172 vs 106 gti

[Batman]

right i need opinions i have my converted 172 i have a full cat back k-tec exhaust and shud be gettin a decat pipe soon along with a pipercross blackmamba and chipping it will this be enough to be what a lad calls a "standard" 106 gti? i got 17"s aswell

 

[Ads_172]

A standard 172 is marginally quicker than a GTi (on paper anyway) so your mods should make it that little bit quicker again.

It's close though so driver ability will probably play a large part also.

 

[MarkM]

Depends what you mean?

A bog standard 172 would be quicker then a 106 gti power to weight ratio is usually a good gauge 172=156bhp/ton and 106=128bhp/ton.

I am afraid your 17" wheels are going to make the car slower and handling wont be as good. Swap back to 16" wheels.

The lightweight pug will be quick at legal speeds though. A 172 would be noticeably quicker above 60 and its 0-100 time is approx 5 seconds better then the 106.

So on paper the 172 is alot better but in real life and with those wheels it would be close.

 

[Alan]

A standard 106 against a standard 172 round the twisty bits the 106 will give the 172 a seriously hard time, not to be underestimated folks.

 

[Clarkie172]

The lightweight pug will be quick at legal speeds though. A 172 would be noticeably quicker above 60 and its 0-100 time is approx 5 seconds better then the 106....................... no chance.trust me, a 106 and a clio are pretty well matched:nono: them and vts will keep up with clios to 110 mph and not be far behind

 

[matty w]

The lightweight pug will be quick at legal speeds though. A 172 would be noticeably quicker above 60 and its 0-100 time is approx 5 seconds better then the 106....................... no chance.trust me, a 106 and a clio are pretty well matched:nono: them and vts will keep up with clios to 110 mph and not be far behind

i thought 5 seconds seemed a bit much the VTS especially seemed to be very underated

 

[B16DOE]

what mark m said i am goin to put mine back on 16s wait til the 17s have no grip at all first

 

[MarkM]

Times taken from EVO magazine section at the back.
Just read it again though 0-100 for standard 172=18.9 I read the one above for the cup 17.7 (surprising difference) the 106 is 22.2secs so 3.3 seconds difference.
Cold figures do not tell the full story though. One of my previous cars was a 205gti so I rate pugs and this was one of the last of the descent peugeot hatches (306gti aswell) as I added at the end of my post it would be close at legal speeds.
I have a 182 and will say that over 70 it still is accellerating hard and with a top speed of nearly 140mph IMO it would stretch a gap over the pug as speeds increased.

 

[Jono_GTi]

Having owned a 106GTi previous to my Full fat 172, I can tell you that the 172 is quicker and IMHO handles better, though in terms of handling I'll echo the above... the driver will have a lot to do with it.

My 106 was modified too, FAI, SS system w/decat. I once chased a 172 down a straight thinking I'd have him... he just kept creeping further away from me! He didn't 'lose me' as such, but there's no way I could have caught him. That's actually what made me want to buy a 172.

The 106 is quick, I loved it but the 172 is quicker overall.

 

[dk]

The lightweight pug will be quick at legal speeds though. A 172 would be noticeably quicker above 60 and its 0-100 time is approx 5 seconds better then the 106....................... no chance.trust me, a 106 and a clio are pretty well matched:nono: them and vts will keep up with clios to 110 mph and not be far behind

no they aren't, its like comparing a 182 and a FRS, the 106 is great for the size of engine and handles amazingly but it jsut isn't as good or fast as a 172, having owned both I say this from experience.

Yes the 106 is a sleeper and catches a lot of people out but it just isn't a match for the 172's pace and grunt, sorry.

 

[Clarkie172]

theres no doubt a clio is quicker, but it isnt by much! some ppl just think clios are the fastest things on the road thats all!

 

[dk]

thats because in their sector they are!

 

[roadrunner_182]

my mates got a saxo vts - very underrated car and pretty much same engine as 106 gti, but my 182 had a noticceable pull on it from the start. So you shouldnt have any problems.

 

[MarkCup]

At the airfield day yesterday, we had a standard Saxo VTS and standard 106 Gti along as well.

Around the sprint circuit (mix of 1st gear hairpins, 2nd gear slaloms, top speed of about 90mph etc...), both the 106 and the Saxo put in times equal to or BETTER than a fair few of the 172/182 drivers.

Then we had some side by side drags, and IIRC there was little in it between any of them (at least until you get well into 3rd in a 172/182).

Massively underated little cars that unfortunately have a bad image problem.

 

[Adams_16v]

up to 90, with a bit of momentum advantage my old 106gti kept with a cup no problem!

on the twisties he had me after the bends due to lack of torque on the 1.6! but handling wise about the same.

the gti's are quick cars up to 90, just a bit cack after that

all on a trackday btw!

 

[SOHROB]

as above above 80 or 90 your std family hatch would keep with gti/vts.I went test and drove a cup as i fancied swapping my vts for one but the diff wasnt enough.The downside of the gti/vts is they are only quick on your own (no passengers) they are dirt cheap to mod aswell

 

[TomS]

You would be very wary of the gti/vts if you were at the airfield meet on sunday. The gti and vts were giving the 182 lads a very hard time.

Tom

 

[TheJesus]

prolly a hard one to answer, as for a start 172's dont have 172 bhp... there's also a s**t load of variation in the power and quality output as Reno must keep using old casts because some are really quick and some are not even valver pace.

 

[dk]

You would be very wary of the gti/vts if you were at the airfield meet on sunday. The gti and vts were giving the 182 lads a very hard time.

Tom

were they standard though or modded as a lot of 106's get modded and to compare modded against non-modded is pretty pointless, plus there is driving ability to take into account etc.

 

[SOHROB]

not really unfair as the gti/vts is a lot older and cheaper,simple breathing mods free a fair bit of power from them

 

[TomS]

Standard Dave

Bar a different backbox i think, but pretty bog.

Check out the times in the thread

Tom

 

[TheJesus]

so as standard as our Clio's Tom? Mines standard for example

 

[TomS]

so as standard as our Clio's Tom? Mines standard for example

LOL

Factory standard mate

 

[ChrisO182]

The downside of the gti/vts is they are only quick on your own (no passengers) they are dirt cheap to mod aswell

LOL, very true, once you get a passenger in they feel quite different, i had a 106 gti(quite highly modded) and they are a good car, infact at lower speeds they are what i`d say more capable than the clio in reference to the handling and engine responce BUT when there is a bit more speed involved thats where the clio takes over, feels more stable/grippy and has the torque to pull out of corners. Both wicked cars though and loads of fun to drive

 

[Tucks]

I drove the 106 @ the airfield on Sunday.
Its nearly as fast as my Williams in first and 2nd and the extra revs its got help when your thrashing it.Torques a bit lower though.
Aint quite got the same pull out of the bends as the clio, and I didnt find the steering as good.(steering wheel was too big)
Have to admit I was very impressed with it.

 

[SOHROB]

yeh you cant compare the williams pull,i could be a bit lazier in my williams than i can in the vts.They are quick but if your not in the mood for driving (ragging it) then there pretty slow.I miss my williams's power

 

[182 sport]

My mate has a pug 106 gti and I used to have one.They are more or less the same to 60, in the 1st 2 gears theres very little to part them,until 3rd gear.

After that you will find that standard vs standard the clio pulls away.If im ever on the motorway with my mate in the pug,hes no chance coz 60mph-100mph theres no competition