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.

172 vs Cup



Big Iain said:
more sorted? whats supposed stiffer springs? eibachs sportlines, thats that one sorted, wider offset on the wheels thats that one sorted too? lose the spare and yer fat pal and theres f**k all in it except the cup has he haw in it

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.
 

seb

ClioSport Club Member
  Clio trophy
the cup is better as it has thinner glass.

the 172 ff doesn't.

eat s**t lol ;) :)
 
  Burgandy 174 sport t
the guy asked advice on what to buy, have the toys and with simple mods can be just as good if not better than a cup for the same price? yep wheel barrows and vee's hhmmm that word knob is creeping up again eh!.
 

seb

ClioSport Club Member
  Clio trophy
Alan said:
Eat sh1t...was the a personal attack from a mod?

lmao!!!!!! clutching at straws more like Alan!

if i didn't include the ;) or :) it would be...
 
Big Iain said:
the guy asked advice on what to buy, have the toys and with simple mods can be just as good if not better than a cup for the same price? yep wheel barrows and vee's hhmmm that word knob is creeping up again eh!.

Nice retreat. Read what I initially typed. I said that apples for apples (ergo no mods) then if performance was priority (look it up) the Cup is the more focused machine.
 
  Monaco 172 2/468
seb182 said:
the cup is better as it has thinner glass.

the 172 ff doesn't.

eat sh*t lol ;) :)
That's it, that is the whole debate summed up there, I love it sebs :cool:


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
 

seb

ClioSport Club Member
  Clio trophy
I think i raise a point that is not often raised.

thinner glass = better. lol
 
Ibanezman said:
That's it, that is the whole debate summed up there, I love it sebs :cool:


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
 
seb182 said:
I think i raise a point that is not often raised.

thinner glass = better. lol

182Cup glass is thinner than 182 because of the coating. Do you have any idea how much that anti-refective coating weighs????
 
  Pikey Truck
everytime ive had a blip with a standard 172 ive pulled on it, 3 car lengths the majority of the time...! Go for the Cup!
 
  Vee dub
there's a difference... slight, but still a difference.

Cup is quicker standard for standard... not by alot...

want toys? FF
want that split second statistic and track focused theme? go cup

all imo
 
  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:
 

Ali

  V6, Trackhawk, GTS
ChrisE said:
everytime ive had a blip with a standard 172 ive pulled on it, 3 car lengths the majority of the time...! Go for the Cup!

YOUR ARSE 3 lenghts. My mates DC5 pulls on me by 3 lengths.

I'd thrash your cup so there ;)
 
kullycliosport said:
said like it is :cool: cup is quicker :clap:

There's no question that the Cup is quicker. Not much quicker but quicker. Either car is a good buy, and the 172 is probably the better all rounder, on balance, but it's not as quick as the 172Cup and that's a cast iron fact.
 
  VaVa
Roy, step away from EVO magazine. In the real world I can assure you that's not always the case. More often than not, granted, but not always.

At least the 172 Cup was a real 'Cup' and not a marketing ploy like certain later models....
 
  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
 
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.
 
  Focus ST3
Get as new a cup as possible with CC or save up and get a trophy. These are the best phase 2 clios have to offer.
 
  Burgandy 174 sport t
meggerman said:
.... 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


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:
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!!

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
 
meggerman 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*tch as standard the 172cup doesnt.

god your rude and your wrong

Discs are the same size, and as for the 40mm wider track IIRC its more like 8mm (all done on wheel offset, non cups et42 and cups et38) as for lower, a full 3mm lower.
 
  Burgandy 174 sport t
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.
 
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.
 
Roy Munson said:
However, I'd imagine 95% of drivers (myself included) dont really have the ability to fully extract the advantage.

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 )
 
Loony 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 )

I wouldnt argue with any of that at all. I am only arguing that no matter how small the advantage, it is still there, and that if performance is ones only criteria then the Cup is the best choice. Pretty sure I've not mentioned anything about anyone getting wasted :D
 
Loony 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 driver;)) 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 differ
 
lol, 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.
 
  RenaultSport clio 172 CUP
Going back to the original thread!!

You get noticed in a CUP where as in a standard f/f you don't.

I would never consider a f/f for this reason alone.


CUP RULES
 


Top