172 Cup compared to 182

[PASH]

This has probarbly been covered many times but I used the search and couldnt find much. Also Im new so forgive me.

How does the cup compare to the 182 (with cup pack) in terms of straight line pace and cornering ability? For straight line pace 1/4 miles examples would be fantastic and for cornering I guess you would have had to driven both.

TIA

 

[Pete]

Nothing in it.

 

[Lee]

In a straight line there is nothing in it. Cornering wise the 182 with Cup pack feels massively improved.

 

[PASH]

Ah rite.

How about 172 v 172 cup?

 

[Lee]

Same thing again really. Cup feels slightly more nimble when cornering.

 

[PASH]

so the 89Kg (or whatever) doesnt really make a noticable difference in a straight line?

 

[Lee]

Not really, the driver makes more of a difference. On the road you would be hard pressed to split a Cup/172 or 182.

 

[cupking]

About half a second

 

[PASH]

Thought the cup would be a fair bit faster. Think I will probarbly get the 172 or 182 for the luxuary then!

 

[Lee]

The best thing to do is try and get a test drive in each of them. They all offer a slightly different driving feel.

It just depends what you want from the car.

 

[CRS172]

Cup is more of a drivers car. Steering feedback much better, less weight. Quicker to 60...with figures to prove it. But has a much smaller envelope at the limit compared to the 182. Much easier to crash a cup.

The 182 is a much better everyday car, ride quality, less noise, more toys. depends what you are after really.

It is easier to corner fast in the 182 but please dont confuse that with being able to corner faster than a cup.

Drivers car go for a cup, everyday car go for a 182 with the cup bits. If you do trackdays then really the cup is the only option.

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by Lee M on 01 July 2004



Cornering wise the 182 with Cup pack feels massively improved.

The 182 without the Cup pack felt mailto:cr@p">cr@p compared to my Cup, so you cant tell me that the 182 with the Cup suspension is "massively" better than a Cup?!

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by PASH on 01 July 2004


How about 172 v 172 cup?

Straightline wise, the Cup is a little quicker to 60, a little quicker again to 100 and the in-gear times are marginally faster, all due to weight.

However, the Cup was 2.55secs a lap faster than the mk2 172 round Bedford, which is a combination of both the weight and the suspension!



Like to see how a Cup compares to a 182 with Cup suspension on track...

 

[Don]

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 01 July 2004

Quote: Originally posted by Lee M on 01 July 2004




Cornering wise the 182 with Cup pack feels massively improved.

The 182 without the Cup pack felt mailto:cr@p">cr@p compared to my Cup, so you cant tell me that the 182 with the Cup suspension is "massively" better than a Cup?!

Rich-D, I think that LeeM was trying to suggest the difference between the 182 (standard) and 182 (with cup suspension) as there was no mention of 172 in that statement. I am a cup owner, and I think it was simply a comparison between a car with/and without the option. Hence the statement "massively improved" with cup pack

 

[Lee]

Cheers Donnyo, my bad I should have been a little more specific.

From my experience, the 172 understeers heavily at every given opportunity. But still not at all bad for a FWD 2.0 litre hot hatch.

The Cup and 182 with Cup pack (not driven one without) both happily point there nose into the apex of the corner, c**k and inside wheel and go round with a little bit of a rocking horse motion through being on 3 wheels. The Cup does however still feel a little more nimble and happier with changes in direction, but then thats the be expected with the weight difference.

The changes in track and steering geometry on the 182 are not dissimilar to that of the Cup so the similar pointy feel of it compared a a standard 172 is as I would have expected.

Hope that clears it up. I know some of you may feel differently about this, but handling is pretty subjective and not all of us will have the same kind of style at the wheel, or look as stylish.

Lee

 

[cableguy]

I was stuck in this very tight descision (sp) as well after selling my williams 3. I really wanted to get a 182 with a cup pack but couldnt justify buying a BRAND NEW car, vat, depreciation is what everyone said to me, made me paranoid!!
In the past I had driven both the 172s, Mk1 and Mk2. I have to say that the MK1 absolutely flew. Out of roundabouts it was astonishing, the Mk2 wasnt bad by any means it just had its edge taken off some how. The CUP however, puts it all back on and more. So in the end for budget, driving, toys and presence I opted for a 53 2003 CUP with Climate control. I picked it up today and I love it. I think at some point in the future i could see myself in a 182 but im not gonna be rushing to do that any time soon.

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by donnyo on 01 July 2004


Rich-D, I think that LeeM was trying to suggest the difference between the 182 (standard) and 182 (with cup suspension) as there was no mention of 172 in that statement.

Going off the thread title...

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by Lee M on 01 July 2004


Cheers Donnyo, my bad I should have been a little more specific.

From my experience, the 172 understeers heavily at every given opportunity. But still not at all bad for a FWD 2.0 litre hot hatch.

The Cup and 182 with Cup pack (not driven one without) both happily point there nose into the apex of the corner, c**k and inside wheel and go round with a little bit of a rocking horse motion through being on 3 wheels. The Cup does however still feel a little more nimble and happier with changes in direction, but then thats the be expected with the weight difference.

The changes in track and steering geometry on the 182 are not dissimilar to that of the Cup so the similar pointy feel of it compared a a standard 172 is as I would have expected.

Hope that clears it up. I know some of you may feel differently about this, but handling is pretty subjective and not all of us will have the same kind of style at the wheel, or look as stylish.

Soz... my bad!

 

[jon_r]

 

[Lee]

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 01 July 2004

Soz... my bad!

More mine, I confused matters by not really answering the original question properly.

Wake up Jon. Even Ive joined in this one as so far its not a total sl*gging match. LOL

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by Lee M on 01 July 2004


More mine, I confused matters by not really answering the original question properly.

Tsssk...

 

[matlow]

Quote: Originally posted by Lee M on 01 July 2004

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 01 July 2004

Soz... my bad!

More mine, I confused matters by not really answering the original question properly.

Wake up Jon. Even Ive joined in this one as so far its not a total sl*gging match. LOL





bless, any minute now itll be a group hug

 

[Ian_182]

Ok

The 182 has posted the fastest 0-60 if them all with 6.3 in autocar

The 182 with cup pack has higher rated springs and slightly lower and wider track than a cup

Evo has posted a quicker o-100 time than the cup in a 182.

There you are ,now that should get a little bite from someone on this fine thursday evening

Regards,ian

 

[Lee]

The facts dont matter though Ian. People on here only believe what they want to believe. You should know that by now on here.

I hope some of the other mods are on to watch this thread now as Im off for a game Mashed before I go home.

 

[Mondial172]

That what I though. The 182 is quicker off the mark than the CUP due to its T/C but the CUP is a tiny weenny bit quicker when moving (0-100).

Cant believe anyone buying a uk 182 would even consider leaving the CUP bits off!

 

[BossCup]

Quote: Originally posted by Adamf on 01 July 2004


The 182 is quicker off the mark than the CUP due to its T/C but the CUP is a tiny weenny bit quicker when moving (0-100).

Nowt to do with the T/C as this would ruin any attempt at getting a quick time - more down to the different (wider and grippier) rubber fitted to the 182.

Theres bugger all difference in the real world and as has been said so many times the driver is the key in any head to head.

 

[Mondial172]

Just what I heard

 

[Lee]

Quote: Originally posted by BossCup on 01 July 2004

Quote: Originally posted by Adamf on 01 July 2004


The 182 is quicker off the mark than the CUP due to its T/C but the CUP is a tiny weenny bit quicker when moving (0-100).

Nowt to do with the T/C as this would ruin any attempt at getting a quick time - more down to the different (wider and grippier) rubber fitted to the 182.

Theres bugger all difference in the real world and as has been said so many times the driver is the key in any head to head.

Yup. TC just bogs you down.

Id be happy to own any of the 3 cars.

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by BossCup on 01 July 2004


Nowt to do with the T/C as this would ruin any attempt at getting a quick time - more down to the different (wider and grippier) rubber fitted to the 182.

Theres bugger all difference in the real world and as has been said so many times the driver is the key in any head to head.

Yup... outright grip is the key, not some mailto:cr@p">cr@p TCS system...

 

[Mondial172]

So what about a Cup with the Mich E2s 205s on then? Any better you reckon?

 

[Brazo]

Ultimatly the cup has a slightly better power to weight ratio albeit 1bhp/ton so give it the same rubber well you do the math!

 

[Don]

When Evo and the rest do their timing, they turn off the Traction Control...as it gives fairer figures. I know the cup suspension is 20mm wider at the front, and 10mm wider at the rear than a standard 172, so I would assume that these exact figures are on the 182 also (ie. 182 "standard" compared to 182 with cup suspension pack).

Also, as mentioned in several hundred thousand threads before this...the driver also has a lot to do with the cars performance, as the driver gives the input and responds accordingly to whatever happens...I just want a 200+bhp conversion for my cup!! (or at least a wee go in Yozzas car...sounds superb!)

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by Adamf on 01 July 2004



So what about a Cup with the Mich E2s 205s on then? Any better you reckon?

Id have thought so...

Wider tyre, so more contact area on the road and they are a grippier tyre anyway, so even 195s would be better than the Contis!

If Id kept my Cup I was considering this.

 

[Lagerlout]

Quote: Originally posted by brazo on 01 July 2004

Ultimatly the cup has a slightly better power to weight ratio albeit 1bhp/ton so give it the same rubber well you do the math!

I cant see how 1 bhp/tonnei s going to make a great deal of difference. As is said above, when comparing the 2.0 Renaultsport Clios, you can forget tyres, one being 3mm lower than the other, pwr/weight ratios etc etc... They are so close the driver will always play the biggest part......

Also, there are a mix of (relative) good and bad (read fast and slow) examples. For instance, a good 172 could feasibly be quicker in a straight line than a bad 172 Cup, similar with the 182 and vice versa....

Sorry if this is jumbled, but Im just coming to the end of a night shift...

 

[Brazo]

Tis true

was just quoting chapter and verse!