1.2 16v 0-60

[captain_clio]

it says here this one does it in 11,

http://www.ne-stylin.com/members/renault_clio_karl/karl_clio.htmhttp://www.ne-stylin.com/members/renault_clio_karl/karl_clio.htm

what is the actual figure for a std 1.2 16v?

 

[RobFenn]

Thats solows car,an optimistic chap! Especially with 17s on

However i think a standard one could probably get there in mid 11s maybe..we need to time one really.

 

[Tom]

Sadly standard is 13 secs

On a good day though i have seen Mid 11 sec times

 

[theICEman]

The published manufacturers figures on all the documentation, brochures etc. for the Clio 2 Mk1 1.2 16v (ie. Jan-May 2001) stated 11.9 secs 0-60. However, its worth remembering that manufacturers figures are reached based on half payload (ie. equivalent of 2/3 passengers plus some luggage and a half tank of fuel) and with a 1500rpm standing start. I had mine timed on a run using a Greddy performance meter borrowed off of my mate, managed 10.6 secs but with no passengers. Also, I had just finished running it in and my car was at its peak performance. Theres no doubt I wouldnt see such good figures now, especially with 17"s and my Group A exhaust.

 

[captain_clio]

will the way it has been ran in effect the performance. ??

i.e: i havent exactly stuck to the "no more then 3,500 rmp" rule

???

 

[Dust]

Quote: Originally posted by theICEman on 09 April 2003

The published manufacturers figures on all the documentation, brochures etc. for the Clio 2 Mk1 1.2 16v (ie. Jan-May 2001) stated 11.9 secs 0-60. However, its worth remembering that manufacturers figures are reached based on half payload (ie. equivalent of 2/3 passengers plus some luggage and a half tank of fuel) and with a 1500rpm standing start. I had mine timed on a run using a Greddy performance meter borrowed off of my mate, managed 10.6 secs but with no passengers. Also, I had just finished running it in and my car was at its peak performance. Theres no doubt I wouldnt see such good figures now, especially with 17"s and my Group A exhaust.

they also test on as non-runin model!

 

[theICEman]

The way it has been run in shouldnt affect the performance significantly, as long as it has been run in. Once youre past the first 1000 miles say, the car will have loosened up a lot. In fact some people swear the performance is better when the car hasnt been run in properly but has been thrashed from day 1. The only reason for keeping it below a certain RPM is to avoid wear on the engine components, as when new it helps if they are eased in due to the high-speed, high-temperature operation of parts in the engine. However, in modern cars this type of running in is actually done at the factory, so the engine shouldnt really get much damaged from being taken over the 3500 RPM recommendation over the first 500 miles.

 

[Dust]

i have two friends who have bought new clios in the past 6 months(1 month between). They both were v.excited about their new cars and drove them lots from day one, both doing the samish milage.

However one was a Boy and one was a Girl. Now when the two cars are put next to each other the girls engine runs a lot better, and u can guess why this is. Im not sure wether the girls is faster, she wont let me find out! Little persuation should help. But i think it will be a lot smoother in general driving than the boys due to the running in.

BTW both engines have done between 4-5k