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!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
S
silou
thay are the same car in different clothes,so just enjoy.
Okay - I can answer this one fairly accurately!
I was at a track day at Donnington on 7th November in my Mk1 172 (Titanium - complete with easy-dent lightweight bonnet - shave those extra kilos!
) and I went round the track more than a few times with Telford_Mike and Matt - Leics, both in their Mk2 172s... Telford_Mike has a filter and cat-back Magnex (along with lowered suspension), Matt - Leics has a standard car and removed everything (just about!) from the inside of it to make it as light as possible. I have a SuperChip (rolling roaded +7bhp at wheels / +11bhp at flywheel) and left the car otherwise standard (complete with dirty air filter and shag*ed brakes!). Anyhow, to answer your question there was virtually nothing in it between all three cars... On the main straight leading up to the esses, I felt that I was able to gain a little (maybe one or two car lengths at most), but were talking of a flat-out race upto nearly 115/120mph!. It was by no means a crushing defeat to the Mk2 172s!!! I think that the cars (with their respective mods) all came out at a similar power-weight so thats why we were all about the same performance. Yes, the Mk1 172 is a bit lighter - but it also has slightly longer gearing (68mph in 2nd), thus stunting its performance a little. I dont know whether the longer gearing of the Mk1 may actually help or hinder it in a 0-60 sprint - maybe someone else can help clear that up...Interestingly, the instructor who went out for a few laps with Telford_Mike, and then got in my car to take my dad out for a few laps (I know, I know - risky!!!
) apparently said to my dad that it pulled better than the other one (My dad has no real interest in Clios so I dont see why hed make it up). I think this simply goes to show that the Mk1 just feels more raw - it sounds harder and the throttle response is very punchy so it gives the impression of actually going harder... But without a few miles of runway, there was no chance of me going past either of em! Whichever car has the better driver will win - Im certain of it... I know my car is firing on all cylinders and kicking out a full complement of horses (and then some!) so Im certain that the Mk2 172s I was playing with at Donnington were running every bit as fast as mine before the SuperChip. I still had em on the twisties though...
Sorry about the long post, but its the first topic in ages I actually have some real-life experience of... Woohoo! (All in my humble opinion of course)
Matt
Renault Laguna Coupe
Mark 2 is heavier and thats what makes the most difference. It has climate control, more airbags, Xenon headlamps, totally revised dashboard. Mark 1 is LOUDER inside the car so it seems faster. As Matt says above though, the differences are very small, and its not like youve got the choice of which to buy if youre in the new car market.
haha dont worry tony i dont get pissed off with others that easily. both cars got their plus. clio definately more fun factor. i had a V6 4 motion... i think the R32 is a harden up version of that....... which still isnt fun just a "Cooler" golf. plus R32 is definately expensive !!
actually a good question would be . would u take the V6 Clio or the R32?
Silver Fabia vRS
There is nothing in it between a MK1 and MK2 and it also depends on what your engine is putting out as standard. My 172 is down on what other 172s have put out. Also the MK1s have a wire throttle and the MK2s have a drive-by-wire throttle which I think accounts for the more responsiveness of the MK1s.
Renault Laguna Coupe
That sounds good - one more thing; - Sunflower Yellow paintwork
i like;
the MK1 styling
and some of the MK2 features (traction control and such like).....
i could have bought a brand spanker of a mk2 but instead bought a low mileage MK1 as I just really do prefer the front end on them......
personally i think renault should have done more on the back end on the 172s... the front (on both) looks good but it almost seems as if the styling peters out a bit towards the back......
having said that i think mine looks brilliant from every angle
oh.. and i used to have a golf vr6 highline (hence my handle) and I think the R32 will rock.... erm... and I too am toying with the idea of either a MK1 V6 clio or a Golf R32......
Im only new here and to 172s so probably not as qualified to comment as you lot, but my personal opinion is that the mk 2 172 feels better.
When I was looking at getting a 172, the only car I could get hold of for a test drive was a Mk1 Exclusive with 5k on the clock. After driving that, I was in 2 minds whether to even get a 172 as it didnt really blow me away. But I decided that I wanted a more modern car and that I only end up sitting in traffic anyway, and that the 172 was still quick (just didnt feel as quick as my previous car) and I read how much "nicer" the Mk2 was and that it was basically a different car. So I went for a Mk2.
Ive only done 140 miles in it in the few days Ive owned it, but Im sooooooo glad I bought it. It feels nothing like the Mk 1 Exclusive I drove - a hell of a lot more responsive, and its not even run in yet (and I havent caned it).
This is just my opinion having driven both, and no offence is meant to Mk1s. I had the choice (as in 2nd hand mk1 or new mk2) and I took it and Im happy. At the end of the day, they are both Clios with 172bhp engines in, and it must surely only come down to styling and gadgets preference - you cant really call them different cars performance wise.
Hi Matt
What is the kerbweight of the Mk1 then out of interest? The Mk2 according to the Renault brochure lists it as 1035kg. I doubt there is a great deal of difference, otherwise the Cup would be a pointless car!
Maybe the exclusive was unwell! The aspect of it that didnt seem as good as the Mk2 was the throttle response. The out and out power was still good, but the Mk2 seems to respond instantly. Maybe that is just down to the way theyve adjusted the Mk2 so that it feels better lower down? Does the Mk2 get over 60 in 2nd? (I wouldnt know as I cant cane it yet)
Oh well, who knows - I wont quibble over a few kg or milliseconds. Its all personal preference.
Thanks for the welcome
Mike
Hi Mike!
Well, when the Cliosport posse went to a weighbridge, they found the following:
172Mk1 + Alloy Bonnet = 1093Kgs
172Mk1 + Steel Bonnet = 1100Kgs
172Mk2 = 1120Kgs
The cars were measured on the same bridge at the same time, with a totally full tank of petrol. The difference really is small, as is the supposed difference in gearing... You should certainly see 60+ out of 2nd, but I dont know what the limiter will kick in at on a Mk2... Only one way to find out
but let it thoroughly warm through first (about 10mins on my car) otherwise the limiter kicks in early...Strange you mention about the throttle response though - mine seems very keen (nearly as good as the old Pug GTi engines - that really is a compliment!) and Ive never heard any Mk1 owners complain about throttle response... However, there were a couple of Mk2 owners complaining about poor throttle response a while back. Seeing as your car is quite new (Im assuming) maybe it has the latest software in the ECU and perhaps this fixes the issue??? Whatever, glad your particular car is as good as you hoped for/perhaps better?...
Cheers
Matt
Clio 1.6 16V
Yes, mine is only a few days old to me, and has a manufacture date on the C of C of the end of September. I can tell its a recent mk 2 anyway because it has the ESP/traction control thingy, which I know isnt on all mk2s. Although I cant get the bugger to come in - it handles too well!
I would hope Id see 60 out of 2nd. Thats usually key to getting a decent 0-60. Cars that dont get it tend to have lower 0-60s. Obviously its all academic as 60 is just a speed on paper. If you get 0-57 in a good time and the required gear change to 3rd is just before 60 then you know that your car is quicker than on paper, because 57 and 60 are so close. If that makes sense!!! Plus 0-60 isnt everything - just that a lot of people see it as the be all and end all.
Similar threads
