Surprised at how the clio couldn't keep up with the little 500 even though had around 30bhp extra. I know captin slow was driving but still ....

Peak torque/power is further down the rev range on the Fiat, so it'll probably be more spritely but I doubt overall the Clio would struggle to keep up...

A few times they said the little fiat was pulling away out of bends. It shows bhp isn't everythin. High reving engines are pointless in every day driving

Also helps that they had a hamster in the FIAT and a fat woolly thing in the other.

Jezza also mentioned the Clio's lardy, so what with being driven lard-di-da too, it never had a chance.

J.

High reving engines are pointless in every day driving

That depends on how you drive everyday! Personally I prefer high-revving NA engines as day-to-day you can keep it below 4.5-5k and it gets you need to go without any drama. Then when you want to wind it up, you just do everything in a lower gear and it's all satisfyingly mental.

In simple terms, torque makes a car quick, power makes a car fast, particulalry at speeds below which aerodynamics come into play.

The 500 Abarth SS has more torque (230Nm @ 3000rpm vs 215Nm @ 5400rpm) and is 170kgs lighter (even bigger differential when hamster compared with May). The weight differential and low down torque will make the 500 feel quite a bit quicker in my view.

The Fiat has 160hp and a top speed of 131mph, whilst the Clio has 200hp and a top speed of 140mph.

The Fiat has 160hp and a top speed of 131mph, whilst the Clio has 200hp and a top speed of 140mph.

So that's 25% more power giving an extra 7% speed. Makes you wonder whether it's actually worth it.

Rob.

So that's 25% more power giving an extra 7% speed. Makes you wonder whether it's actually worth it.

Rob.

The relationship between power and speed isn't linear and given todays roads and traffic restrictions, top speed is pretty irrelevant anyway, unless you're playing top trumps!