On the home page, 0-60mph time for standard 172 is quoted as being 6.9seconds,
On the what car site its quoted as 7.3.
Which ones right???
Thanks
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.
172 0-60mph times
- Thread starter noel-pilot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 172
On the home page, 0-60mph time for standard 172 is quoted as being 6.9seconds,
On the what car site its quoted as 7.3.
Which ones right???
Thanks
Bloody hell thats fast! I know its mostly down to the driver but I was surprised at the difference in quoted times,
Astra 1.9cdti XP
Mine does it in 5.6 according to the vid I made last week!
Sometimes you see some really funny performance figures quoted.
Autocar tested the 16V in 1992 and got a 0-60 of 7.4; in 2001 they tested the 172 and got a 0-60 of 8.6. Now thats progress for you!
Of course, we all know that a 172 is actually a bit faster than a 16V - so it goes to show that some cars/testers get some really wonky figures.
aaron - are those not figures for a valver with a decat? That does make a difference you know! Not saying that standard valvers arent quick, but most valvers are now modded to some degree. A totally standard 172 with full interior and full tank of petrol can do a 1/4 mile in 15.1/15.2 seconds.
Ive not heard of many lightly modded valvers quicker than yours to be honest. It might not be alot, but theres more than 0.5 seconds seperating standard valvers with standard 172s.
Rhys
Whoa whoa! I dont want to start a 16V versus 172 argie bargie!
But then again, I do have to have my pennys worth and I think that some 172 owners seem to have never seen or been in a 16V! I guess it was probably like this about ten years ago when 16V owners were taking the micky out of (unmofified) 5 GT Turbos.
It takes a lot more than a few ultimately close acceleration figures and more power to make one hot hatch better, faster, more desirable than the next. Time moves on, things get better - but perhaps by not as much as you might think. At the end of the day, if you want to say that a Cup can be said to be faster than a 16V or Willy in a straight line then it can be equally said that a 16V/Willy handles better.
Just because VW can make a 3.2 litre Mk4 Golf faster than a Mk1 GTi doesnt make it a more compelling driving machine!
I quite agree, but we werent discussing which is more compelling to drive. From a handling feel point of view Im sure itd be the Valver if its anything like the Williams. I was refering to the straight line speed (hence 1/4 mile figures!), and that because the figures that aaron gave were purely straight line figures.Quote: Originally posted by Ben H on 07 September 2003
Just because VW can make a 3.2 litre Mk4 Golf faster than a Mk1 GTi doesnt make it a more compelling driving machine!
All I was trying to say is that I dont think a standard Valver can get the figures that aaron was quoting, whereas a standard 172 can improve on them.
Thats all
ExigeV6|Q5|DS3|Fiat
To be honest the car was quick before the decat. At the next 1/4mile im gonna change the decat for the original just to see the difference. You gotta remember the 1st valvers had no cat so are they just as quick as mine?
When i had my cat on i got a 7.7s in the pouring rain and i mean flooded road, nick read will remember that one!
so low 7s with the cat in the dry cant be that hard!I dont see why more valvers arent as quick as mine.
Similar threads
