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 cup vs focus ST



  172 Cup, Clio 197
gazcaddy said:
not neccesarily it depends on how conservative the manufacturers figure is also Ford use 0-60 for their figures not 0-62 like most car manufacturers

Evo got the 182 to 60 in 6.6 and autocar in 6.3 also the megane 225's times were quicker than what renault said

The reason for this is America work in MPH, whilst europe work in KPH, so 62mph is equivalent to the europeans 0-100 kph. I read somewhere that for 0-62 you should take off 0.3 secs to convert to 60mph
 
  RenaultSport clio 182 cup
hmmm id rather have the st focus than my 182. But then again id rather have the focus rs over the focus st. But actually id rather have the clio v6 over them all :p
 
  182, SRT8, RS4, GT-R
leekirlew said:
The reason for this is America work in MPH, whilst europe work in KPH, so 62mph is equivalent to the europeans 0-100 kph. I read somewhere that for 0-62 you should take off 0.3 secs to convert to 60mph

That sounds an awful lot to take off for just 2 MPH...i would of thought more like 0.15 or something.
 
  MINI JCW
Dubai182 said:
That sounds an awful lot to take off for just 2 MPH...i would of thought more like 0.15 or something.

It does seem alot but it is true, if you take a car that does 0-60 in 6 secs then assuming constant acceleration then you would expect 0.1 secs = 1 mph on this basis it will hit 0-62 in 6.2 secs (0-60 in 6secs)
 
  MINI JCW
leekirlew said:
The reason for this is America work in MPH, whilst europe work in KPH, so 62mph is equivalent to the europeans 0-100 kph. I read somewhere that for 0-62 you should take off 0.3 secs to convert to 60mph

As for the 0.3 second rule I think that is correct for a car with a similar power to weight ratio as the 182 but obviously it will vary with the amount of power the car has. for example a 1.2 clio is going to take longer than the 182
 
  Ford F-150 5.4 V8
The ST is a faster car End OF!!

they were faster round the ring than the RS when tested by ford, an although the handling isnt the best,its a family car, the huge torque made up on any sort of straight.
 
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:
 
  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:
 
  MINI JCW
Roy Munson said:
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:

Its that old arguement again, I agree with you, you dont need loads of torque to go fast. The Honda Civic Type R is a good example of this.

a CTR will keep up with a focus RS despite having approx 40lb/ft torque less
 
  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).
 
  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.
 
  Focus ST
pbirkett said:
The ST is a big, refined grand tourer of a car. Its not a hot hatch
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).

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:eek: ) 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!":rolleyes:

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:
 
  2014 Focus Titanium
hoorah thekirbyfake! couldn't have said it better myself!

lol @ all this torque talk! torque is just a factor of power with relation to revs! rar!
 
  Clio 172 mk2
pbirkett said:
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).

I couldn't agree with you more
 
  Clio 172 mk2
I do aplogise..I thought I should be 'realistic' about the ST and just leave it at what pbirkett had said.

One word decribes this car......hype

Blimey, I've really missed this forum...like nothing has changed for the last week that I haven't logged on:D
 
  RS-1, Bebop, CTR
Subway said:
Hi all,

Found out the other day a mate of mine is getting the new ST. I read in the evo mag that the handling isn't that great and the 0-60 times are 6.5, which is about the same if not slower then a cup.

We are both the same in driving talent. I've had more experience in a faster car then he has, apart from that we are not that different when it comes down to racing.

Forget racing in a straight line I just want to know would I leave him behind in the corners?

Thanks, Adam


Yes, the Focus ST is a better and faster car. Therefore, your mate is better and smarter then you. Simple as that.

So, now that this issue is clarified, can someone please lock this boring thread? Thank you.
 
  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.:mad: 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!
 
  E90
LOL, is there one of these threads every week, Cups are great, on a track like the ring the ST would have way more top end and be a fair bit quicker, end of. And the ring is the equivilant of a good fast b road, so real world quicker from a-b. De ja vu, LOL
 
  Focus ST
Neil G said:
One word decribes this car......hype
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.

I hope this thread doesn't get locked on my account. I'm certainly not here to stir anything up
 
  E90
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
Weeman said:
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.
I see.

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.
 
  FocusST225
Hi everyone, ST owner here who disagrees totally with the Hype label!! :p

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?
 
  E90
I think theres a thread on Lamborghinigallardo.net entitled "Cup is quicker round the twisties"

How much, and what mods does it have to get 285? is that RR'd or specualtion?
 
  MINI JCW
Weeman said:
I think theres a thread on Lamborghinigallardo.net entitled "Cup is quicker round the twisties"

How much, and what mods does it have to get 285? is that RR'd or specualtion?

I have to agree with the twisties comment to be honest, theres far too much of it on this forum. I must admit this is common on many forums and seems to be the stock reply when another car in question is faster in a straight line
 
Last edited:
  MINI JCW
Barcrawler said:
Hi everyone, ST owner here who disagrees totally with the Hype label!! :p

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:
How much, and what mods does it have to get 285? is that RR'd or specualtion?

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!
 
  133/225/CLS AMG
I can imagine the Focus ST could easily be pushing out 285bhp!!

If you bear in mind that a Megane 225 will be pushing out 265bhp with a chip and boost increase. Pop a new intercooler and exhaust on and you're approaching that figure.

Just my thoughts though!
 
  2014 Focus Titanium
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!
 
  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.
 
  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.
 
  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.
 
  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.
 
  Scirocco GT TSi DSG
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.
 


Top