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!

172 vs. Scooby STi 7

Story you guys should appreciate:

Had the time of my life last night terrorising a new, black Subaru STi 7 on some of my fave roads. While it had me on every straight bit, the little Clio got it all back through every second gear corner.

STi-man wasnt terribly impressed - I thought it was absolutely brilliant!!

Can i ask you a question?

You didnt Create that username "Roastie" becuase of the discussion about Potatoes the other day did you?

Roasties all the way! throw the mash away damn you!!!!

Nopers, Ive been Roastie for a while - a "roastie" is a South African term for the type of grazing you get when you scrape across tar at a speed. After a bike accident, I got pretty badly "roasted", hence my mates started calling me "the Reckless Roastie" - it stuck...

I have both and do not think so, unless the guy was letting you have a bit of fun or he could not be bothered to try.

Im not putting the 172 down as I love it but its really not in the same league.

No need for flame suit as I know im right

I had a "spirited drive" with a new Impreza turbo a while ago. On the straights it was me giving him the run. But come roundabouts and 2nd gear corners, the grip of 4wd left me for dead.

So your experience is odd!!

Hmmm, the STi was probably not being run at flank speed, mate. It is undeniably faster than a 172, ingear figures are awesome.

BenH, good stuff about the scooby. Cant wait to have a go. In the dry you should have no problems in corners though, it is only in the wet or on loose surfaces 4wd really matters.

The Cup was only just over a second behind the STi in a recent Autocar test around some track. That was with professional drivers, who know exaclty what they are doing. 1-1.5 seconsds around the whole track isnt going to show too much when going through certain corners!

What Im trying to say is, an average driver in a STi and someone who knows what there doing in a 172, the result may surprise you! These posts, generally, dont really prove anything, if we were to take the drivers out of the equation then the STi would win everytime!

I have owned a modified MY 97 Scoob( 245bhp/242 lbft ), and an Evo6(306 bhp ), whilst my mate was running an STi v5 Type-R. The Integra Type-R I had would easily outhandle a UK Scoob( standard ) around the race tracks, and I still think( with all due respect ) that I am right! My race prepped Caterham 7 HPC would annihilate all of them around the track, but definitely not in the wet!

EVO did a test comparing two, I think Audis, a few years back using many different tests in wet and dry, to settle this debate of 2wd vs 4wd, and the ONLY difference was in pulling away from a standing start, especially in the wet.

Another huge group test they did a year or two back saw a Boxster beat everything around the wet test track at MIRA, including the P1( EVO best Drivers Cars ). For comparison, the P1 did a 48.8, the Porsche 48.6. The 306 GTi-6 49.1, the Clio Williams 49.0s, compared with the 4wd Skyline R33 at 52.1s, and the Audi Quattro at 53.0s.

4WD is best for gravel rallying for obvious reasons.

2wd is not a hindrance on cornering compared with 4wd on asphalt.

I am afraid it is a MYTH that 4wd is always superior to two wheel drive, whether it is front wheel drive or rear wheel drive.:D

I had a Prodrive MY02 - and well driven, the Clio wouldnt have a chance - but is is fun to piss all over a badly driven one ;)

Just to make clear that it was a boggo 215bhp (or thereabouts?) new shape Scooby. I dont know if thats a plain WRX or a plain STi. But it was definitely plain something as once we got above 40mph I was leaving him by a cars length per 15-20mph.

But at the roundabouts and off the mark, the Scoob was really much better than my 16v. At speed and in terms of control (as oppsed to grip), Id say the 16v was putting up a very good fight though.

I really rated the old Scooby and all its special editions - really opened up the hardcore, affordable, performance car market again (oh, and it was really good). I think the new one, certainly in boggo form, has lost it a bit. When a 172 is quicker to 100 and you cant fight off cars like the 16v (admitedly a little moded), then the mantle is no longer the modern Scoobs.

Pssstttt...its a bit bugly too...!

Spot on Ben! My sentiments exactly. I love scoobies, but they are just not the same anymore...

I see you have a fantastically powerful 16v! How much does it weigh, roughly? The power to weight ratio must be pretty damn good, and I can see why putting the power down on tight corners might be a problem. Nice.:)
  Renault Laguna Coupe

There was a MY02 Scooby at the Cliosport track day at Bedford recently. It wasnt difficult to stay with it. It was obviously one of the bug-eyed ones, but I must admit I thought it looked a treat.


Let us not lose site of the fact that the 172 is only an 11.5k (brand new on the road price, including alarm, via import) supermini gti. For that price it is the cheapest, fastest most affordable car you can buy BRAND NEW anywhere in the uk, by about 1500 to 3500 pounds, depending on what car you want. Hey, what a car it is!, please stop trying to compare 20-25k cars with it and even if these cars were purchased second hand, their petrol, insurance and servicing are hideously expensive compared with the renault, a car that I believe for the above stated price, must be the best value/performance supermini (the type r or focus are not superminis) in the world today.

Yes we can all rubbish it by comparing it to cars of a totally different class, and a lot of us are fortunate enough to have other cars than it (I have just swapped my porsche turbo for a second hand 360 modena and have got rid of the civic type r and kept the mk 2 cliosport, as it was a better car than the honda). I use the renault for everyday driving and the ferrari for weekends and needless to say the renault does not dissapoint when I get back in it after the weekend.

I tend to get the impression that the cliosport gets cained a lot on this forum by people who own it and cant understand this mentality.

Bye Bye

all of these I toasted this or that posts are basically optimistic BullSheeeet !!!

I mean cmon, you are comparing drivers mostly, not cars..

Not necessarily the better driver I hasten to add.. It may be just that the other driver is more or less sensible in the prevailing road conditions .:devilish:

and.. WHY does a Subaru HAVE to be referred to as MYxx ??..

it seems to be a scooby thing.... possibly to make up for its uglyness and lack of redeeming features.. ??? dunno ?? (Yes Ben I agree its arse ugly !)

One day, many here will come to realise that most modern performance cars in the 8-25 k bracket are much of a likeness.. 0-60 means zilch.. traffic light grand prixs mean zilch, and evo reports mean zilch...

its a fun car, have fun, but dont think its better, quicker, more throwable than the next.

and Weyland dood.. you said...

I tend to get the impression that the cliosport gets cained a lot on this forum by people who own it and cant understand this mentality.

I agree 100% and will even add

I tend to get the impression that the cliosport gets cained a lot on this forum by people who own it and cant make the most of its performance due to lack of experience.

Joe ;)

I doubt mine weighs much less than 975kgs, which is the standard weight for a 16v. I have removed the spare wheel though - saved at least 10kgs!! Thats not meant to be a serious weight saving mod btw, just wanted to get better access to the exhaust.

After the cam belt snapped in service, the guy who had the car before me sent it off the a Renault specialist in Winchester, who usually does 19 16vs. Apart from a much smaller air trunking for the inlet manifold the Clio/19 engines are identical. A bit of work was done, including re-profiled original cams, Verniers, polished head (and exhaust manifold I think) and a few ancillary bits like a fuel regulator, exhaust and induction (ultimately useless on a 16v). An engine dyno was done before it was put back in and it made 171.3bhp - at the flywheel obviously!

Its still a 1.8, not bored out to 2.0 - so the torque isnt particularly amazing. I had a race with Mat Brown (a 170bhp 2.0 16v conversion) a while ago and while the acceleration of our cars seemed similar, his car was noticeably better at top speed and on hills (thatll be the extra torque then). So the car keeps the 16vs trait of being flat below 4500rpm - but when it does light up, it really pulls!

I guess the power to weight is theoretically about 170+bhp per ton. That would seem about right as the car has held off an Audi S2 (not RS2), and seems about matched with a 328.

Hi Ben m8.

you raise an interesting point on power to weight...

what does it mean ??.

It is no good having a power to weight of X if the power is only usable at Y rpm.. unless its a race car with the gearing to suit the power band

that is why aboslute figures are also failry immaterial.

How FLAT is the torque curve in the range of normal driving for the vehicle.. etc.. (COS !.. this dictates a purely mathematical relationship as to the power delivery.. flat torque = linear delivery of power.. !!

BHP on its own means not a lot....

torque means more.. but only in the context of spread.. NOT a peak in the band.


we should ban statements like XYZ bhp at the wheels / flywheel etc..

and replace it with a more meaningful.. heres the GRAPH from a dyno or RR.. then you CAN do a comparison based on weight.

otherwise its like saying a carrot is orange but only at the top, and ASSUMING that the rest of the carrot is orange also.... a half orange carrot may be a shade darker in the great orange definition scheme, but to know the whole carrot, we need to see the spread of colour lol...

There are some carots that are yellowey orange to orange over the full length, others that are more orange overall... if we judge on colour, then we need to decide if its the AMOUNT of orange in one spot, or the overall colouring..

If colouring effects taste ulimately, then the benefit of said carrot is only in a given relationship to length....

you can have more of a lesser carrot by finding one with a good overall colour pattern that is within the boundries that you set. each bit is equally as tasty in the great scheme of things.

here endeth Slartys carrot theory lol..

Ive got to disagree with Pillesnoppen here, AWD is better than FWD, mainly due to the levels of grip and the safer handling characteristics it has.

As for STi7 v Clio 172.... come on, the STi7 is definately one of the best cars ive been in for confidence inspiring driving (once you get use to the Suretrac Diffs) of any car in its class, if the STi driver wasnt pushing it then maybe its because the diffs feel strange, and trust me they do, but power to weight is also out of balance here due to a 5 speed box v a 6 speed box (closer ratios in a 6 speed will keep you in the power better than that of a 5 speed) and with over 250lbs of torque the STi7 is going to eat most cars in the mid range.

Still nice to see you having a quick blast ;) now all i need is my new job (soon hopefully) and ill go buy that S202 and make 3 of us round here :D


Well Captain...

Humans have an inherrent tendency to quantify when talking about most things - and cars are no exception. We seek in every avenue of debate about induction kits, style, handling to give some figures to discuss.

Now, Im all up for some sort of post-modern anti-quantification and rejection of empriricy. But there are certain social norms that dictate that when I want to talk about my car, and I want people to undertand, I have to to conform to these norms.

I dont really mind too much about figures. I like my car. Its very black, its unquantifiably fun and I like it!

I agree with all your torque and carrots comments - seems to make sense to me. Dont expect me to comment on it though...becuase that would be bananas!!:p

LMAO Captain !!!! - Although CArrots over here are completly orange with a tiny pink bit at the top!!!! Good point about flat torque graph - true....true - lol

Definition: Torque

Torque is defined as:
Force x Moment Arm = Torque
In the English system, torque is measured in "foot-pounds", "inch-pounds", or even "ounce-inches".
In the Metric system, torque is measured in "Newton-meters".

8.851 inch-pounds = 1 Newton-meter
1 foot-pound = 12 inch-pounds
16 ounce-inches = 1 inch-pound
1 Newton = 1 kilogram-meter per second squared
A 1 horsepower (746.0 watt) motor operating at base speed of approximately 1750rpm produces 3 foot-pounds of torque. The formula is as follows:
(horsepower x 5250)/rpm = foot-pounds

(Foot-pounds x rpm)/5250 = Horsepower

Tip: A simple way to determine the torque required to move a load is to connect a torque wrench to the load and take a reading.
<A name=Torque>Torque, Horsepower, and Drives
Dont confuse torque with horsepower. While it is true that standard speed (1750 base rpm) motors all deliver about 3 foot-pounds of torque per horsepower, this is only true if they are running at base speed. A standard speed 1 hp motor running at 50% of base speed is still delivering about 3 foot-pounds of torque, but only requires 1/2 hp of power.
To understand this better, assume that a 1 hp standard speed motor requires 750 watts of power (actually 746 watts). If operated at 50% of base speed, this motor would still deliver the 3 foot-pounds of torque, but would require only about 375 watts of power.
Drives are nominally sized by "horsepower". However, they are actually sized by amps of output current. Therefore, if we had an application where we could guarentee that the above 1 hp standard speed motor would only operate at 50% of base speed, we could provide a 1/2 hp drive.

Here endeth the lesson....................

Over here our standard STi 7 come with the full 280hp japanese version so they are in totally different league, I have driven both around B roads yes the Clio Sport does give you a very close feeling of those rally bred machines but it is still not up to the speed that is available by those rally cars... u know the whole 4wd thing ... but Clio Sports fun factor is all the way up there you are only loosing a fraction of a point from those japanese cars :p
  evo x rs

Im changing my 172 in 12 months and without a shadow of a doubt ordering the Feb 2003 model of the scooby STI, facelift model.

I love the little clio what a motor it is, but like so many folk have said you cant compare a 172 to this out and out beast.

Id like to have both...but then I also want a Williams, V6, 5 GT Turbo, old Scooby RB5, 205 GTi 1.9...the list goes on.

Good choice forest ;)

Be warned though that these cars are expensive to run and insure and you will want some 18s and the PPP for it ;)

Servicing has changed though to 1yr or 10k but most people still get the oil changed at 6 month intervals, also the STi type UK can ONLY be run on Super Unleaded fuel (U/L will give you det) and wear and tear items like the Brembo discs will set you back over 500 quid for a pair!

Not a cheap car to run but if you can afford it (services will be between 2-500 quid still me thinks) then its well worth the effort :D


scooby V

I have a MY97 Turbo..Full de Cat..AP racing Organic Clutch..4pots etc..240+BHP 220 torque

an STi7 Std 280bhp...outstanding handleing over most cars..even cars Twice (and More) its said before the 172 is a 11.5k car!

Not in the same might have Whoop that Sti7 but a Scoob makes a bad driver look good and a good driver look fantastic!!

Get a Proper drive behind the wheel and it will show up anyone.

My m8 with a Typre RA at Rockingham the other month showed up at 360 the point the 360 guy spun and smash the front of his car cus he was tring to keep with the Scoob!

think that says it all!!
  evo x rs

I can have this car through work, its quoted at £460 per month + VAT including all my servicing and tyres. So the running shouldnt be much of a bind. At the minute my clio costs £299, so I think the scooby is good value. Due to high residuals.

Although I did read it needs to be run on 98 octane fuel. I know theyre not economical but who cares I dont do the mileage. The wife will be using for a 5 min journey to work and Ill have it at the weekend.

After seeing the facelifted pics, its a must!!!!!!!

It only tells us that the 360 Modena driver was nowhere near as good as your mate, a 360 should take any scoob round a track. I dare say you could put a duff driver in Porsche GT2 the scoob could take it too!

Also what do you define as differnet league? Is 1.4 seconds of a difference, between an STi and a Cup round a track differnet league? Is 0.8 of a second of a difference, between a 172 and a WRX round a track different league?

Dont get me wrong I love scoobs, but some owners seem to have a rather severe case of delusion of grandure!


The STi is a different league to the clio cup, for instance, its a 4 door vehicle with AWD and a turbo, it produces 265ps and 253ish lbs of torque, its midrange in gear would eliminate the cups, its standing 0-100 is in the 13 sec mark, it has a top speed of 148mph, its a completely different beast. Now if you start adding the Prodrive options to it (18 inch alloy wheels, suspension upgrade and the Prodrive Performance Pack) which all keep the warranty in tact then its going to be even better! (12.2 secs to 100mph, standing 1/4 terminal speed of 104mph) or the upped top speed to 155mph, more grip and better handling with accessories, even a performance increase with the cup wont really put it in the same bracket.

1.4 secs is a lot on a track (just ask some of the F1 teams ;))

  BMW 320d Sport

lol ive not even read most of this thread cos Ive heard all the arguments before. But let me say this. If someone in a 172 toasted someone in a STi7 then they toasted them end of story. Probably the other driver wasnt a very good driver to get outrun by a 172, if so thats his tough sh*t. Makes it all the more fun beating a car like that in a Clio!
  CTR EK9 turbo

I raced a sti new bug-eyed 261 bhp sccob with a woman driving it and it was pulling away from me. I also raced a WRX 2001 standard scooby Y-reg silver estate and I pulled away from that whilst accelerating and waving as we sailed past......

Even though the 261 bhp scoob did accelerate first, it was clearly easily able of pulling away.

The problem with 4x4 performance cars is most people cant drive them, and another problem is when the turbo comes in mid corner and it 4-wheel slides out to the edge AND even when you let off the accelerator it still understeers and is generally much harder to get back into shape than a rear wheel drive or front wheel drive. But the limit is much further away than the other two types.

All my opinion tho.

Congrats on the toasting tho! :)

Quote: Originally posted by teady172 on 25 October 2002

It only tells us that the 360 Modena driver was nowhere near as good as your mate, a 360 should take any scoob round a track. I dare say you could put a duff driver in Porsche GT2 the scoob could take it too!

Also what do you define as differnet league? Is 1.4 seconds of a difference, between an STi and a Cup round a track differnet league? Is 0.8 of a second of a difference, between a 172 and a WRX round a track different league?

Dont get me wrong I love scoobs, but some owners seem to have a rather severe case of delusion of grandure!

you miss the point...thats what im saying!!! 360 should beat a Scoob...may be not handle as well as the RA...but its all down to the driver!!

and like just been said 1.4 sec is miles away when you talk about driving....My m8 with a Std P1 at the SPOD last year crossed the finish line 1.2secs differant to me...but he was many many many car lenghts in front of the point i would say hed left me standing!!!!