Search results

I own both at the moment and would say, if performance is his main priority then get the 182 if not get the MINI because overall its a better car

I was looking at that track and race mag the other day and not only did they vote the 197 the best it was also quickest hot hatch round the track

True but for similar stats as the old model the new MCS seems a bit to quick, according to that road test its nearly 3.5secs faster to 100 than the old model, no chance

As a side issue, do people feel lots of cups get written off due to: A, The lack of ABS or B, the type of people who buy cups

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=009&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&viewitem=&item=190052192767&rd=1&rd=1

Where as the 172cup as a gorgeous interior!

182 cup as it has air con, i also think the 182's look better than the 172's, i prefer the exhaust

I wouldnt worry about getting an older car, just get the 182 that seems the best when you take everyhting into considertation such as price, mileage, reg, condition, colour etc

Is your 172 std?

Megane 225 doesnt though

about 20secs to 100mph?

No way will a VR6 easily pull away from a 172 even when rolling, ive been behind impreza wrx, meg 225 in my 182 and they have more torque than the vr6 and they havent been able to pull away

Drive all three, as for straight line performance theres hardly anything in it up to 100mph

Mines booked in next month was quoted £180 thats with Renault

Are we classing the 172/182 as old school with the Mk1's? or new school with the 197's?

All things being equal I would agree with that list, not much in it probably talking about a couple of tenths of a sec to 100mph between the lot of them

Not really, autocars test was done on new cars (about 1500 miles) and that confirmed the 197 is nearly 2 secs slower to 100, from my test drive of one the difference seemed bigger than that. As ive said before though overall the 197 is a far superior car

Yawn, do you sell diesel engines for a living?

I havent driven a Chevrolet Matiz either but I know its not fast. I havent driven an F1 car either so I guess I cant comment on whether that is fast either

Dont need to drive one mate, I have a 182 and a Cooper S and they would both destroy it

Agree totally and thats why I think the MINI has been such a success, me and the missus have a Cooper S and a 182. The Cooper S appeals to so many different people its a fashion accessory to some but its also a cracking car to drive.

Autocar reckoned there was something seriosuly wrong with the car, i think it took 8.5 secs to 60, the one they had tested previosly did 6.7

I think describing at 120bhp megane as fast is slightly hysterical

All Im saying is that when petrols and diesels have the same bhp figure, the (flat out, not in gear) performance figures seem to be very similar (as the clio example earlier) The diesel will have much better fuel economy but will cost more to buy originally

Havent driven any of them, does that make any difference? Im not talking about which one feels quicker, the facts say the 1.6 is faster not by much but its faster, just like the facts say the dci is faster than the 1.4

Look on the Renault website the 1.6 petrol is faster than the dci 106 down the qtr mile strip and faster to a km, what bit of faster dont you understand?

The diesel will be slightly faster if it has the same BHP, it will also cost a significant amount more

Yes but a diesel with the same bhp figure as a petrol will cost significantly more and have a marginal performance advantage. The Renault Clio is a great example: Using the 1.4 petrol (98bhp) and the DCI (106bhp) the DCI is 0.2 secs faster to 60 and 0.3 secs faster to 1000m, so hardly...

Couldnt agree more, If I wanted a quality hot hatch Id buy a Golf GTI

True but that 172lb/ft is across a smaller rev range