A mate of mine has just got a ST24 and wants to race (which obviously i wont onthe road) he reckons it will beat my RS easily. I reckon a standard RS would eat the ST and mine is Jabbad so should kill it. Has anyone tried one of these? How does handling compare? Thanks

ST24 is around 174bhp and heavy, but wide powerband and no lag.....

Your call...

I raced a Mazda MX6 which uses the same engine, in my Revo'd Ibiza and needless to say he was a very very small dot in my rear view very quickly.

Antony

I raced a Mazda MX6 which uses the same engine' date=' in my Revo'd Ibiza and needless to say he was a very very small dot in my rear view very quickly.

Antony[/quote']

For the record, different engine... The MX6 and Probe used the Mazda V6, the ST24 used the ford V6...

Mazda V6

2497cc

BHP: 164

Torque: 163 lb ft @4800rpm

Ford V6

2544cc

BHP: 170 bhp

Torque: 161@4250

On paper the Ford is slower but the ST24 handles like a dream and the steering is full of feel, makes it realy easy to drive quickly.

There isn't going to be too much in it on the road, the Mondeo doesn't suffer from lag but it's heavy and the Duratech V6 needs 3750rpm+ before it starts really pulling.

One thing that suprised me about my old V6 Mondeo was the economy, I could easily get mid 30's mpg and over 40mpg taking it steady.

For standard cars down a B road it would be down to who's the best driver. On a straight blast it will be which car gets the power down better then as the speed increases the Octavia should edge in front.

A remapped Octy vRS on a straight should steadily pull away from a ST24.

I used to go to Scooby meets when I had the Mondeo and you really need serious power to leave V6 saloon cars for dead. When there is only a second or so in the 0-60 and only a few mph difference in top speed one isn't going to leave the other on a public road.

Cheers

Lee

Hmmm thanks for the opinions. Seems like they are better than i thought then.

Hmmm thanks for the opinions. Seems like they are better than i thought then.

Manufacturers figures for standard cars

vRS 0-62 - 7.9secs. 146mph max. 1354kg kerb weight

ST24 0-60 - 7.7secs. 136mph max. 1323kg Kerb weight.

Nothing in it at legal speeds and I slightly prefer the ST24's handling, it isn't as firm as an Octy vRS but isn't upset as much by our poor B roads.

At 80mph+ the Octy's power advantage and aerodynamics should let it edge away.

Edited to add...

The Mazda V6 in the Probe isn't a patch on the duratech V6. The figures are similar but the power delivery on the old Mazda V6 is very poor. It feels like a 1.6 under 4000rpm.

Cheers

Lee

I think a standard Octy RS would win with relative ease, never mind a Jabba'd one. The powerplant in the ST24 isnt all the well rated from what I've read and the Octy is quicker than the claimed figures. I'd be very surprised if an ST24 could keep up.

I think a standard Octy RS would win with relative ease, never mind a Jabba'd one. The powerplant in the ST24 isnt all the well rated from what I've read and the Octy is quicker than the claimed figures. I'd be very surprised if an ST24 could keep up.

The 0-60 seems similar but that figure is the least predictive for on road driving. The mid range of the okty is really strong compared with what you will get from a small capacity v6. They sound great (brother has an MG ZTT 190) but need much thrashing to get going.

We had an "ordinary" V6 Mondeo in work as a pool car and that was nice but not nearly as fast as my Fabia where it counts.

My experience with the jabbad Fab Vrs against brothers Mg is that it (Mg) is markedly slower. He totally accepts that fact too.

I am told jabba'd Fab is like a standard Okty.

I think a standard Octy RS would win with relative ease, never mind a Jabba'd one. The powerplant in the ST24 isnt all the well rated from what I've read and the Octy is quicker than the claimed figures. I'd be very surprised if an ST24 could keep up.

The Imperial Blue ST200 I met on the A690 from Durham to Sunderland yesterday certainly couldn't

The 0-60 seems similar but that figure is the least predictive for on road driving. The mid range of the okty is really strong compared with what you will get from a small capacity v6. They sound great (brother has an MG ZTT 190) but need much thrashing to get going.

We had an "ordinary" V6 Mondeo in work as a pool car and that was nice but not nearly as fast as my Fabia where it counts.

My experience with the jabbad Fab Vrs against brothers Mg is that it (Mg) is markedly slower. He totally accepts that fact too.

I am told jabba'd Fab is like a standard Okty.

I agree with what you say about real world driving as the duratech isn't great below 4000rpm. The original poster was asking about racing though and the two cars in question are of similar weight, similar power and both handle well.

On the road there will not be much difference if both drivers are going for it.

An 80mph dash would probably result in a few car lengths difference if that.

As for the MGZT, I like them a lot, I've recently sold a 75 2.5V6. They are well built cars and don't deserve the bad press. They are very heavy though and don't feel that fast. Rover try and make the figures look good by quoting 0-60 times rather than 0-62. The KV6 lacks low down grunt, far worse than the Duratech, which isn't good in a car weighing 1500kg.

Cheers

Lee

I agree with what you say about real world driving as the duratech isn't great below 4000rpm. The original poster was asking about racing though and the two cars in question are of similar weight' date=' similar power and both handle well.

On the road there will not be much difference if both drivers are going for it.

An 80mph dash would probably result in a few car lengths difference if that.

As for the MGZT, I like them a lot, I've recently sold a 75 2.5V6. They are well built cars and don't deserve the bad press. They are very heavy though and don't feel that fast. Rover try and make the figures look good by quoting 0-60 times rather than 0-62. The KV6 lacks low down grunt, far worse than the Duratech, which isn't good in a car weighing 1500kg.

Cheers

Lee[/quote']

Total agreement re ZTT. It is a very nice car. The KV6 has little scope for an increase in capacity. Shame then that MG Rover did not engineer a supercharged version like BMW did with mini. Mini has a fairly low tec engine which has been transformed by the blower. A gutsy 220 bhp blown ZT would be a nice alternative to a 330i.

Still leave room above it for a V8 or two.

V8 version is nice but.........4.6 litres

re R75, The 190 with the RWD chassis would be tempting, I would not consider the FWD chassis...

Back to mondeo V6's... there is one are they beat out 1.8t's without question - Noise!

have owned both mondeo v6 and octy... remapped octy would destroy it.

re R75' date=' The 190 with the RWD chassis would be tempting, I would not consider the FWD chassis...

Back to mondeo V6's... there is one are they beat out 1.8t's without question - Noise![/quote']

The 190 has a superb chassis, if it was still as good with 220bhp then that is all that counts. There are some mediocre rwd and awd chassis out there and some ace fwd ones.

My vote would be for one that handled however many wheels were being driven or where they were on the car.

but the 190 doesnt handle that well.. anyone who had ever driven a rwd ZT would not consider it.

quite apart from it being completely gutless.

Personal preference, done fwd, bored with it, moved on....

(and RWD ZT is like a different car to the FWD 75..)

but the 190 doesnt handle that well.. anyone who had ever driven a rwd ZT would not consider it.

quite apart from it being completely gutless.

Accept the point regarding gutless engine, we can agree to differ re handling. I can't comment on what people who have driven a RWD ZT would say about the fwd one because everyone has a personal view. It is a credit to the original chassis (and a testiment to how far fwd chassis design has evolved) that many testers were looking to see if the balance of the car had been maintained following the rwd conversion. I do seem to recall that the rwd version has been less universally praised (handling wise) than was the fwd one - something to do with a fairly basic design of lsd in rear axle as I recall.

Anyway, I still feel that what matters is: Is it good to drive and does it handle?

I really don't mind how the designers achieve this but I know that to some people fwd/rwd/awd is an important issue.

I am told jabba'd Fab is like a standard Okty.

I dont think thats quite true. A remapped Fab will have a higher power to weight ratio, and much more torque, but it can not rev high and is not as aerodynamic, so I think in terms of delivery they would be nothing alike. I'm guessing a remapped Fabia would be quicker up to about a ton or so... just.

Total agreement re ZTT. It is a very nice car. The KV6 has little scope for an increase in capacity. Shame then that MG Rover did not engineer a supercharged version like BMW did with mini. Mini has a fairly low tec engine which has been transformed by the blower. A gutsy 220 bhp blown ZT would be a nice alternative to a 330i.

Still leave room above it for a V8 or two.

V8 version is nice but.........4.6 litres

Australia get a MGR approved Supercharged MGZT 2.5V6 version that has 220bhp.

It's not much better on economy than the V8 though so I doubt it will be offered in the UK.

Cheers

Lee

re-mapped fabia vRS power to weight is about 136bhp/tonne and octavia vRS is about 131bhp/tonne so not a massive difference there, but for torque the fabia is about 100lbft/tonne better. but as said the delivery of that power is very different, the octavia has nearly full power for nearly the full rev range, from about 2k or 2.5k to about 6k where the fabia only has the power/torque for maybe 2k rpm

the octavia has nearly full power for nearly the full rev range, from about 2k or 2.5k to about 6k where the fabia only has the power/torque for maybe 2k rpm

But that is nearly the full rev range on a Fabia

But that is nearly the full rev range on a Fabia

:nono: Please do not tease the children.