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.
EK9 + Mfactory gearing..
ya, i rang prima ages ago to ask bout their tb conversion, they were about as helpful as a pack of pork chops at a jewish wedding, the guy was so guarded bout wot to tell me, all i got was the "i dont think u got the money" tone. just head and chip remap....yeah right, another bullsh*t company. i paid cash for my 172...aint got the money..f**k u prima, t**sers.
Renault Laguna Coupe
If this was all it took to get a 172 up to 200bhp then Nick Hill would have been selling these conversions like hot-cakes for months now.
Renault Laguna Coupe
I doubt he would stoop to sl*gging-off the opposition. I think the lack of a Hill-Power conversion says it all really.
Since Renault claim the 172 has 172 hp and it gets about 160 on RR then for a company to claim 200hp it would only have to get 186 on a RR.
186 I would imagine is quite easy to achive with a chip and exhaust its just that it is 14hp short of the magic 200 that 172 owners are aiming for.
EDD
Rorrie Yep the transmission and other related items mean that the Hp released at the wheel isnt the same as created at the fly wheel. The figure many people claim there car produces is the flywheel figure although its difficult to know exactly how much power is removed by the gearbox etc. The figure for losses in the transmission are (I hear) almost guessed by the operator of the RR. The only way that engines can be compaired is by saying the HP at wheel as that is the achaul power you put down.
I have to admit Im not very knowedgable about the outputs of 172 and was just going by what I could remember on the achual outputs. I didnt know 172 achually made he Hp they claimed. I was under the impression that they claimed more than they made.
Is someone going to prove me wrong gain. My knowelge of cars is usless I just read up at work what I have emailed myself from the web at home so its not 100% acurate.
EDD
Edde - the output seems to vary alot on 172s. At a RR day last year my old MK2 172 put out mailto:136bhp@wheels">136bhp@wheels / approx. mailto:156@fly">156@fly and an identical 172 MK2 on the same day put out mailto:152bhp@wheels">152bhp@wheels / approx. mailto:174bhp@fly">174bhp@fly. So some make more, some make less. My MK1 172 is 1 second quicker over a 1/4 mile than my MK2 was, but its about the same as the 174bhp MK2 172 over a 1/4 mile. All very bizzare!
MK1 has a slightly longer gearing. Cant remember all of them, but 4th gear in the mk1 does 121mph and in the mk2 does about 111mph. The shorter gearing makes up for the extra weight I guess. I want a mk2 gearbox in my mk1.
At the RR day, both out 172s had similar mileage. Paddys thrashed from new, mine run in properly, but thats not necessarily the reason.
