172 Cup

[be4stieboy5]

A mate who works for renault brought me a 172 cup brochure a week ago an said he could do me a good deal. Car looks the dogs an sounds rapid. Just wondered what insurance would be like, anyone got one yet or had a quote? Im 20 an have a 106 GTi at the mo and i know thats pretty hard to get insured for.

Any info would be good.
Thanx

 

[GavWright]

I drove one today and it *is* rapid. I normally drive a Pug 306 Rallye, and thats pretty quick. Ive tested a std 172 and that just aint quick enough (or raw enough) to make me want to change.
However.....the Cup is very lively, and Im rather tempted. Just by the feel of it its faster under normal driving conditions, although I havent managed to test 60+ yet. In fact, unfortunately, round Bradford there seem to be very few bends (!), so Ill have to wait for a drive nearer my home, when my local dealer gets their demo, for me to make my mind up.
But - its very responsive, brakes are certainly up to the job, and it comes on cam around 5,000 revs, when it also starts to sound the business. Its a while since I drove the 172, but I reckon theyve fiddled with the ECU, cos I dont remember the 172 responding like that!
TBH, I cant imagine you getting a decent quote on it at 20 - my 306 insurance at 40 is just short of £600, fully comp. Cup insurance should be slightly better.
Hope that helps! Any deals you could send my way, Id be more than grateful for!
Cheers,
Gav

 

[teady172]

Gav, a standard car capable of sub 15s 1/4 mile, and 16s to 100 is not fast enough for you??

 

[GavWright]

Not the car I tested. Specifically, the 172 had more grunt than mine lower down (eg roundabout exits), but ran out of breath at the top end.
OK, so I could fiddle around with this and that...my 306 is lowered, Devil exhaust, Superchip, blah and is very tidy...but Id rather not. Too messy on insurance. Id like a car I can take as-is, and then, if I *really* want, modify.
I still think my 306 is a wee bit soft at times - not sharp enough turn-in, unlike the 106 Rallye I used to run. But its a bloomin good compromise between a bit of trade-off there and the extra power over the 106.
Getting back to the std 172, its too soft - Id *have* to stiffen that suspension! Im thinking Id still have to do something with the Cup, but the difference is in the response. So far - and, as I say, I havent managed to give it *real* welly - its very responsive. Seems to turn quite nicely, but Ill reserve judgement on that just now. Could well be a slightly different driving style would suffice.
I stand by what I said - in *my* opinion, for *my needs*, the 172 is lacking, wher the Cup may be just the job.
Oh, BTW I also ran a Scooby for a while. Now *that* was fast! But only when on boost........in the wrong gear, it was a dog. And the top end didnt feel anything special....
Cheers,
Gav

 

[GR7]

Teady, dont underestimate some of the Pugs! Dont forget that the Rallye, which was like the Cup, and had some of the goodies taken out to lighten it. My last car was a modified S16 Pug and it was just as quick as my 172!

 

[teady172]

Well, GR you must have done some modding. The S16 standard is some 7 seconds off the pace of a 172 to 100! What did you do turbo the fecker!!

 

[teady172]

Well soon find out when I test drive one of them in the coming weeks, if any of the Edinburgh garages finally get their fingers out and get a demo car in!!

 

[RSTDL]

Nice comments Gav - just what I wnated to hear - another one sold then??

 

[GavWright]

Well, I need to drive some roads I know first (roll on 9th September)....and then we need to discuss price! £11ks what Im aiming for.
One more thing, though - Im not at all impressed with the steering wheel. Feels like its made out of the same stuff as the dashboard (although its stitched, like leather - but if its leather, its not very good quality) - and the inserts just feel like soft plastic. Yuk. And its too big. There wasnt a 172 around to compare it with, as I know its been changed around a bit, but Id guess thats another cost-saving item

 

[Pugboy]

going back to the insurance question, my best quote is through direct line and is 750, thats minimum though without legal cover or no claims protection. so you can compare, im 28 with 4 yrs ncb.

if there are any decent quotes other than d.l, please let me know.

cheers

chris

 

[weyland]

Hello people,
I feel I have to make the following contribution to dispel some of the rumours and the bitching about the standard 172s straight line speed and I think I am in a unique position to do so.
I used to have a 306 rallye which I sold to my brother a year ago, and I can assure you that the standard 306 rallye is nowhere near as quick as my 172 when it is run in fully, NOWHERE NEAR AS QUICK!
I have raced my brother on many occasions now he has the rallye and after 70mph to about 110 mph I leave him for dead and I mean dead!(just about make him out in my rear view mirror).I have done exactly the same with a 106gti,206gti,saxo vts,focus 2litre and could not even see them in my mirror!so at least the rallye fared better.
See, I agree that the 172 is not that RAW, but it is deceivingly fast. It does not feel like you are going that fast even under full acceleration but its ability to chew up ground is amazing.
After 70mph is where the 172 comes into its own and performs comparatively better than before 70mph and leaves your average hot hatch standing.
My brother is insured on my 172 and when I am in my type r thrashing the f*** out of it, he is able to stay about 6 car lengths behind to 120 mph!
Although only timed with a stopwatch so not that accurate, the 172 did 0-100 mph in 17.3 secs, my type r 16.4 secs, and the other day I raced a new shape WRX in my 172 and it was fair to say that I beat him down this half a mile stretch of road. Yes the new wrxs are heavier and a little slower than the others but they are not that slow are they?
The moral is please dont make comments about 172s performance oif you only have a test drive to gaina an impression because this is no impression at all, and by the way 172s get a lot quicker after 7-8000 miles on the clock!

bye bye

 

[GR7]

Teady, you are right, my S16 was well modded - by my mechanic friend, who himself has a chipped VR6 and chipped 2 door Sierra Cosworth, both of which are VERY fast.

 

[GavWright]

Hi guys - just a quick one. I wouldnt necessarily disagree with the last comments....but....my 172 test was a good test drive, over roads Im familiar with in my (modified - 160 brake at the wheels, as per Skip Brown) Rallye, and I drove it as I would my Rallye. Comparing my Rallye, to that 172, on that day, the Clio was close...but my Rallye was better. In speed, in handling.
Ive no beef with the standard 172 (certainly no bitching)- I wouldnt be considering a Cup if I had - but as a replacement for my car, its a non-starter. Unless I did some serious mods to it. Id like to keep my next car relatively mod-free, for insurance purposes.
I also ran a Scooby for a while (2000 spec), and that wouldnt have got away from my Rallye at the top end. From a standing start theyre amazing; mid-range, theyre amazing; but top end, pshaw. Unless you modify.
So - final points. Dont let me put you off 172s (as if I could!) - theyre good cars. But not for me. The Cup, on the other hand - and, remember, I was straight out of my Rallye into the Cup and I only drove the Cup round Bradford a bit - felt significantly faster. Than both my Rallye and the 172.
One other thing I havent mentioned yet (Id forgotten about it). I was talking to Richard Meaden on Monday (EVO mag), and he made the following comparisions;
The Clio Cup to the std 172 is as much of a step up as from the old Clio 1.8 16v to the Williams. Interesting, eh?
Cheers,
Gav

 

[GavWright]

Sorry - I *meant* to say;
Difference in std 172 to Cup = difference in old 1.8 16V to Williams

 

[Simon172]

Weyland - i can relate to you totally! I was all over the back of a rallye 306 and he wouldnt (couldnt) move out of the way, but i had to take my foot completely off the accelerator to avoid hitting his rear bumper several times. This one had a modded "zorst" and sounded very loud (induction kit too possibly?). I can also relate to your conquest of the new shape WRX (2001). I toasted one of those (estate, silver Y-reg) and he admitted defeat...

I really want to drive one of these cups, as everyone seems to be really raving about them. I wonder how differently they feel to the mk.1 172? I spose i could always remove my air con and interior etc if i want to contend.

 

[RSTDL]

Thats a good analogy mate - 16v was 7.7secs to 60mph standard and williams was 7.1 !!! About the same gap as with the cup and 172! Nice to have comments from someone whos actually driven a cup and can compare it to the 172 and previously owned cars! Although the Williams is and always will be a classic car with all the luxuries and extras above and beyiond the valver - analogy doesnt quite work in that respect with the cup and 172!

 

[teady172]

Im sorry but thats b****cks! Plain and simple!!

Mk2s are capable of mid 6s to 60 and sub 15s over the 1/4 mile and 16s to 100, the performance difference is nowhere near the same, even on paper!

 

[teady172]

Sorry, that should have been, the performance difference is no where near the same as the performance difference between a 16V and a Williams!

 

[RSTDL]

That would mean the cup is capable of low 6s or even 6 dead to 60 surely or is it only standard 172s that can beat the official figures!!

 

[RSTDL]

After al the power to weight ratios are different for the cup and 172 and thats what counts in the end of the day really?

 

[RSTDL]

After al the power to weight ratios are different for the cup and 172 and thats what counts in the end of the day really?

Power to weight ratio of CUP = 168HP per tonne

Power to weight ratio of 172 = 154.8HP per tonne

assuming weight of cup = 1021Kgs
weight of 172 = 1021=89kgs = 1111kgs !!

 

[GavWright]

Not quite.......torque to weights very important. Its that figure that makes the Cups take-off so impressive. Torque gets the car moving in the first place.
But I would agree - if the std 172 can be so quick, once run in, then the Cup will be even quicker. Im not often impressed by cars...but the Cup impressed me. The Honda Civic Type-R, on the other hand, leaves *me* cold. Not saying its bad.....it just does nothing for me. On the third hand, we have the ACCORD Type-R. Now thats nice......
In fact, the way the Cup started to take off from 5,000 rpm was broadly similar to the way the Accord takes off when it hits the V-Tech zone. But not as noisy. My 106 Rallye was similar (Superchip, Devil exhaust, Ramair air filter, cylinder head conversion, 120bhp from 1294cc. Nice.....), but not quite so hard hitting.
Some of the Clio 172s out there might act the same as the Cup.....but not a std car.
But I still cant comment on the handling! Roll on Sept 9th........

 

[GavWright]

....and I always thought the 172 weight was 1059kg. But, yes, the brochure says 1021kg for the Cup. Personally, I think its lighter. But thats just me - awkward to the end.......
That and considering the power to weight of my Rallye.....leads me to believe the Cup weight is 1059-89kg.
Who knows? Got any scales, anyone??

 

[teady172]

At the end of the day, again it will be down to the driver on the day, there will be very little in it, if anything. Just because on paper a car can say it can do 0-60 in 6.? doesnt mean it will achieve it! A gut at Crail on Sunday couldnt get his Type-R below 15.5 over the 1/4 mile, we all know its faster.

 

[sandys]

Dont know about the wieght I have read several different things one of the mags put it at 972kg though

 

[RSTDL]

cORRECTION WEIGHT IS 1021-89KGS - POWER TO WEIGHT IS 175bhp PER TONNE!!!!

 

[Pugboy]

mr cupsize,
i wouldnt open the whole what is the weight of this that and the other clios debate. all we know is that it is allegedly 89 kgs lighter than a 172 and therefore slightly quicker accelerating. i would leave it there - see previous threads from a couple of months back. there was alot of confusion because the 172 phase 1 & 2 were quoted by renault at 1035 kgs (with/without fuel/fluids, who knows?). then they release the cup which is 89 kgs lighter at 1021 kgs. hmmmm, you do the maths. anyway, the upshot was alot of people noticed this and to settle it a few people went to a weighbridge to settle the score. the only verification for the cups weight was in autocar and i think it was 989 or 979 kgs.

you decide

pugboy

 

[RSTDL]

Well Im staring at the official information provided by Renault and it says weight is 1021Kgs - and thats good enough for me!! Autocar and evo both state it as having 175BHP per tonne which is what I said!!!

 

[Pugboy]

.....erm ok.

do you know if renault do free insurance on cup? (a long shot i know)

have you got yours already?, mines sitting on a port in dieppe collecting salt!

 

[Captain Slarty]

sheeeeeeesh, we seem to be going round in ever diminishing circles again..

the cheapo cup is THE SAME engine, ECU etc etc...

it is purely the weight difference..

Yes, I have driven both.. there is no difference at all at the bottom end, at 80-110 the cup is faster.. thats it..

supspension feels - the same.. handling - the same..

interior and comforts dont..

thats it really..

.

 

[RSTDL]

No thers no frewe insurance option - mines £750 a year fully comp. Delivery date early october (has to go a bit extra to Northern Ireland!!) Also sitting in Dieppe!!

 

[Simon]

These are the results of putting three 172s on a certified weigh bridge. Each car had a full tank of petrol.

MK 1 Alloy bonnet - 1093 KG *
MK 1 Steel bonnet - 1100 KG
MK 2 Steel bonnet - 1120 KG

* estimated

When you get your Cups go and get them weighed on a certified weigh bridge with a full tank of petrol and then we can compare correctly. Any one near Essex getting a Cup and you can go to the same place so no issues with weigh bridge then !!

 

[Pugboy]

mr slarty

respect to you for your knowledge but i think you should just go and put your climate control on and go and sit in your mock suede seats and cool down a bit

pugboy (soon to be proud owner of "cheapo" clio)

 

[RSTDL]

LOL pugboy!!!!

 

[Captain Slarty]

I heard the cheapo cup comes with LBM as std..

so, it cant be that bad can it ??.

Joe..

 

[RSTDL]

Pugboy - noticed in this months autocar that the cup came 10th overall in the Britains best drivers car - not bad seeing as everything that beat it had a price tag and performance tag of a supercar - porsche, lambo - the only hot hatch to beat it was the focus RS costing near as twice as much!! Why wasnt the civic type R or 172 featured?? Also noticed that the cup comes with a nice cheapo badge saying cup172 on the b pillars just so we can be distinguished from standard 172s!!! Looks nice though!

 

[RSTDL]

It also comes SRHPAS, SS, DSBSEM, IDPFA, HAFSBWPLL, ROSP, TCEI, RCCC, RAID, LWN, SBSFBWALS, ESRS, MBMP, BCSMH, FFL, DOH, SW, HRW, BCE, HDM, DAP, HASWWMBT, LGKWMBI, EFWWDOF, ARF, MDGCU, CDIT, SFS, AFIDH, HADS, HAFH, TC, RC, OGCI, ETG, MBFIS!!!

 

[Clio 172 Cup]

Back to the insurance question,

Mine will be £360 per year fully comp, Im 34 and have full no claims. This is with Privliage.

Taking delivery in 25 days........

 

[teady172]

When is it officially released?

 

[Clio 172 Cup]

I have heard, around the 4th of this month the first ones will be on the road, who knows....

My local dealer still hasnt got a demo car yet, bout another 2 weeks they said...