172 & cup

[Tim-Grove]

Even so I still think I could stop quicker, I suppose it may not come naturally to some people. You can just *feel* the limit at which to not apply any more pedal pressure, I suppose it’s a bit of a 6th sense really. I never had a problem locking up in any of my old cars, but all the cars with ABS I’ve had the bloody thing keeps cutting in. Quite scary really because it feels as it you have lost your brakes and you can’t stop quick enough.

 

[simonjones10]

Fair enough!

Im getting a cup (I would prefer to pay an extra couple of quid and have it just in case!) and my current car (Dont tell but its a VTR) aint got it either Ive never had any problems of locking wheels. I spose Its all aobut not driving like a c**t.

I drive like a granny in 30, 40 & 50s. 60s are a different story tho!

I think the rule of thumb has got to be if you cant stop in the distance visable your going too fast

I know what you mean about the feel or lack of when it kicks in!

 

[Neil82]

Quote: Originally posted by _KDF on 09 July 2003

Basically the Cup is .1 of a second quicker to 60 than the 172..

I owning a 172 would get to 60mph 0.1 of a second slower but in my nice half leather/alcantara climate controled, heat reflective windscreened (with proper thickness glass) car.. and with it being night time, I will spot the deer on the road with my high power Xenon headlights before the Cup and be able to swerve round it using my ABS cause its raining.. whereas the cup would plough on straight into the deer, trying to swerve sideways his car starts to slide sideways into the deer, hi thinks thank god the airbag will save me, but alas he bought a cup not a 172, no side airbags..


there, that should stir it up a bit.





KDF_ you want a pop at my Cup get it on video? Then laugh at you going backwards...

 

[Roamer]

Now Now Neil, or I might just put that challenge to you once mine is fully sorted

 

[Neil82]

We will see how yours goes first.. if it does

 

[Frosty]

Quote: Originally posted by Tim-Grove on 09 July 2003


You load of puffs, who needs ABS. Admittedly my car has it but I don’t like it at all, I wish I could switch it off. I could stop quicker with out it in the wet no problem, it cuts in way to early.

There is no way in the world you could stop quicker without ABS!

One of the criteria the ABS system has to meet is that it can be stopped quicker than the non-ABS version. ABS can control each wheel induvidually. You can only control all four at once.

 

[rt172]

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 09 July 2003


mk1 - longer gearing, understeers, not as much low grunt, but big kick at 5k rpm as it comes on cam!

mk2 - better gearing, more neutral handling, more low end grunt, less of a kick as it comes on cam.

Cup - same gearing as mk2, sharper handling, nice low end grunt, good kick (like a mk1) when it comes on cam.

My MK1 definitely has more "low end grunt" than my MK2. Absolutely no doubt about it. I still think that my MK2 was a slow one though. Totally agree about the understeer. I think I can iron that out fairly easily, but its a bit annoying. Theres no need for it.

Also, if my gearbox ever goes, Im going to try and have a MK2 box fitted. Mind you, its quite nice being able to do 121mph in 4th (where permitted!).

 

[Griff]

"One of the criteria the ABS system has to meet is that it can be stopped quicker than the non-ABS version. ABS can control each wheel induvidually. You can only control all four at once."

Sorry mate but thats crap. ABS is designed and used to allow you to turn sharply while braking not to stop the car quicker. Stopping distance has nothing to do with ABS.

 

[cerbera4.5]

true,but without abs youve got to get it right 100% of the time to equal the stopping distance with ABS.

personally when im on the motorway and the car infront slams on its nice to know you can stand on the pedal and not worry about locking up!

 

[jonnyboy]

lol the 172 vs cup is always a good one. At the end of the day its down to choice. Personally I think the 172 is a better all round package and the sup is for you if its purely speed and driving your bothered about. I chose the 172 cos ABS, alcantara trim and aircon for the £1000 ish difference n price seemed like a good deal.

 

[Dash]

I would worry when people ask me "What kind of car do you drive?" and Id reply "A CUP". Just sounds a bit odd to me.

 

[Tim-Grove]

In 7 years of driving I have had 3 cars without ABS and 2 with. And I don’t give a crap what anyone says I can stop quicker without ABS than with, no probs. As Griff says all it helps you with is steering.



How do they go about doing an emergency stop In driving tests because nearly all cars have ABS now, how much skill does it take to just lamp your foot on a pedal.

 

[Dash]

In 24 years of driving I have had about 15 cars without ABS and 3 - 4 with.

I firmly believe those with ABS stop quicker. Must be one of those personal opinion things.

 

[Dash]

This sounds like a fair judgement of ABS



Some myths about ABS:

With ABS I can stop faster. - Not necessarily. On a wet road, you MAY be able to stop quicker because your wheels are not locked up. However, in several conditions you can stop faster by locking up the wheels. One example is in deep snow. If you lock the brakes you create a wedge effect and stop quicker. Usually ABS distances are a tad shorter (10 feet) than non-ABS brakes, however, ABS gives you more steering ability then non-ABS brakes, the real advantage.
10 feet could save a life.

 

[Tim-Grove]

As I said some people just don’t have the *feel* for braking pressure. My mom just panics and stands on the brake pedal when there is a hazard, I suppose it just comes naturally. Some people must have this feeling for grip and some don’t, one person who was the master at this was Ayrton Senna(RIP) he would run rings round everyone in the wet even when he still had slicks on and the rest of the field were on wet’s. I’d like to see anyone out brake him with ABS in the wet.

 

[rt172]

Ive found that the ABS in the MK2 172, MK1 172 and Williams 3 are all very different. The Willy actually lets the wheels lock for a fraction of a second before kicking in. If you go as far as triggering the abs, you hear a chirp of locking wheels.

The MK2 172 ABS kicked in very very early. Like when the wheels were not in any danger of locking. Actually caused some problems sometimes.

MK1 172 ABS hardly ever kicks in. Only really if I stamp on the brakes to demonstrate to someone the stopping power the car has does is kick in. Its also done it on wet tram tracks round Sheffield.


For me, the ABS on the Willy is just right as it makes sure I am fecking things up a bit before interfering. Not driven the MK1 in the wet enough yet to comment futher on it.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Frosty]

Quote: Originally posted by griff_90 on 09 July 2003


"One of the criteria the ABS system has to meet is that it can be stopped quicker than the non-ABS version. ABS can control each wheel induvidually. You can only control all four at once."

Sorry mate but thats crap. ABS is designed and used to allow you to turn sharply while braking not to stop the car quicker. Stopping distance has nothing to do with ABS.

The information I gave was obtained from EVO issue 42 under the letters section. A month previous, a guy has written in, banging on about how his braking technique was so good that he could stop a car quicker than an ABS-equipped equivelant.

An ABS engineer who works for Bosch Braking Systems replied in the issue I have quoted, and told the guy what I have just told you. I dont care what you read on the Internet, but this guy clearly knows a thing or two about ABS.

"Every vehicle manufacturers spec for ABS requires that an ABS-equipped car stop shorted than both a full-locked wheel stop, and a drivers best effort to stop."

You may prefer the non ABS feel - and thats fine, but I tend to listen to those in the know, which is why I would be suprised if you could defy what this guy has stated.

 

[CUPPY]

thought the cup was alot faster to 100 than the normal 172?

 

[rt172]

Cuppy - meet up if you want and Ill show you. Dont think youll find its much quicker.

 

[Gary Brown]

Yeah, I thought that too - 16.9 or somat for the cup??

Anyway, I love my cup, but I really envy the 172 guys for having climate control on days like today when its sticky and hot. Not bothered about the other differences at all, and if I was getting a cup now Id specify climate with it. Shame they dont/wont retro-fit climate.

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by Rhys on 09 July 2003

My MK1 definitely has more "low end grunt" than my MK2. Absolutely no doubt about it. I still think that my MK2 was a slow one though. Totally agree about the understeer. I think I can iron that out fairly easily, but its a bit annoying. Theres no need for it.
Also, if my gearbox ever goes, Im going to try and have a MK2 box fitted. Mind you, its quite nice being able to do 121mph in 4th (where permitted!).

That mk2 must have been a duffer or that mk1 is awesome!

I know they altered the inlet manifold on the mk2 to generate more low end grunt and its certainly true on the ones Ive experienced.



Understeer can be sorted mate, as last trackday I stripped all the back out of the mk1 and played with tyre pressures, so it was more willing to go sideways, but the understeer was always there.



Gearing in the mk2 & Cup is much better though, but a mk1 is a good motorway cruiser.

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by Rhys on 09 July 2003


MK1 172 ABS hardly ever kicks in. Only really if I stamp on the brakes to demonstrate to someone the stopping power the car has does is kick in. Its also done it on wet tram tracks round Sheffield.

Really?!

The brakes on the mk1 I regularly use are very sharp and ABS can easily be kicked in with minimal effort!



ABS on my 306 Rallye and my old 106 GTi are superb as youd never even know it was there, it only ever kicks in of you really go mad with the brakes!



p.s. those tram tracks are a b**ch in the wet (I used to live there!)

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by CUPPY on 09 July 2003

thought the cup was alot faster to 100 than the normal 172?

0-100 times:

mk1 - 18.2secs
mk2 - 18.9secs
Cup - 17.7secs

 

[CUPPY]

rhys-sorry mate i meant the mk2 172 not mk1 think that is always going to be quicker..lighter isnt it with its 15 inch alloys???? i though it was a nearly two second difference..may be wrong...

 

[rt172]

In comparison to other MK2s, my MK2 just wasnt right. Not slow, but not as quick as it should have been. Lower power than others on same day at RR days and slower 1/4 times than others present on the same RWYB day.

Im just moving into a house that has a garage just down the road specialising in suspension set up, according to the signs on it. Think Ill wait until weve moved in and take the car to them and see what they can do. Its basically the same car as the MK2, so anything the MK2 can be tweaked to do, the MK1 should be able to mimic.

 

[Neil82]

You cant generalise like that, you cant say a mark 1 is faster than a mark 2 or vice versa and post BS mag times, its down to the specific car I rekon.

 

[CUPPY]

ha..thought so cheers rich d

 

[Neil82]

Quote: Originally posted by Gary Brown on 09 July 2003


Yeah, I thought that too - 16.9 or somat for the cup??

Anyway, I love my cup, but I really envy the 172 guys for having climate control on days like today when its sticky and hot. Not bothered about the other differences at all, and if I was getting a cup now Id specify climate with it. Shame they dont/wont retro-fit climate.





I love when Betty Swollocks comes to visit when im driving the Cup.

 

[CUPPY]

defo mate with renault creating such sh*te engines bet my cups got 150bhp???

 

[tumbleweed]

The clio cup unfortunately is destined to replace the ultimate boyracer car the Citreon saxo...because it is cheap...this will reflect in 2 years time on the resale value :-(

Like the Citreon Saxo 19 - 24 yr olds with white baseball cap and kappa tracksuit bottoms willl buy the cup because of the cheapness...the 172 with the extras will not attract soo many..but having the boyracer status will see the blacked out windows...5" diameter exhausts and hugh sub woofers in the boot....style counts.

Granted the Cup is a nice car, fast...i have raced some in my 172 and beat soome..not all.....but if i had to chooose between a cup, 172 or subaru WRX...it would be the Subaru then 172 then finallly the cup.

 

[Neil82]

Are cup engines not bench tested so will all be making roughly the same?

 

[tumbleweed]

Cuppy i bet your clio has got 152bhp at the wheels, you are not in the excusive club because I could of bought one...but instead i choose to pay more for a 172.....

But like the cup i can tune the 172.

 

[CUPPY]

that makes no sense wot so ever..i was not having a dig at all with my statement....at the end of the day all the cup owners will say cup is better than 172 and vice versa...you are also not in an exclusive club..i could have got a 172 no problem but on my way to the showroom seen 6 172s??? thats on 20 mile journey!!! i have seen only 3 cups on the road in nearly a year of ownership!!!! speed is nothing exclusiveness is everything..but hey who gives a fcuk!!!! live long and prosper!!!! my speed issue was relati ng to a claim that 0.1 second 0-60 was nothing which is true but isnt it really 0.4 seconds but 0-100 was only meant at being a true reflection of the possible factory figures.......and im spent

 

[Jim172CUP]

*pointless thread*



If i could of afforded it id of got a Preg Supra twin turbo for 10k but i WONT pay stupid money for insurance.

 

[Roamer]

Quote: Originally posted by Neil82cup on 09 July 2003

We will see how yours goes first.. if it does

Oooooooo now thats just below the belt

 

[KDF]

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 09 July 2003
Quote: Originally posted by CUPPY on 09 July 2003thought the cup was alot faster to 100 than the normal 172?[/QUOTE]0-100 times:mk1 - 18.2secs
mk2 -  18.9secs
Cup - 17.7secs 


Where did you get those times from ? have a look at my 0-60 and 0-100 vids and tell me those figures arent a load of crap.

 

[Rallye-King]

Quote: Originally posted by tumbleweed on 09 July 2003


The clio cup unfortunately is destined to replace the ultimate boyracer car the Citreon saxo...because it is cheap...this will reflect in 2 years time on the resale value :-(

Like the Citreon Saxo 19 - 24 yr olds with white baseball cap and kappa tracksuit bottoms willl buy the cup because of the cheapness...the 172 with the extras will not attract soo many..but having the boyracer status will see the blacked out windows...5" diameter exhausts and hugh sub woofers in the boot....style counts.

No offence mate but that is a load of bull sh!t. You can get an imported brand new 172 for less than a new Cup. Go figure!!!

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by _KDF on 10 July 2003

Where did you get those times from ? have a look at my 0-60 and 0-100 vids and tell me those figures arent a load of crap.

They are the times that Evo got when they tested them...

Remember though, there are always good & bad examples of cars and performance can and does vary.

 

[RobFenn]

ha ha..how defensive can you lot get.

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by Rallye-King on 10 July 2003

No offence mate but that is a load of bull sh!t. You can get an imported brand new 172 for less than a new Cup. Go figure!!!

I agree...

Also the fact that the Cup costs more to insure!