Status
Not open for further replies.
I want to know this though... in a race to the south of France who would be faster:
A Cupra R or an Ecomotive.....discuss.
 
The Cupra is a very good piece of kit dont get me wrong and can be remapped to the same as a R which would suit a lot of people so if thats what you want to do then go down that route.

Cupra vs R should get banned on here,you buy what you want to buy after drivng both

Why didnt you say all this earlier instead of being an arse?
 
Surprised no one's mentioned kerb weight of both models, are they the same or do the extra bits on an R add weight? In any case, the difference between a full tank and a nearly empty one can be around 35kg, so that's make a difference.
However, who gives a shi7 really? Drive what you like and can afford, have fun and enjoy it. And Nandos... Yum
 
Last edited:
Surprised no one's mentioned kerb weight of both models, are they the same or do the extra bits on an R add weight? In any case, the difference between a full tank and a nearly empty one can be around 35kg, so that's make a difference.
However, who gives a shi7 really? Drive what you like and can afford, have fun and enjoy it. And Nandos... Yum

The 19s are heavier according to WeeG.

but I will let Springer the expert answer that question. He will no doubt have some bullsh1t answer

:funk::funk::funk::funk:
 
I agree this thread is a pile of dung and should be slung in the skip. However i am stuck in an airport and bored....

I dont think so and besides we started talking about standard cars

I would be interested to know why you don't believe a mapped Cupra would not beat a mapped Cupra R point to point. A stage 1 map doesn't exactly push the boundaries and you would only see any kind of pull back with some serious abuse and even then, the only difference is intercooler thickness - the end tanks on both are poor (small plastic jobs). Both intercoolers are pretty efficient though and going by the logs I have on my computer, there is near enough nothing to separate them. Air flow, timing, boost etc is all about the same.

Then you have to factor the Cupra R is a bit heavier, it has lower profile tyres which wont corner as quickly or allow traction as easily (higher standard tyre pressures).

Being honest, standard v standard, I doubt there would be much in it point to point either, regardless of the power difference, for the reasons above :cheeky:
 
Last edited:
I agree this thread is a pile of dung and should be slung in the skip. However i am stuck in an airport and bored....



I would be interested to know why you don't believe a mapped Cupra would not beat a mapped Cupra R point to point. A stage 1 map doesn't exactly push the boundaries and you would only see any kind of pull back with some serious abuse and even then, the only difference is intercooler thickness - the end tanks on both are poor (small plastic jobs). Both intercoolers are pretty efficient though and going by the logs I have on my computer, there is near enough nothing to separate them. Air flow, timing, boost etc is all about the same.

Then you have to factor the Cupra R is a bit heavier, it has lower profile tyres which wont corner as quickly or allow traction as easily (higher standard tyre pressures).

Being honest, standard v standard, I doubt there would be much in it point to point either, regardless of the power difference, for the reasons above :cheeky:

So put a fat bloke in an R and a beanpole in a Cupra ( all standard of course) then happy days.
I'd better go on a diet........
Mind you, with regard to point to point, if the R has the latest sat nav with full postcode entry it's be quicker coz the Cupra driver would still be trying to find it..... The point that is, which oddly appears to be missing from this thread too....
 
Last edited:
Put the same guy in both - this might be interesting for some people........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Prks8Sdq9Q

Jump to 7:40 and watch from there ;)

Oh and regarding the point about the Sat Nav, the Cupra R never always had it as standard either - look back and see ;).

And if you still need convincing, ask WeeG how he compares his 18" wheels with his Cupra R 19" wheels on his Cupra R :clown:
 
Last edited:
Put the same guy in both - this might be interesting for some people........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Prks8Sdq9Q

Jump to 7:40 and watch from there ;)

Oh and regarding the point about the Sat Nav, the Cupra R never always had it as standard either - look back and see ;).

And if you still need convincing, ask WeeG how he compares his 18" wheels with his Cupra R 19" wheels on his Cupra R :clown:

Tech pack was standard from MY11 on
 
The 19s are heavier according to WeeG.

but I will let Springer the expert answer that question. He will no doubt have some bullsh1t answer

:funk::funk::funk::funk:

Think its you thats been called "key board warrior",nuff said!

Maybe the cupra would handle slightly better although seat changed the rear spring rates on the R??
Remember the old saxo VTS changed from 14" to 15" wheels and the testers said it was better on 14"s.

The fact is though Seat took the Cupra and made it better and obviously not just performance wise(although only 25bhp).Interior,exterior etc.
Dont know why the Cupra owners cant admitt it.

What do you think Seat will do if they bring a mk3 Cupra R out?
Look at the Cupra and make changes
 
The fact is though Seat took the Cupra and made it better and obviously not just performance wise(although only 25bhp).Interior,exterior etc.
Dont know why the Cupra owners cant admitt it.


When did I say the cupra R wasnt better?

I said I didnt want to pay £4k for leather seats, 19" wheels and a badge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.