Civic Type R : Clio 182

[Mitchy]

I have these 2 cars in mind as my next car as insurance for my new proposed car was a big no-no. Wouldnt even entertain me on it!

My question is, which is a better car round a track?

From magazines and test reviews between the 172 Cup and CTR, the CTR always seemed to post a quicker laptime, not by much but was always quicker. Acceleration times ie 0-100 were always slightly quicker for the civic aswell.

Now renault have a 182 and the civic has been facelifted? Is the 182 a better handling car than the 172 cup?? Ie will it post a quicker lap say round bedford autodrome than the cup does? Is there any proof of this? Or is a 182 just a cup with the goodies back?

And does anyone know anything about the 04 revised CTR? Was the handling/suspension played with?

I will buy 1 of these 2 cars so i need to make sure its the right 1.

Cheers!!!

 

[telford_mike]

CTR needs a lot of revs to keep going quickly. The 182 has a more flexible engine but unlimately not as pokey. The 182 has a superb chassis and great brakes, which are just as important as the engine around a track. Get the 182 and save £3k.

[Edited by telford_mike on 10 October 2004 at 7:54pm]

 

[Mitchy]

What did they improve from 172 cup to 182 in handling terms?

 

[Brazo]

They improved the track and stiffened the suspension but you also got abs which isnt as good for competition use.

Unfortunatly there are no direct comparison times between cup and 182 for bedford, especially as they have now chnaged the trcak layout. However the below info may help but make of it what you will!

In the dry the cup was a tad faster than porsche cayenne in the dry on the old track. The 182 was a tad slower than porsche in the wet on the new track, not very scientific I know but in all honesty I doubt there would be anything in it, especially with our driving standard

 

[dk]

Quote: Originally posted by brazo on 10 October 2004


They improved the track and stiffened the suspension but you also got abs which isnt as good for competition use.

Unfortunatly there are no direct comparison times between cup and 182 for bedford, especially as they have now chnaged the trcak layout. However the below info may help but make of it what you will!

In the dry the cup was a tad faster than porsche cayenne in the dry on the old track. The 182 was a tad slower than porsche in the wet on the new track, not very scientific I know but in all honesty I doubt there would be anything in it, especially with our driving standard

of the 3 track days I have done I can honestly say I cannot recall the ABS ever engaging, it is not intrusive and I have been braking VERY hard.

I have driven both, but unfartunately not the ctr on a track although i have been up against one on the track and there really wasnt much in it but I did manage to pass it, now that would really be down to the driver rather than the car as i doubt to the average person there would be anything in it.

Personally though, I couldnt do without the toys the clio has for the cheaper price so went for the clio.

The handling of the 182 with cup packs is very good, it goes where you point it and will keep up with much faster cars in the corners.

 

[Daipac]

Yeah I would say that the 182 is the better option. ABS, as dave182 says above, isnt really that useful on a track as I cannot remember it kicking in on any track except Curborough.

I couldnt do without the toys either and I think the 182 is the perfect combination of the two. I chased a few Cups around Spa and there is nothing in it ! Nothing at all.

 

[telford_mike]

One of the reasons Im a bit suspicious of the CTR on trackdays is simply that you hardly ever see one.

 

[Lee]

Theres a copy of Evos review of both cars here: http://www.leemather.plus.com/stuff/Evo.zipLink

When I purchased the 172 I test drove a CTR and went for the Clio as the V-Tec just didnt suit the way I drive. When I purchased the 182 I looked at the face lift CTR and once again thought the same.

A few years back I looked at the Civic VTI 158bhp one, and instead went for a 306 GTi-6.

You on the other hand are used to high revving engines so may get on with one. Go drive them back to back like I did. The Clio just made me grin, but the CTR felt too clinical to me. Quick, just not as fun.

In the last track day shootout I read the Clio came out a few places above the CTR.

Lee

 

[Lee]

Found the Autocar Drivers car of the year article. Sorry about the quality, its hard to photograph shiny paper. LOL These images are pretty big BTW.

http://erc.qmuc.ac.uk/cliosport/gallery/full/1097441380__autocarctr.jpgCTR

http://erc.qmuc.ac.uk/cliosport/gallery/full/1097441429__autocar182.jpg182

They clocked the Clio at 6.3 0 - 60, which you cant see in that shot. You already know the rest of its stats Id imagine.

 

[Tom]

Me and yoz had a bit of a blast round our "special" track up north.

Him in a ctr me in a 182

The 182 is better round a track than a ctr IMHO.



[Edited by Tomclio182 on 10 October 2004 at 11:37pm]

Yes the ctr was an 04 model.

 

[Little Newms]

How fussy are u when it come to cars??? If fussy i.e built quality etc... and peopke touching your car when u dont want them to get the CTR, more reliable and much better built, will never be in the garage like a renault...

 

[RobFenn]

Id rather buy a Cup and set it up as a 182. I think the only thing you need is the stronger hubs, right? Otherwise its just different geometry settings and slightly different suspension which i know i would change anyway.

-Rob

 

[geordiepaul]

IMO the CTR is a better track car. Simply because the mechanic will stand up the abuse of track day use the gearbox and the engine in particular. And if you gave a racing driver both cars to drive round a track (both cars standard) I would have to put my money on the CTR posting the faster lap time.

The 182/172 is a much better road car though. So you pays your money and takes your choice!

 

[Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by geordiepaul on 11 October 2004


IMO the CTR is a better track car. Simply because the mechanic will stand up the abuse of track day use the gearbox and the engine in particular. And if you gave a racing driver both cars to drive round a track (both cars standard) I would have to put my money on the CTR posting the faster lap time.

Its been proven frequently that this is not the case.

The 182/172 is a much better road car though. So you pays your money and takes your choice!

 

[Lee]

Quote: Originally posted by Tomclio182 on 11 October 2004

Quote: Originally posted by geordiepaul on 11 October 2004


IMO the CTR is a better track car. Simply because the mechanic will stand up the abuse of track day use the gearbox and the engine in particular. And if you gave a racing driver both cars to drive round a track (both cars standard) I would have to put my money on the CTR posting the faster lap time.

Its been proven frequently that this is not the case.

The 182/172 is a much better road car though. So you pays your money and takes your choice!

See the racing drivers comments in the reviews I posted above.

 

[Max172cup]

I remember reading a long term test review of the Cup in Evo. The reviewer took the Cup on a big group test at some circuit in England, cant remember which. He said that even though the Cup had been hammered all day long by all the road testers, the tyres and breaks did not look overly abused compared to some of the other cars theyd used that day.

 

[RobFenn]

A light car like the Cup should be fine on the track really.

Whats this thread doing in http://forum.cliosport.net/display_forum_topics.asp?ForumID=12&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=1 Track Days & Good Driving Roads, surely for Clio Discussion instead?

-Rob


[Edited by RobFenn on 11 October 2004 at 10:22am]

 

[jon_r]

The only thing in my opinion that could be improved on the Cup is the brakes. I can never make them last longer than 4 laps. Then involves one slow lap letting all the 182s ive overtaken back past, before I can then speed up again.

 

[Lee]

The brakes used to die on my 172, but the 182 ones were fade free lap after lap after lap, allowing me to pass the Cups which had over shot the bus stop.

That reminds me, I need to check brake fluid.



[Edited by Lee M on 11 October 2004 at 10:30am]

Maybe its made worse by the extra traction of the slicks Jon?

No matter how hard Ive tried Ive never managed to get the ABS to kick in on the 182.

 

[geordiepaul]

Quote: Originally posted by Tomclio182 on 11 October 2004

Quote: Originally posted by geordiepaul on 11 October 2004


IMO the CTR is a better track car. Simply because the mechanic will stand up the abuse of track day use the gearbox and the engine in particular. And if you gave a racing driver both cars to drive round a track (both cars standard) I would have to put my money on the CTR posting the faster lap time.

Its been proven frequently that this is not the case.

The 182/172 is a much better road car though. So you pays your money and takes your choice!

Like I said thats my opionion after owning 2 Clios and 1 CTR

 

[Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by Lee M on 11 October 2004


Maybe its made worse by the extra traction of the slicks Jon?





Theres the problem!

Your cup round spa is without a doubt faster than a 182 on road tyres, plus your pads are at the end of their lives.

Get track discs and pads.

 

[RobFenn]

Lol @ Jon and Lee, are the brakes actually any different?

 

[Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by RobFenn on 11 October 2004


Lol @ Jon and Lee, are the brakes actually any different?

Yup! they feel different!

Ive now swapped to pagids cos i was skint.

 

[dk]

yes the brakes on the 182 must be different as I keep hearing from 172 and cup owners about brake fade but I have never heard a 182 owner complain about it and as Lee said, around Spa I was lapping happily without any fade whatsoever.

The downside is that I had a service at the weekend and the pads have loads left on them but they were crumbling at the edges and had hairline cracks in them so needed replacing, they recommended I go for some racing ones and also upgrade my brake fluid to 5 dot as I have knackered that too.

 

[jon_r]

Brakes are in the pipeline.

As are those foglight ducts.



[Edited by jon_r on 11 October 2004 at 12:18pm]

Just like to say! I never missed an apex! lol, just found i was having to brake earlier and earlier.

 

[CocoPops]

Quote: Originally posted by dave182 on 11 October 2004


......they recommended I go for some racing ones and also upgrade my brake fluid to 5 dot as I have knackered that too.

So what ya going for then Dave?
What difference does the brake fluid make?

 

[LEECE]

My Husband has the new 04 Type R and i have the 182 both are excellent cars but of course the 182 is better equipped ... i like both



Leece



182 for sale

 

[dk]

Quote: Originally posted by CocoPops on 11 October 2004

Quote: Originally posted by dave182 on 11 October 2004


......they recommended I go for some racing ones and also upgrade my brake fluid to 5 dot as I have knackered that too.

So what ya going for then Dave?
What difference does the brake fluid make?

have already purchased renault pads now and had them fitted as it was one of those spur of the moment things.

They said that the brake fluid I have it losing all its good nutrients etc. because of the stick I have given it so it needs changing, they recommended that I go to 5dot (or dot5, not sure) as that is designed for racing.

 

[gazcaddy]

The 182 went round the top gear test track 3 secs faster than the CTR and autocar liked the 182 better and so did Evo

So get the 182, IMO, although when i get my 182 it wont be going near a track!!!

 

[Dean]

civic looks mint

 

[paddymph]

civic will win round a track as it wont break down half way round

 

[RobHardyUK]

actually many people (testers) now think the 182 is now superb, with its new steering rack setup, far more feel and bite than that of the ctr. and autocars recent track test, the 182 hit 106mph, ctr only hit 104! (2mph, woopie, but point stands, not alot in it) bhp/tonne is up on clio aswell. 166 for the civic, 167/168 on 182, with a/c. member a/c can be heavy.