172 cup vs Megane sport

[chris79]

*NOTE TO FORUM MODS* - this is not a racing tale, it's a car comparison discussion.


Had some blonde lass behind me from the lights today in what I think was a megane 225, not sure whether it was the new model or the old, but she was sitting right on my bumper as we pulled away normally, which annoyed me.. so I put my foot down to create a gap, only she sat right on my bumper upto about 80 or so...

At one point through 50-70 I'd say that it looked to me like she was actually marginally faster as the gap became slightly smaller, not bigger...

Whats the score with these cars, are they better than the clios? it was a girl driving it too (... waits for sexist accusation)...

My cup is totally standard, no mods.

 

[quickshift]

haha a women riding ur ass wooooo dear tut tut

 

[Dave H]

Don't say she was putting on lip gloss as well or the games up!

 

[fizzy_drink]

Traction isn't their strong point... so from a standstill, you'd have an advantage this time of year.

As for getting upto 80 - a 225 is an even match IF you're in the correct gear in your Cup.

A 225 will pull VERY strongly (equivalent to the 172/182 "zone") from 3000 revs - so an advantage if you're not so good with a gearstick.

At 80 plus you can forget it - 225 will keep going strong upto 130, then it'll creep upto 155 without going into the red.

 

[Andyman]

Cant speak for a standard car but the service guy at my local Renault dealer took my 'non standard' mk1 172 for a blast and he said it was miles quicker than his 225 Megane Turbo. He said he was well impressed !!

 

[Alex_225]

From what i've read the Megane 225 and Clio 172/182 are pretty damn close on the road to 60 as the Clio has the weight advantage but the Megane has the power and torque. On paper the 172 does 0-60 in 7.1 and the 225 does it in 6.5 but thats in perfect condition. Above that speed the Megane will start pulling away though.
Round the bends the Clio would be more nimble due to its lack of weight and size.

Just a different kind of car, if you want a go-kart style drive the Clio is the one where as the Megane is more or a refined cruising style motor.

I've had a Clio 172 and have a Megane 225 on order so I'll know for sure once i've driven that a while.

By the way you said about it being a old version or new but there is only one version of the Megane 225, any other shape wasn't that an RS.

 

[preecy]

dont feel too bad chris mate, theres a bird in r-type that likes to abuse me and little 172 on the way to work each morning... its getting embrassing now!

think i better find a different route to work.

 

[chris79]

From what i've read the Megane 225 and Clio 172/182 are pretty damn close on the road to 60 as the Clio has the weight advantage but the Megane has the power and torque. On paper the 172 does 0-60 in 7.1 and the 225 does it in 6.5 but thats in perfect condition. Above that speed the Megane will start pulling away though.
Round the bends the Clio would be more nimble due to its lack of weight and size.

Just a different kind of car, if you want a go-kart style drive the Clio is the one where as the Megane is more or a refined cruising style motor.

I've had a Clio 172 and have a Megane 225 on order so I'll know for sure once i've driven that a while.

By the way you said about it being a old version or new but there is only one version of the Megane 225, any other shape wasn't that an RS.

I thought they revised the 225 this year and made an improved version? I'm sure I saw it on topgear or something.

 

[sh33n]

They did the cup and trophy versions; which both have better handling packages.

 

[Alex_225]

There is a Megane 225 Cup which they had on Top Gear which is the the equivalent of the 182 Cup. Only difference in looks from the Cup to the full fat 225 is that it comes in Capsicum Red (like the Clio Trophy) and it has graphite wheels on it.

The Megane Trophy comes in silver but with the cup wheels and chassis and has carbon trim inside.
All have the same exterior bar the colour and wheels. Cup/Trophy has an uprated chassis/suspension set up.

There is a plan for facelifted Megane next year but no pics of the 225 as yet. Certainly won't be any changes to the any of the ones you'll see on the road.

 

[Alex_225]

Oh yeah and the latest 225s have a slightly different engine which was governed by emissions laws!!!
Thats apparently why there have been some delays in the production of them.

 

[PYE21]

I drove one last week, feels exactly the same as my 182 to about 80ish, but its the most uncomfortable car i have ever been in. My ancles where acing after 15 minutes.

 

[ChrisR]

I had one for a couple of hours and loved it, felt better than the 172 overall.

They are built for different things though, the Megane is a larger vehicle so isn't supposed to handle like a Clio, but I really liked it.

Down some Dartmoor roads it was absolutely brilliant, felt much more planted than the Clios I've driven.

 

[Alex_225]

Thats just all down to what driving position you like to sit in, your build etc.

I actually found my 172 uncormfortable toward the end of owning it but the Megane more spacious and better for me!!

 

[jonnyboy]

Once rolling a meg 225 is a fair bit quicker than a 172, I think the book 0-60 is a shade quicker but as Omar pointed out traction at low speed is a struggle especially with the roads as they are now. If you had both cars say coming off a roundabout at 20 and floored it I think you'd be surprised how much faster the megane is. When mine was standard I raced a local lad with a 160bhp 106 Rallye (GTI lump in stripped out rallye chassis) and I was edging away from him, that car was a genuine 172 beater so thats the closest comparison I have (no 172s have dared to try it on yet )

Incedentally he had a sticker in his widow just remembered heres the car in question:

http://106rallye.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/

 

[chris79]

Once rolling a meg 225 is a fair bit quicker than a 172, I think the book 0-60 is a shade quicker but as Omar pointed out traction at low speed is a struggle especially with the roads as they are now. If you had both cars say coming off a roundabout at 20 and floored it I think you'd be surprised how much faster the megane is. When mine was standard I raced a local lad with a 160bhp 106 Rallye (GTI lump in stripped out rallye chassis) and I was edging away from him, that car was a genuine 172 beater so thats the closest comparison I have (no 172s have dared to try it on yet )

Incedentally he had a sticker in his widow just remembered heres the car in question:

http://106rallye.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/

When you say fair bit quicker I don't think it's a case of the megane is a spec in the horizon.. are we talking minimalistic gaps here (e.g. 2 car lengths by the time both reach 90), or are we talking about the megane being an FQ400 contender?

 

[Alex_225]

The Megane overall is a slightly quicker car but being bigger and more solid, to drive I would have thought it wouldn't feel as intense as a 172/182!!

Just get the Megane chipped and the boost increased slightly and its pushing 260bhp though!! lol

 

[recaro182]

My best mate has a megane 225 trophy and our sunday blasts always entail having drag races either off the lights or from 40 - a very naughty speed

And i can conclude that there is pretty much nothing in it, if anything its only over about 80mph! All down to driver gear change to get ahead really. I was amazed it didnt pull away from stand still, but having driven and been in both cars the power delevery is very different, the megane feels like it pulls harder from loer revs, but just as it gets going you have to change gear!

My honest opinion, the 182 is much more fun to drive and i wouldnt swap mine for 2 megane 225's!

 

[jonnyboy]

I'm not saying anything more on this thread as it always just turns into a slanging match on here when anyone suggests that something might be quicker than clio. All I can say is that my 225 is a lot quicker than my 172, and no obviously we're not talking a spec on the horizon but 20 to 90 say I would probably put money on a standard 225 being about 5-10 car lengths in front. In mine I would be a spec on the horizon.

<<< see under my username

 

[Neil82]

cough cough

<<<<

 

[ChrisR]

Felt like the one I drove hit 90 a lot quicker than my 172,

 

[polarbert]

we talking about the megane being an FQ400 contender?

you must be joking!

:rofl:

 

[badinvincible]

An FQ 400 has 360 Modena like acceleration so that would be a "no."

 

[muz]

why dont we sort it out properly then?

Get a 1/4 mile day organised

 

[gazcaddy]

I'm not saying anything more on this thread as it always just turns into a slanging match on here when anyone suggests that something might be quicker than clio. All I can say is that my 225 is a lot quicker than my 172, and no obviously we're not talking a spec on the horizon but 20 to 90 say I would probably put money on a standard 225 being about 5-10 car lengths in front. In mine I would be a spec on the horizon.

<<< see under my username

Disagree with that, i think the megane is faster but no way by 10 car lengths, in autocars 0-100-0 challenge ( know its a 182, but they are so similar performance to a 172 cup)

60-100 in 182 took 10.25
60-100 in 225 took 9.88

overall the megane was about 0.8 secs quicker to 0-100 than the 182 and that is very close

 

[Vtec Abuser]

All I can say is that my 225 is a lot quicker than my 172, and no obviously we're not talking a spec on the horizon but 20 to 90 say I would probably put money on a standard 225 being about 5-10 car lengths in front.

I think 5-10 car lengths is a MASSIVE exageration Jonny mate... 5-10 car lengths over that short distance (20 - 90) is an absolute slaughtering in any car. I would agree the 225 will be the quicker car in all areas (bar bends), but a well driven 182 will give a 225 a headache to 80mph i'd say....

 

[lee_cup]

choice pick though would definantly be the Clio for me

 

[Mondial172]

Bet it was a 1.9 DCi


he he

 

[jonnyboy]

Disagree with that, i think the megane is faster but no way by 10 car lengths, in autocars 0-100-0 challenge ( know its a 182, but they are so similar performance to a 172 cup)

60-100 in 182 took 10.25
60-100 in 225 took 9.88

overall the megane was about 0.8 secs quicker to 0-100 than the 182 and that is very close

Which when you consider the meganes disadvantage on take off and the fact its hauling an extra 300kgs to a halt under braking demonstrates my point that once moving and not having to deal with traction the megane is a fair bit quicker. Okay maybe 10 car lengths was a bit of an exageration but 5 might be a nearer guess than you might think. If a 225 can beat a 182 in a 0-100-0 race why is it so inconceivable that its faster from a rolling start? I'd say that was pretty impressive (cos 182 are fast arent they?)

 

[gazcaddy]

Which when you consider the meganes disadvantage on take off and the fact its hauling an extra 300kgs to a halt under braking demonstrates my point that once moving and not having to deal with traction the megane is a fair bit quicker. Okay maybe 10 car lengths was a bit of an exageration but 5 might be a nearer guess than you might think. If a 225 can beat a 182 in a 0-100-0 race why is it so inconceivable that its faster from a rolling start? I'd say that was pretty impressive (cos 182 are fast arent they?)

Back to autocar the 225 is about 0.4 secs faster to 60 than the 182 and it takes another 0.4 secs out of the 182 again between 60-100, showing that from take off to 100 theres not much in it but at the end of the day the 225 is faster, not sure how many car lengths 0.8 secs is between 0-100 but i would imagine it would be couple at most

 

[Alex_225]

I would have thought that realistically the 225 and 182 are gonna be really close 0-60 under normal driving conditions.
From the impression I get from a rolling start the Megane has the advantage. But think of it this way, both cars have their own advantages to owning them so you just gotta be happy with what you've got.
I had a 172 wanted something as quick but bigger and comfier so I went for the 225. BUT the 172 was a wicked car so I'll respect any of the current RS models.

 

[Mack]

Magane has 50% more torque than the Clio.

 

[Nafeun]

The megane also mings, hard.

 

[Alex_225]

Thats just a matter of opinion though isn't it so doesn't really come into this!!! lol

 

[g18llo]

When you say fair bit quicker I don't think it's a case of the megane is a spec in the horizon.. are we talking minimalistic gaps here (e.g. 2 car lengths by the time both reach 90), or are we talking about the megane being an FQ400 contender?

The Megane wouldn't even compete with a bog standard Mitsi, nevermind an FQ400.

Interestingly, and as is normally the case on 'versus' style posts, people talk only about straight-line, almost no one has mentioned the most important point; handling. I've driven the Megane and it's still too lardy to compete with smaller, lighter cars, no matter what the 'stats' may suggest. In the real world, I'd put my money on the Clio every single time.

Track tests, as per Autocar/Top Gear/Evo are nigh-on pointless as the track is a sequence of rapidly-repeated constants, real world roads are not. My 205 Mi16 is quicker than my Delta on the track, but on real roads it'd get absolutely nowhere near the Delta.

Regards

 

[Chris n nic]

Magane has 50% more torque than the Clio.

This is true but torque isn`t everything...I have raced many a subaru with much more torque and power but can keep up somehow....

Chris

 

[Floodie]

Ive pulled away from a 225 on the mway (172 cup) - if your on forum come forward plz.

Blue 225 - A1 - morning - hatfield - W2 cup

 

[Clarkie172]

I'm not saying anything more on this thread as it always just turns into a slanging match on here when anyone suggests that something might be quicker than clio. All I can say is that my 225 is a lot quicker than my 172, and no obviously we're not talking a spec on the horizon but 20 to 90 say I would probably put money on a standard 225 being about 5-10 car lengths in front. In mine I would be a spec on the horizon.

<<< see under my username

jonny, obviously the 225 is quicker but i dont feel it would pull 5-10 car lengths on a 172. unless u have a silly difference in bhp/torque than the other car, it will be marginal. yours may be different tho

 

[Alex_225]

To be honest there isn't probably gonna be a conclusion to this!!!

I have never raced my Clio against another car round a winding road as I don't see that as safe, I probably won't do it in my Megane either. The blasts I have had have always been in a straight line either from traffice lights or once rolling.

So in the real world how much does handling come into it to compare the Megane to a Clio?!?!?! In my world not much.

 

[jonnyboy]

oh god dont get them started on that!

Horses for courses at the end of the day, I think my 225 holds the road a lot better than my full fat 172, its sure as hell has a lot more grip but less chuckability factor. The trophy is a different beasst to the normal megane and that would give a cup a run for its money in any track/twisty road situation.

At the end of the day its cliosport so obviously opinion is going to be biased towards the clio. All I can tell you is that loads and loads of people on meganesport have had clio RS' before and see the megane as a natural progression as I do.

I have fond memories of my 172 and am not about to start slagging them off. As I have said many times on these threads there will probably come a time for a lot of current clio owners that the megane 225 becomes a very attractive proposition. All the thrills and spills of a 172 with room for the kids in the back as well as being a well screwed together and comfortable cruiser. IMO it has a lot to offer and is a great car that gets a lot of flack just because of some luke warm reviews of the earlier models (Focus RS anyone? )