As mentioned earlier, today I test drove the jcw car at a sydney dealer in order to compare it to my recently acquired Clio 172.
Quoted figures for the jcw car are as follows:
200ps @ 6950rpm (147kw)
240Nm @ 4000rpm
dry weight = 1140kg (cooper s)
First impression: A chunky little car. This particular car looked good on optional 17" shod with Pirellis. Strange two colour leather interior that didnt quite go, and all the jcw badges and the bigger twin pipes out the back.
Interior and equipment: The jcw looks to have excellent build quality. The doors are heavy and feel substantial unlike the 172. Feels like a very german car. Seats were the standard cooper s jobs, not the jcw seats which Im not sure if you can get here. Unfortunately they are flat and offer little support, though adjustment is good and they go quite low. Clio 172 seats are far better. The steering wheel is multi function with buttons for cruise control and audio. The wheel is too thin but also has good adjustment. Alloy pedals sit lower on the floor than in the 172 and are wider spaced. Gear shift placement is spot on. Audio is good unlike clio, but optional HK audio (8 speaker) sounds even better. Single cd player (stacker is $700 option). No climate control in tested car but air works adequately, unlike poor air in 172. (climate control $650 option). No xenon lights in car tested ($1160 option). The 17" wheels are optional (16" standard) at a cost of $1160 also.
Drive: First thing I notice is that the fairly short throw gearbox is quite direct somewhat like an mx5 but not as notchy, feels good but a touch light for my taste. The clutch is conventional and pedals seem to have less travel than the 172. Cant feel much as the clutch comes out gradually. The jcw feels quite stiff on 17s which I think may have to do with the very stiff sidewalls of the run flat tyres rather than chassis stiffness. Feels fairly pliable at low speed. Not as much suspension travel as the 172 and doesnt feel as well damped. (Smaller wheels help there).
Idling along in the traffic along a crappy road shows the steering has little dead ahead feel.
As the revs starts to climb the whine of the blower is different. Its not as eager to rev as the 172 and has poor throttle response in comparison, The jcw feels quite lethargic below 4500 rpm. Its torquey enough but feels quite a bit heavier than the 172. You can hear the supercharger start to wind up at around 3000rpm under which there is really nothing happening. In the 172 when the needle swings past 5000rpm the engine takes on a different character and you get the induction noise followed by the car rushing to the redline. The jcw is different. It feels much more linear but has no noticeable surge of power like the 172. It seems slightly faster (6.7 to 100) from the drivers seat and feels like it has a bit more top end than the 172. That said it doesnt feel a lot faster on the straight.
Handling: This was the interesting part. The jcw steering feels slightly quicker in the rack than the 172 and therefore a touch more direct, although the feedback is sadly lacking. Very tough to get much sense of the road surface through the wheel when in the twisty stuff. All in all ,172 steering is probably better. After the initial lethargy of the blower, when its spinning hard and the corner approaches, the car feels a touch lazy. It feels higher geared in 2nd and 3rd than the 172 and so keeping it in the zone in quite tight stuff was not that easy. It feels like it wants to go off boost. Throw it in hard and it sticks quite well up to 9/10ths. After that there is hint of understeer followed by a slight four wheel drift before the traction control comes on. The car has very little body roll, most likely because of the run flat 17s which have a very stiff sidewall and I suspect this is the cause of the drift. Car doesnt really feel taily in the same way as the 172 at full pace. Would be nice to have more feedback through the bum and the wheel when at pace but it feels a bit remote. Though the clutch has no feel also, the shift is a cracker. Very direct and positive. The shift is far superior to the 172.
To wrap up.
Positives: Gearshift action, linear power delivery, interior feel, build quality.
Negatives: Central tacho (why bother, its annoying), Supercharger whine (even with bigger exhaust still sounds crap), run flat tyres, suspension dampening and travel, crap seats, price.
Conclusion: This is a pricey car. $56K plus options and on roads. From inside and out it looks quality. Unfortunately its not fast enough and the suspension needs work. The run flat tyres are dreadful and hamper roadholding and steering feel.
Its a lot of money for a little car, and it left me a bit uninspired. The 172, although not as fast, has more feedback and feel just about everywhere, the seats are way better and feels much more athletic and agile when at pace. The down sides I think we all know. Crap build quality etc etc. For almost half the price the 172 is a more rewarding and fun car to drive at pace. Its nowhere near as sophisticated as the jcw but as a drivers car, and particularly a handling car, the 172 wins by some distance.
If its a cool retro thing you are after then there is no contest. The jcw has build quality and "coolness" in spades.
Quoted figures for the jcw car are as follows:
200ps @ 6950rpm (147kw)
240Nm @ 4000rpm
dry weight = 1140kg (cooper s)
First impression: A chunky little car. This particular car looked good on optional 17" shod with Pirellis. Strange two colour leather interior that didnt quite go, and all the jcw badges and the bigger twin pipes out the back.
Interior and equipment: The jcw looks to have excellent build quality. The doors are heavy and feel substantial unlike the 172. Feels like a very german car. Seats were the standard cooper s jobs, not the jcw seats which Im not sure if you can get here. Unfortunately they are flat and offer little support, though adjustment is good and they go quite low. Clio 172 seats are far better. The steering wheel is multi function with buttons for cruise control and audio. The wheel is too thin but also has good adjustment. Alloy pedals sit lower on the floor than in the 172 and are wider spaced. Gear shift placement is spot on. Audio is good unlike clio, but optional HK audio (8 speaker) sounds even better. Single cd player (stacker is $700 option). No climate control in tested car but air works adequately, unlike poor air in 172. (climate control $650 option). No xenon lights in car tested ($1160 option). The 17" wheels are optional (16" standard) at a cost of $1160 also.
Drive: First thing I notice is that the fairly short throw gearbox is quite direct somewhat like an mx5 but not as notchy, feels good but a touch light for my taste. The clutch is conventional and pedals seem to have less travel than the 172. Cant feel much as the clutch comes out gradually. The jcw feels quite stiff on 17s which I think may have to do with the very stiff sidewalls of the run flat tyres rather than chassis stiffness. Feels fairly pliable at low speed. Not as much suspension travel as the 172 and doesnt feel as well damped. (Smaller wheels help there).
Idling along in the traffic along a crappy road shows the steering has little dead ahead feel.
As the revs starts to climb the whine of the blower is different. Its not as eager to rev as the 172 and has poor throttle response in comparison, The jcw feels quite lethargic below 4500 rpm. Its torquey enough but feels quite a bit heavier than the 172. You can hear the supercharger start to wind up at around 3000rpm under which there is really nothing happening. In the 172 when the needle swings past 5000rpm the engine takes on a different character and you get the induction noise followed by the car rushing to the redline. The jcw is different. It feels much more linear but has no noticeable surge of power like the 172. It seems slightly faster (6.7 to 100) from the drivers seat and feels like it has a bit more top end than the 172. That said it doesnt feel a lot faster on the straight.
Handling: This was the interesting part. The jcw steering feels slightly quicker in the rack than the 172 and therefore a touch more direct, although the feedback is sadly lacking. Very tough to get much sense of the road surface through the wheel when in the twisty stuff. All in all ,172 steering is probably better. After the initial lethargy of the blower, when its spinning hard and the corner approaches, the car feels a touch lazy. It feels higher geared in 2nd and 3rd than the 172 and so keeping it in the zone in quite tight stuff was not that easy. It feels like it wants to go off boost. Throw it in hard and it sticks quite well up to 9/10ths. After that there is hint of understeer followed by a slight four wheel drift before the traction control comes on. The car has very little body roll, most likely because of the run flat 17s which have a very stiff sidewall and I suspect this is the cause of the drift. Car doesnt really feel taily in the same way as the 172 at full pace. Would be nice to have more feedback through the bum and the wheel when at pace but it feels a bit remote. Though the clutch has no feel also, the shift is a cracker. Very direct and positive. The shift is far superior to the 172.
To wrap up.
Positives: Gearshift action, linear power delivery, interior feel, build quality.
Negatives: Central tacho (why bother, its annoying), Supercharger whine (even with bigger exhaust still sounds crap), run flat tyres, suspension dampening and travel, crap seats, price.
Conclusion: This is a pricey car. $56K plus options and on roads. From inside and out it looks quality. Unfortunately its not fast enough and the suspension needs work. The run flat tyres are dreadful and hamper roadholding and steering feel.
Its a lot of money for a little car, and it left me a bit uninspired. The 172, although not as fast, has more feedback and feel just about everywhere, the seats are way better and feels much more athletic and agile when at pace. The down sides I think we all know. Crap build quality etc etc. For almost half the price the 172 is a more rewarding and fun car to drive at pace. Its nowhere near as sophisticated as the jcw but as a drivers car, and particularly a handling car, the 172 wins by some distance.
If its a cool retro thing you are after then there is no contest. The jcw has build quality and "coolness" in spades.
