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.
Torque = work done
Power = the rate at which it is done
Heavy things need torque to do the work but they also need power to get the work done quickly. Light things dont really need the torque to pull their weight but equally as importantly, they still need power to get it done quickly.
To make that a bit clearer. Wagons can pull 40 tons with a truck load of torque, but they accelerate pretty slowly because they dont have the power to get that work done quickly. A heavy car needs torque & power, a light one only needs power. Or - a powerfull light car can get away with little torque - a heavy car cannot.
I'd say the ST is a better car in almost every way than a 182/172/Cup, but I'd take a Meg F1 over it any old day of the week - the ST just looks like crap IMHO. Mainly because the wheels are gay as fawk :dead:
Power = the rate at which it is done
Heavy things need torque to do the work but they also need power to get the work done quickly. Light things dont really need the torque to pull their weight but equally as importantly, they still need power to get it done quickly.
To make that a bit clearer. Wagons can pull 40 tons with a truck load of torque, but they accelerate pretty slowly because they dont have the power to get that work done quickly. A heavy car needs torque & power, a light one only needs power. Or - a powerfull light car can get away with little torque - a heavy car cannot.
I'd say the ST is a better car in almost every way than a 182/172/Cup, but I'd take a Meg F1 over it any old day of the week - the ST just looks like crap IMHO. Mainly because the wheels are gay as fawk :dead:
RenaultSport clio 172 cup
An ST might be faster, but in my experience on country roads the clio cup will get its nose in front thanx to its handling.:approve:
Nissan 350Z
Big deal... straight line speed, so what?
Yes the ST is faster, but not by much. I dont care what anyone says, no ST will ever lose me on a country road.
The ST is a big, refined grand tourer of a car. Its not a hot hatch. It uses an engine thats in a volvo, unlike the clio which has a custom designed engine. Its big and lardy, comfortable and soft. Yes its fast, but frankly, you may as well get a second hand BMW 330, as thats rear wheel drive, so will handle much better than the ST, is more comfortable and better built, and just as fast, but naturally aspirated, so better throttle responses.
Focus ST? So what? Am I the only person who isnt w@nking themselves daft about this car (or any other lardy turbocharged 2 ton "hot hatch" these days).
Yes the ST is faster, but not by much. I dont care what anyone says, no ST will ever lose me on a country road.
The ST is a big, refined grand tourer of a car. Its not a hot hatch. It uses an engine thats in a volvo, unlike the clio which has a custom designed engine. Its big and lardy, comfortable and soft. Yes its fast, but frankly, you may as well get a second hand BMW 330, as thats rear wheel drive, so will handle much better than the ST, is more comfortable and better built, and just as fast, but naturally aspirated, so better throttle responses.
Focus ST? So what? Am I the only person who isnt w@nking themselves daft about this car (or any other lardy turbocharged 2 ton "hot hatch" these days).
Turbos.
Have you even driven the ST?
I personally don't like them either but i would certainly think they're quicker round a track the the Clio as is a lot of 'worse' cars, even a Megane RS. So why would it be any slower than a Clio on a 'country' road?
I would bet my ass the ST is faster in just about any given situation. I think some members need to wake up a smell the coffee, Clios aren't that quick. What they do offer is a lively, engaging driving experience which i can say is enough for me.
The sad thing it seems that most of you are only bothered about all out speed so it just comes down to the fact you can't afford the faster car. Get over it.
I personally don't like them either but i would certainly think they're quicker round a track the the Clio as is a lot of 'worse' cars, even a Megane RS. So why would it be any slower than a Clio on a 'country' road?
I would bet my ass the ST is faster in just about any given situation. I think some members need to wake up a smell the coffee, Clios aren't that quick. What they do offer is a lively, engaging driving experience which i can say is enough for me.
The sad thing it seems that most of you are only bothered about all out speed so it just comes down to the fact you can't afford the faster car. Get over it.
Focus ST
For what it's worth I would agree with that statement, having had my ST since the beginning of March. My company car policy states it must be new, otherwise I'd probably have the 330 (or similar).pbirkett said:
I don't see the ST in the same bracket as the 172/182. One is a grown up mini-saloon, the other is a light wizz bang hot hatch. I drive around 15-20k on our motorways and the ST's effortless engine (236lbft 1,600-4,000rpm) and excellent ride suits me just fine. It also happens to be very capable off the 3-laners which does make it like a mini-GT.
An ordinary driver would probably get more out of the Focus than the Clio on the twisties with it's low down grunt and immense grip. An above average driver in a Clio, especially in Cup or Trophy form, would almost certainly be quicker by keeping it on cam, braking later etc. Plus, and this is a big plus, the Clio driver would be having more fun. I took my ST on the same Sunday morning B-road blat I used to do in my ST170 and I was achieving on average 10-15mph more. Unfortunately I only knew this by glancing at the speedo, not because I was more exhilarated by the scenery passing by any quicker. It's not that the ST isn't fun, it's a real hoot accompanied by a superb soundtrack, it's just that it's perhaps too accomplished for its own good.
By the way, did anyone read the B-road Baftas in a recent edition of Autocar? Apart from providing me with excellent office banter bragging rights (the ST came 3rd behind an Exige and a Cayman and beat a Caterham, a Megane 225 F1, the new RS4 and a Gallardo
) I did notice the glaring omission of a Clio 182 Trophy. Surely no fwd car is better built for our back roads?On a final note I'm impressed with the (mostly) positive and realistic posts regarding the ST. It's clear you're all car buffs here and not just blinkered brand boneheads unlike some other Ford forums (mentioning no names) I go to. A Clio post there would have 8 out of 10 replies along the lines of "It's French. Say no more!"
I'm a huge fan of Clio Sorts and I'm trying to persuade the missus to get one as her next car so I might well be back. Toodle pip:rasp:
Focus ST
Neil G said:
Sorry Neil I clocked your post before you edited out the "It's c**p" part.
Like I said, (mostly) realistic replies...
RenaultSport clio 182 cup
Being a Ford enthusiast and having owned a 300bhp FRS. The Focus ST just did not appeal to me in anyway shape or form. It just looked like a new shaped Focus with a slight body kit attached. Yes it is a great handilng car and is quoted as having 217bhp. That figure is from the car running on 95 ron and the figure rises another 15 bhp when run on super unleaded. It has two maps, one for eco fuel and one for proper fuel like Optimax.
The downfall I think of the ST is that unlike the FRS, it has no quafe differential. I found the ST torque steered quite bad when I test drove it and did not like it at all. People say the same about the FRS, but I never noticed it. I sold my FRS due to me having to take out a second mortgage to pay for the fuel, as I was doing a 40 mile round trip to work each day. I was averaging about 18 mpg.
I bought a 182 Cup as they are quick and really fun to drive. In my opinion and it may be the same as everyone elses. Both cars have their good points and their faults. The Clio being build quality and the Focus having the Volvo 5 pot in it. Ford should have kept the 2 litre Duratec unit used in the FRS. A much better engine in my opinion. But again, that is my opinion.
Getting back to point of the Clio vs the ST. It doesnt really matter which car is quicker? Because the speed limit is 70mph!
The downfall I think of the ST is that unlike the FRS, it has no quafe differential. I found the ST torque steered quite bad when I test drove it and did not like it at all. People say the same about the FRS, but I never noticed it. I sold my FRS due to me having to take out a second mortgage to pay for the fuel, as I was doing a 40 mile round trip to work each day. I was averaging about 18 mpg.
I bought a 182 Cup as they are quick and really fun to drive. In my opinion and it may be the same as everyone elses. Both cars have their good points and their faults. The Clio being build quality and the Focus having the Volvo 5 pot in it.
Ford should have kept the 2 litre Duratec unit used in the FRS. A much better engine in my opinion. But again, that is my opinion.Getting back to point of the Clio vs the ST. It doesnt really matter which car is quicker? Because the speed limit is 70mph!
Focus ST
I do agree with that. Every magazine is packed with reviews and adverts and it's being waaaaay overhyped. The result of which is every chav and his dog now recognise it on the roads and want to race me. Something which I politely decline.Neil G said:
I hope this thread doesn't get locked on my account. I'm certainly not here to stir anything up
Nothing to do with you geezer, how were you to know that its an offical fact that a cup/182 is the fastest car ever biult, and anything with more bhp/lb ft Quicker 0-60 thumping top end, is actually a big government conspiracy, and not actually true, its been proven at traffic lights throughout the land, and the Village of nurburg, doesn't exist on world maps anymore.
Focus ST
I see.Weeman said:
Similar to TDi drivers who know, don't think, know their car is faster than, say an S2000, CTR or 182 because it has more torque?
Nice Golf btw. Had it not been for the £6k differential I would have been sorely tempted.
Thread hijack over. As you were.
133/225/CLS AMG
One amusing thing though, saw an ST at Santa Pod the other week and the buy had an ASBO badge on the back. At least he's honest hahaha.
I'll stick with my Megane 225, lol, even though the Focus does look pretty good.
Cups are fast but there are plenty of faster cars around. The Clios are bargain fast though, without testing it you'd be hard pushed to know how close the two motors would be.
I'll stick with my Megane 225, lol, even though the Focus does look pretty good.
Cups are fast but there are plenty of faster cars around. The Clios are bargain fast though, without testing it you'd be hard pushed to know how close the two motors would be.
FocusST225
Hi everyone, ST owner here who disagrees totally with the Hype label!!
How is it being hyped up? Its got good reviews by the press and adverts on telly, see nothing wrong in that, they are tryng to sell cars remember. No such comments are made about the 20,000,000 adverts telling me to 'Shake that ass'.....
I do admit the car feels bigger than clio's et al but its still a hot hatch and if you had actually driven the car (and i mean more than a 2 minute test drive) you would know how much fun the car is.
Would be interesting to see these two as standard on the track together with equal drivers but cant see it happening
Now I have some mods so currently running about 285bhp and 415Nm torque and throwing it around the lanes is sooo much fun!!
How much you guys getting your clios to?
How is it being hyped up? Its got good reviews by the press and adverts on telly, see nothing wrong in that, they are tryng to sell cars remember. No such comments are made about the 20,000,000 adverts telling me to 'Shake that ass'.....
I do admit the car feels bigger than clio's et al but its still a hot hatch and if you had actually driven the car (and i mean more than a 2 minute test drive) you would know how much fun the car is.
Would be interesting to see these two as standard on the track together with equal drivers but cant see it happening
Now I have some mods so currently running about 285bhp and 415Nm torque and throwing it around the lanes is sooo much fun!!
How much you guys getting your clios to?
MINI JCW
Barcrawler said:Hi everyone, ST owner here who disagrees totally with the Hype label!!
How is it being hyped up? Its got good reviews by the press and adverts on telly, see nothing wrong in that, they are tryng to sell cars remember. No such comments are made about the 20,000,000 adverts telling me to 'Shake that ass'.....
I do admit the car feels bigger than clio's et al but its still a hot hatch and if you had actually driven the car (and i mean more than a 2 minute test drive) you would know how much fun the car is.
Would be interesting to see these two as standard on the track together with equal drivers but cant see it happening
Now I have some mods so currently running about 285bhp and 415Nm torque and throwing it around the lanes is sooo much fun!!
How much you guys getting your clios to?
There is lots of hype about the ST but lets not forget there was loads of hype about the 182 'best hot hatch ever etc' according to Evo.
As for the track debate the 182 was quicker than the ST round the top gear test track but it was a bit foggy for the ST, not sure if that matters but maybe on a different day we would have got a different result.
As for the modification comments, i think you probably already know that a n/a engine is far more difficult to extract power from than a turbo engine. I know it is possible to get 220bhp out of the 182 engine but its not cheap (3.5k)
I think the ST is decent value compared to the Golf GTI but if I was going to spend 18-20k on this sort of car Id go for a used S3. I see cars as more of refined cruisers than hot hatches
FocusST225
Weeman said:
Someone with the same mods hit those figures. All cars are different / RR's arent 100% accurate but they are rough figures to be going on.
God the Top Gear time, I wish they did it on a dry day to show what the car can do, damn its so annoying that day was damp, not wet, damp.
I knew you couldnt get as much out, just wondered if it was a good jump. Money = ouch!
I think theres a thread on Lamborghinigallardo.net entitled "Cup is quicker round the twisties"
LMAO!!
Lets stop all this focus vs clio talk, all the top end and twisties talk, we all know a Saxo VTR is the fastest hatch on earth, and would whip both around a track!
LMAO!!
Lets stop all this focus vs clio talk, all the top end and twisties talk, we all know a Saxo VTR is the fastest hatch on earth, and would whip both around a track!
RenaultSport clio 172 mk2
Oh dear.
If i was living with my parents under the dillusion that it was the fastest car in the world, id take the Clio. If i had a wife, kid, played golf, and cared that the engine mounts didnt melt everytime i switched the engine on, id take the ST anyday.
I bought a 172 because i needed a CHEAP car. If i had the spare cash i would have bought an ST without a thought. But then im big enough to admit my car is what it is and nothing more.
If i was living with my parents under the dillusion that it was the fastest car in the world, id take the Clio. If i had a wife, kid, played golf, and cared that the engine mounts didnt melt everytime i switched the engine on, id take the ST anyday.
I bought a 172 because i needed a CHEAP car. If i had the spare cash i would have bought an ST without a thought. But then im big enough to admit my car is what it is and nothing more.
RenaultSport clio 172 mk2
Oh dear.
If i was living with my parents under the dillusion that it was the fastest car in the world, id take the Clio. If i had a wife, kid, played golf, and cared that the engine mounts didnt melt everytime i switched the engine on, id take the ST anyday.
I bought a 172 because i needed a CHEAP car. If i had the spare cash i would have bought an ST without a thought. But then im big enough to admit my car is what it is and nothing more.
If i was living with my parents under the dillusion that it was the fastest car in the world, id take the Clio. If i had a wife, kid, played golf, and cared that the engine mounts didnt melt everytime i switched the engine on, id take the ST anyday.
I bought a 172 because i needed a CHEAP car. If i had the spare cash i would have bought an ST without a thought. But then im big enough to admit my car is what it is and nothing more.
RenaultSport clio 172 mk2
Oh dear.
If i was living with my parents under the dillusion that it was the fastest car in the world, id take the Clio. If i had a wife, kid, played golf, and cared that the engine mounts didnt melt everytime i switched the engine on, id take the ST anyday.
I bought a 172 because i needed a CHEAP car. If i had the spare cash i would have bought an ST without a thought. But then im big enough to admit my car is what it is and nothing more.
If i was living with my parents under the dillusion that it was the fastest car in the world, id take the Clio. If i had a wife, kid, played golf, and cared that the engine mounts didnt melt everytime i switched the engine on, id take the ST anyday.
I bought a 172 because i needed a CHEAP car. If i had the spare cash i would have bought an ST without a thought. But then im big enough to admit my car is what it is and nothing more.
RenaultSport clio 172 mk2
Oh dear.
If i was living with my parents under the dillusion that it was the fastest car in the world, id take the Clio. If i had a wife, kid, played golf, and cared that the engine mounts didnt melt everytime i switched the engine on, id take the ST anyday.
I bought a 172 because i needed a CHEAP car. If i had the spare cash i would have bought an ST without a thought. But then im big enough to admit my car is what it is and nothing more.
If i was living with my parents under the dillusion that it was the fastest car in the world, id take the Clio. If i had a wife, kid, played golf, and cared that the engine mounts didnt melt everytime i switched the engine on, id take the ST anyday.
I bought a 172 because i needed a CHEAP car. If i had the spare cash i would have bought an ST without a thought. But then im big enough to admit my car is what it is and nothing more.
I am not sure the two cars are comparable. I have been arguing on this forum (on and off) for years about people not comparing like for like. The ST is comparable to the Megan 225, the 182 is going against the Fiesta ST. The ST is going to be faster (not by much) as it is a bigger more powerful car as the Megan is.
182 is a fantastic car as the 172 was that I owned, the 182 and 172 were performance bargains (imported) the ST is the same in the size bracket above.
182 is a fantastic car as the 172 was that I owned, the 182 and 172 were performance bargains (imported) the ST is the same in the size bracket above.
Similar threads
