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.
i had a cup 172, i bought it because it had a special colour that was not available on other clios, it had special wheels, it had special spoilers,it had special suspension and brakes, it was lighter.
i didnt like the fact it didnt have nice seats or headlights, and i didnt like the fact it didnt have abs/traction (it should of had switchable option).
so i changed it for a 182 with cup options, this had everything i wanted (except the special colour), and had a 10bhp boost in power.
i wouldnt buy a 182 cup, because it doesnt have a special colour, its not that much lighter, it has horrible seats and steering wheel, it doesnt have any feature that you cant get on an ordinary clio, it doesnt have xenons, it doesnt have cc, and it is just not special as the 172 cup was, its just had a few nice bits removed and a bit of cash taken of it (thats not proportionate to what you loose), it is a marketing ploy to sell more 182s to people that buy from renault dealers (not shopping around) that just cant stretch to a normal 182.
this is my opinion (so please dont have a go)and is why i didnt and would not buy a 182 cup
Embarrassed to say
Isnt the 182 Cup 2nd in ECOTY, equal with the exige. And autocar deem it to be a living legend.
Embarrassed to say
As quoted by Evos John Barker, the Clio Renaultsport 182 Cup is "the best hot hatch ever, unequivocally."
RB182cup&golf gti
Yep hit the nail on the head they look identical and perform identical (well the cup marginally quicker) therefore youre better off with a cup and a grand in yer pocket, IMO!!!!!!!
Embarrassed to say
Isnt then the steering geometry revised on the cup, i read somewhere the cup has improved feedback and steering feel over the 182. There must be more significant changes for evo nearly rate it their car of the year and autocar deem it a legend.
Quote: Originally posted by cupsportmad on 10 January 2005
<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #407db6">Isnt then the steering geometry revised on the cup, i read somewhere the cup has improved feedback and steering feel over the 182. There must be more significant changes for evo nearly rate it their car of the year and autocar deem it a legend.
The 172 Cup had those changes over the standard 172, and it made a noticeable difference. The 182 Cup again has similar changes over a normal 182, but the full fat 182 with Cup pack has exactly the same suspension, wheels, tyres, etc as a 182 Cup, its just the fancy stuff like xenons and interior stuff thats different.
^^^there is nothing special about the 182cup like there was with the 172 cup, i.e cup only items like special paint, special wheels, proper weight loss,enlarged spoilers, revised suspension, lightweight glass, etc etc, all they have done with the 182 is take a few thousand pounds worth off stuff of it and just knock £900 off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tiTTy & SV650
What sort of money do the cups go for? Ive seen the list price and know that its £900 cheaper than a standard 182.... but I paid £11,800 for a brand new 182, possibly cheaper than Id get a 182 cup for?!
Plus when youre 6ft 3 and 95Kg who cares about 20kg difference, put a passenger in a cup and its heavier than a 182 without a passenger. Put some shopping in the boot and likewise.
Personally dont see the point, if it comes down to price fine but I got a good deal.
Each to their own!
As some of you will know - I have a Cup on order so Im biased, but Im going to try and make a few sensible points. When I say 182, take that to mean with Cup packs.
- 20kg. The Cup is faster on paper at kerb weight, and faster is faster. If its entirely moot, why are some people taking the back seats out of their cars? If the 182 was 0.2 of a second quicker to 60 than say, a Honda Civic Type R, Im sure there would be a few Clio owners who werent too shy in dropping that into the mix now and then. However, we all know that there isnt going to be a real world difference with even similarly skilled drivers. The weight reduction is also likely to make the car a tiny bit more nimble, although again, not that youd notice. As Vin Diesel so rightly said though - "Winnings winning". Come resale time, and to a non-clio enthusiast, 6.9 sounds faster than 7.1
- Equipment. The Leather seats are the only thing I know I will always wish I had in my Cup. Theres no getting away from the fact that the cloth interior is a bit dull to say the least. The better quality, higher power, stereo would be next on my list of things Id like to have had, but not something that will worry me. However, climate control, auto lights & wipers, xenon headlamps, reflective windscreen, are all things that dont even form part of the equation (for me). Im personally not even bothered about cruise, although the Cup does have it.
- Image. The 182Cup is a cheap 182. What is the problem with that though? If 182 buyers were really worried about image, theyd be buying a bloated German UberHatch. Why do some of you guys get hard over constantly reminding yourselves that the 182 costs more? I mean seriously - it often sounds like youre trying to convince yourselves that the Cup is crap or something? Youll certainly not convince a Cup owner that he/she will miss anything other than the seats, the extra bits in the steering wheel at a push. The Clio (for me) is going to be all about the drive, not a list of equipment. The 182 is better value if equipment is important to you though - if equipment isnt important to you then the Cup quickly begins to look like better value. Its also interesting that the Cup is apparently too heavy and has too much equipment, yet for that reason some buyers opt for the heavier, better specced car. I think this is because the line between the two cars is blurred by pricing. "The cup isnt much lighter, so I may as well get the luxuries" - thats an understandable choice too.
Basically, to my mind at least, they are the same car except one has a nicer interior, which is something I will wish I had in my Cup. The Cup though, sounds faster on paper, and has swish looking Cup badges on the doors. Its just as much fun to drive as the 182 (Id guess) and if youre a good shopper it can be had for a lot less. Some would say the only reason to buy a Cup is if you cant afford the 182. I prefer to think the only reason to buy a 182 with packs, if if you cant live without leather seats. That sums it up for me really.
Theres no doubt in my mind that the Cupped 182 is a better car than the 182Cup, but for me, the reasons dont extend beyond the seats and door cards. Why cant some of you guys just understand that some people choose to live without the seats, rather than putting the Cup down and almost belittling fellow members cars, as though theyve just bought a crap machine. In reality theyve just bought one thats actually a slightly better drive than yours, although youd never admit it
That last part was tongue in cheek by the way. This post was really aimed at trying to add to the discussion, with some pretty even arguments for and against each car.
FN2 Type R +MK6 Golf
For a raw no frills kind of drive you have to have the cup,and its about the drive i agree.I so nearly picked the 182 cup and if they had done it in artic i may well have got it .but just for those 2 days of summer we get and the odd long drive i will be having the full fat one
And i agree with you mr munson the cup will be a slightly better drivers car with no frills a bit like the 306 ralle cars and the likes,They were stripped out for a reason and that was driving
ian
RB182cup&golf gti
Ive had my cup for over 5 weeks now and the novelty is not even close to wearing off. I absolutely love the car and the attention it receives when on the road is incredible, probably due to the racing stripes mind!!!
I can see both sides of this argument, but im in agreement with Mr Munson for the reasons why i bought this car as opposed to getting the 182 with the packs. Ive owned cars with leather seats, climate etc but that doesnt matter to me in a car like the 182 which is all about driving!
Depends what you use it for gentlemen.
As a second weekend/track car there is little point in having zenons, auto this and that.
As your primary mode of transport for getting to and from work, up and down the country etc these things are very handy.
Hence I have a 182 with cup suspension
I doubt that, as brand new vehicles, go you can buy something for the same money, be it cup or 182, that gets even close to the same combination of performance/VFM/smile on yer face
To me the CUP 182 isnt as focused as the 172 cup, and even that had a negligible difference in performance that on the road meant nothing apart from having slightly sharper handling. As far as im concerned the CUP version of the 182 is merely a cheaper 182 playing on the success of the 172 CUP and is more of a marketing ploy than drastically different car. I would say the only reason to buy the cup 182 is A you cant afford the fully equipped 182 or B you intend to use it as a track car and will be binning the interior or dont want to spend the extra on things you wont miss. If renault really wanted a proper Cup they should have binned the electric mirrors fitted buckets or recliners and shed alot more weight than the token 20kilos that relate to no performance gain in the real world.
Clio 197
Ive had both (normal 182 and now I have a 182 with cup packs).
The cup pack has really made a difference to me, and I am so so so glad I got the cup pack - its a must.
As for the 182 cup (lite version), its only a bit cheaper, has a lot less to offer (no leather, no zenons, no c/ctrl, and only weighs 20kg less...
If you have the intention of buying it, and stripping down even further, then it might be worth considerig it... Or, if you really coundt give a hoot about creature comforts, then why pay for them?
(PS I havnt read all 4 pages of posts, so if Ive missed something, I apologise)
Quote: Originally posted by brazo on 13 January 2005
^^the 172 cup was designed by a team of renault engineers, the 182 cup was designed by the marketing department and an accountant. Lets face it any one of us could have said lets put cheaper seats in and call it a cup.
Thats a bit of a simplistic view. In essence, the two cars are the same - the engineering had already gone into the 182 and Cup packs before the Cup car went on sale - no-one designed the Cup. It was just concieved as a 182 with Cup packs, but with a load of extras cut out to cut down on costs and presumably sell the cars to a wider audience. Yes thats right, they are in the business of selling cars
R
rich[182]
Interesting comments about the weight savings, difference can be wiped out by a 182 cup running full tank of petrol with heavy driver compared with full 182 running on £10s worth with lighter driver
Embarrassed to say
Lol. But then the difference in performance could be even greater if the cup was running light on fuel with a skinny runt and the 182 had a full tank with a fatboy. Also the cupped 182 might have a full load of shopping this could slow it significantly.
Plus having the climate control will lower performance and mpg.
An m3 csl is only 2 seconds quicker round a track than a normal m3 and costed £20k more. A cup costs less because its lighter and has less toys and the aggregate effect of .3 seconds is going to be more than a second round a twisty track, surely its worth it.
Quote: Originally posted by cupsportmad on 13 January 2005Lol. But then the difference in performance could be even greater if the cup was running light on fuel with a skinny runt and the 182 had a full tank with a fatboy. Also the cupped 182 might have a full load of shopping this could slow it significantly.Plus having the climate control will lower performance and mpg.An m3 csl is only 2 seconds quicker round a track than a normal m3 and costed £20k more. A cup costs less because its lighter and has less toys and the aggregate effect of .3 seconds is going to be more than a second round a twisty track, surely its worth it.
both the 182 and 182 cup have aircon one full climate the other basic a/c. both systems run a compressor from a belt driven off a pulley on the engine so any drain on power will be the same on both cars.
I read the review in Autoexpress this evening,
I find it odd that the 182 "star" ratings for performance/interior/exterior were the same as the STs (but one higher on the engine/performance) but the ST got first place? Odd.
However, when I looked at the whole article and realised it was a "whats the best value for money" article, it made me realise that it was pretty much a load of pish. Bring on the "what hatch can you rag the hardest, corner quickest, have the most fun in and trounce a WRX in" article - cos it wont be the ST in first place, thats for sure
.I also loved the fact the said the 182 was built better and had a higher quality dash than the ST.
tiTTy & SV650
I have to agree when people say its more a marketing ploy playing on the success of the 172 cup. -20kg isnt significant and you dont even get hardcore things like plastic windows!
Those looking to buy 182cups because they cant afford a full blown 182 -shop around, youll get a 182 for less than 182 cup list price... Arnold clarks have several new (pre-registered) 182s with cup pack and metallic paint going for £11900.
I must admit I do like all the toys in my 182, seems like an awful lot for the money. However 182 cup buyers will have less infuriating French electronics problems and that can only be a good thing.
My dad has a new Laguna Privilidge, god help him - its got Electric everything!
The name Cup refers to the suspension set-up.
