172 cup vs vts and also cup vs sport.

[_woody172_]

Alright people,

am just wonderin how far the vts wud b behind the 172 cup in a race wud it b a large distance or close?

Also which would u mainly advise people to buy out the cup and sport??

Cheers for any help.

 

[badinvincible]

Depends on the forum user driving the aforementioned vehicles.

 

[TomS]

There doesn't seem to be an awful amount in it between my friends 02 plate VTS and my valver!

So I'm guessing the 172 Cup would shake one off

 

[Dash]

On a track of course. The vts will be just visible in your rear view mirror and as badinvincible says, a good driver in the vts will keep up with a 172.

 

[rob172cup]

i think a vts is about 22 secs to 100mph a cup is 17.7 i think thats just off top of my head though

 

[_woody172_]

cheers fellas. so which one wud u say is better to get out the cup and sport? cant decide which one i wont both ave there pros..

 

[badinvincible]

Baws hair between both.

Depends whether you can live without leather, xenons, air con (although some Cups did have CC) and spare wheel.

 

[Phill1978]

no the cup is 16.8 to 100 the 172MKII 17.5

 

[Norris_309]

I had the problem of deciding between the cup & Sport, i wanted the cup for the colour and the wheels but i did like the thought of a little luxury called Climate Control. I eventually stumbled across a 53plate Cup with climate.. my perfect car leather would have been nice but i'm not too bothered about that bit.. i'm well pleased. Spot on.
(just need some of those Trophy seats i saw in the showroom!!!)

 

[thedoc]

"am just wonderin how far the vts wud b behind the 172 cup in a race wud it b a large distance or close?"
like said above, would depend upon the driver.

"Also which would u mainly advise people to buy out the cup and sport??"
I'd advise a sport, 'cos I'm biased & i like my toys.

 

[Ben j]

the problem is vts gearchanges are stupidly long! i put a quickshift on mine and it was still longer than i like. if u sorted that problem out it'd cust that 0-100 time down soo much!

 

[badinvincible]

^^^LOL - or you could just charge it...

 

[Rick]

Since seeing Craggy's old VTS holding off a CTR until 90mph I now work on the basis that all these hot hatches are much the same in terms of straight line perfomance. Half a second here there on a 0-100 time is nothing really.

 

[Ben j]

^^^LOL - or you could just charge it...

that helps :clown:

but seriously it was like puttin the gearstick in the rear footwell from 1st to 2nd! terrible!

 

[Rich-D]

Depends on the forum user driving the aforementioned vehicles.

Yeah, a certain VTS we know runs some staggeringly quick times!

 

[jongsr4]

I had a VTS before my cup and in all honesty, on the road there isnt a great deal of difference in performance between the two, maybe on the track the Cup would have a bit more of advantage,

on the real roads though, there isnt a massive difference

 

[Mondial172]

It's true. A good driver in a VTS or GTi should be able to give an RS a run for its money. Afterall the Saxo is about 150kg lighter than the Clio. The big advantage of the RS Clio's is the torque of the 2.0 16v - 147lb/ft Vs 107lb/ft of the VTS/GTi. The RS Clio will pull in virually any gear because of it.
In the VTS you'd need to be in the power band in stand any chance.
Infact at around 60mph in 5th gear the VTS pulls faster because its inside its "window of power". I'd need to drop to 4th or maybe even 3rd in the Clio to get the same increase.
I've had a blat with a GTi and he matched me very well until illegal speeds where I only pulled a couple of lenghts (until I wussed out in treble figures) Nice bloke gave me the thumbs up though.

Like the clios handling much more though.

 

[Martin]

no the cup is 16.8 to 100 the 172MKII 17.5

Those times seem too quick...?

 

[Steve2004]

In the VTS you'd need to be in the power band in stand any chance.
Infact at around 60mph in 5th gear the VTS pulls faster because its inside its "window of power". I'd need to drop to 4th or maybe even 3rd in the Clio to get the same increase

Either the VTS has the shortest 5th gear I've ever seen or thats a load of nonsense.

At 60 you'd have to drop to 3rd to get the same pull in a clio than the VTS gets in 5th. Riiigghhtt. Forgot those VTS's had so much low down torque

 

[blink172]

Buy jons silver cup with CC. Best of both worlds.

 

[danny1]

172 cup 16.86 0-100
172 mk1 17.65 0-100
172 mk 2 18.52 0-100
saxo vts 23.81 0-100

http://www.letstorquebhp.com/fwd.asp

 

[ColinG]

i looked at a VTS after my VTR, and i thought it was appalingly slow, it was one of the phantom "130bhp" W plate ones too.., the cup just left me jaw slackened in comparison, even my dad drove the VTS and compared it to my mums 1.6 dynamique+

ive raced my mate with his 106GTi (proven 173bhp @ flywheel from GMC in scotland) and i just beat him on a quarter straight, so come on a std GTi would be long behind! surely??

 

[benhwolves]

i had a vts before my 182cup and the cup feels a lot quicker due to more torque, certainly lower down - dont think there would be much in it in a drag to a ton despite the 0-100 times, prob a couple of car lenghts at most

 

[jon_r]

I agree with Blink - What a sensible chap. Buy mine.

 

[KDF]

172 cup 16.86 0-100
172 mk1 17.65 0-100
172 mk 2 18.52 0-100
saxo vts 23.81 0-100

http://www.letstorquebhp.com/fwd.asp

Thats crap though really isnt it ?

I mean Neil82Cup does 14.2 1/4 miles at 98mph or something and I did a 14.8 @ 96 mph (IIRC) so your saying it takes an otherwise standard mk2 172 15 seconds to go from 0-96 and another 3.5 seconds to go 4 more mph ??? :S Not only that but (sorry mike) badinvincible's mk1 172 gets toasted by me on a 1/4 mile.

 

[badinvincible]

Buy jons silver cup with CC. Best of both worlds.

That's what I advised him too after he PMed me.

 

[badinvincible]

Thats crap though really isnt it ?

I mean Neil82Cup does 14.2 1/4 miles at 98mph or something and I did a 14.8 @ 96 mph (IIRC) so your saying it takes an otherwise standard mk2 172 15 seconds to go from 0-96 and another 3.5 seconds to go 4 more mph ??? :S Not only that but (sorry mike) badinvincible's mk1 172 gets toasted by me on a 1/4 mile.

Thanks mate but it actually runs slower since I had the decat and ITG panel filter.... :S

 

[Mondial172]

Either the VTS has the shortest 5th gear I've ever seen or thats a load of nonsense.

At 60 you'd have to drop to 3rd to get the same pull in a clio than the VTS gets in 5th. Riiigghhtt. Forgot those VTS's had so much low down torque

No, I meant because a 172 is only doing low revs and not in its powerband at that speed in that gear. A VTS is its powerband around at 60-70mph in 5th.

I've owned both mate. I know what I'm talking about. Just hard to put into words.

 

[jongsr4]

Either the VTS has the shortest 5th gear I've ever seen or thats a load of nonsense.

At 60 you'd have to drop to 3rd to get the same pull in a clio than the VTS gets in 5th. Riiigghhtt. Forgot those VTS's had so much low down torque

its not a load of nonsense at all, 5th gear in the Clio at 70 and 5th gear in the VTS at 70, the VTS would initially pull away, no question, only up at silly speed would the Clio really pull on the VTS

 

[Neil82]

Thats crap though really isnt it ?

I mean Neil82Cup does 14.2 1/4 miles at 98mph or something and I did a 14.8 @ 96 mph (IIRC) so your saying it takes an otherwise standard mk2 172 15 seconds to go from 0-96 and another 3.5 seconds to go 4 more mph ??? :S Not only that but (sorry mike) badinvincible's mk1 172 gets toasted by me on a 1/4 mile.

14.2@101

 

[Neil82]

Thats crap though really isnt it ?

I mean Neil82Cup does 14.2 1/4 miles at 98mph or something and I did a 14.8 @ 96 mph (IIRC) so your saying it takes an otherwise standard mk2 172 15 seconds to go from 0-96 and another 3.5 seconds to go 4 more mph ??? :S Not only that but (sorry mike) badinvincible's mk1 172 gets toasted by me on a 1/4 mile.

Sorry to say lol but I toasted you by more, was like two totally different cars racing.....

 

[KDF]

My first time up the strip though wasnt it ? 15.4 or something I ran that day.

.6 of a second now though cup lova..

 

[SOHROB]

a vts really needs ragging to be near a cup,to 60 there wouldnt be that much in it but above 60 its bye bye vts.Whoever said there cup beat a 173 bhp 106 gti is talking rubbish imo.The vts lacks torque so you really need to be precise with the gears however they can be rewarding.Id buy a cup

 

[Neil82]

My first time up the strip though wasnt it ? 15.4 or something I ran that day.

.6 of a second now though cup lova..

Maybe a bit more since ive got the Maxogen on now, the terminal speed is in a different league though you must admit.

 

[Martin]

Can't really compare Crail runs with book figures imo...

Oh and unless your driving on ice you won't do 14.8@96mph....

 

[ChrisO182]

My last car was a 106 gti and TBH i think the 0-60 is near identicle to the 182,how ever once rolling from say 30-70 i think the clio would have the edge, i did a 15.4 @89 mph 1/4 in the 106 at pod and i would have though the 182 would pull a 15 dead quite easily though i`ve yet to try. Both quick cars, though the clio is the better car all round in my book.

 

[Chris n nic]

It makes me chuckle when people say "only a couple of car lengths" but thats more than enough for me. To really pan someone you need alot more power than 40bhp or so (obviously the weight is a factor as well)

Chris

 

[Mondial172]

my point is that "in the real world" an RS Clio wouldn't pan a VTS or GTi. They really do have lightweight on their side.

I find the Cup is much more relaxed at motorway speeds due to the fact its not doing such high revs.

 

[SOHROB]

a few cheap mods to a vts and it can live with a cup

 

[Chris n nic]

true but a few cheap mods to the cup blah blah lol

Chris