0-60 and 0-62 times of 172

[vtrman99]

what are the official renault times fro the mk1 and the mk2 does anyone know?



cheers



Jon

 

[viceroy]

Why dont you have a look at the renault official site. Im sure youll find the official mk2 time there

As for the mk1, it should be similar but that will be found on brochures if you can get your hands on some

 

[viceroy]

Renault quote the official 0-62 of the 172 mk2 as 7.2s

 

[Cord-172]

I thought the Mk1 was 0-60 in 6.8, but they say the clio cup is 6.9 so that cant be right

 

[vtrman99]

jsut been on carstats.co.uk web site and they say the mk1 172 does 0-60mph in 6.6 secs (it says mk2 buts its the mk1 if u look at the car description wheels etc)

 

[Gareth]

renault official mk2 is 7.1 (but have read that Mk1 was 6.6 and Mk2 should improve on that), not a quote from renault though*

 

[teady172]

The official MK1 and MK2 figures vary from 7.0 - 7.1. Although both have since been tested at 6.6!

 

[vtrman99]

bin on renos web site now and there sayin 0-60 7 seconds for the mk2, oh and in the car statisitscs section of this site it says 0-60 mk1 is 6.8 and mk 6.9 oh dear who is right?????????

 

[Paul_Barker]

mk2 172 7.2 seconds

mk2 172 cup 6.5 seconds

 

[paddymph]

Hmm, 0.7 seconds off for 75kg?? That right? that would mean if u ditched your spare wheel youd gain 0.3 secs on your o-60 run?

Paddy

 

[viceroy]

I think the main difference between 0-62 times might be made up of how much fuel was in the car at the time of the run.

if fuel ways in the region of 1kg/ litre then the difference between a full tank and an empty one is 50kg, and hence, about 0.5 seconds which would account for runs being done in 6.6 (empty tank) and other runs being done in 7.1 (full tank). It would also make a difference to how much the driver weighed. perhaps as little at 65 and as much as 85, which might account for another 0.2 seconds.

 

[paddymph]

Mileage is a big factor as well, the 172 engine comes into its own after a few thousand!

 

[Simon]

Thats a very valid point about the weight thing! When we weighed 172s on a weigh bridge we had full tanks of fuel. perhaps 40 to 50 kg of weight. Do renault publish vehicle weight based on a full tank of petrol as well?

 

[RobFenn]

Also stupid things like if you leave the aircon on effects times. Mk1 is faster acclerating than the mk2, but only by about 1 tenth. Neither do 0-60 in under 7. 6.5 secs for the cup is optimistic, id say 6.7/8

 

[Zidan]

Sorry mate you are wrong. Evo have tested a mk1 172 that did 0-60 in 6.6.

 

[DTWD]

Yeah, but that doesnt mean its correct. Just because a bunch of jumped up...ok calm down, take your medication...hmmmmm



Paul

 

[RobFenn]

Hmm well looking at power to weight ratios of other cars that just doesnt make sense. I know EVO has great drivers at its disposable but im a believer of if it sounds to good to be true, it is to good to be true!

 

[Zidan]

163bhp/tonne. Sound about right to me if you consider the CTR for example which is 166/tonne and gets to 60 in about the same time and EVO are one of the better magazines out there so I doubt they would just make up figures.

 

[Tom]

Autocar got 6.6 too

 

[RSTDL]

CUP IS 171 bhp/TONNE and Ive had it easy at 6.4 to 60 in the dry - soon be 180BHP per tonne though!

 

[Tom]

how?

 

[RSTDL]

Oh and Cup is lighter than Mk1 so if the Mk1 was 6.6 in Autocar?Evo etc the cup will be and IS 6.4/6.5! Standard

 

[RobFenn]

Which means a good driver could get 0-60 in about 6

 

[Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by RobFenn on 16 December 2002

Which means a good driver could get 0-60 in about 6

?- you wont find better drivers than autocar road testers

 

[Dansta]

cupsize..........wotcha doin?

 

[DTWD]

Ok, this very site states the following:

172 mk1 = 6.8

172 mk2 = 6.9

172 Cup = 6.7



Paul

 

[RobFenn]

Autocar cheats, it gets racing drivers!

 

[RobFenn]

they are the offical renault stats, which i think are closer to what 99% of people can get to what evo etc have. EVO dont mind destroying the cars, i.e sidestepping the clutch. Thats why i was doing the faces, cos frankly, unless you like replacing clutches youll never get those times as the above mentioned. Renault gave them times because otherwise theyd be complaints if people struggled to get 6.4 and etc.

From what i know the alfa gtv 3.0 has a better power to weight than the 172s and does 0-60 in 6.7 as a comparison.

 

[Zidan]

Its the 0-100 really that counts anyway!

 

[Craggy]

i think its possible, i know i can pish 6.5 secs on the road with barely trying, on the 1/4 mile its way less, id stick my neck out and say six flat.

 

[RobFenn]

What timing gear do you use though craggy?

I think its how good they go round corners myself...

 

[Zidan]

Either way we are only disputing fractions of time here. Real world between the mk1, mk2, and Cup theres not a lot in it.

 

[forest172]

If somebody will host it Ill send them an original test of a MK1 from autoexpress with a 0-60 of 6.5secs. With 40-60, and 50-70 results.

 

[Craggy]

this is in a williams mate, and i use 1/4 mile times, also how much faster it is than a 172 to 60, and speedo readings which a rolling road showed highly accurate to 100

 

[RobFenn]

Ok well williams is diiferent..thats the best hot hatch ever made

I agree with Zidan, 0-60 times arent really important, its through the gears acceleration thats important in the real world.

 

[Craggy]

yeah mate, the only cars that can 1/4 mile as fast as mine have a 0-60 of 6.1 to 6.3. and im sure mines a bitquicker than then now iv sorted out its breathing, 14.8 btw

 

[forest172]

If somebody will host it Ill send them an original test of a MK1 from autoexpress with a 0-60 of 6.5secs. With 40-60, and 50-70 results.

 

[RobFenn]

cant ya copy n paste?

 

[forest172]

 

[forest172]

well didnt work!!!!!!!!!