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.
From Autocar:
0-30mph 2.6 sec
0-60mph 6.3 sec
0-100mph 17 sec
0-150mph no data
0-200mph no data
30-70mph 5.8 sec
0-400m 15/94 sec/mph
0-1000m 27.8/121 sec/mph
30-50mph in 3rd/4th 3.6/5.5 sec
40-60mph in 4th/5th 5.4/7.9 sec
50-70mph in 5th 8 sec
60-0mph 2.8 sec
Top speed 138 mph
http://www.LeeMather.plus.com/stuff/Evo.zipwww.LeeMather.plus.com/stuff/Evo.zip
Right Click. Save target as.
[Edited by lagerlout1 on 22 August 2004 at 11:59am]
Yeah Evo clocked it at 6.6 but they test their cars two-up and with a full tank of fuel. That would make 6.3 with just the driver and an empty tank quite possible.
Why do Renault say 7.1? Well pretty obvious really - to create some differentiation in the market between the 182 and the Megane 225 and the Clio V6. Otherwise the latter two would look pretty crap given their price and many people after performance may save their money and go for the cheaper option...
BMW did this some years back with the 323 and 325. They had the same engine and power output but in all the brochures they said the 323 had a lot less power than it really had.
The 182 is much easier to launch than my 172 ever was, but thats probably just luck of the draw, the bite point on the clutch is nowhere near as high.
I dont know why Mike didnt do better, he has cams, induction kit, exhaust. I think we are up for another run at Trax in a few weeks.
TR6, excellent. One of my all time faves. I wouldnt mind a run out in that if you are heading over my way some time.
Yes they have kept the insurance a group or two lower than it should be. The Clio tends to have a younger set of buyers than many of its rivals so Renault were pretty smart in that sense too.
If you look at the bhp per tonne figures you will find that the 182 has a higher power to weight ratio than a CTR (and a Megane). Granted it only has 5 gears but I believe the power is spread across the range a little better and this compensates. I would therefore expect it to give CTR 0-60 times.
Quote: Originally posted by Toypop on 22 August 2004
Why do Renault say 7.1? Well pretty obvious really - to create some differentiation in the market between the 182 and the Megane 225 and the Clio V6. Otherwise the latter two would look pretty crap given their price and many people after performance may save their money and go for the cheaper option...
lol, so you saying that Renault are lieing to customers.....
Even if you are right the V6 is still 2.5-3 seconds faster to 100.... 30 car lenghts faster at 100mph.....lol and well worth the money on looks alone.....lol
so your theorys dont hold water.....if some one wants a V6 then they will buy it no matter how fast the 182 is.... I did and dont regret it for one min....
Simon.
Quote: Originally posted by Lee M on 22 August 2004
The 182 is much easier to launch than my 172 ever was, but thats probably just luck of the draw, the bite point on the clutch is nowhere near as high.
I dont know why Mike didnt do better, he has cams, induction kit, exhaust. I think we are up for another run at Trax in a few weeks.
TR6, excellent. One of my all time faves. I wouldnt mind a run out in that if you are heading over my way some time.
I wouldnt mind a run out in it myself
Rest assured though, when shes (eventually!) back on the road, Ill let you have a spin out in her. Its worth for the sound alone. Its no slouch mind - me old man says when he first got her in 73 he had her cammed up!! Mint!!
lol, so you saying that Renault are lieing to customers.....
Even if you are right the V6 is still 2.5-3 seconds faster to 100.... 30 car lenghts faster at 100mph.....lol and well worth the money on looks alone.....lol
so your theorys dont hold water.....if some one wants a V6 then they will buy it no matter how fast the 182 is.... I did and dont regret it for one min....
Simon.
Lying? Well yeah I guess so but then most cars produce different figures in the real world when compared to manufacturers figures. Often they are slower, in some cases they are faster. At the end of the day its all about marketing. If they said it was doing 60 in 4 seconds then they could be in trouble but nothing illegal about saying a car is slower than it really is? Like I said this is a well known ploy and BMW were doing it a long time ago. Look at those sneaky japs telling fibs about the power output of their sports saloons due to the rules over there.
I think your average car buyer would only look at 0-60 times anyway and I think many people would see the 182 knocking out the same 0-60 figures as the Megane for example and think twice about paying extra for it.
Others would look at the autocar test and say "should I pay £13k more for a V6 just to get to 60 half a second quicker?".
Remember this is a forum for Clio fans and they will buy the car no matter what. The general public though will flick through brochures from a number of manufacturers and base their decision on that.
Rich-D
ClioSport Club Member
E90 LCI 330d
Theres literally a couple of bhp-per-tonne in it, nothing to make a real difference.
The CTRs 0-60 time is screwed up by the fact that it only does 56mph @ 8200rpm in 2nd gear, the gearing is very close, so the extra change makes for a marginally slower time.
In the 0-100 dash, which is a more reallistic test of a cars performance, the CTR is quicker.
On the road there aint much to seperate them though.
Yeah I would consider them to be identical. No point arguing about the Clio being a few tenths up on 60 or a few tenths down on 100 because with that sort of gap it comes down to how good the driver is or how much fuel is in the tank etc. Also a driver weighing 60kg will probably have a few tenths over a driver weight 90kg so might as well go on diet before hyping up these performance figures!
The current V6:
0-30mph 2.2 sec
0-60mph 6 sec
0-100mph 15.2 sec
0-150mph no data
0-200mph no data
30-70mph 5.8 sec
0-400m 14.6/98 sec/mph
0-1000m 26.4/124 sec/mph
30-50mph in 3rd/4th 3.7/5.1 sec
40-60mph in 4th/5th 4.7/6.4 sec
50-70mph in 5th 6.2 sec
60-0mph 2.6 sec
Top speed 144 mph
Noise at 70mph 78 dbA
The original V6:
0-30mph 2.5 sec
0-60mph 6.6 sec
0-100mph 17.1 sec
0-150mph no data
0-200mph no data
30-70mph 6.1 sec
0-400m 26.7/118 sec/mph
0-1000m no data/no data
30-50mph in 3rd/4th 3.6/5.3 sec
40-60mph in 4th/5th 5.1/7.1 sec
50-70mph in 5th 7.5 sec
60-0mph 2.9 sec
Top speed 145 mph
Noise at 70mph 67 dbA
You are off abit there mate, 60 in 5.8 and 14.8 to 100 is more true for the.... V6, after all it has 30bhp/tonne more than 182 and 73bhp total more...
..but you can say what you like, if someone is in the market for a V6 255, they are hardly goin to bother buying a rather ordinary looking 182, even if it is only slightly slower...
Simon.
anyway I dont want to go down the 182 v V6 255 again, been there so many time now its boring, so good bye.....and enjoy what you enjoy.
I dont have the Autocar 182 figures, but scanned through the back of EVO figures... and mk1 Clio V6 and the mk2 V6 are both 0-60 in 5.8 Secs.
The MK1 is 665kg lighter than the mk2! so the extra 30 bhp in the mk2 is soaked up a bit in the added weight. Also, more careful advertising in Renaults official figures.
all figures for cars are all different, a good example is the new and old v6, EVO got the old V6 MK1 to do 0-60 in 5.8, Reanult claim it can do it in 6.8, and the figures shown above, say 6.6? At the end of the day it all depends on engine temp, weight of petrol, wind, amount of road surface grip, etc etc.....
No but I think Autocar are. That must be the 0-1000m figure and the 0-400m figure is missing.
For what its worth I have Evo mag here and they only have independent figures for the old V6 and that is 5.8 to 60 and 17.0 to 100. They usually do tests 2 up and with a full tank remember....
They have the old V6 as 175bhp per tonne, the new V6 as 182bhp per tonne, the 182 as 168bhp per tonne and the Megane as 167bhp per tonne.
Volvo S60 T5
Could be down to the fact that Im a fat git and had just over half a tank of fuel, car will be sorted for Trax with any luck.Quote: Originally posted by lagerlout1 on 22 August 2004
Is his a bad car, or are you king of the launches??
Seems a lot better since fitting new sports cat
Rich-D
ClioSport Club Member
E90 LCI 330d
Since when?!Quote: Originally posted by shmall on 22 August 2004
V6, after all it has 30bhp/tonne more than 182 and 73bhp total more...
Mk1 V6:
Power - 230bhp
Weight - 1335kg
P>W Ratio - 172bhp/tonne
Mk2 V6:
Power - 255bhp
Weight - 1400kg
P>W Ratio - 182bhp/tonne
182:
Power - 182bhp
Weight - 1080kg
P>W Ratio - 168bhp/tonne
Cup:
Power - 172bhp
Weight - 1021kg
P>W Ratio - 168bhp/tonne
The V6s may have a lot more power, especially the mk2, but they are bloody heavy!
Volvo S60 T5
Its not yet mapped for the cams,viper,porting,and sports cat, so I wouldnt expect it to be much better.
Will be getting this sorted ASAP.
Yet to be RRd
yeecup
ClioSport Club Member
mk8Fiesta ST,172 cup
had my mate out in my cup a couple of times and he has had his 182 for a few months now and he always comments on how quick the cup is. he has done about 3-4k miles mine has done 7k so not that much difference in mileage, mines has filter and exhaust but after being in his 182 i defo think my cup feels quicker.
