200 bhp 172

[Lagerlout]

Guys,

GDI, YozzaSport, AngelWorks, etc etc are having us all on - 200bhp out of the F4R is easy!!

All you need is K+N (+10bhp) and a Superchip (+20bhp).

lol.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/2004-RENAULT-...4584541252QQcategoryZ9861QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[Fred@BTM]

rumble'd, bugger

 

[polarbert]

first of all p66wee does not mean peewee,i hate number plates like that

and lmao at the 'power upgrades'

 

[Andi-B]

<<<<<<------ *wishes he could get 10BHP from his 57i K&N induction kit*

Oh hang on, judging by this...... I have!! pmsl


theres another thread like this one too ...

http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?t=100487

same car too ....

 

[Kiev85]

<<<<<<------ *wishes he could get 10BHP from his 57i K&N induction kit*

same car too ....

I'd watch that induction kit...you will lose 10bhp...rather than gain any

 

[Andi-B]

I'd watch that induction kit...you will lose 10bhp...rather than gain any

yeah... its a pain in the RS when it gets warm.... Hoping to get an closed cold air feeder for it ... then problem sorted

But still..... 10 BHP ?!?!? pmsl ... he thinks he gets 10 BHP from it!! lol..

Shocking .... :clown:

 

[Clio-power]

Amazing increase of hp

 

[cliotrophy364]

WHAT!!!! 10 BHP OUT OF AN AIR FILTER ERM NO I DONT THINK SO!! even if he has gained any power from his mega mods lol hes lost it all by putting 17s on pillock.....

 

[Phill1978]

does everyone know about cars ? if a K&N is advertised by a motorsport company as giving 10hp gains and a chip is advertised at 15-20hp gains then you will think in your mind having bought these parts based on claims that you car is pushing this kind of power out. It may not be the guys fault he thinks its got that much power he may just not be a car geek and a little naive to think that power like this is possible on a N/A engine.

Its false advertising thats to blame.

 

[Nafoff]

does everyone know about cars ? if a K&N is advertised by a motorsport company as giving 10hp gains and a chip is advertised at 15-20hp gains then you will think in your mind having bought these parts based on claims that you car is pushing this kind of power out. It may not be the guys fault he thinks its got that much power he may just not be a car geek and a little naive to think that power like this is possible on a N/A engine.

Its false advertising thats to blame.

here here

 

[Rip3z]

does everyone know about cars ? if a K&N is advertised by a motorsport company as giving 10hp gains and a chip is advertised at 15-20hp gains then you will think in your mind having bought these parts based on claims that you car is pushing this kind of power out. It may not be the guys fault he thinks its got that much power he may just not be a car geek and a little naive to think that power like this is possible on a N/A engine.

Its false advertising thats to blame.

Agreed.

 

[badinvincible]

It's Max Power sums.

 

[blink172]

It'll be the sticker on the rear window thats given it the real power hike.

 

[Pete]

It's understanding of what superchips/k+n claim that is at fault, somewhere in the rev range it'll probably give you a 20bhp hike just not at the max power point, it's a clever advertising idea as stupid people fall for it and it's not false advertising on superchip's/k+n's part.

 

[rmccardal]

Well I want my money back then .....

 

[Phill1978]

It's understanding of what superchips/k+n claim that is at fault, somewhere in the rev range it'll probably give you a 20bhp hike just not at the max power point, it's a clever advertising idea as stupid people fall for it and it's not false advertising on superchip's/k+n's part.

without wanting to take this thread off topic too much, i doubt:

somewhere in the rev range it'll probably give you a 20bhp hike

is anywhere near true, unless your running a 4.0 V8 etc.. maybe fueling on those + full exhaust may see that even then maybe too optomistic.

also they claim 20hp on your specific chip usually, so a 1.2 3cyl engine with a stock 65bhp will produce 85bhp + large torque gains from a "chip" i dont think so from what ive read and experienced.

i still think its a case for false advertising, even with a "superchip" + exhaust + induction you still wouldnt get 20bhp on a 2.0 16v engine as its not a custom remap taking into account altered Fuel Air increase.

 

[Andyman]

Quote ad:
''I would preferably like to keep my plate P66WEE (PEEWEE!!) as its worth approx £600 but may inclued dependind on buyer.''

I wonder what the buyer has to do to qualify for his reg plate hahaha

 

[miketheman2k]

He'll be lucky if its pushing out what Renault quoted when they sold it to him!

 

[Phill1978]

He'll be lucky if its pushing out what Renault quoted when they sold it to him!

agree, after one user on here had inlet work done at GDI his stock 172MKII was pushing only 160hp

 

[Pete]

without wanting to take this thread off topic too much, i doubt:



is anywhere near true, unless your running a 4.0 V8 etc.. maybe fueling on those + full exhaust may see that even then maybe too optomistic.

also they claim 20hp on your specific chip usually, so a 1.2 3cyl engine with a stock 65bhp will produce 85bhp + large torque gains from a "chip" i dont think so from what ive read and experienced.

i still think its a case for false advertising, even with a "superchip" + exhaust + induction you still wouldnt get 20bhp on a 2.0 16v engine as its not a custom remap taking into account altered Fuel Air increase.

Without doubt the ebay advert is false advertising (whether the seller realises it is another matter), I was mearly stating that it wasn't false advertising on Superchips part as there is potential to get bigger gains lower down in the rev range, whether these are 20bhp is another story.

 

[Chris n nic]

I see what pete means...maybe you`ll get 2bhp more at 2500rpm, 3-4 at 4k and maybe 5 at 5k etc

chris

 

[Phill1978]

I see what pete means...maybe you`ll get 2bhp more at 2500rpm, 3-4 at 4k and maybe 5 at 5k etc

chris

yea i got the point just after id typed my first response, i see what you mean, basically they can twist the figures and claim RR`d inaccuracy`s and "every cars different" to sell these chips with inflated figures.

but having said that on the flip side, its still a valid point, if a map is smoothed and dips are taken out and HP is gained at different points ammounting to 20hp, on a full run throught gear 0-100 you will still see at some point that 20hp ??

 

[Andy GDI]

agree, after one user on here had inlet work done at GDI his stock 172MKII was pushing only 160hp

I dont remember that one??? which one was that?

 

[Hanny]

Interesting claims, I previously ran a highly modified Fiat Coupe Turbo and we ran a test whilst doing some R+D on the rollers - we ran a K+N cone with a modified OE airbox with K+N panel inside - bearing in mind that turbo charge cars can/will utilise some modes more than normal aspirated engines - any way our findings:

K+N filter - overall gain 6-7bhp but 20lbs drop on torque.
OE Airbox - less 6-7bhp than the cone but torque remained higher.

In road/track terms the Cone offered better throttle response and better high rpm power curve, how ever the airbox gave better torque through out the rpm range - primarily down to the main fact that the air box was getting cleaner cooler air.

So the Cone was better for fast road use but poor on slow to B road use.

As to the opinion that this guy got 10bhp just from a cone filter - well I go along with the view that he may of fallen foul to a sales pitch.

 

[cliotrophy364]

yeh they dont come wit 172bhp my old cup whent on the rollers at red dot racing and had 144.8bhp at the wheels and 160.0bhp at the flywheel when i asked the bloke bout it he told me he has had loads of 172s on the rollers and not one has had over 165bhp at the flywheel so i was just a little bit gutted. f**king renault misleading everyone again....

 

[TheJesus]

that will be their rollers though, as long as other people's results are constant with your own the number is meaningless... well, unless Corsa's are flying past you! lol

 

[tommyboy]

K&N only managed to slow down my old clio 1.2 8V. Powertec is the way forward if u can get hold of them cheap been chuffed with mine for my clio 2 1.2 16v. Remember cold air feed tho lol
:approve:

 

[Fred@BTM]

172's have on average 166bhp (172 i think is the PS measurment)

 

[Chris n nic]

Ironically I use the old add ten divide by .9 sum and your 160.8 comes out at exactly 172 lol

chris

 

[Phill1978]

I dont remember that one??? which one was that?

didnt some guy come down in a red MKII172 the other day and before your work have 160hp and after have 170 with inlet work im sure i read the thread as it had graphs on i think.

this is why 200bhp claims are a bit ott its not the consumers fault really is it ? like if you bought a tft monitor with a claimed a 1024 x 768 res but in acutal fact could only display 640 x 480, they shouldnt tinker with claimed outputs, in fact they shouldnt state any proven gains, just suggested gains how can every car benifit the same when some cars have worse engines than others.

given that most cars are running 160-165 gaining a real world 200bhp isnt easy at all, especially on a small capacity 2.0 16v N/A engine. 35bhp gain on a cup for example would make it shift like a mofo (as per lozza with a 5.1 to 60mph) shame that it would cost £3.5k to realistically get that power, where as a turbo would cost £250 for a remap

 

[Hanny]

It seems quite common to find that bhp figures on normal aspirated cars seem to slightly out, TVR have the biggest difference.

As a former modified turbo car owner (300bhp+) you can get better results just by by passing the ECU boost control with a bleed valve but not increase the boost level and get better results.

How ever I think a common trait is to compare cars by flywheel figures, really its should be at the wheels with curb weight and torque - these tend to give a more factual and realistic indication on performance.

Another point to note would be that there seems to be no two dynos that are calibrated to produce the same measurements - add to this fact that if a group of owners go to a dyno and get negative results they wont go back so some companies like to tweak the figures slightly.

I suppose its an earner so every one is happy - company with its customers paying and the customers with their positive figures.

 

[Andy GDI]

didnt some guy come down in a red MKII172 the other day and before your work have 160hp and after have 170 with inlet work im sure i read the thread as it had graphs on i think.

this is why 200bhp claims are a bit ott its not the consumers fault really is it ? like if you bought a tft monitor with a claimed a 1024 x 768 res but in acutal fact could only display 640 x 480, they shouldnt tinker with claimed outputs, in fact they shouldnt state any proven gains, just suggested gains how can every car benifit the same when some cars have worse engines than others.

given that most cars are running 160-165 gaining a real world 200bhp isnt easy at all, especially on a small capacity 2.0 16v N/A engine. 35bhp gain on a cup for example would make it shift like a mofo (as per lozza with a 5.1 to 60mph) shame that it would cost £3.5k to realistically get that power, where as a turbo would cost £250 for a remap

No, that was Ben's job from AWT

We just tested another car a couple of days ago and it made 163 bhp on a 172..

also 30 bhp is not unattainable with the correct cams

Andy

 

[Clarkie172]

mine had 175.4 bhp with a cat back exhaust and bmc. and for the PS figures compared to bhp, in the renault book u get with the car, it says 172 BHP not PS??

 

[Phill1978]

mine had 175.4 bhp with a cat back exhaust and bmc. and for the PS figures compared to bhp, in the renault book u get with the car, it says 172 BHP not PS??

true, but i doesnt matter, who is going to take their car and sue a manufacturer for their car not producing the quoted figures, cant see how anyone would be interested, also they could argue that every RR`d is different and air temps / density + engine out of the factory have differenct tolerences, to top that they supply magazines with tweaked cars running actual figures, especially seen as Evo are now doing tests using their own calibrated RR`d they have too much to lose if the cars arent making the power.

im assuming all the folk who get 7.1/7.2/7.4 to sixty on their Gmeters/app22`s etc.. have a bit less power and those running the same stock 172MKII getting 6.9 / 6.8 and one i remember got 6.7 stock are running full power i.e 170bhp

wonder if ther has ever been a stock 172/182 with more than 170/180

 

[Andi-B]

Curious thread its turned out to be ... If the 172 has a dramatically reduced HP output...
What of the 182 ??
Could that suffer also and, If we were all "duped" into thinking we were buying a 172/182 etc basing the name on the Hp it has, in tests clearly show it hasnt.

Can we get an issue of refund from Renault not delivering what it clearly hasnt promised? Just a thought guys?? :banghead:

 

[Phill1978]

Curious thread its turned out to be ... If the 172 has a dramatically reduced HP output...
What of the 182 ??
Could that suffer also and, If we were all "duped" into thinking we were buying a 172/182 etc basing the name on the Hp it has, in tests clearly show it hasnt.

Can we get an issue of refund from Renault not delivering what it clearly hasnt promised? Just a thought guys?? :banghead:

well (not bein funny) if you read my post above i dont think you could get a refund. There`s no concrete evidence to suggest any "specific" given power at any point in time on any car, with every condtion and tolerance being different you can get ballpark figures but not total accuracy...

but, 160 bhp is taking the piss, sure you bought a 450bhp RS6 and it returns 440 on a rolling road (but more torque probably) you wouldnt be bothered ? but buy a car with an expected 172bhp and get 160 and it makes more of a difference doesnt it

thats what ive been saying for a while with my boring comparision of my 172MKII vs my bro`s fabia diesel, he passed three 182`s in his tuned fabia (RR`d at 190hp) and there was no creeping involved, the fabia glided past (one was a 182cup) yet he couldnt pass my 172MKII (which fair enough had slightly lighter wheels and a panel filter)

so i knew my last 172MKII was a fast un (in its glory days) probably now realising it had a decent ammount of BHP and some 182`s dont seem to be as quick off the mark as some 172`s maybe they needed running in or the people cant extract power properly but 3 bad drivers ? doubt it.

 

[Andi-B]

well (not bein funny) if you read my post above i dont think you could get a refund. There`s no concrete evidence to suggest any "specific" given power at any point in time on any car, with every condtion and tolerance being different you can get ballpark figures but not total accuracy...

but, 160 bhp is taking the piss, sure you bought a 450bhp RS6 and it returns 440 on a rolling road (but more torque probably) you wouldnt be bothered ? but buy a car with an expected 172bhp and get 160 and it makes more of a difference doesnt it

thats what ive been saying for a while with my boring comparision of my 172MKII vs my bro`s fabia diesel, he passed three 182`s in his tuned fabia (RR`d at 190hp) and there was no creeping involved, the fabia glided past (one was a 182cup) yet he couldnt pass my 172MKII (which fair enough had slightly lighter wheels and a panel filter)

so i knew my last 172MKII was a fast un (in its glory days) probably now realising it had a decent ammount of BHP and some 182`s dont seem to be as quick off the mark as some 172`s maybe they needed running in or the people cant extract power properly but 3 bad drivers ? doubt it.

Yeah I can understand that... but if renault are promising 172 Bhp in a 172 and 182Bhp in a 182 etc etc .... and the F4R engine is producing 160 brake in a 182... thats a good 12% power reduction that it should have.. and thats a lot of power/torque that should be there that isnt
I'm not saying all sports have power losses either and yeah, I can understand why you think your 172 is faster, I had a mk1 172 and it felt faster than my 182 does now.. but its a scam that Renault are producing a product that isnt what it says it is.

I didnt go out and buy a Renaultsport Clio 160, I bought a RenaultSport Clio 182 and a lot of people will now be scratchin their heads wondering if they really did pay for what Renault promised.

 

[Phill1978]

Yeah I can understand that... but if renault are promising 172 Bhp in a 172 and 182Bhp in a 182 etc etc .... and the F4R engine is producing 160 brake in a 182... thats a good 12% power reduction that it should have.. and thats a lot of power/torque that should be there that isnt
I'm not saying all sports have power losses either and yeah, I can understand why you think your 172 is faster, I had a mk1 172 and it felt faster than my 182 does now.. but its a scam that Renault are producing a product that isnt what it says it is.

I didnt go out and buy a Renaultsport Clio 160, I bought a RenaultSport Clio 182 and a lot of people will now be scratchin their heads wondering if they really did pay for what Renault promised.

just for reference i was reffering to my old 172, i now own a cup (which feels faster) dunno if 160bhp is from a 182 but i would imagine by the same token 160 is possible from a stock 172 then 170bhp is possible from a 182.. maybe 160 on a 182 is taking it too far, perhaps 165 bhp on the worst engines that havent been run in properly

 

[Andi-B]

Valid point... they do all have same engines, be it they'll be set up differently in parts etc.. but as the thread started with a guy with a 172 Bhp clio on ebay selling it at 200 Bhp ... companies are running the wheels of mouth watering deals to attract us to buy their products and claiming this,that and the other.. One of the main reasons I bought the 182 is because of the Bhp that renault claim it has.. Ok so the output at the wheels will be different from the fly-wheel, but its still goes back to the companys selling and promises of great value for money ploys. I am happy with the 182, but its true that I'm now dubious about the actual power output of my motor,

Also your friend would have no probs with the fabia, more torque .. great pulling powers have diesels plus they are quick motors are the RS ... I've taken a test drive in one and they are quick motors for what they are.

 

[BenR]

No, that was Ben's job from AWT

We just tested another car a couple of days ago and it made 163 bhp on a 172..

also 30 bhp is not unattainable with the correct cams

Andy

eh, i never did one like that recently, or at all come to think of it.

red?