172 v Cup

[MarkCup]

Now, before I start let me just state for the record that to date, Ive never even sat in either of these, let alone driven them.

Right then, Ive got a Cup on order (should be with me by the 3rd week of September) and find myself continually trying to imagine what its going to be like. Having been on this forum for a few weeks now (whilst trying to satisfy my urge to find out as much as possible) Im getting mixed messages...

1. The majority of people seem to concur that theres little or nothing to separate the 172 and Cup in terms of straight line performance...agree/disagree?

2. On the "Racing Tales" forum, Ive often come across the comment that someone had a bad race as they were two up and had their a** handed to them by someone else who was solo...does that sound right?

If your answer to 2 is "yes", then surely the Cup would blitz the 172 in a straight line? The Renault brochure data shows the 172 carrying an extra 89kgs...roughly equivalent to a 14.5 stone passenger...thats got to count for something in the Cup surely (talking 100% bog standard here)?

Mark

 

[CHRIS172CUP]

All i can say is read all possible reviews on the Cup in EVO magazine. Theyve got an individual cult status i think.

Ive had a go in both, and i noticed a difference. Its up to you whether you want the toys or not?

 

[viceroy]

0.1 seconds is a few car lengths to 60, and an extra passenger also means a few car lengths

So while there is little difference on paper, depending on how the car is driven it can mean a lot in real life

 

[NickP]

Also if you go for one of the new Cups with Climate, then there is even less difference between them performance wise as the climate adds a far bit of weight on.

 

[RobFenn]

The Cup is noticeably quicker than the standard 172.

 

[MarkCup]

Ive not ordered climate on mine...I think Ive managed OK for the last 10 years without it...Ill manage for a few more.

EVO magazine is the exact reason Ive got one on order...if its good enough for them it cant be all bad!

 

[CHRIS172CUP]

Dont mean to be a stick in the mud here, but isnt adding to a cup taking the individuality out of it?

 

[MarkCup]

Adding to a Cup?

I shall crawl over it with a fine tooth comb when it arrives to see what I can remove and do without!

 

[Rich-D]

Compared to a mk2 172, the Cup is 0.6secs faster 0-60 (Renault figure), its 1.2secs faster 0-100 (Evo figure) and was 2.55secs a lap quicker round Bedford Autodrome (Evo figure) so the Cup is quicker!

 

[mo--]

Quote: Originally posted by Not_for_long on 18 August 2003


Now, before I start let me just state for the record that to date, Ive never even sat in either of these, let alone driven them.

Right then, Ive got a Cup on order (should be with me by the 3rd week of September) and find myself continually trying to imagine what its going to be like. Having been on this forum for a few weeks now (whilst trying to satisfy my urge to find out as much as possible) Im getting mixed messages...

1. The majority of people seem to concur that theres little or nothing to separate the 172 and Cup in terms of straight line performance...agree/disagree?

2. On the "Racing Tales" forum, Ive often come across the comment that someone had a bad race as they were two up and had their a** handed to them by someone else who was solo...does that sound right?

If your answer to 2 is "yes", then surely the Cup would blitz the 172 in a straight line? The Renault brochure data shows the 172 carrying an extra 89kgs...roughly equivalent to a 14.5 stone passenger...thats got to count for something in the Cup surely (talking 100% bog standard here)?

Mark

where do you live im in Scotland and will give you a shot of my Cup if you like.....youll have a huge smile on your face when you first start driving one...ive been in both 172 and Cup and you can notice the difference, Cup is faster, but you dont melt in the 172 like in the Cup when it was in the 30s last week...

 

[JillyB]

Quote: Originally posted by RobFenn on 18 August 2003


The Cup is noticeably quicker than the standard 172.

^^ Because hed know

 

[mikeherts]

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 18 August 2003


Compared to a mk2 172, the Cup is 0.6secs faster 0-60 (Renault figure),

More like 0.3 secs - I have both brochures in front of me now - 6.9 to 62 vs 7.2 to 62.

This topic comes up so often, it should be in the FAQ. Its funny how it stills stirs a debate every time! Surely it is going to be staringly obvious that anyone who drives a 172 is doing so out of choice and anyone who drives a Cup is doing so out of choice, so why the continuous debate over them?

I drive a 172 and IMO the Cup is a better looking car and Ive no doubt it has a little more go in it (+ more raw handling), but out on the road in real life driving, they couldnt be separated by any significant degree. Note I said "real life driving" which is not sitting side to side with nothing in the way, counting down and flooring it, or round a clear track - Im talking on roads where there isnt enough room to red line a car, or the traffic conditions dont permit flat out driving.

It makes me laugh how people will debate and concur over keeping up with cars that are considerably faster on paper than a 172/Cup and how out on the road it comes down to the driver blah blah blah and cars need to be XXXX amount more powerful to pull any significant distance on the road hence they kept up blah blah, and yet when it comes to the 172 vs Cup, this is all forgotten and people make it sound like they are a world apart!! Get real, its the same engine in the same shell and one of them is on a diet - yes its going to be quicker, but like people have said before, a 172 is probably (except handling) like a Cup with one passenger, and if one passenger slows a car down THAT much, then its not really much of a practical performance car is it?

All IMO of course, couldnt give a flying monkey about the responses, and BTW Rich-D, it wasnt aimed at you, I just happened to start by quoting you for the figures I just wish people would get on and stop arguing amongst the ranks as it were. Youd think that 172 and Cup drivers would unite and b**ch about the competition if anything, not about each other. Half the stuff I read on here takes away any pride I had about my car

Mike

 

[Craggy]

the cup is a quicker car of that there is no doubt, thing is these little differences are virtually nothing in terms of difference on the road, so many cars can race with slightly different performance times and youll struggle to see a dfference in terms of distance, to really see the diff you need to be on the 1/4 mile and both get the same reation time and both have equally quick gearchanges, that way you can see the extra power pull one ahead of the other

 

[ChavyBoy]

The best way to put it is the fact the Non diet 172 has to spin up the aircon even if its not switched where as the cup doesnt, I would be very interested in seeing the difference between a cup with aircon and the non diet 172 though.

 

[George16v]

When I bought mine I test drove both the 172 and the cup and the cup was definately faster, But the main difference I found was the handling and Torque

 

[Neil82]

My bro has a 172 and I have a Cup and we have had several comparisons, on the road the Cup is quicker and can eak away. Over the 1/4 mile and 0-60 there is a more noticeable difference than on the road. Side by side 0-100 the Cup will pull a good few car lengths on a 172, thats a fact. But then the 172 does have the equipment levels of a exec car and very nice seats and on the road there wont be much in it, unless your obssessed with racing and need that extra car length in performance then get a Cup. But the Cup does get very annoying on a long motorway jourenys it really is bouncy compared to the Cupra R and the 172. It would get tiresome on long joureny, my work is 2 miles from home so dont bother me if you have to do long journey i.e 30 mins plus id seriously consider not buying a Cup!

I have raced my bros 172 in my dads Cupra R Leon and the Leon does have a slight advantage on it but the 172 is still stuck up the Rs arse (maybe 1 1/2 cars behind, clio car lengths) Below 90 its very very close! BUT the 172 will get 33 mpg being driven like you stole it but when I do that to my dads Cupra R I get about 23 mpg!!! (add that up over a year!)

 

[paddymph]

Hmm, Im not so sure!

Ive still got to race a Cup properly so cant comment. Going off standard 1/4 mile times the normal 172 wins so far with 14.9!

 

[paddymph]

maybe not, just read the other post

 

[Dansta]

Quote: Originally posted by JillyB on 18 August 2003

Quote: Originally posted by RobFenn on 18 August 2003


The Cup is noticeably quicker than the standard 172.

^^ Because hed know

well he has had a go in mine....

 

[sjd172]

here here Mike !

 

[pete_pete]

Im think the cup is a great car and looks great but for the amount of time I spend in my car 1 hour or so per day I know Id rather have the creature comforts over a few milliseconds that my come in usefull on a track day once or twice a year .

 

[MarkCup]

I couldnt agree more with you Mike H, at the end of the day, on real roads, in everyday conditions theres so much more that cpmes into play than straightforward bhp/ton.

Why did I go for the Cup over the 172? Comes down to cost, got it for £10,990 from New Car Discount. Couldnt get anywhere near that on a standard 172.

I got a track day at Castle Coombe for my birthday (nice wife eh?), and the thought of having to replace the 225x45x18 tyres on my Mondeo afterwards brought me out in a cold sweat. That was the main reason for the change to the Clio...that and the fact that Evo say it can withstand track abuse no problem.

 

[KDF]

Jeez, I am a little bit dissapointed in you Cup drivers.. what happend to my cup will slaughter your 172 blah blah..

very dissapointed in you lot..

 

[Cup-pa]

Cups rule, buy a cup. The chassis / susp / handling revisions make it feel a far superior quality driving weapon, thats probably the main noticable difference, with the added benefit of a bit more poke due to the diet.

Just depends what you want, as for me I nail it everywhere. (27MPG average over 14,500 miles)!

 

[king.stromba]

My Williams is on the Atkins Diet. Ill let you know how it goes

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by mikeherts on 18 August 2003

Compared to a mk2 172, the Cup is 0.6secs faster 0-60 (Renault figure),

More like 0.3 secs - I have both brochures in front of me now - 6.9 to 62 vs 7.2 to 62.

Ive got a Renault booklet that states different...

0-60mph:

mk2 172 - 7.1secs
Cup 172 - 6.5secs

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by paddymph on 18 August 2003


Ive still got to race a Cup properly so cant comment.

Soon Paddy... soon...

 

[KDF]

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 19 August 2003

Quote: Originally posted by mikeherts on 18 August 2003

Compared to a mk2 172, the Cup is 0.6secs faster 0-60 (Renault figure),

More like 0.3 secs - I have both brochures in front of me now - 6.9 to 62 vs 7.2 to 62.

Ive got a Renault booklet that states different...

0-60mph:

mk2 172 - 7.1secs
Cup 172 - 6.5secs







Ye well, we all know book figures are wrong.. not saying the Cup figures are right but my 172 deffo gets to 60 a hell of a lot quicker than that.

see my published videos.

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by _KDF on 19 August 2003


Ye well, we all know book figures are wrong.. not saying the Cup figures are right but my 172 deffo gets to 60 a hell of a lot quicker than that.

see my published videos.

It also depends whos in the driving seat...

My old 306 Rallye was a lot quicker than it said on paper!



Got your vids on my HDD too!

 

[RobFenn]

Quote: Originally posted by DannyBoy on 18 August 2003

Quote: Originally posted by JillyB on 18 August 2003

Quote: Originally posted by RobFenn on 18 August 2003


The Cup is noticeably quicker than the standard 172.

^^ Because hed know

well he has had a go in mine....





Ive driven both a 172 and Cup on road and track, and probably driven them both a lot harder than 99% of all members on this forum. No doubt ill get some people having a go at me for this comment..but what the hell.

-Rob

 

[paddymph]

You probably will Rob yeah..... and with good reason!!

 

[Roamer]

Quote: Originally posted by RobFenn on 19 August 2003

Ive driven both a 172 and Cup on road and track, and probably driven them both a lot harder than 99% of all members on this forum. No doubt ill get some people having a go at me for this comment..but what the hell.

-Rob

Ooooooo get you Rob!

And what car do you drive everyday mate? ffs

 

[Rich-D]

Well Ive driven the mk1, mk2 & Cup on both road & track, so nerr!

Got a lovely video clip of me spinning a mk1 at about 90mph actually...

 

[RobFenn]

Knew theyd be a couple! I was merely replying to a comment which suggested i know f**k all...but i do..sorry if some cant deal with that!

Unlucky Rich, but youve never pushed it hard enough until youve spun, so good on ya!

-Rob

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by RobFenn on 20 August 2003


Unlucky Rich, but youve never pushed it hard enough until youve spun, so good on ya!

Was going like a nutter trying to chase a 205 with an Mi16 conversion and just managing to keep with him, but I got too brave and overcooked it, then game over...

Tyres were f*cked when I looked at them after, so thats my excuse!

 

[Chris n nic]

was this filmed from the back of the 205? Think Ive got it at home

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by Chris nnic on 20 August 2003

was this filmed from the back of the 205? Think Ive got it at home

Thats the one...

 

[KDF]

Poor wee Rob, always getting picked on..













http://www.xtremega.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_firedevil.gif MUHAHAHAHAHAA http://www.xtremega.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_firedevil.gif