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.
Big Iain said:
I have coilovers on my wheelbarrow and it weighs f**k all. If I strap a V6 in it, it will own your 172. Your point is? My point was that apples for apples, standard to standrad, the Cup is a slightly more sorted drivers car. Are you arguing that simple point, becuase if you are then this conversation is over.
Monaco 172 2/468
That's it, that is the whole debate summed up there, I love it sebsseb182 said:the cup is better as it has thinner glass.
the 172 ff doesn't.
eat sh*t lol
They are both lovely cars, i'm sure you know the spec differences now, so it's all down to which you prefer :
Minor performance improvement in the cup (in my opinion in normal driving, doesn't come into it)
Cup wheels are lovely, i'd probably swap for them when i've got a spare few hundred quid knocking about
Better interior and features in the FF
I still stand by the fact I didn't get the cup because I don't do track days, if I did I would have got the cup
The cup will corner better etc, but on normal roads I don't take bends at 70 lol so not really an issue for me, I just love the interior and the toys. Comfort aside, I much prefer the look of the seats in the FF to the cup, just little things like that swayed me personally
Ibanezman said:That's it, that is the whole debate summed up there, I love it sebs
They are both lovely cars, i'm sure you know the spec differences now, so it's all down to which you prefer :
Minor performance improvement in the cup (in my opinion in normal driving, doesn't come into it)
Cup wheels are lovely, i'd probably swap for them when i've got a spare few hundred quid knocking about
Better interior and features in the FF
I still stand by the fact I didn't get the cup because I don't do track days, if I did I would have got the cup
The cup will corner better etc, but on normal roads I don't take bends at 70 lol so not really an issue for me, I just love the interior and the toys. Comfort aside, I much prefer the look of the seats in the FF to the cup, just little things like that swayed me personally
Totally balanced post and one that I cant disagree with at all. The balance argument was never in question
Megane R26
Gotta laugh at FF vs Cup boys.
Dare I say it...bloddy PH Slows, get a proper car :quiet:
Back on topic. Id say there isn't really much in it. I like toys personally. And one beating the other depends on the drivers skill.
The cup does looks nicer, spoiler,splitter and wheels.
Your personal preference mate! :rasp:
Dare I say it...bloddy PH Slows, get a proper car :quiet:
Back on topic. Id say there isn't really much in it. I like toys personally. And one beating the other depends on the drivers skill.
The cup does looks nicer, spoiler,splitter and wheels.
Your personal preference mate! :rasp:
MKIII 138
.... havent read all this. although i have owned both MKII 172 and MKII 172 cup so i know about them both
there both great cars for the price, theres no question about which one is technically quicker although driver/real car output (reno`s fluctuate on power)/luggage/driver weight/ fuel type and most importantly driver ability makes differences less apparent.
the 172 full fat for me was more stelth with its stock looking 1.2 wheels and no spoiler to speak of, fairly flat colours etc.. it also felt more luxury and cooler in a subtle way and deffo got looks if only for the mint xenons.
the 172 cup is more fluid to drive and more stable at speed the mechanical grip is higher although it doesnt have anything else other than mechanical grip with no ESP attached. the accelaration on mine is smoother no 5k kick and the torque is felt more. its more of a focused drivers car.
i miss xenons, climate control (sometimes) better brakes on fullfat 172 (imo) even though cups are meant ot be larger but that could just be my car. i miss but dont notice ABS and ESP and side airbags etc.. basically the feeling of a bit more safety.
i dont miss handling or pace.
both great cars, very equal although different at the same time
the cup also looks better external but worse internal
there both great cars for the price, theres no question about which one is technically quicker although driver/real car output (reno`s fluctuate on power)/luggage/driver weight/ fuel type and most importantly driver ability makes differences less apparent.
the 172 full fat for me was more stelth with its stock looking 1.2 wheels and no spoiler to speak of, fairly flat colours etc.. it also felt more luxury and cooler in a subtle way and deffo got looks if only for the mint xenons.
the 172 cup is more fluid to drive and more stable at speed the mechanical grip is higher although it doesnt have anything else other than mechanical grip with no ESP attached. the accelaration on mine is smoother no 5k kick and the torque is felt more. its more of a focused drivers car.
i miss xenons, climate control (sometimes) better brakes on fullfat 172 (imo) even though cups are meant ot be larger but that could just be my car. i miss but dont notice ABS and ESP and side airbags etc.. basically the feeling of a bit more safety.
i dont miss handling or pace.
both great cars, very equal although different at the same time
the cup also looks better external but worse internal
Splitting hairs again, always the same on cup vs ff threads. There's f**k all between the two cars in terms of performance and anyone who says different is kidding themselves. All the things discussed already (fuel, driver weight, driver ability etc) all play a part when you pitch the two against each other as does the "good one/bad one" issue as most of us know there seems to be a huge difference between the power output car to car in these engines. If you want toys get the ff if you dont want them and really like the mondial blue and turini's etc then get the cup.
BMW 330d :)
^^
Here here
Here here
meggerman said:
you dont half talk through a hole in yer arse do ye!!! more fluid?? wtf does that mean and more stable at high speeds, cups have larger brakes?? do they? I may be worng but never heard that one before.
Also what can u describe as being more of a focussed drivers car?
p.s loony hit it on the head exactly btw!!
MKIII 138
Big Iain said:
ive owned both i know, you dont.
I was under the impression the front discs were larger on the cup. its more stable as it has 40mm wider track and is lower than the 172 fullfat thats not talking out of my arse m8 there facts.
fliud means less weight when changing direction and the suspension doesnt feel as saggy. the 172MKII rolls like a b**ch as standard the 172cup doesnt.
god your rude and your wrong
I was under the impression the front discs were larger on the cup,
^^you would think you would know owning both n all that^^
talkin out of yer arse you clearly are with a comment like above and the 40mm wider track, and I still think your explanation of fluid is b****cks.
^^you would think you would know owning both n all that^^
talkin out of yer arse you clearly are with a comment like above and the 40mm wider track, and I still think your explanation of fluid is b****cks.
End of the day I rather have sexy seats etc over a 10th of a second 0-60. And come on it's not a fooking ferrari is it who, along with renault it seems, seem to be able to sell a poor specced car for the same money as a reasonably high spec one on the basis it's stripped out and race ready, there all just clios at the end of the day, and hell, you take all the toys out it's going to way less and go faster, it's science,but why pay the same price?!
There ARE small performance differences, how can any sane person who knows anything about cars not realise this simple fact? Of course the gap is so small that many other factors can cancel out the difference, but the fact remains that, like for like, standard for standard, driver for driver, an 80kg diet will ALWAYS increase performance.
However, I'd imagine 95% of drivers (myself included) dont really have the ability to fully extract the advantage.
However, I'd imagine 95% of drivers (myself included) dont really have the ability to fully extract the advantage.
Roy Munson said:
Ah but that doesnt stop the 95% who cant extract the difference spending too much time harping on about it and trying to turn a .3 second to 60 advantage into 18 car lengths to 30mph. Or the other term that gets banded about too much "i wasted *insert 172 ff, enzo, veyron, spaceshuttle here* off the lights/down the twisties". Only a moron would be able to suggest cars who are so closely matched could waste the other. You need a considerable bhp and/or weight advantage to dramatically lose a car (unless the other driver is asleep or not even racing you )
All spot on sense, fact a cup will be quikcer, it's had all the luxuries and some safety stuff chucked out, hence weighs less, hence will go fractions quikcer (dependent on driverLoony said:
) what's the fuss? It's personal preference. You either spend 7k on a rapid car with luxury or 7k on a rapid car that makes you feel like you some driving god in a race car. I know my perference others WILL differlol, Roy i'm not talking about you im talking about the usual suspects i just think its important people looking at buying either car dont make a choice based on a percieved (marketing BS) collosal performance difference. The cars are so evenly matched that realistically the only reason to choose one in favour of the other is spec/colour related.
i just think its important people looking at buying either car dont make a choice based on a percieved (marketing BS) collosal performance difference. The cars are so evenly matched that realistically the only reason to choose one in favour of the other is spec/colour related.Similar threads
