STARS: 1
GIB NAU
"Rustholes-Are-Weight-Reduction" (rustholes-are-weight-reduction)
06/14/2017 at 04:41, STARS: 2
They need to do a 2 door, 2 seat Twingo RS as a hommage to the R5 Turbo, kinda like the Twinrun
"Flavien Vidal" (flyingfrenchy)
06/14/2017 at 05:01, STARS: 0
Well, that’s a bit more than “just a R5 Turbo”... That’s Ragnotti’s who won the 1981 Monte Carlo rallye with it :)
"BvdV - The Dutch Engineer" (dutchengineer)
06/14/2017 at 05:07, STARS: 1
You are a man of exquisite taste! ;)
If they were to make one of those, I would definitely buy it, given the fact that I would be able to afford it.
"Rustholes-Are-Weight-Reduction" (rustholes-are-weight-reduction)
06/14/2017 at 05:24, STARS: 1
Why thank you!
But it depends on how they price them, the Clio V6 surely isn’t affordable, well it is, but it’s a steep price for a Clio
https://www.leboncoin.fr/voitures/1148361444.htm?ca=1_s
Them again, this has nothing much to do with a stock Clio. I imagine a Twingo would be easier to upgrade, especially if you get rid of the rear seats, so less development cost, and thus a smaller entry price
"BvdV - The Dutch Engineer" (dutchengineer)
06/14/2017 at 06:12, STARS: 0
Expensive for a Clio, yes. But quite reasonable seeing it is a car that was hand built by TWR.
I guess a Twingo III would indeed be easier, seeing it already has a hole under the rear seats where the tiny engine is placed. Remove the rear seats, stiffen the body, weld the back doors closed and put in the drive train of the Clio or Megane RS, and call it a day.
"Rustholes-Are-Weight-Reduction" (rustholes-are-weight-reduction)
06/14/2017 at 06:27, STARS: 1
That will inevitably happen when they get cheaper
"pip bip - choose Corrour" (hhgttg69)
06/14/2017 at 06:30, STARS: 0
:)
"AuthiCooper1300" (rexrod)
06/14/2017 at 07:55, STARS: 0
Most likely a nice replica of Ragnotti’s car for that Monte. You’d think that whoever has that car now would have chosen the right kind of numeral for the doors, instead of just any “9".
I loved the very early versions of the R5 Turbo (basically until the “Cévennes”), particularly the black test mule and the Giro d’Italia entry with the “Calberson” livery that had also graced the Gr 2 cars.
I
definitely
dislike the late Group B version (Corse) with the new front air dam. And don’t even ask me about the Maxi one.
"AuthiCooper1300" (rexrod)
06/14/2017 at 08:54, STARS: 0
The first Clio V6 seems to have been a rushed job (not surprising, given TWR’s involvement). It was so prone to snap oversteer that even Ragnotti - Ragnotti! – spun it during the introduction to the international press. Quite a few journos repeated later the same feat (I know one who managed to do it just from a standstill).
Also: the engine in the Clio V6 is mounted transversely, and so far back that one could argue it is a rear-engined, rather than mid-engined car. Being a V6 means the CoG is very, very high too.
I don’t know whether the improvements made later by the guys from Stuttgart really tamed it (I suppose the first thing they did was to get rid of –or substantially tweak– the Laguna front suspension that was used for the rear axle). It would be interesting to hear of someone who has experienced both the first and the second series.
Bottom line: try to find a Turbo 2.
"BvdV - The Dutch Engineer" (dutchengineer)
06/14/2017 at 09:02, STARS: 0
Damn, that doesn’t sound properly sorted indeed. And using laguna front suspension on the rear of a sporty car doesn’t sound like a great idea either.
I wish I had that experience, haha. From what I gather the phase 2 has better handling, though I think the CoG and being almost rear-engined issues probably haven’t been really sorted, as it’s about the same height, and has the engine is about the same spot.
"AuthiCooper1300" (rexrod)
06/14/2017 at 09:17, STARS: 1
I imagine Renault (or TWR, if they were also consultants to the project) were trying to do it on the cheap. Alternatively, they did not do exhaustive enough testing in real-life conditions (i.e. being cheapskate again). I wonder how much Porsche changed, but even if they didn’t, by fine-tuning camber, suspension and damping rates (and even bushings) you can always improve things.
Compare that with the R5 Turbo, which has a proper, longitudinal-mounted engine with a lighter top. Also the rear suspension (at least in the prototypes) was derived from that of the A310 V6, so it was a known entity. Funnily enough the A310 was later “updated” with the rear train of the R5 Turbo.
"BvdV - The Dutch Engineer" (dutchengineer)
06/14/2017 at 09:41, STARS: 0
True, but at Renault they like being cheapskates. Which is why my Twingo is basically a lot af Clio parts bashed together in a smaller shell, introduced in 2007, largely designed in the 90s.
I’m guessing the suspension evolved a lot on the R5 Turbo due to all the racing, and that they then used that improved suspension to make the A310 better.