182 or 182 Cup

[Max172cup]

Im bored at work and just read all 4 pages!

Im finding this very amusing and its sort of like a trip down memory lane. For all you new 182 owners, this happened when the 172 Cup came out. All the 172 owners jumped to the defence of their car and there was lots of Cup owners saying how their car was the better/faster car and vice versa.

I find it even more amusing that now everyone seems to talk highly of the 172Cup, saying thats what the 182 Cup should have been like. But back then eveyone just said it was a gimmick!

It seems the only thing the introduction of the 182Cup has done is fuel the "my car is faster than your car" Debate. Maybe if there was a decent competitor to the Clio in its price and size bracket there would be less in house bitching and more interesting debates than this one!

Anyhow, im sure you all enjoy your cars, so thats all that matters.

 

[Brazo]

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 13 January 2005

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

On re reading my original post, what I meant was the step from a 172 to a 172 cup was significant but the step from a 182 cup pack to a 182 cup simly involvced swapping the seats from alower spec car and incidnetaly losing 19kg (if were splitting hairs!). Maybe a tad simplistic but what else did they do? Please dont mention aircon lol!

 

[Munson]

Its simplistic because you were implying that the Cup was designed by suits, and not engineered by engineers. The design/engineering was already proven in the 182 and its Cup packs. Therefore the Cup is just a cheaper version of the same car.

Perhaps they should have renamed the cars to 182Cheap, and 182Expensive...would that make more sense?

Anyway I dont need to "mention the air-con" because Im not defending my choice of car - I already openly say that the 182 is a better all-round car. Im just finding it quite bizzare that so many people seem to think the Cup is a waste of time and that those who buy one are either poor or stupid. Its quite interesting actually.

 

[fizzy_drink]

Perhaps they should have renamed the cars to 182Cheap, and 182Expensive...would that make more sense?

Can I just say, youve made my day, PMSL!

 

[Munson]

I aim to please

10 pages anyone?

 

[fizzy_drink]

"10 pages anyone?"

Ok then....

What we need to do is compare a 182 cup to a V6, and Im sure we can manage it!

But, on a serious note:

There are plenty of people who remove the rear seats, and put in bucket cobras/recaros plus harnesses etc... The 182 cup would be more suited to that, because theres less money&leather to waste...

 

[Brazo]

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 13 January 2005

Its simplistic because you were implying that the Cup was designed by suits, and not engineered by engineers. The design/engineering was already proven in the 182 and its Cup packs. Therefore the Cup is just a cheaper version of the same car.

Perhaps they should have renamed the cars to 182Cheap, and 182Expensive...would that make more sense?

Anyway I dont need to "mention the air-con" because Im not defending my choice of car - I already openly say that the 182 is a better all-round car. Im just finding it quite bizzare that so many people seem to think the Cup is a waste of time and that those who buy one are either poor or stupid. Its quite interesting actually.

Above in yellow is what I meant and any one of us could have un ticked a few options to make a cup!

 

[rabbos]

Actually the design and engineering was proven in the 172 cup...apart from the new catalyser and the funky exhaust holes in bumper

 

[Munson]

Quote: Originally posted by brazo on 14 January 2005
Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 13 January 2005Its simplistic because you were implying that the Cup was designed by suits, and not engineered by engineers. The design/engineering was already proven in the 182 and its Cup packs. Therefore the Cup is just a cheaper version of the same car.

Perhaps they should have renamed the cars to 182Cheap, and 182Expensive...would that make more sense?

Anyway I dont need to "mention the air-con" because Im not defending my choice of car - I already openly say that the 182 is a better all-round car. Im just finding it quite bizzare that so many people seem to think the Cup is a waste of time and that those who buy one are either poor or stupid. Its quite interesting actually. [/QUOTE]Above in yellow is what I meant and any one of us could have un ticked a few options to make a cup!


Which is exactly what they did. The problem being?

 

[Brazo]

No Problem at all lol!

 

[Munson]

 

[Mrdemon]

I still see no point to the 182 cup

the extras are well woth the cost with a 182 with cup packs.

I have a 172 and a 182 with cup pack.

182 handles much better and is faster than my 172 to 100 mph.

the 182 cup is a rip off all the way imo, if it were 100kg lighter than yes but 20 kg is f**k all.

and why people are buying 2 cars with a clio as a track car makes me laugh also, there piss slow on a track spend ya 10k on an elise s1 or some thing if you want to do track days.

The 182 cup is nothing more than renault marketing it should be much much cheaper



David

 

[Munson]

Dont feed the trolls.

 

[Jeremy Townsend]

Quote: Originally posted by Mrdemon on 14 January 2005
<SCRIPT language=javascript></SCRIPT>I still see no point to the 182 cup the extras are well woth the cost with a 182 with cup packs.I have a 172 and a 182 with cup pack.182 handles much better and is faster than my 172 to 100 mph.the 182 cup is a rip off all the way imo, if it were 100kg lighter than yes but 20 kg is f**k all.and why people are buying 2 cars with a clio as a track car makes me laugh also, there piss slow on a track spend ya 10k on an elise s1 or some thing if you want to do track days.The 182 cup is nothing more than renault marketing it should be much much cheaper David

Nonsense

 

[stu8v]

An Elise may be a drivers car but it could never be described as fast IMHO a Clio sport would murder it.

 

[dk]

Quote: Originally posted by stu8v on 14 January 2005
An Elise may be a drivers car but it could never be described as fast IMHO a Clio sport would murder it.

eh, what are you on mate, I disagree with the clio being slow on track on the other comment but to say thay a clio would murder an elise is quite frankly stupid.

 

[Mrdemon]

you boys live in dream land thinking hot hatchs are fast on the track

look at the back of evo on the bedford west track and you will see the little clio in second to last place only to a ford focus 1.6 lol.

you will than see the elsie was 7.45 seconds quicker which is a lift time on a track and its only a small track.

I am not ditching the little Clio as I have 2 and an Elise, And as a fun drivers car for little money there is nothing to beat it, but a sports car it is not.

A new elise is about 13 seconds to 100 the clio is 17.

I spent last year doing many track days in the Elise and I was going to take the Clio on track but as I saw more and more on track I found I could drive round the outside of them in the elise, so saw no point, To have a Clio as a track only car imo is still a daft idea.



I would like to hear what Jeremy has to say as to what is Nonsense.

D

 

[Brazo]

You are refering to the elise 111R with the 190hp toyota engine, of course that will kill a clio, its literally the same as the new exige ffs!

A std elise will hit the ton in 18-19 secs and will track the same time as a renaultsport, check your back copies of evo and you will see the 172 cup was about 0.05 secs behind a std 120bhp elise around bedford i.e. too close to call.

Also you will be aware that the 182 came joint second with the lotus in evos recent ecoty, i feel you forgot to mention that lol!


[Edited by brazo on 15 January 2005 at 10:12am]

 

[Mrdemon]

as a drivers car on the road yes the clio (cup or cups packs) is fast, ecoty was talking about road use i think most of the time and for that i cannot fault it, but on any of the big tracks I think after a couple of track days you would be wanting for more, if your going to track your Clio stick to the smaller tracks.

regarding 0-100 on elise mine is 14 seconds and has trick tyres(A048) and suspension on and sits at 110mm ride height ,

you will find most elises at track days have trick suspension engine upgrages and tyres. As the people who use them for this spend the money.AT which point you can drive round the outside of a Clio, Check you back issues of EVO and look for the G test in a circle the elise won it and thats with out trick tyres .

I admit the standard Elsie is slow and is not the best, Lotus did this because its not an easy car to drive fast so they put skinny wheels on the front to make the car understeer.The new elise has the same sh*tty 175 front wheels also.

The BIg down side to EVO mag is they never add bits to the cars to make them better, ( they are doing now but its taken years).

D

 

[rory182]

Quote: Originally posted by dave182 on 15 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by stu8v on 14 January 2005

An Elise may be a drivers car but it could never be described as fast IMHO a Clio sport would murder it.

eh, what are you on mate, I disagree with the clio being slow on track on the other comment but to say thay a clio would murder an elise is quite frankly stupid.

didnt the 182 lap faster than an elise on top gears track?