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!
I think theyre beginning to date...rapidly IMO, but that was bound to happen given their design. Fashions/taste change and while a lot of enthusiast love them, i suppose to joe public they look more and more of an oddity or just plain vulgar...
BTW just noticed that Mole has an aftermarket phase 3 bumper (same grille area fitting) but with phase 1/2 lights and 16v bonnet - might be worth speaking to...
The bottom on the lights (on phase 1/2 or 3) are always inline with the top of the bumper or bottom of the arch where it meets the bumper - if theres 40mm somethings not been fitted right i think. Can you not try putting some washers in between the top of the light and the slam panel to space it...
Why bother with the the 16v bonnet and lights? You dont need them to fit a 16v lump in, theyd make some cash selling them and theyll age your car quite a bit...
Err no...the minimum youll need is the phase 1/2 lights and the 16v bonnet - the phase 3 bumper/wings will be fine. Another alternative would be to have the 16v bonnet cut to have the phase 3 lights fit...do a search for white shark in the media section to see how it will look.
Mervs right - get a higher milage example and 9 times out of 10 (if youve your eyes open) youll be better off than with a newer one due to work being done.
I think a lot of people forget that most, if not all 16vs, are over 10 years old...good cars they may be but are certianly not worth more...
Sounds about right...172s vary a fair bit power wise and wether theyre run in or not (despite what some people will claim). Racing one flat out on the straight in a valver means you wont encounter any the problems of falling out of the power band assosiated with the 1.8 (i.e 0 torque below...
Here you go m8;
http://forum.cliosport.net/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=6&TopicID=164850&SearchPagePosition=1http://forum.cliosport.net/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=6&TopicID=164850&SearchPagePosition=1
mmmm...get some speedo vids up...wouldnt mind seeing this!
In fact put them up on http://www.williamsclio.co.ukwww.williamsclio.co.uk as i think theres no a ban on that sort of videos on here now...
Id say no more than 1500-2000 either.
TBH its a sad fact but 16vs just arent worth much thesedays so if i was persoanlly offered anything over 1200 id take the money and run.
This is kinda reminicent of the cars ive had! On the 30mile country road out to my parents the fastest ive done it has been in two cars (about equal times) - one was a mk1 1.4RT and the other my 1.8 16v with twice the power. Does this mean the RT was as fast as the valver? No - of course not...
Ill agree that suspension and brakes do count for a lot but id have to say that there no way youd come close to a type-R if the driver was honestly trying as hard as you...or was as bothered...
The williams/182 etc were designed to be hot hatches and arguably (between themselves or other marques) figure on top in a lot of tests. However, the problem with the v6 IMO is that it really wasnt designed to do anything in particular. I mean its not a hot hatch, its not family car, its not a...
Youll laugh at this but ive gone from a valver down to a 60bhp 1.2 and i love it. Dont get me wrong, its not at all fast but its cheap to run/insure and i find i dont get nearly as stressed behind the wheel. Ive also got more money to other things which is fantastic.
If i were you id ask...
Mate, i used to have a tuned properly quick 1.8 16v so im aware of how quick or not it wont be.
Reason im thinking about it that for the sake of 100quid energy engine and less than a days fitting i gain an extra 20bhp and also have a better platform for tuning...the energy engine i solid lump...