Clio vs Saxo

[MattyK]

The other clio/saxo thread made me ask this Ok so I know this guy who has a 1.1i saxo and I have a 1.2 clio. His car is clearly a lot faster than mine. Is this normal? Are 1.2 Clios slower than other cars of the same range?

 

[Clarkie172]

yes it is a known fact that the clio is a very slow car

even the more powerful range such as the 172 is not upto the pace of the saxo vts

 

[MattyK]

 

[Clarkie172]

i think the 1.1 saxo has about 25 bhp more than the 1.2 clio

correct me if im wrong

 

[MattyK]

Well from the Cliosport tables mine is 60bhp

 

[Clarkie172]

lol ignore that mate, that was gay dean!

 

[Clarkie172]

how did u race the saxo?was it fair??? and it was round a track obviously!

 

[jimmy_mac]

Quote: Originally posted by Clarkie172 on 29 January 2005


yes it is a known fact that the clio is a very slow car

even the more powerful range such as the 172 is not upto the pace of the saxo vts

 

[MattyK]

I also notice one of the belts in the engine seems to make a really wierd noise. Almost like a squeaking sound when I start up the car. Anyone else notice this or is it just mine.

 

[Clarkie172]

dont worry mate ive got a modded 172 n there aint much difference between that n 106gtis n saxo vts. approx 120bhp where mine is over 172?!

 

[MattyK]

It wasnt a race or anything. I have just noticed how terribly slow and unpowerful my car is through its gears compared to this guys (which i see quite often, he lives across the road from me)

 

[Clarkie172]

theres nothin in cars really mate apart from a massive bhp gap! the sqeeky noise is prob your fan belt1 u had problems with your batt?

 

[arj256]

The 1.1 saxo is 60bhp as well but is only Spi.

My friend used to have one and it was quick, but my 1.2 was quicker top end and acceleration than his.

 

[MattyK]

No problems with the battery, its a brand new one. It does have 2 amps wired to it however it did it even before that. Is there any way for me to stop the fanbelt noise and make the car a little more powerful, with a noticeable difference?

 

[JayR]

My old k reg 1.2 which was modded mainly looks wise though used to pull past a guy at my old work places 1.1 pretty easily!!!

Maybe it was cause im a good driver though!!!

 

[MattyK]

Quote: Originally posted by arj256 on 29 January 2005


The 1.1 saxo is 60bhp as well but is only Spi.

My friend used to have one and it was quick, but my 1.2 was quicker top end and acceleration than his.

Yeah this is true I have noticed it being quite nippy through higher speeds its just in second gear it seems to be a slow b*****d!

 

[JayR]

Quote: Originally posted by Clarkie172 on 29 January 2005
even the more powerful range such as the 172 is not upto the pace of the saxo vts

You for real mate???

Not standard v standard!!!

 

[jph172]

SORRY must disagree with clarkie172 !! O.K when i had my 1.2 16v, even with exhaust&induction kit it struggled to keep up with my mates 1.1 saxo which was completely standard. But i dont know where you got the idea that the 172 is no match for the vts?? Ive left vtr,s&vts,s behind. Of course it can keep up! Its much quicker than the vts which is only 120bhp
0-60 in 7.9. Ive roughly avaraged 0-60 in 6.8 which according to the records is about right&its totally STANDARD!!

 

[Steve2004]

Quote: Originally posted by JayR on 29 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Clarkie172 on 29 January 2005
even the more powerful range such as the 172 is not upto the pace of the saxo vts

You for real mate???

Not standard v standard!!!

I was thinking this. I reckon hes been on the crackpipe

 

[arj256]

Quote: Originally posted by MattyK on 29 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by arj256 on 29 January 2005


The 1.1 saxo is 60bhp as well but is only Spi.

My friend used to have one and it was quick, but my 1.2 was quicker top end and acceleration than his.

Yeah this is true I have noticed it being quite nippy through higher speeds its just in second gear it seems to be a slow b*****d!

2nd Gear in mine is one of my quickest gears, not too much acceleration up to 30, but from 30 up to 45-50 its pretty quick (for a 1.2)

 

[Bryan]

please remember ig quotnig about the new shape clio, its only a 1.1 too, 1149cc is by my reconing a 1.1

the saxo is nippy because of its lack of weight, though wont get much past 90mph, same with the 1.2 8v clios

 

[badboy_mc]

good driver J lol. what about the roundabout incident

and surely a 172 would pull on a gti or vts

 

[stevoversteer]

Once into 3rd gear the 172 will easily pull away from the VTS. Not much in it in 1st and 2nd though due to the VTS only weighing about 940 kgs!

 

[MattyK]

So is there any mods worth me doing that will improve it at all?

 

[arj256]

Quote: Originally posted by MattyK on 29 January 2005

So is there any mods worth me doing that will improve it at all?

Give your car a service? make sure its all running tip top.

 

[Jay@auto-mods]

hi mattyk- well not realy i had a 1.2 16v corsa c and i always wanted it to be faster! there is not much u can do CHEAP! as it would cost u alot of money to make a 1,2 sort of nippy but u can add the little things that do add up and help abit like, full decat exhaust system, k&n for noise and maybe just making it LIGHTER that realy helps then im sure u will fly past a little 1.1 saxo and other cars but its free to loose wait just loose ur back seats and get some light ait buckets but there ££,

 

[Jay@auto-mods]

waight!! (cant spell) lol

 

[jongsr4]

the 1.1 in the saxo is a pretty nippy little engine iirc, and judging by how slow my mums 1.4 16v is......the 1.1 saxo must surely be quicker than the 1.2 clio

as for the 106 GTI/Saxo VTS/172 Debate...there really isnt that much between any of them....172 has more low down pull than my VTS/GTi had, but thats about it, Apart from that there isnt much in it

 

[Ben j]

Quote: Originally posted by Clarkie172 on 29 January 2005
yes it is a known fact that the clio is a very slow careven the more powerful range such as the 172 is not upto the pace of the saxo vts


so true

 

[unofficialPete]

My 1.4 8v gets lots of hassle from my freinds 1.1i saxo upto 40, was a right shock!

 

[darswold]

i really cant see how you can compare a 172 to a saxo !

this is mad !!!!!!

 

[Ben j]

power to weight. means in standard form theyre only a little bit slower. and id say they handle tons better!

 

[JJ!]

So according to this thread a saxo vts can keep with a 172, now i know for a fact that a clio 16v can keep up with a vts (this is proven on road and on paper) yet the valver cant keep up with a 172???

Something not quite right here!!

 

[JJ!]

Figures are:

Saxo VTS - weight = 935kg





Performance





Engine Size:
1587 cc

Cylinders:
4

0-60 mph:
7.6 s

Power Output:
120 bhp

Valves:
16

Torque:
107 lb/ft

Top Speed:
127 mph
Clio 16v weight = 1000kg





Performance





Engine Size:
1764 cc

Cylinders:
4

0-60 mph:
7.7 s

Power Output:
137 bhp

Valves:
16

Torque:
158 Nm

Top Speed:
130 mph


Clio 172 weight = 1021kg





Engine Size:
1998 cc

Cylinders:
4

0-60 mph:
6.7 s

Power Output:
172 bhp

Valves:
16

Torque:
200 Nm

Top Speed:
138 mph


power to weight:

saxo = 128bhp p/t

Valver = 137bhp p/t

172 = 168bhp p/t

 

[Ben j]

my valver keeps up with craigy172s 196bhp 172 and left my dads 172 behind when we raced

 

[JJ!]

Quote: Originally posted by Clarkie172 on 29 January 2005


yes it is a known fact that the clio is a very slow car

even the more powerful range such as the 172 is not upto the pace of the saxo vts

eh?!!!

 

[Ben j]

work out power to weight at wheels not fly

 

[darswold]

all the people who have come out with the statment that the saxo can beat a 172.....what car do you drive ?

 

[JJ!]

I drive a valver and in standard form i have never seen a saxo do 0-60 or the quarter in a 172 territiry time!!

 

[darswold]

good lad justy, i dunno what these other boys are on !!!