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!

172 cup





Im thinkin bout getting one for my next car. Are they a lot quicker than the normal 172? I want something a fair bit quicker than my 106 gti and the cup seems like the best option. Do they handle well?

Thanks Adz
 


I went in Waynes today, and yes, they are VERY quick and yes they handle well. Dunno what they like compared to a normal 172 though.

2nd gear took my breath - Am still grining! :D

Daz.
 


Speaking as a Cup owner who hasnt driven a standard 172, by all accounts the Cup is slightly quicker than the 172 and also slightly more focussed. Evo Mag certainly rates the Cup. All I can say the Cup is bloody quick and handles like rabbit at a greyhound track.
 


Seeing as they have an identical engine, the difference could not possibly be that vast. Ive no doubt that the Cup IS quicker and a more focussed performance car, but it simply cannot be massively quicker.

If you are looking for something considerably quicker than a 106 GTI, I wouldnt get a 172. I made the same "mistake" - I went from a Punto GT Turbo to a 172 and wasnt blown away and the Punto is about the same performance as a 106 GTI. Im not saying I dislike the 172 - its by far the nicest car Ive ever owned. It looks great, handles like its on rails and is very very very good value for money compared to its competitors. Unfortunately I didnt do enough of a performance upgrade to satisfy myself.

If a Saxo VTS can give a 172 a run for its money, then a 106 GTI can as well. Im not trying to put you off - they are great cars and the above is only MY opinion - just wanted to share it!
 


let me tell you my 172 mk1 blows 106gtis into the weeds. theres far too much power difference ive proved this many times agianst my mates 106gti, he ends up about 1/2 mile away every time we have a proper blast.. we get them both rolling in second at about 20mph then floor it. The 172 just drives into the distance..I say mike herts cars a duff or mines way faster i dont know, they do need to be run on 98 ron fuel though. i think the cups nearer to the weight of the mk1..
 


Mine must be a duff - it aint quick. I would never leave a car like a 106 GTI behind. I can say categorically having driven both, that a Punto GT could keep up with my 172

Oh and it gets even slower on 98 RON. I find 97 is the best. Optimax makes it feel slowest!
 


I think the best bet is to go for a Mk1 or a cup cos they are obviously that bit quicker than the Mk2 due to the weight difference. Thanks everyone
 


mikeherts

In the Evo test the cup was 2.7 secs faster per lap. The extra unpublished mods over the 172 include:-

Tweeked Chassis and different ECU to name but a few.

You should try one some day, there is a definate liveliness and road hugging experience that you do not feel in a std 172.

I think because the engine is the same they quote BHP as equal, but I wouldnt be supprised is the BHP was slightly higher due to the ECU change but for some reason just not quoted.

Go for a test drive in one with 2000miles + on the clock and make your own mind up then.
 


I wasnt trying to get into an argument. I did say that I dont doubt the Cup *is* quicker, but even 2.7 seconds is not much and I think most of the difference will come down to handling ability. It simply isnt massively more performance. I doubt one could even come close to losing a normal 172. However you seem to have been in both so are a better judge.

I dont think Ill try one though! It might make me even unhappier with my car if its as quick as you say.
 


I did not mean to come across as wanting to start an argument just an observation as I have tried both and bought the cup in preference for perfomance and handling over the little luxuries in life. Its all about personal choice. I prefer the raw grunt experience and so long as I have a heater for cold days, windscreen wipers for wet days and no leaks, then Im a happy chap.

I am sure you are as happy with your car for all the things you like about it. Yes it is a shame for me not to have Auto lights / wipers, Aircon etc, but the abs doesnt worry me all that much as the only time it really matters to me is in the wet and I just take a little more car then and avoid the A roads. The brakes are actually pretty damn good in the dry.

Anyway if you are local to the south, maybe we will see each other at one of the meetings and we can admire each others cars for their own qualities.
 


Hi, i owned a 172 (mark 2) last year and sold it after a few months. I now own a 172 cup and the cup feels lots quicker, not sure if my 172 was a bit duff but the cup feels in a different league, it spins its wheels in the dry in both first and even second gear. Im sure this isnt down to the 90kg weight difference so my earlier 172 must have been down on power. By the way both cars had a rattle from the back when the revs go past around 5000rpm. Anyone know what is making the rattle? I was thinking either the baffles in the exhaust or the heat sheild??



thanks
 
  S2000


You can bang on about 2 seconds quicker on the track as long as you want, when it comes down to it on the road theres nothing between the two cars. On a country road youd have to be on the point of loosing it to maybe pull, what, a car length over a series of corners. On the straights, it all down to who gets on the power first. Im speaking of first hand experience here btw!

Anyway my bro is getting a cup sometime in March and Ill be able to drive both, so Ill post my observations then!
 


Quote: Originally posted by eagle on 16 February 2003


it spins its wheels in the dry in both first and even second gear. Im sure this isnt down to the 90kg weight difference so my earlier 172 must have been down on power.


I think that will be down to the traction control on the 172 vs no traction control of any sort on the Cup. I have never wheelspun my 172 and has done some pretty sharp pull aways. Although Im sure I could with a clutch dump!

Like someone said, its all personal preference. I severely doubt the Cup would be considerably quicker enough to make me regret my choice. I could have easily had a Cup, but made my choice like everyone else did.

The point that I was originally trying to make (obviously not very well!) is that its this league of car that isnt quick enough for me. Im not slating the cars at all - they are great. However everything is relative - you arent gonna be happy in an Impreza WRX if youve just come out of a TVR Griffith.

On top of all this, I must have a duff 172, because I dont relate to anything that all you 172 owners say on here! I just shutup most of the time because the majority cannot be wrong, but I just couldnt even picture my car keeping up with some of the cars you say that you race!!

Perhaps it needs more running in - it may be over the running in mileage (as in the full 1500 miles that Renault say you need to reasonably expect full performance) however I dont do a lot of mileage and its taken me a long time to get up to that and its ALL been local short low speed journeys, so perhaps my car is still very tight? What does everyone else think?
 


Quote: Originally posted by mikeherts on 16 February 2003


Mine must be a duff - it aint quick. I would never leave a car like a 106 GTI behind. I can say categorically having driven both, that a Punto GT could keep up with my 172

Oh and it gets even slower on 98 RON. I find 97 is the best. Optimax makes it feel slowest! <SCRIPT language=javascript>


I used to have a punto Gt too, i had a GT3 in midnight blue. Did you mod it ?

Were you on http://www.puntosports.co.ukwww.puntosports.co.uk ? I was !
 
  Renault Laguna Coupe


Mike, did you ever think of putting your car on a rolling road? That would confirm whether or not youre down on power. Also the engine takes a good while to loosen up as a rule, and it certainly repoonds well to a good thrashing now and again - mine always feels better after a trackday!
 


@Jonto

Hi, yes I was on Puntosports. I remember you/the name anyway. I was on it when it was in the Yahoo group. Had Midnight Blue GT2. Scooby now eh? Very nice. Punto mods were just the usual filter and DV30 - nothing like James Hans did!

Mike - I think I will shell out for a RR, or join up here and take part in the next Cliosport one in my area. Id be interested to know if its down on power or whether Im just expecting too much. Thanks for the advice
 
  320d M Sport


im wondering if the Cup "feels" faster as the sound deadening etc has been removed? Like when u buy a new Exhaust... youd swear it was quicker due to the Noise! I dunno, not driven or raced a cup.....................yet:devilish:
 
  Clio 200 FF


i test drove a cup before i decided on the 172, the cup was the dealers 3000mile demo which had probably been thrashed from day 1. The cup felt livlier than my 172 but also very "twitchy" when putting the power down.

On a normal road at 50ish you could hear the stones being thrown up due to the lack of sound deadening which i thought would irritate me on my normal commutes to work.

The figures quote something like 1/2 second quicker to 60 for the cupbut unless your thrashing it everywhere would you really notice? I prefered a quieter ride and the extras - aircon, xenons, abs, etc as these are the things that you really notice on a day to day drive.

Youve got to ask yourself if you want extra pin sharp handling and a little extra poke or a comfy ride and all the toys with a tiny loss of performance for your every day drive
 


You can get the extra handling (well, most of it) by putting a set of 30mm lowering springs on your 172. I did it to mine and it improved the handling more than I can put into words. Only cost £140 including fitting to do and Id recommend it to any 172 owner.

Rhys
 


Quote: Originally posted by teady172 on 16 February 2003


You can bang on about 2 seconds quicker on the track as long as you want, when it comes down to it on the road theres nothing between the two cars. On a country road youd have to be on the point of loosing it to maybe pull, what, a car length over a series of corners. On the straights, it all down to who gets on the power first. Im speaking of first hand experience here btw!

Anyway my bro is getting a cup sometime in March and Ill be able to drive both, so Ill post my observations then!





Yeah right chief you wont be getting anywhere near my Cup! Going to take great pleasure in slapping you in your 172! :)
 


I agree about the "twitchy" feeling with the Cup. Theres a fine line between spinning the wheels and stalling it in 1st gear. The car feels powerful at low revs unlike my old 306 Rallye which needed to be ragged to extract some performance. I was considering a 172 when I bought my Cup but the extra performance and looks swayed it for me. The car looks so much more agressive than a standard 172, the colour and the alloys are the biz!

On the subject of wheel spinning, Im sure my fronts arent gonna last too long. Any Cup owners got recommendations for replacement rubber?? Im not sure the Contis are that fantastic.
 


Any one got the spec for the tracking on the cup compared to the 172 as had it done at the local garage and its lost its edge. Think they may have used the 172 settings instead of the Cups.
 


mikeherts

Although you have completed the running in miles, your engine will still be tight at the top end of the rev band as is has not spent much time in this range to loosen up. If you let it warm up for 10-15 mins and give it a few good hard thrashes, each day, in 1st, 2nd and 3rd (wait for the gear change light) Im sure after a week or 2 you will notice it being freeer revving in no time. Then enjoy the performance you expected. They can take a while to loosen up at the top end of the rev band and will only do so if you use the engine there.

Good luck, I hope this helps.
 


swelchs advise is good. I did exactly the same to my 172 after feeling that it was a bit lacking. Used a shedload of petrol but after a couple of weeks the car definitely seemed quicker.
 


The mk1 feels no faster than a mk2. The cup is noticeably quicker than the other two, it keeps pulling. The handling is defintely more twitchy though, especially in the wet where to be honest its best to just drive normally. However it is a great fun, though id say a normal mk2 is ultimately the most rewarding of the three. The cup is one hell of a looker though, and under 12 grand!!
 


Cup172,

I had my wheels swaped from fronts to back as the front tyres are down to 4mm after 6000 miles. They looked at the tracking which was well out but they got the figures from normal 172 mk2, so I told them to leave the car.

Going to Renault today to get it checked. The handling seems fine,front tyres have worn evenly and there is no pulling to the sides when I let go of steering wheel.

Weird!!
 
  S2000


Theres not 70KG difference between the 2 cars. I wouldnt beleive what Renualt claim regarding weight figures. Theyre both nearer 1100KG. Hence the same performance figures!

I wouldnt even beleive the claimed weighto f the Cup!
 


what the mk2 has Xenons, climate control, A steel bonnet, bigger wheels, some light washer things, i cant remember the other bits they added. Mine doesnt have all that extra kit, so there is a weight diff.
 


Quote: Originally posted by 172man on 17 February 2003

what the mk2 has Xenons, climate control, A steel bonnet, bigger wheels, some light washer things, i cant remember the other bits they added. Mine doesnt have all that extra kit, so there is a weight diff.


I think there is a slight difference between the Mk 1 and Mk 2 172 in weight, but not as much as 70kg. That would make the Mk1 the same as a Cup almost and it isnt (Cup is only 89kg less than the Mk2). Some of the things you list there arent tangible. Headlight washers are little bits of plastic, climate control is just auto air con - you still have air con, which is the bulk of the weight.

I think what the Mk2 gains in weight (if at all), it recoups by and I quote

"For the 2001 model, its induction system has been revised to optimise output and response at low and medium speeds. Apart from a new, larger-volume air filter, the induction system is of the controlled bi-modal type with twin inlet tracts. A single tract is open at low to favour torque output. Both tracts are open at high speeds to optimise cylinder filling and therefore power output"

I can easily accept that the Cup is measurably quicker, but not the Mk1. Its just getting silly now to try to place 3 same model cars with the same engine into a defined 1st 2nd and 3rd place. They are all about (notice the key word - about - I know there are differences) the same performance (and I say performance, talking about straight line only)
 


Thanks to everyone for the advice.......Ill spend a week ragging the nuts off it and see if it loosens up somewhat.

I was quite happy yesterday - my mate who has a Rover 220 Turbo Coupe went in it for the first time since its been run in. Obviously I did cane it for him and he said that when in gear it feels like his 220 on boost, which was nice to hear. He said that it doesnt have the kick of a turbo, but the strong pull through each gear is like one. :)
 


rover pah!!!

Also i think they altered the gearing in the mk2 also... But i think renault dont know their arse from their elbow
 


Quote: Originally posted by 172man on 17 February 2003


rover pah!!!


;) - true but it does have a 0-60 of 6.2 (Rovers own). Just a shame it handles like a Banana and comes with a flat cap and pipe as standard fit. He did also say that the 172 handled like it was on rails and that Id beat him in a race if any cornering was involved!
 


Top