B1 RMA wrote:Is there anyone on the forum who has first hand experience of driving the 200 and 300. I rather got the feeling with the tyre profile etc it may be a bit too old school whereas the 300 like the A610 is a little further up the evolution ladder and a bit more modern with brakes etc. I could of course be completely wrong with my asumption.
Hi David
I drove four 300’s prior to buying my 260. The 300 is a larger car externally to the 260 it has a slightly longer wheelbase and wider track when compared to the 200/260, see the dimensions below. Having said that though I do not believe there is any more space inside the cockpit of the 300 over the 200/260.
Length:
300 – 4240mm 200/260 – 4090mm
Width:
300 – 1840mm 200/260 – 1700mm
Height
300 - 1180mm 200/260 – 1170mm
Wheel Base:
300 – 2500mm 200/260 – 2400mm
Track:
300 – F = 1500mm R = 1590mm 200/260 – 1460mm
Weight
300 – 1250kg 200/260 – 1255kg.
Power:
300 – 281 hp 260 – 260hp 200 – 200 hp.
Tyres:
300 – F -205/50/17 R – 255/40/17 200/260 – F – 205/55/16 R – 245/45/16.
Now the chassis are both made in the same way and to the naked eye they are identical other than the overall dimensions mentioned above. They are as Darren says sensitive to geometry set up, Stunned Monkey was never 100% happy with his, Paul Dobrowski, (200), noticed a big difference when he had his set-up and Keith Walker (400 GT), had his checked and set-up after it swapped ends on him on a French main road that was slightly damp, slightly up hill and curving slightly to the left, he now is much happier with the handling. Me, I found my 260 was fine, in fact better than all of the 300’s I had driven, but I took it to Ollie the same chap that Keith and PaulD had used up Blackburn way, he said mine was slightly out compared to what he had done to the other two Venturi’s and set it up the same as the other two cars. Ollie said to me when he first saw the 400 GT it reminded him of the 1970’s & 1980’s Matra Le Mans cars so he set them up fairly neutrally as per the Matra’s. After mine had been done it did feel a little better. Philippe Bachelet who is something of a Venturi aficionado over here in the UK says the 300 was designed to be a bit softer to drive compared to the more focused 260.
Now the brakes, on the 300 they have bigger discs and are more modern than the 200/260 but are still I believe of the single piston and sliding calliper type as per the 200/260, however nobody has yet been able to successfully identify exactly where the discs for the 300 come from! The 200/260 however is from the R25 turbo, using the R25 front discs both front and rear on the Venturi. I personally feel the 200/260 brakes need to be improved a point made by Clarkson in 1992 when he tested the 260 for Top Gear. I aim to see if it is possible to use Stephen Dell’s multi-piston brake upgrade kits to improve the braking of my car.
Performance wise yes the 300 has a higher top end 280 kph/175 mph versus 270 kph/168 mph for the 260 and 0 – 62 mph/100 kph in 5.2 seconds versus 5.3 seconds for the 260 though the 200 would be 243 kph/ 152 mph and 6.9 seconds to 62 mph/100 kph according to “Autocar & Motor 2/11/88.
In real terms the difference between the 300 and the 200 would be most noticeable, though the difference between the 300 and 260 is not so noticeable especially on the public road. On the track I believe the 260 would make up for its power disadvantage in the corners as I am told it is more focused and the 300 has been set up to be more forgiving hence the longer wheel base etc. To prove or disprove this would require a Top Gear type shoot out with the Stig at the wheel of each car and nobody is likely to be daft enough to give their car up for that sort of punishment.
After all this if it helps I think the 300 is prettier.
300 Chassis
260 Chassis
A drivable 260 Chassis