24th Feb 2006, 09:39
CTR owner back again...
Don't know about performance in the wet, but watched Topgear shootout between a CTR and a Clio 182 and the laptimes were as follows CTR 54.29, Clio 54.49. Not much in it at all!
Also watched one of the last 5th Gear programmes on C5 and the CTR came out quicker than the Clio 182 Cup - again not much in it. To be honest they are both very capable cars with many excellent reviews, if it haddn't have been for the need of extra space I would have bought a Clio 182 anyway. I've been to a few track days and the Clio's do seem quicker, I think perhaps to get the best from a CTR you need to be a pretty good driver. Much respect for both cars though!
27th Feb 2006, 17:46
I claim that it is a more entertaining drive with a more direct feel to the steering. Criticisms of CTR have always been to do with handling; from my opinion all the way up to car magazines. I am afraid that you are just in denial; the CTR is nothing special anymore.
I could buy a new car. On my wage I could get a new Focus, a new clio, or anything else you mention. I DON'T WANT TO! I have a cheap-to-run, fun-to-drive car that is admired by anyone who has actually driven it, and respected by those people who actually know about cars (e.g. motoring press).
1st Mar 2006, 01:59
You're right, there is very little to choose between them in performance. The CTR is a larger and better built car and the Clio is better equipped, both have comfy seats and look awesome!
If only they could keep up with a Puma 1.7i!!!
18th Mar 2006, 15:04
I really don't understand you people. You should just go back to your Playstations.
I'll say it again: IT IS NOT ABOUT OUTRIGHT SPEED.
Secondly: I think you are hard pushed to claim that a Clio looks good! It is a completely generic off-the-shelf shopping trolley.
20th Mar 2006, 07:14
Well there you have it!
You make big performance claims for your car and then chicken out when asked to prove them in an honourable and legal way.
We will just have to rely on performance figures then, and they say you are lying.
I won't comment on the looks of the Puma because enough people have left comments regarding hairdressers etc. Real drivers prefer cars that look purposeful, squat stance (low centre of gravity), wheels that fill the arches etc etc, I could go on, but my point is proven!
22nd Mar 2006, 05:28
Hi Puma people! I have owned a 1.7 puma four years now. I was upset by the level of under-steer when I went for a high speed night drive. road in question was the snakes pass or to those not in the know the a57 Manchester to Sheffield. The A57 will pull apart any chassis and test grip and compliance. I sold the car not long after this run, but was still fond of the puma. When my wife needed a new car I punted for a 1.4 puma. I recently took said car down the same road and wow what a difference. With less weight in the nose under-steer was non existant. This is one of the best cars I have driven including Clio 182, too Heavy! Peugeot 106gti a little scary in the wet. Anyway what I'm trying too say is less weight more fun. People your thoughts please!
22nd Mar 2006, 07:39
Hi CTR owner back again, just thought I’d check up on proceedings and to my amazement (or amusement!) we’re still debating!
It makes me laugh how the author keeps going on about it not being about “outright speed” or “0-60 times” when lets all remember how this whole thing started. Your claims to slay other cars in the 0-60 and handling department. Now that everyone has had a pop at you (and justified too) you back out and say its “not all about outright speed”. What a load of rubbish!
So if it’s about handling bring you Puma 1.7 to a handling course or even a track day. I would be well up for a little blast (Clio owner also invited, obviously) to see what you’re raving about. From what I can remember the racing puma I previously owned wasn’t that special!
If its then not about speed or handling and we forget about your previous claims (resulting in this little debate) then what is it about? No offence, but I was embarrassed to say I owned a Puma (then have to explain it was “a racing one though”) so what’s your excuse in a standard 1.7 version?
Look, Its almost getting to the point where I feel sorry for. Just give it up and go buy yourself a decent car, I understand from your previous comments you can afford it! Then I’m sure you can start off some other pointless debate!
22nd Mar 2006, 08:27
To Mr CTR Owner.
You do know what a rod you are making for your own back!
Soon you won't even be able to go for a pint of milk without a Puma on your tail.
You have never felt the chill of driving down your favourite road and seeing a pair of lights with a strange blue hue catching you.
So you put your foot down and still the car is gaining!
Now your front tyres are melting as you try to put down all that V-tec power.
Oh no you catch first sight of that unmistakable outline.
Like a Great White stalking a surfer!
Then it starts to sink in - maybe all those people were right.
Before you know it, the little coupe is on your tail. Like a Jack Russel with a stick it can't be shaken off.
You hit the brakes for a corner the Puma doesn't even notice.
Now your worst fears come true as the little coupe howls by.
Now the chase is on, but the bumpy road is throwing the CTR off line. The Puma glides into the distance never to be seen again.
Time to drive home in shame, knowing all the other Pumas know about the CTR and are looking for it.
Look out all GTIs, the Puma is hunting tonight!.
23rd Mar 2006, 07:39
Now I'll respond and tell you what is amusing:
1 - Despite you apparently owning these other super cars, you "just happen" to come to a specific site reading a review for a car you "just happened" to own. Yeah, right.
2 - Despite you accusing me of not responding to your comments, I haven't wasted my time because they are just wrong. You are reading other wrong comments and adding to them. I never said my car was faster in a drag race; I said my car handled very well and was enjoyable; to give an example I talked about the time that I raced a BMW 3 series. SO, I ask again: show me where I said I could win the 0-60 time anywhere? I thought so. Well don't worry there, sasquatch, we'll all pretend part 2 of this comment doesn't exist so you can just go on with your machismo-back slapping.
3 - You have not responded to my comments. The Civic, again and again, is written as lacking steering feedback. The Puma is, more and more, seen as an under-appreciated gem; a classic that deserved far more success than it got, but the "fickleness of the car-buying public always demanding the new lead to its early demise" (Autocar). So it comes from the fiesta body? SO what? A CTR comes from an MPV-like shopping trolley! "Chassis lacks fizz" ("Car" magazine). I have also said that the modern hot-hatchbacks are very good accomplished cars, but at some 6-7 grand more than the Puma was it is not difficult to make a 'better' car, if you define 'better' as faster. I don't. Neither do people who enjoyed their Puma ownership. They define 'better' as more fun.
4 - As you say, I can afford other hot-hatches, but just because I can doesn't mean I want them. They have lost sight of what counts. I would NEVER buy a hot-hatch because they have lost the spirit of the oldies: Peugeot GTI, etc. The only one I would come close to buying is the 182 because it is a small, cheap, fun go-cart. You really cannot say that about either the VXR, the Golf GTI, or any other £20k car you wish to mention.
Anyway, seriously, just do yourself a favour: stop coming back here! Really, why do you? It is funny how none of you owned Pumas until I commented that people that owned Pumas loved them. Then, LO AND BEHOLD, you all now own Pumas. Seriously, none of you can argue credibly.