with breathing mods a vts driven properly would keep with a 182,just ask anotherblue16v !!!! i know everybody will argue that if you mod a 172/182 it will be quicker but the vts is a cheaper car to buy and mod.Its like the ctr vs 182 debate,both great cars and the ctr has more potential,is better built but it cost a lot more to buy and mod
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.
Renault 182
Im going on the peugeot sport owners club trackday this saturday, so i will get some video of me hopefully hunting down these little french hot hatches.
However it could be the other way round, i have two other cars one a totally standard s1 rallye and the second a modded stripped s1 rallye, 16v engine on throttle bodies.
A few weeks ago we took our cars to the weigh bridge then onto the chipwizards in rochdale for a power run. From the results, the important figure power to weight this is how they compared:
Red S1 16v 188.3bhp per tonne
Clio 182 157.1bhp per tonne
Even though the clio made more power, the weight of 1200kg compared to 820kg in the rallye, in road sense this makes me go backwards. In a straight line I cant compete with it. The torque produced from the rallye just leaves the clio.
More info here on it:
www.106rallye.co.uk/newforum/showthread.php?t=21737
So dont be surprised by these 106's alot are very heavily modded.
However it could be the other way round, i have two other cars one a totally standard s1 rallye and the second a modded stripped s1 rallye, 16v engine on throttle bodies.
A few weeks ago we took our cars to the weigh bridge then onto the chipwizards in rochdale for a power run. From the results, the important figure power to weight this is how they compared:
Red S1 16v 188.3bhp per tonne
Clio 182 157.1bhp per tonne
Even though the clio made more power, the weight of 1200kg compared to 820kg in the rallye, in road sense this makes me go backwards. In a straight line I cant compete with it. The torque produced from the rallye just leaves the clio.
More info here on it:
www.106rallye.co.uk/newforum/showthread.php?t=21737
So dont be surprised by these 106's alot are very heavily modded.
ex Clio 172 owner :(
mintblue said:I think people need to see this thread on the saxo forum. I coundn't agree more with the post by Randall, pretty much somes it up for me.
http://www.saxosportsclub.com/forum/posts.asp?threadid=196422&forumid=1
Oh end of story then, the argument's settled. Good sir Randall has spoken.
'Raped' such a ridiculous term. I hear people using words like this when they mean one car length or even less.
However, equally I here people say 'oh car X can keep up with car Y' when in fact car Y isn't even trying or even noticed car X. Or, because car X is being ragged, driver X he assumes car Y is too being ragged and though car Y is pulling away slightly, car X assumes he can just about keep up when Y isn't trying. lol you with me?!
182 rapes VTS. My arse. :S
Two identical drivers, same circumstances, then 182 has slightly quicker 0-60, and pulls away a bit by 100.
I've tried it. I know. :rasp:
I bet most 182 drivers have been beaten by other supposedly quicker cars by such small margins. Say for argument's sake a 750i vs 182, and yet I'm sure they wouldn't say they'd been raped.
I just think that too many Clio 172/182 drivers suffer from a "my car's considerably quicker than yows" attitude, snobbish and elitist, always out to prove a point like a chip on a shoulder. When in fact the Clio 172/182 it just a slightly better than average French car.
You doubters keep believing what you believe; you'll get shown up before long.
I'm not wound up but not posting anymore on this matter as it is boring now.
:boring:
Last edited:
Nippy white cup
Probably similar to people with VTS`s attitude to people with VTR`s then......
At the end of the day the Saxo in question was obviously not stds which is pretty obvious
Chris
At the end of the day the Saxo in question was obviously not stds which is pretty obvious
Chris
Chris1.4RT said:Oh end of story then, the argument's settled. Good sir Randall has spoken.
'Raped' such a ridiculous term. I hear people using words like this when they mean one car length or even less.
However, equally I here people say 'oh car X can keep up with car Y' when in fact car Y isn't even trying or even noticed car X. Or, because car X is being ragged, driver X he assumes car Y is too being ragged and though car Y is pulling away slightly, car X assumes he can just about keep up when Y isn't trying. lol you with me?!
182 rapes VTS. My arse. :S
Two identical drivers, same circumstances, then 182 has slightly quicker 0-60, and pulls away a bit by 100.
I've tried it. I know. :rasp:
I bet most 182 drivers have been beaten by other supposedly quicker cars by such small margins. Say for argument's sake a 750i vs 182, and yet I'm sure they wouldn't say they'd been raped.
I just think that too many Clio 172/182 drivers suffer from a "my car's considerably quicker than yows" attitude, snobbish and elitist, always out to prove a point like a chip on a shoulder. When in fact the Clio 172/182 it just a slightly better than average French car.
You doubters keep believing what you believe; you'll get shown up before long.
I'm not wound up but not posting anymore on this matter as it is boring now.
:boring:
I lost it a bit after the x and y stuff but you obviously know the formula because 'you've tried and you know'
.I know this site aint an exact science but if you take the standard v standard times...
http://www.letstorquebhp.com/fwd.asp
...i would call the 0-100 mph times in a different league, which in my book takes me back to the original post by Randall where i agreed that the Clio would rape the vts. It's nearly seven seconds quicker to 100mph, FFS!:S
silver cup packed FF 182
i currently a 2001 vts but is up for sale atm,have owned it for nearly 3 years and have had alot of fun in it,havnt really come across any clio 172/182 yet but it sure is very quick for a 1.6 16v and alot of people do underestimate them.
Street Triple R
I had a VTS before my 172 cup, (an early one with VTR wheels and no 16v badges so a bit of a sleeper) and honestly there was hardly any difference in performance, and if anything i preferred the way the VTS handled.
never underestimate a VTS standard or otherwise is what id say
and honestly there was hardly any difference in performance, and if anything i preferred the way the VTS handled.never underestimate a VTS standard or otherwise is what id say
NEED V6!
modded vts v modded 172/182
lol
lol
It would be good if we got Lucky or Ross to race a 'modded' VTS and see what the result would be. All you ever hear is how a modded VTS gave a std 182 a run for its money. Yes it would, but modded for modded the 182 would win, same with std and std..imo.
Tyson.
Tyson.
std for std the 182 is faster
mod for mod the 182 is faster
0-60 faster
0-100 faster
30-70 faster
50-80 faster
top speed faster
I would never ever own a saxo, they are ghey
mod for mod the 182 is faster
0-60 faster
0-100 faster
30-70 faster
50-80 faster
top speed faster
I would never ever own a saxo, they are ghey
just gonna put my 2p in
i have a 106 gti and i went up santa pod with a BMC filter and got 15.0 @ 91mph. the point is these cars need to be caned to the redline and there quick when they are. breathing mods reall sort them out. with filter, manifold, pugsport exhuast and rear seats out i did a 14.79 @ 93mph. my 60ft was 2.00 dead and 0-60mph at trax 6.08 so it's all about the driver as people have said. theres no way in hell a 172 cup or 182 is gonna put any ground on me to 80mph, after 80mph they will pull slightly if well driven so......
my cams went in sunday and it's getting re-mapped next week. i'm hoping for around the 160bhp mark, my gti weighs 880kgs and im looking at a 0-100mph of around 15 secs. and 1/4 mile of under 14.5 quick little car but rattles alot and there is no doubt a 172/182 is a more comfortable everyday car.
i have a 106 gti and i went up santa pod with a BMC filter and got 15.0 @ 91mph. the point is these cars need to be caned to the redline and there quick when they are. breathing mods reall sort them out. with filter, manifold, pugsport exhuast and rear seats out i did a 14.79 @ 93mph. my 60ft was 2.00 dead and 0-60mph at trax 6.08 so it's all about the driver as people have said. theres no way in hell a 172 cup or 182 is gonna put any ground on me to 80mph, after 80mph they will pull slightly if well driven so......
my cams went in sunday and it's getting re-mapped next week. i'm hoping for around the 160bhp mark, my gti weighs 880kgs and im looking at a 0-100mph of around 15 secs. and 1/4 mile of under 14.5 quick little car but rattles alot and there is no doubt a 172/182 is a more comfortable everyday car.
Last edited:
nick s said:just gonna put my 2p in
i have a 106 gti and i went up santa pod with a BMC filter and got 15.0 @ 91mph. the point is these cars need to be caned to the redline and there quick when they are. breathing mods reall sort them out. with filter, manifold, pugsport exhuast and rear seats out i did a 14.79 @ 93mph. my 60ft was 2.00 dead and 0-60mph at trax 6.08 so it's all about the driver as people have said. theres no way in hell a 172 cup or 182 is gonna put any ground on me to 80mph, after 80mph they will pull slightly if well driven so......
my cams went in sunday and it's getting re-mapped next week. i'm hoping for around the 160bhp mark, my gti weighs 880kgs and im looking at a 0-100mph of around 15 secs. and 1/4 mile of under 14.5 quick little car but rattles alot and there is no doubt a 172/182 is a more comfortable everyday car.
Awesome, it ll clearly spank 182's then the cams are in
I seen a turbo'd gti at york absolutely kill a 182 with cup pack. The face of the RS driver was a picture 
Fiat Coupe 20v turbo
nick s said:just gonna put my 2p in
i have a 106 gti and i went up santa pod with a BMC filter and got 15.0 @ 91mph. the point is these cars need to be caned to the redline and there quick when they are. breathing mods reall sort them out. with filter, manifold, pugsport exhuast and rear seats out i did a 14.79 @ 93mph. my 60ft was 2.00 dead and 0-60mph at trax 6.08 so it's all about the driver as people have said. theres no way in hell a 172 cup or 182 is gonna put any ground on me to 80mph, after 80mph they will pull slightly if well driven so......
my cams went in sunday and it's getting re-mapped next week. i'm hoping for around the 160bhp mark, my gti weighs 880kgs and im looking at a 0-100mph of around 15 secs. and 1/4 mile of under 14.5 quick little car but rattles alot and there is no doubt a 172/182 is a more comfortable everyday car.
How the hell did you manage a 2.0 60ft on road tyres and when? Pod has been slippy as fcuk recently.
i really don't know! that's why my 1/4 mile times are so good because i get alot of practice! was consistently doing between 2.00 and 2.20 60ft times. even the cossies and scoobs werent getting away from me off the mark. that was when my car only had an air filter last year though. havn't been to pod lately although im planning on going in the next couple of weeks to test out the cams.
anyone had a go on those g-tech timers? i know there not bang on accurate but i can do a 5.98 to 60mph on it.
i seriously can't wait till friday. around 185bhp per tonne
anyone had a go on those g-tech timers? i know there not bang on accurate but i can do a 5.98 to 60mph on it.
i seriously can't wait till friday. around 185bhp per tonne
Martin. said:
lol. :clown:
have you had yours up 1/4 mile?
the 160bhp 106's and VTS that have been mapped by wayne schofield perform alot better than 160bhp should, the skill is all in the mapping and the smoothness of the curve. as wayne says himself peak bhp figures are just pub talk.
Similar threads
