clio mk2 ph2 1.6 16v tuning?

[Šįk]

hey,

Any1 here own a tuned 1.6 16v ph2 clio? What have you done to it? An what bhp u getting from it?

From the gear that ktec sell, i imagin one bieng able to produce around 130bhp (from viper induction kit 4bhp, manifold 8bhp, ful exhaust system 4bhp and a remap 8bhp... Ruff guesses 20bhp ontop of its standard 110bhp) is this correct? Any 1 had a RR done to show a graph.

Any1 who owns one and had it tuned bhp wise, can u give reviews and comments on the car and performance please.

Thanks.

 

[Chrisjk]

Ive got an induction kit and fitted a stealth exhaust on the weekend, bit more torquey, certainly pulls better. Unsure of true gains though.

 

[Alan]

Save up for a 172/182/197..

 

[Timmay]

ive got a full ktr cat back system for a 1.6 if you want?

 

[Poopensharten]

Forget it mate theres no substitute for cubic capacity, its easier to just buy somthing faster. If you want a fast car, buy a fast car.

 

[Fred@BTM]

hey,

Any1 here own a tuned 1.6 16v ph2 clio? What have you done to it? An what bhp u getting from it?

From the gear that ktec sell, i imagin one bieng able to produce around 130bhp (from viper induction kit 4bhp, manifold 8bhp, ful exhaust system 4bhp and a remap 8bhp... Ruff guesses 20bhp ontop of its standard 110bhp) is this correct? Any 1 had a RR done to show a graph.

Any1 who owns one and had it tuned bhp wise, can u give reviews and comments on the car and performance please.

Thanks.

never EVER EVER use the mathematical method of figuring out how much power your car has by adding up the "alleged" power gains from parts

 

[Christopher]

Speak to Dave. (mini-valver)

He has a fairly heavily modified 1.6 16v

 

[Chrisjk]

Forget it mate theres no substitute for cubic capacity, its easier to just buy somthing faster. If you want a fast car, buy a fast car.

Erm not really.

 

[Poopensharten]

Forget it mate theres no substitute for cubic capacity, its easier to just buy somthing faster. If you want a fast car, buy a fast car.

Erm not really.

Before you go into a big speel about modifying a cars engine ill say it just now, im not intrested.

Rather than spending fortunes on trying to make gains from a 1600cc. I would have bought a faster car.

thee end

imo.

 

[Chrisjk]

Yeh thats fair enough, buy a faster car rather than modifying it, but a bigger engine doesn't always make a car faster.

 

[Poopensharten]

I never said it does but for instance if the lad wanted a fast 1600cc withought compromising too much on fuel economy then he should have bought a 106 GTi/VTS ,Civic VTi/Jordan etc etc

I just think throwing loads of money and possibly compromise the relaibility of the engine for whatever reason of the modifying side of it is a waste of effort/time/money.

If i wanted good fuel economy id have bought a 1.5 dci, but i dont, i want a fast hot hatch that will be useable day to day which is why i bought the 172.

 

[Timmay]

shame you gotta sell it mate tho

 

[Šįk]

1.6 info aint for me, its info 4 a friend (sorry 4got to say) of myn who has a 1.6 16v, i am getting a RS Twingo 133 . He was just interestd since I told him about ktec tuning their twingo gt, they hav it up to 130bhp and they recon itl giv the RS 133 a gd run 4 its money, and since the clio 1.6 16v is a simuler weight and bhp as standard to the twingo gt, it should performe very simuler, as shud it with tuning parts getting both cars 2 the same bhp, (then the 1.6 clio shud giv the RS 133 a good run 4 its money 2) ...y wouldnt they? Unless the bhp figures were totaly wrong... :S but if proven then y not.... Or am i totaly wrong here!??

 

[Poopensharten]

It sure is mate it f**king pains me to my soul but as the way of the world theres more important things to tend to!

 

[Timmay]

true - tis why i let mine go

 

[evolution]

1.6 info aint for me, its info 4 a friend (sorry 4got to say) of myn who has a 1.6 16v, i am getting a RS Twingo 133 . He was just interestd since I told him about ktec tuning their twingo gt, they hav it up to 130bhp and they recon itl giv the RS 133 a gd run 4 its money, and since the clio 1.6 16v is a simuler weight and bhp as standard to the twingo gt, it should performe very simuler, as shud it with tuning parts getting both cars 2 the same bhp, (then the 1.6 clio shud giv the RS 133 a good run 4 its money 2) ...y wouldnt they? Unless the bhp figures were totaly wrong... :S but if proven then y not.... Or am i totaly wrong here!??

But isn't the Twingo GT a 1.2 Turbo??

Its a whole different kettle of fish when it comes to turbos, a simple remap will usually result in big gains.

On a 1.6 NA engine, its a lot harder to get such gains.

 

[Chrisjk]

Yep, but the twingo RS is 1.6 16v na

 

[mini-valver]

All the RS lads who think they own rocket ships, grow up. VTS and an RS, not going to be a lot in it down a B road. 1.6 16v Clio with breathing mods Vs a standard 172 or even one with breathing mods, down a B road still not a great deal in it.

You need SERIOUS amounts more power to be pissing on another car. 50bhp isn't a great deal between 2 cars that weigh the same. Have a look at Edde as an example.

 

[Chrisjk]

Yours should be a fair chunk lighter than an RS shouldn't it D?

 

[mini-valver]

A tad

 

[LiquidCarbon]

come give my cup ago then mate and eat your words lol lets see what 50bhp does to you!

 

[mini-valver]

Gladly! I'll get the humble pie ready.

 

[gav182]

Sorry but 50 bhp makes quite a difference on cars with similar weight if both good drivers . Again it all ends up being about the better driver . Or should i sell my 182 and buy a 1.6 ??

 

[kie1an]

so has anyone actually got a 1.6 rolling roaded ? interesting thread .

 

[allyrs]

agreed. ive had some fairly well modded turbo cars and in my opinion i wouldnt waste my time or money modding a 1.6. the gain will be minimal,though because of the loud exhaust you will think your going faster.

i had a 370 bhp evo and my mate had a cup172 with ktec recessed ehaust and filter. on the back roads he was never far off my tail.... i couldnt believe it. but when i dove his, it never felt that fast. it was more progressive that my vicious turbo. but i just couldnt believe a clio could keep up my tail. this is why when i went to uni this year and needed something more ecconomical to run i went straight for 172 cause i knew it was quick enough to scare an evo.

id suggest getting a starlet turbo if your mate wants more power. still cheap to run but much faster, easier to tune.
as for the saying- theres no replacement for displacement... well you can argue all day lol

 

[allyrs]

also the difference of 50bhp on a car with 1000bhp will make f all difference. its down to traction and reaction and human touch to achieve quick times.
the same is to be said for cars with 500 bhp
once you get into your 200bhp cars i feel 50bhp makes only a little difference. unless very, very light. but obviously makes a difference. what i mean is for the cost to achieve this 50bhp, in 1.6, its just not worth it. not at all. having 200bhp in a car that was once 100bhp does not make it twice as fast its exponential.


im really speaking from 1/4 mile experience and owning several of the same car but just tuned differently, but im also tired and am not making a very good point

 

[Mells]

Save up for a 172/182/197..

knowsit

 

[Brett]

Save up for a 172/182/197..

knowsit

fair comment but all the 1*2/197 owners who modify/tune their cars could then be told to buy an R26. Then R26 owners told to buy a R26 R..............

Maybe he wants the cheap running costs (well insurance) of his 1.6 but wants to have it as a hobby and improve it as much as possible.

 

[allyrs]

nice thought brett.... but no. your wrong.
I purchased my 172 because it was what i wanted, right speed, right power ecconmical, low insurance, nice interior.
if i wanted more of a track like go cart id have got the cup over the sport. if i wanted more power id have kept my last car.
some applications take modification much better- easier gains are to be had and the engines are better engineered to cope.
you cant polish a turd.
the difference in price between a 1.6 and a sport is nowhere near the same as a sport and a R26. the money you would spend to get the 1.6 up to the same spec a 172 you would be far easier to just buy one.
as for insurance... imo it would be more as you would have so many mods to list.