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.

Blasted by a Pug 306!!!!



  Nissan 350Z
MRBILLYUK said:
1. The head gasket and clutch were on the way out , would have cost more than the car was worth .

A replacement head gasket and clutch is still a LOT cheaper than a new car.

2. Because i happened to have alot of spare cash just doin' nothing in my bank account ;)

If I'd had that much "spare" cash lying around, no way would I have bought a brand new car with it. I would have had a holiday or something, you know, life experience perhaps....

Thats going to lead you onto the question of why i bought my car... well i dont have that much spare cash just lying around (or any cash in fact) but i needed a car and its cheap and fun to drive. If I could have afforded to buy it outright, i probably would not have bought it, funnily enough... i could buy something significantly better, or i could buy something cheaper (and as you say just as much fun) and have more fun having good life experiences than just having a shiny lump of metal thats going to lose a shedload of value and is going to be scrap metal in 10 years time and forgotten about. As it was for me personally, i needed a decent car that had a warranty so i didnt have to worry about maintenance. Its sounds like your loaded enough not to worry about this sort of thing, so in that situation i'd say the Clio was a waste of money.

Each to their own
 

MRBILLYUK

ClioSport Club Member
  FF Jeden Osiem Dwa
pbirkett said:
A replacement head gasket and clutch is still a LOT cheaper than a new car.



If I'd had that much "spare" cash lying around, no way would I have bought a brand new car with it. I would have had a holiday or something, you know, life experience perhaps....

Thats going to lead you onto the question of why i bought my car... well i dont have that much spare cash just lying around (or any cash in fact) but i needed a car and its cheap and fun to drive. If I could have afforded to buy it outright, i probably would not have bought it, funnily enough... i could buy something significantly better, or i could buy something cheaper (and as you say just as much fun) and have more fun having good life experiences than just having a shiny lump of metal thats going to lose a shedload of value and is going to be scrap metal in 10 years time and forgotten about. As it was for me personally, i needed a decent car that had a warranty so i didnt have to worry about maintenance. Its sounds like your loaded enough not to worry about this sort of thing, so in that situation i'd say the Clio was a waste of money.

Each to their own

Exactly the reason i bought the 172 and 182 new , a 3 year warranty , after a certain age a car can start to become a bottomless pit , throwing good money after bad just to keep it on the road . Just cos i had a few quid knocking about doesn't mean to say i should throw it away on an older more uneconomical car .

And yes i agree the car is fun , cheap as chips compared to other so called hot hatches , you get alot of car for the money imo .

Had plenty of holidays mate and God willing i hope to have many more :)
 

MRBILLYUK

ClioSport Club Member
  FF Jeden Osiem Dwa
matty w said:
cant there be a section made just for versus threads

^^^^ What a good idea . Because it always seems to rear its ugly head frequently . I normally try to steer clear of these kind of threads myself , but seems i got drawn into this one :eek:
 
  Nissan 350Z
Furry muff then mate :)

I know about the cars becoming money pits - i had a Golf GTI Mk2 that was never out of the garage.

Funny enough though, even though it was slow (compared to the Clio anyway) it was more fun to drive, and its slowness didnt bother me at all.
 

MRBILLYUK

ClioSport Club Member
  FF Jeden Osiem Dwa
pbirkett said:
Furry muff then mate :)

I know about the cars becoming money pits - i had a Golf GTI Mk2 that was never out of the garage.

Funny enough though, even though it was slow (compared to the Clio anyway) it was more fun to drive, and its slowness didnt bother me at all.

There ya go mate , it doesn't always have to be quite up to the performance of the RS clios to have fun . Theres plenty of other good cars out there like your old golf . Just comes a time when you have to get rid and get something newer .
 
  H22A7 Accord Type R
ive been lookin into the 306 Rallye's / GTi's.............got to be a bargain hot hatch if you get a good one!! :)
 

jzr

  RenaultSport clio 172 mk2
i had a s plate gold gti-6 an boy did that car go it had a decat an full system, i have to be honest i think it would pull away from my 172 at high speed's but 0-60 not much in it
 
1

16vturbolee

wolf in a sheeps skin thats the best part of ownin one. know one knows wat was in that pug thats the whole point why we tune are cars. so he smoked you and your pi$$ed and wat. ive done it loads of times to other cars :) you win you loose
 
  Mk1 Ph2 1.4 RT !FOR SALE!
Not trying to add fuel to the fire or whatever the saying is, BUT

if the clio has MORE power, and LESS weight, how can it be slower than the GTI6?

Not after a fight, just wanting someone to explain how in this situation it was faster - is it to do with the gearing?
 
  RS-1, Bebop, CTR
Oh, bu-hu-hu, so you got blasted by another car. Big deal. You may find this shocking, but clios are not the fastest cars on the road, in fact, there is a great deal of faster cars out there.

But a standard GTI-6 isn't one of them. ;)
 
1

172beast

Everyone choosing to ignore the hard proof then of my videos? Can't get more conclusive proof then the 0-100 vids standard cars on same stretch of road!!

The GTI-6 is faster top end, after 60/70, imo its slow to 60 but 1st and 2nd are very tall, CLio is quicker to 60 but after that slow imo. Reason the 6 is quicker even though it weighs 1200kg and is down on power on paper, is because the 6 engine is very good and often puts out more then standard, 172 lump struggles to put out its quoted 170bhp, gearing on the 6 is much much much better suited to the engine, soon as its in 3rd the rest of the gears are so close that a change only drops it 500rpm max, so its never ever out the power, its also got masses of torque and power throughout the revs, you don't have to wait for it to come on cam like a 172, so on country lanes you'll always have the perfect gear to haul you outta bends, you'll never be caught between gears in a flat spot. Gearbox is also very smooth and quick to change, none of this crunching when changing quick like in Renaults, the box was developed for comptition use so its very good.
 

MRBILLYUK

ClioSport Club Member
  FF Jeden Osiem Dwa
172beast said:
PMSL the stupidity of some CS users never fails to amuse me!!!

Heres my GTI-6, completly standard 0-100 = http://www.zedsplace.co.uk/download.php?view.75

Heres my old mk1 172, completly standard 0-100, same stretch of road = http://www.zedsplace.co.uk/download.php?view.77

You figure it out, GTI-6 does not slow down after 70/80 like the 172 does, just carrys on, handles a lot better and provides much more feedback through the wheel, generally a much much more fun car to drive. If I had the choice between my old mk1 172 and my GTI-6, I'd take the 6 anyday, its a vastly better drivers car.

Power to weight isn't the be all of everything an all, close ratio 3/4/5/6 really make the 6 quicker then paper figures suggest.

BTW, my 6 was recently RR @ 148bhp ATW, same day a modified mk2 172 put out 140bhp ATW and another 6 put out 143bhp ATW iirc, good engines!

Nice vids there Zed . The 306 definitely seems to pull harder than 172 ;) ph quick i think some guys call em , lol .
 
  20VT Clio & 9-5 HOT
just to note iv been in 172 beasts mk1 172 and his current 306 and the 306 does feel quicker.

gearing plays a big part. not to mention his made 148@wheels recently in standard form!
 
  The Tube
Leee172 said:
Hi guys,

Recently found this forum, have been reading but never signed up since I got my 172! Thought it was quick untill i went for a drive up the a41 on sunday

i was doing a steady 80 when this 306 came flying up to me, looked like a hdi!? so i thought ello and put my foot down. he kept up with me right up to silly speeds and then over took me!! :( i was giving my 172 full beans but it wasnt enough. the driver was laughing his head off! he then slowed right down in front on me on a dual carriage way. so i put it in third and booted it, as i was overtaking him he started to speed up and gain on me!!! so i had to pull back in behind him. in the end i had to let him go. I came on the net to see what it was, it looks like it was a gti but i thought these had same bhp as 172? It pi$$ed all over me!!!! looked completly standard too. Im so angry. I already got a viper and straight through on me clio. How can I make it quicker?

Lee

Maybe your viper isn't fitted correctly? Cold air feed problem?
 

Lee

  BMW M2C
172beast said:
Everyone choosing to ignore the hard proof then of my videos? Can't get more conclusive proof then the 0-100 vids standard cars on same stretch of road!!

The GTI-6 is faster top end, after 60/70, imo its slow to 60 but 1st and 2nd are very tall, CLio is quicker to 60 but after that slow imo. Reason the 6 is quicker even though it weighs 1200kg and is down on power on paper, is because the 6 engine is very good and often puts out more then standard, 172 lump struggles to put out its quoted 170bhp, gearing on the 6 is much much much better suited to the engine, soon as its in 3rd the rest of the gears are so close that a change only drops it 500rpm max, so its never ever out the power, its also got masses of torque and power throughout the revs, you don't have to wait for it to come on cam like a 172, so on country lanes you'll always have the perfect gear to haul you outta bends, you'll never be caught between gears in a flat spot. Gearbox is also very smooth and quick to change, none of this crunching when changing quick like in Renaults, the box was developed for comptition use so its very good.

That's spot on as far as I'm concerned. The Clio has to be kept on the boil all the time because as soon as you drop below 5k there's that pause while you wait for it to come back "on cam". The Pug doesn't have a noticable lull before the power kicks in, it pulls hard and strong from low revs and has the gearing to take advantage of it.

I prefer to own a new car, but the Pug is every bit as good as my Trophy, if not better in some areas. Though both have a sting in their tales. lol
 
1

172beast

al said:
Users or Members?

Both at times, seems to be less and less folk on here who have a clue, only people that can comment on both cars are those thats driven both, me, Lee and Rich D are the only people that spring to mind and all gave fair points of view, just some folk have the ClioSport blinkers, as I call em!
 
172beast said:
Both at times, seems to be less and less folk on here who have a clue, only people that can comment on both cars are those thats driven both, me, Lee and Rich D are the only people that spring to mind and all gave fair points of view, just some folk have the ClioSport blinkers, as I call em!

....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  don't
Thought i'd post for a change as i own a gti6

Lovely car, imo 3rd gear on the 6 is its most impressive, probably why you had some troubles with one, 3rd and 4th are just perfect, 1st and 2nd are ok but not amazing really
 
  RS-1, Bebop, CTR
172beast said:
Everyone choosing to ignore the hard proof then of my videos? Can't get more conclusive proof then the 0-100 vids standard cars on same stretch of road!!

The GTI-6 is faster top end, after 60/70, imo its slow to 60 but 1st and 2nd are very tall, CLio is quicker to 60 but after that slow imo. Reason the 6 is quicker even though it weighs 1200kg and is down on power on paper, is because the 6 engine is very good and often puts out more then standard, 172 lump struggles to put out its quoted 170bhp, gearing on the 6 is much much much better suited to the engine, soon as its in 3rd the rest of the gears are so close that a change only drops it 500rpm max, so its never ever out the power, its also got masses of torque and power throughout the revs, you don't have to wait for it to come on cam like a 172, so on country lanes you'll always have the perfect gear to haul you outta bends, you'll never be caught between gears in a flat spot. Gearbox is also very smooth and quick to change, none of this crunching when changing quick like in Renaults, the box was developed for comptition use so its very good.


I am sorry, but a couple of home made videos can hardly be labeled as hard proof. There is at least a 2 second difference between the two cars up to 100 and there are numerous mag reviews and tests to back it up. End of.

And belive me, i am not trying to put down the 6. I love the car and i agree with you that in some areas, gearing especially, it overshadows the clio. But claiming that it is a vastly better drivers car or vastly quicker then the clio is, at best, a huge overstatement.
 
  Lotus Elise
a 182 should outpace a gti-6 with relative ease if the 182 driver can drive properly. i don't even waste my petrol on gti-6's anymore. i dont even think there as quick as they say on paper. in 3 years of driving fast peugeots i've never been impressed by the 6 really. 182 or 172 cup will kill one
 
  Varies
Not trying to add fuel to the fire or whatever the saying is, BUT

if the clio has MORE power, and LESS weight, how can it be slower than the GTI6?

Not after a fight, just wanting someone to explain how in this situation it was faster - is it to do with the gearing?
No one seems to have answered your question, so I'll have a shot. And no doubt many others will have a different view on matters but this is mine.

There are an awful lot more factors at play than simply power-to-weight in car performance.

Even if it were as simple as that (which it isn't), think about this:
Take a car that weighs 800kg with 120 bhp. It has a power to weight ratio of 150 bhp/tonne
Take another car that weighs 1200kg with 170 bhp. It has a power to weight ratio of 141 bhp/tonne
So the owner of car 1 can happily strut around telling everyone how their car is a better performer.

Now put 2 adults in each car:
Car 1: 940kg with 120 bhp = 128 bhp /tonne
Car 2: 1340kg with 170 bhp = 127 bhp / tonne

Nothing in it now. Also add into it the effects of drag at high speed - the 120 bhp won't be enough to achieve good performance at high speed compared to the 170 bhp in the heavier car.

Now that is a little academic because the 2 cars in question have very similar power output. But that was just to highlight power to weight is quite misleading. If anyone here drives a s1 elise you will see a huge difference in performance with 2 people and a full tank of fuel and 1 person and 1/4 tank.

What is of relevance here:
Cars will produce their published power figures at a given RPM, such as 170 bhp at 6500 rpm. Away from 6500 RPM, power drops off. When you shift up a gear, RPM drops and therefore by definition so does power. How much the power drops off by depends on how your car is geared; if the ratios are very close the rev drop will be minimal so you will stay closer to peak power allowing a seemingly less powerful car to outperform another whos gearing drops them further out of the power band on shifting gears.

It gets even more complicated because gear ratios are also changing transmission output torque. So although you may know that when shifting from say 1st to 2nd at 6000 rpm your revs drop to 4000 rpm (made up figures), the power hasn't dropped to the power shown at 4000 rpm on the 1st gear graph, its dropped to the power at 4000 rpm on the 2nd gear graph which will be slightly different. This explains why for most cars if you want to do optimum gear shifts it is always best to shift at the red line despite being past peak power. This is because the power generated at the red line is in most cases still more than you will get at any RPM in the next gear, and after changing your new RPM will be closer to peak power again. Buts thats another topic entirely.

Nothing to add to the debate of clio v 306 tho :sleepy:
 
  Nissan 350Z
Agree with that - when i had my diesel i was laughed at by some for saying the fastest way to drive it was to change up at the red line for the reason you say. But they all said to change up at 3500 rpm. I even offered to prove it to people but they declined.

Another interesting fact i guess is this: Clio 182 and Octavia vRS both produce 180 bhp as standard. The Octavia weighs over 1300 kg (about 1354 IIRC) and the 182 is what, 1090 KG? Yet the Octavia hits 146 mph whereas the Clio hits 138. The difference being, the Clio is like a brick and the Octavia is quite sleek.

However, am I the only one who really does not care all that much what their car is like much beyond 100?
 
  Nissan 350Z
Loopz said:
I am sorry, but a couple of home made videos can hardly be labeled as hard proof. There is at least a 2 second difference between the two cars up to 100 and there are numerous mag reviews and tests to back it up. End of.

It is funny how people choose to ignore professional roadtesters with proper testing equipment, i must agree with you there.

I think thats why I get so frustrated sometimes, because people really believe they know better than the experts.
 

Rich-D

ClioSport Club Member
  E90 LCI 330d
More than likely just a GTi-6 or Rallye with a couple of mods...

I've owned a 306 Rallye, a Clio Cup and a 306 GTi-6, there's not a massive difference between them all on the road, and if anything the 306's are a little better top end due to the gearing, with the Clio being slightly quicker out of the blocks, but once rolling, it's mainly all down to the driver although dare I say it the 306 chassis is better.

Also anyone who thinks that the Clio is much quicker than the 306 is dreaming, I ran 14.8secs @ 93mph in the Rallye and 15.0secs @ 94mph in the GTi-6 down the 1/4 mile, both standard cars! :rasp:
 


Top