M
mini-valver
Not a chance of seeing 60 in second! My 1600 when it was pretty much standard could only hit 58ish and that's bouncing on the limiter......
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.
Not a chance of seeing 60 in second! My 1600 when it was pretty much standard could only hit 58ish and that's bouncing on the limiter......
The 182 arn't that quick though come otu a a bend depending what speed your doing and they still don't exactly make the wrold look like its going backwords do they?
No huge gains from overtaking often saves if your luck a minute or two,
Don't even need 75 hp for that.
Shed.
Probably well over 2 min. With a side of headwind it struggles to get past about 96 lol.
Yeah got to be, as a std Renault 5 GT Turbo (120bhp 875kg) does it in 22s, so a heavier Clio 1.2 with only 80bhp is going to take FOREVER i would have thought?
Simon
someone must have told you your car was shite or something while you wer at the pub...
no need to try "big up" your 1.2 on here...a lot of the people on here like myself went from 1.2s to 182s etc....so are well aware of their performance etc...
dont try and tell me a 1.2 clio is a fast car..as it isnt (thats a factoid for ya, go look it up)...182's etc are nippy (thats another)...
next time you get humped off the lights by a ford ka, just drive slow and pretend you werent trying...it works..
btw, as an aside...i miss the fuel economy on my 1.2...the tank used to last for weeks...unless you "ragged" it about in 2nd pretending it went fast...
R35 GTR
Mk1 Eunos Roadster
pmsl - I assume you're joking. If you're not, would these 172s be upside down in the gravel by any chance? Or maybe there was a Rolls Royce turbine strapped to the roof of the 1.2...?:rasp:
thats about right "a bit of power " is all a vr6 has,they are slooooow!
p.s Dan,200 sx wont do anywhere near 80 in 2nd,try about 72 mph.
0-100 in an xr3i was 33 seconds and they would muller a 1.2 clio,the weather would decide the time in a 1.2 ,it wouldnt even hit 100 if the wind was blowing the wrong way.
Mk1 Eunos Roadster
Well said. Personally I'm glad you enjoy it! My first car was a 106 with 4 gears, a heater and petrified tyres. It only weighed about 650kg though, so I put some Hella driving lights on the front and it was mint for driving up country roads at night! Slow as anything, but you felt like you were going quick... I did wish for air-con a few times though.
I had a 1.2 courtesy car for a few days when my 182 was in, with the notorious temperature sender issue. It was about as much fun as eating broken glass on a bed of razor blades TBH, and overtaking...at one stage I almost got out and walked. I'm not meaning to **** your car off, but it isn't fun and it isn't even remotely quick. I realise I'm talking from the perspective of a 'sport' owner, but...
I agree, and so would most. But some of you guys are dreaming if you think a 1.2 Clio will hit 100 in 25 seconds. It won't and that's all there is to it
BMW M4; S1000 RR
On the whole topic it's got to pointlessly slow. As in you'll need no headwind or a downhill stretch to hit 100 with purpose surely..
Never driven a 1.2 but I was going home from the cinema one night with a mate who has a 1.2 extreme, not sure if he was actually trying to accelerate but I could match his speed in 5th when we were doing 60.
Also, a remapped 80 (about 110bhp) hits 100 a tad under 30 seconds on a flat road. Haven't bothered timing it in standard form because to be perfectly honest I don't know of enough flat land to do it without hitting a bend or a hill.
Most people don't know how to drive their cars fast, imo that includes most 172/182 drivers. If you did a perfect lap in a 1.2 I imagine it would take at least a bit of skill to beat the time in a 172.
Never driven a 1.2 but I was going home from the cinema one night with a mate who has a 1.2 extreme, not sure if he was actually trying to accelerate but I could match his speed in 5th when we were doing 60.
Also, a remapped 80 (about 110bhp) hits 100 a tad under 30 seconds on a flat road. Haven't bothered timing it in standard form because to be perfectly honest I don't know of enough flat land to do it without hitting a bend or a hill.
Most people don't know how to drive their cars fast, imo that includes most 172/182 drivers. If you did a perfect lap in a 1.2 I imagine it would take at least a bit of skill to beat the time in a 172.
I agree, and so would most. But some of you guys are dreaming if you think a 1.2 Clio will hit 100 in 25 seconds. It won't and that's all there is to it
Yeah but not all of us want to go 100mph
I agree, and so would most. But some of you guys are dreaming if you think a 1.2 Clio will hit 100 in 25 seconds. It won't and that's all there is to it
Yeah but not all of us want to go 100mph
yeah but wasn't that the question started in this thread?
0-100 in a 1.2?
I would say that at only around 75bhp per tonne, it would take a 1.2 over 40s to reach 100mph.......
but I guess not many 1.2 drivers are ever going to get there, ROADS NOT LONG ENOUGH
Simon
Im not bigging up my 1.2..there was a thread and I answered a question to the best of my beliefs.
All I am trying to say really is that my 1.2 is fast enough for me...I dont need to go 100mph when the speed limit is 70.:dapprove:
All I hear is 1*2 owners saying they are poo...we all know they are much faster dont need to constantly remind us thanks....but some people like to make themselves feel better by taking the mick out of slower cars. what ever floats ya boat.:rasp:
f**k me, and the rest. alot more than 30 seconds. more like 2 mins!!!
no way, I put the figures into the "performance calculator" and it would not give a time (bhp per tonne to low), so I uped the bhp untill it reached 95bhp per tonne (more than the std 1.2 has got) and it turned in a figure of 36.5.
So giving that the 1.2 has way les than 95bhp per tonne, its got to be over 40s to 100....afterall its top speed is only 104-106?
not that it matters that much I guess, as most people don't do 100mph
but just trying to answer the question.
Simon
i also have a slow car, its considerably slower than yours...but i also happen to own a 182 aswell....
to put it another way,
too many 1.2 owners come on here to "big up" their cars...
"but some people like to make themselves feel better.."
"what ever floats ya boat.:rasp:"
I probably would want one ..but I am happy with what Iv got..tbh.
Iv spent over a year doing it up the way I like..might even consider a 172 conversion..but
I want new wheels and a retrim first
I started doing that... but figured that if i sold the extreme and bought a 172 it worked out sh*t loads cheaper.
A retrim will probably cost you as much as the price diference between your car and a 172 with leather/ alcantera seats as standard.
Fancy a ride hen??
Nope why do you think he's joking?
Mk1 Eunos Roadster
It's just physics! There's only so much that the driver can do when you're talking about 170bhp/RS suspension vs 80bhpish/wobbly suspension. It'd have to be a very good driver in the 1.2 and a very bad one in the 172, and there'd have to be NO straights on the track. A Clio 1.2, good little car though it is, hasn't got the puff to keep up with a 172 on track. In town it's another story. You'll stay with a Zonda if it's busy enough
Most accurate answer so far IMO.
As for 25-30 secs... Jesus. A 123bhp Ford puma takes 25 secs to hit 100, you reckon your 1.2 clio could keep up with one of them?
I reckon it'll take between 45-60 seconds.
