172 vs type r

[FlameR]

most likely a repost (not a*sed), but the thing thats annoying is the fact that tiff is driving them, all he does is try to get the f**king back end out every sweeping corner.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=d4-PI_rES6k

And he said the handling isn't as good as the type r...hmmm I know people who own type r's that admit the 182's handling is better.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=d4-PI_rES6k

 

[paul_h172]

re re repost mate.

 

[Marky_]

Would have had it in the twisties. Oh wait.......

 

[Eryl182]

Hmm i recon i could find that 2 tenths by not going sideways in the last section.

Edit, is it just me or is he bouncing that cup off the limmiter at 1:55 for what seems like forever.

 

[FlameR]

re re repost mate.

re re read the first sentence.

 

[Jacoob1976]

most likely a repost (not a*sed), but the thing thats annoying is the fact that tiff is driving them, all he does is try to get the f**king back end out every sweeping corner.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=d4-PI_rES6k

And he said the handling isn't as good as the type r...hmmm I know people who own type r's that admit the 182's handling is better.

The difference is that Tiff Needel is (was) a professional driver (F1 etc...), so I'd go off his opinions than non professional drivers opinions. That's what he does for a living, he's raced in the past, so knows his cars.

 

[FlameR]

most likely a repost (not a*sed), but the thing thats annoying is the fact that tiff is driving them, all he does is try to get the f**king back end out every sweeping corner.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=d4-PI_rES6k

And he said the handling isn't as good as the type r...hmmm I know people who own type r's that admit the 182's handling is better.

The difference is that Tiff Needel is (was) a professional driver (F1 etc...), so I'd go off his opinions than non professional drivers opinions. That's what he does for a living, he's raced in the past, so knows his cars.

thats great but fwd cars aren't built for power sliding around corners.

 

[caeteez]

You always have to take these sorts of reviews/head-to-heads with a pinch of salt. All of the TV car show hosts are so biased.

 

[Matteh]

depends which car they have to give away i suppose

 

[Jacoob1976]

The difference is that Tiff Needel is (was) a professional driver (F1 etc...), so I'd go off his opinions than non professional drivers opinions. That's what he does for a living, he's raced in the past, so knows his cars.

thats great but fwd cars aren't built for power sliding around corners.

eh? What i meant was... never mind, can't be arsed

 

[trile]

depends which car they have to give away i suppose

the clio was faster but he didn't wanna see it go away to some average joe

 

[TheJesus]

CTR is the faster car if driven properly. Live with it...

 

[gaz44]

CTR is the faster car if driven properly. Live with it...

Prove it! (Just being annoying btw! I don't care it the CTR is faster)

I just want to see this evidence so that this weekly thread can be put to bed and we can all sell up and buy a Civic!

 

[TheJesus]

prove it's not

I've driven my mates one countless times and whilst I find it horrible to drive and boring it's certainly quicker than a 172. A decent 172 may be able to hold one off until 100+, but a CTR pulls miles harder at the point you change to 5th in the Clio. Handling on most normal roads I'd say the Clio is much better, as it's more accessable to the majority of people, where the CTR feels stiff and skittish, but I'd imagine stock for stock it's a much better track car. I dont think 172's are that quick (if we're talking about full fat phase 2's), I've seen decent valvers easily keep with them to a ton.

 

[Ant1]

Lol how long have these thread been going? It's like one a day for the last 5 years :clown:

 

[MarkM]

prove it's not

I've driven my mates one countless times and whilst I find it horrible to drive and boring it's certainly quicker than a 172. A decent 172 may be able to hold one off until 100+ , but a CTR pulls miles harder at the point you change to 5th in the Clio. Handling on most normal roads I'd say the Clio is much better , as it's more accessable to the majority of people, where the CTR feels stiff and skittish , but I'd imagine stock for stock it's a much better track car. I dont think 172's are that quick (if we're talking about full fat phase 2's), I've seen decent valvers easily keep with them to a ton.

lol!

 

[Christopher]

breadvans!

 

[ed_172_cup]

iv gone head2head with a type r and pissed it. he was tryin as well - its like whatever gear i was in it took him so much longer to get into the vtec by the time it did i had gone. (i have a cup not a phat boy mk2)

 

[TheJesus]

prove it's not

I've driven my mates one countless times and whilst I find it horrible to drive and boring it's certainly quicker than a 172. A decent 172 may be able to hold one off until 100+ , but a CTR pulls miles harder at the point you change to 5th in the Clio. Handling on most normal roads I'd say the Clio is much better , as it's more accessable to the majority of people, where the CTR feels stiff and skittish , but I'd imagine stock for stock it's a much better track car. I dont think 172's are that quick (if we're talking about full fat phase 2's), I've seen decent valvers easily keep with them to a ton.

lol!

Never driven one I take it?

Maybe the CTR would be better after a Mark Mason remap :lolup:

 

[MarkM]

lol!

Never driven one I take it?

Maybe the CTR would be better after a Mark Mason remap :lolup:

No I havent driven one which is why I didnt make any comment on which I thought was the better car.

Your response made me laugh though. I thought you were going to tell us why the civic was so much better.

In your words -
The clio handles better and is as fast to 100 as the civic.
The civic is horrible and boring to drive and feels stiff and skitish.

You sold it to me I will give the Honda dealer a call and see if I can get a test drive. :clown:

 

[_Kenny_]

Clio is slightly more fun to drive but the Civic is hardly horrible and boring to drive. Yes the steering feel could do with sharpening up but it's still not as bad as people make out on here! The whole package of the CTR is better than a 1*2 imo of course.


Anyway blah blah both cars are great blah blah. I wait with baited breath for next weeks 182 vs CTR thread

 

[P111LTL]

I would take the honda engine/ gearbox and put it in a clio cup. If that shows how both cars are better at one thing than the other

 

[_Tom]

iv gone head2head with a type r and pissed it. he was tryin as well - its like whatever gear i was in it took him so much longer to get into the vtec by the time it did i had gone. (i have a cup not a phat boy mk2)

Haha

 

[MarkM]

iv gone head2head with a type r and pissed it. he was tryin as well - its like whatever gear i was in it took him so much longer to get into the vtec by the time it did i had gone. (i have a cup not a phat boy mk2)

Haha

So you pissed on a type R in your 172!? A car that on paper is quicker and in the real world would be so similar in performance that there would not be any difference.

Oh wait you have a cup......

 

[_Kenny_]

^ lol true

there is not even a ball hair in it!

 

[ed_172_cup]

yeh believe mate. they are quick from 6k to redline....the power curve must just be a big hole then it shoots up when it comes on cam

 

[MarkM]

yeh believe mate. they are quick from 6k to redline....the power curve must just be a big hole then it shoots up when it comes on cam

So how does it get to 100 quicker then a 172 cup?

It doesnt drop out of the vtec everytime you change gear if you are trying/driving to its full potential. Sound like the bloke you raced wasnt trying?

 

[MarkM]

.

 

[_Tom]

My atr, which is different i know, will stay with my mates 172 off vtec with him pulling nothing but then my lump does have more torque. As said once on vtec it shouldnt drop out again.

Simple way to put it is neither are quicker...

Type R's have a slight dip in power before vtec but nothing major. The curve is actually pretty smooth.

 

[ed_172_cup]

only tellin you what happened. he was tryin - it was my mate who has owned a 1l Polo for time,saved up and got a CTR, so we went for a drive and i had the legs on him. if given a long enough bit of road im sure he would be faster but to about 90-100 i was in front. maybe he bought a lemon lol

 

[TheJesus]

Never driven one I take it?

Maybe the CTR would be better after a Mark Mason remap :lolup:

No I havent driven one which is why I didnt make any comment on which I thought was the better car.

Your response made me laugh though. I thought you were going to tell us why the civic was so much better.

In your words -
The clio handles better and is as fast to 100 as the civic.
The civic is horrible and boring to drive and feels stiff and skitish.

You sold it to me I will give the Honda dealer a call and see if I can get a test drive. :clown:

Actually those are your words simpleton, I said the CTR is faster, not better, but on normal driving roads you'd be hard pushed to get the best out of it, but lets face it, most blasts are on motorways or DC's in straight lines.

I cant stand the CTR, but it's quicker in a straight line 95% of the time if both are standard, 172 FF's are the slowest 2.0 Renault you can get. A decent valver will give most a good run imo

 

[Linsen]

Why is it that people feel the need to somehow convince themselves that the Clio is the be-all and end-all of hothatchism? Personnally, I'm quite convinced that the CTR is a great car (I read plenty good things about it). But so is the 172 and there are several factors wich made me decide to buy a 172 and not a CTR. I don't like the looks of the CTR, f.e. And it was much more expensive to get a comparable car, so the 172 to me was definitely the best bang for the buck. And I'm happy with it -- despite all the rattling and squeaking, btw, which I am sure you don't have in a CTR.

 

[MarkM]

Actually those are your words simpleton, I said the CTR is faster, not better, but on normal driving roads you'd be hard pushed to get the best out of it, but lets face it, most blasts are on motorways or DC's in straight lines.

I cant stand the CTR, but it's quicker in a straight line 95% of the time if both are standard, 172 FF's are the slowest 2.0 Renault you can get. A decent valver will give most a good run imo

I am pretty sure they are your words.

prove it's not

I've driven my mates one countless times and whilst I find it horrible to drive and boring it's certainly quicker than a 172. A decent 172 may be able to hold one off until 100+ , but a CTR pulls miles harder at the point you change to 5th in the Clio. Handling on most normal roads I'd say the Clio is much better , as it's more accessable to the majority of people, where the CTR feels stiff and skittish , but I'd imagine stock for stock it's a much better track car. I dont think 172's are that quick (if we're talking about full fat phase 2's), I've seen decent valvers easily keep with them to a ton.

 

[_Kenny_]

only tellin you what happened. he was tryin - it was my mate who has owned a 1l Polo for time,saved up and got a CTR, so we went for a drive and i had the legs on him. if given a long enough bit of road im sure he would be faster but to about 90-100 i was in front. maybe he bought a lemon lol

maybe he's not got used to the high revving yet. Took me a wee bit of time to get used to

 

[TheJesus]

In your words -
The clio handles better and is as fast to 100 as the civic.
The civic is horrible and boring to drive and feels stiff and skitish.

You sold it to me I will give the Honda dealer a call and see if I can get a test drive. :clown:

I am pretty sure they are your words.

prove it's not

I've driven my mates one countless times and whilst I find it horrible to drive and boring it's certainly quicker than a 172. A decent 172 may be able to hold one off until 100+ , but a CTR pulls miles harder at the point you change to 5th in the Clio. Handling on most normal roads I'd say the Clio is much better , as it's more accessable to the majority of people, where the CTR feels stiff and skittish , but I'd imagine stock for stock it's a much better track car. I dont think 172's are that quick (if we're talking about full fat phase 2's), I've seen decent valvers easily keep with them to a ton.

I refer you to the highlighted parts seeing as you clearly read at the same level as a 5 year old. Now shove that up your already severely stretched arse and smoke it

To summarise to a level you can hopefully understand:

Clio will be more accessable to drive quick for most average drivers. CTR felt overly stiff and skittish for a road car.

A decent 172 may (which also mean might incase you have doubts) keep up with one to 100 or be slightly quicker.

I find the CTR boring to drive. A combination of dull steering and pedal feel and they feel slow in the drivers seat... to me at least.

 

[MarkM]

I am pretty sure they are your words.

prove it's not

I've driven my mates one countless times and whilst I find it horrible to drive and boring it's certainly quicker than a 172. A decent 172 may be able to hold one off until 100+ , but a CTR pulls miles harder at the point you change to 5th in the Clio. Handling on most normal roads I'd say the Clio is much better , as it's more accessable to the majority of people, where the CTR feels stiff and skittish , but I'd imagine stock for stock it's a much better track car. I dont think 172's are that quick (if we're talking about full fat phase 2's), I've seen decent valvers easily keep with them to a ton.

I refer you to the highlighted parts seeing as you clearly read at the same level as a 5 year old. Now shove that up your already severely stretched arse and smoke it

To summarise to a level you can hopefully understand:

Clio will be more accessable to drive quick for most average drivers. CTR felt overly stiff and skittish for a road car.

A decent 172 may (which also mean might incase you have doubts) keep up with one to 100 or be slightly quicker.

I find the CTR boring to drive. A combination of dull steering and pedal feel and they feel slow in the drivers seat... to me at least.

You have lost me.... which one is quicker?

 

[seb]

anymore handbags at dawn girlies (jesus and mark) and infractions will be issued.

Mark - stop trying to make jon bite.

jesus - stop owning him so much.

please just try and discuss it without the snide remarks to each other.

 

[_Kenny_]

...and post this in the correct section

 

[MarkM]

anymore handbags at dawn girlies (jesus and mark) and infractions will be issued.

Mark - stop trying to make jon bite.

jesus - stop owning him so much.

please just try and discuss it without the snide remarks to each other.

A simpleton with a stretched arse hole that is getting owned by TheJesus....

How can I possibly have the intelligence to be 'trying to make Jon bite'?

 

[seb]

at the end of the day, who actually cares?

you only picked up on jesus' comments since it was jesus who posted it imo. if it was someone else you would have left it alone. tbh you'll deny that anyhow, it is just my opinion.

lets just enjoy or not enjoy a 172 vs ctr thread without you and jesus having a little girly fit in the middle somewhere.