ClioSport.net

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.

2 different BHP for valvers..

Car  Clio 16V mk1 ph2
Just wondered if anyone knew why there were 2 different engines made for the valver?! Why would they make 2 different BHP for the same car?
 
Yeah it was to me. Looking through the exhaust catalogue at work today and apprantley, depending on the CC (cause there's two different ones) determines the bhp.
 
I take it you're thinking of the 137 bhp 1.8 (The 16v) and the 2.0 Williams which is 150 bhp.
 
No. They're both on the 1.8.
I'll find the details again tomorrow. But there was a 1764 i think that had the 137bhp and another that only had 110...
 
ill check the detais again tomorrow and let ya'll know! Just wondered if anyone knew that's all...
 
There not both valver engines! The 137bhp one is the 1.8 16v F7P fitted to the 16v, and 110bhp is the 1.8 8v F3P engine fitted to the RSi.
 
Haha I noticed ;) Never mind...obviously didn't read the catalogue properly loL! Don't come to me for an exhaust ;):)
 
There not both valver engines! The 137bhp one is the 1.8 16v F7P fitted to the 16v, and 110bhp is the 1.8 8v F3P engine fitted to the RSi.

Bang on the money!

IMO the RSi engine is a better engine, far more torquey, on track theres f**k all in it till you get to a big straight
 
There not both valver engines! The 137bhp one is the 1.8 16v F7P fitted to the 16v, and 110bhp is the 1.8 8v F3P engine fitted to the RSi.

Bang on the money!

IMO the RSi engine is a better engine, far more torquey, on track theres f**k all in it till you get to a big straight
woooo someone else who favours the rsi engine:D i agree more tourqy....of course im biased and never driven a valver lol....
 
woooo someone else who favours the rsi engine:D i agree more tourqy....of course im biased and never driven a valver lol....

Engine might be better but the car is a crap shape ;)

(could be worse thought, you could drive a Korsar! :rasp:)
in all honesty i love the shape of mk1s better than 1*2s and 197s...admitadly i'd perfer the wide arches to match the valver but oh well lol...
 
woooo someone else who favours the rsi engine:D i agree more tourqy....of course im biased and never driven a valver lol....

Engine might be better but the car is a crap shape ;)

(could be worse thought, you could drive a Korsar! :rasp:)

Better than having a round bubble car, seriously the mk2 clios couldn't look any gayer.

I've driven a valver, tehre f**k all there under 2-3k revs, like driving a turbo or a v-tec.....shite lol
 
iirc the valver has more torque than a rsi anyway....at only a few hundred more revs...
 
agreed mart ^^^^^^^^^

thing is tho i very much doubt an rsi has any more torque than a valver,but as the valver makes its power at the top end of the revs,it gives the illusion that the rsi has more torque if that makes sence?

iv had an rsi for a week and iv owned two valvers and from experience id say the rsi pulss well then runs out of revs,where the valver pulls well then takes off at 4500

course only imo :)
 
id say the rsi pulss well then runs out of revs,where the valver pulls well then takes off at 4500
the powers deliverys not bad threw 1st 2nd 3rd but u get to 4500-5000 in 4th and thats when u start to notice the power fading...but from 5th does goto 135 (my speeds out due to small wheel & tyre size as well so its bout 120max)
 
Back
Top