ClioSport.net
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.
D
dick
thers about 0.2 s difference mate
D
dick
think ff is 6.9, cup is 6.7??
MINI JCW
All things equal the 182cup will be marginally quicker. Im talking a tenth/couple of tenths to 100mph as it only weighs 20kg less, giving the cup a power to weight advantage over the full fat 182 of about 3bhp per tonne.
However variables such as the amount of fuel in the car, weight of the driver, driver ability and whether its a good or a bad engine will decide on the day which omne is quicker.
However variables such as the amount of fuel in the car, weight of the driver, driver ability and whether its a good or a bad engine will decide on the day which omne is quicker.
Golf GTI PP Mk7
isnt the 172 cup lighter still? and marginally quicker too, 0-60 in 6.5 if memory serves.
Turbos.
I'm getting confused here...
As i understand it there is no 182 Cup, right?
There is a 182 with a 'Cup pack' though. I thought this was just same wheels painted a different colour, slightly different suspension and the splitter/spoiler from the 172 Cup?
Where does the weight difference come in?
As i understand it there is no 182 Cup, right?
There is a 182 with a 'Cup pack' though. I thought this was just same wheels painted a different colour, slightly different suspension and the splitter/spoiler from the 172 Cup?
Where does the weight difference come in?
Clio 182
JBarber said:
Why does it say here that it's 0-60 in 7.1secs?
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/43716/renault_sport_clio_182.html
c9kay said:
That's just typical lazy journalism. They are quoting the manufacturer's 0-62.5 figures but mis-quoting it as 0-60. This write up must have been before the timed road test, the 6.6 sec figure is in the Knowledge section at the back of the actual magazine. Buy it yourself and take a look
Golf GTI PP Mk7
ive never timed mine, i just know its fast, and fun.
c9kay said:
Yep, the numbers are in bold if they've been independently recorded and normal for manufacturers' claims. It says 6.6 for the 182 (in bold) and 6.5 (not in bold) for the 182 Cup - although I've never seen any Renault stuff quoting 6.5 sec 0-60 so who knows where they got that from (I think they've just copied the 172 Cup figure which was independently recorded - more lazy journalism).
I guess there's a lot of other factors in there (weather, driver etc). but there are some surprising numbers, e.g.:
Honda CTR 0-60 = 6.8s (independently recorded)
Clio 182 0-60 = 6.6s (independently recorded)
[although CTR is quicker than 182 to 100 mph, those numbers are there too]
Clio 172 Cup 0-60 = 6.5s (independently recorded)
Clio 172 0-60 = 7.1s (independently recorded)
Clio Williams 0-60 = 7.6s (independently recorded)
Megane 225 Trophy 0-60 = 6.7s (independently recorded)
Golf GTI mark V 0-60 = 6.7s (independently recorded)
Astra VXR 0-60 = 6.7s (independently recorded)
[VXR only 0.1s quicker to 100 than Clio 182]
Last edited:
The main benefit of the 182Cup was that it was cheaper for new owners such as myself. Another (unforseen) benefit is that it doesnt suffer from as many faults as the 'toyed up' full fat cars. I'd rather own an FF now, mainly for the nicer interior.
Speed? apples for apples the Cup will always be Sliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiightly quicker, but normally there are too many variables. Some cars produce more power than others for starters. A good 182FF could be identical to an average 182Cup, but equally, a good Cup might be slightly quicker than an average 182FF.
It's all good, both are great cars and you can have very quick examples of each. The 182Cup is ultimately slightly quicker and more nimble in theory, but add 20kg into the boot of your 182FF and tell us you noticed it too much...no different to driving a 182Cup with a full tank of gas.
Apples for Apples the Cup is quicker, but you'd never notice it on the road IMO. The bonus of the Cup is that still has AC...the one thing lacking that would stop me owning a 172Cup.
Speed? apples for apples the Cup will always be Sliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiightly quicker, but normally there are too many variables. Some cars produce more power than others for starters. A good 182FF could be identical to an average 182Cup, but equally, a good Cup might be slightly quicker than an average 182FF.
It's all good, both are great cars and you can have very quick examples of each. The 182Cup is ultimately slightly quicker and more nimble in theory, but add 20kg into the boot of your 182FF and tell us you noticed it too much...no different to driving a 182Cup with a full tank of gas.
Apples for Apples the Cup is quicker, but you'd never notice it on the road IMO. The bonus of the Cup is that still has AC...the one thing lacking that would stop me owning a 172Cup.
^ yeah, maybe the VXR was done in the wet or something - it doesn't say. Although their track times also show the 182 Cup faster round their test track than the VXR and GTI Mk V (but not by much)
I think the only thing these numbers really show is that they are all pretty close (and for me the Clio had the advantage of being > £4K cheaper new with better std kit, better fuel economy and a cheaper insurance group).
I think the only thing these numbers really show is that they are all pretty close (and for me the Clio had the advantage of being > £4K cheaper new with better std kit, better fuel economy and a cheaper insurance group).
