confused!!! clio 172 bhp??

[kyle172]

im confused people, why am i reading people have 160bhp etc on their 172's? i thought they were 172bhp? cheers

 

[172Ben]

i think its 172ps?

Not sure though

 

[Goders172]

Yeah its 172 PS and Renaults very rarley make stated power - bloody french

 

[theduck]

172 is the engine power is PS which is the metric equivalent of BHP. 172 is approximately 169bhp but it is well known that these cars dont make the book figure

 

[jesus]

hp also decreases over time

 

[theduck]

actually on these engines it seems to INCREASE over time lol

 

[chris_p]

The cars vary and so do rolling road results! I wouldn't worry about it too much

 

[Timmay]

or is cos it means 172bhp at the flywheel?

 

[coatesy]

at the fly is about 140-150bhp i think?

 

[theduck]

the 160bhp figures are at the fly are they not? Transmission loss is more than 10horses isnt it?

 

[Timmay]

i always thought it was nearly 172 at the fly and 150 odd at the wheel?

 

[theduck]

depends how you calculate your transmission losses i suppose

 

[sh33n]

172 PS at the fly is the Reno quoted figure.

 

[*Badger*]

172 PS is 166bhp IIRC

 

[DrR]

at the fly is about 140-150bhp i think?

So it gains 20-30BHp through the transmission??

172PS = 169.64703446426176 BHP

 

[Cookie]

The French don't believe in quality control, so the engine outputs vary lots from what was stated

Tbh they all drive the same, it's just pub figures

 

[Peperami]

at the fly is about 140-150bhp i think?

So it gains 20-30BHp through the transmission??

172PS = 169.64703446426176 BHP

Yes, its the other way around.

The lower figure will be at the wheels, around 140ish.

 

[benmore]

140ish at the wheels?

I am not about to claim my 172 produces full power, but 140 seems to be taking the biscuit tbqfh..

I have managed to pull very significantly on a fiesta st150, which is 150 right?

so surely, it must be at least 160?

mine is std with simota carbon intake.. so no performance upgrades or anything.

when you say at the wheels.. isn't it supposed to be 172 at the wheels? give or take maybe 165-170?

I am new to this btw so don't come down too hard on me lol

 

[coatesy]

yeah but youre lighter than an ST and rev to 7k revs ST redlines at 6k

 

[DrR]

Yes thats cos a ST is 150 at the fly and guessing 120ish at the wheels

the 172 engine makes 169 BHP, to put that power onto the road it has to go through all the friction of making the gearbox driveshafts etc move and that uses about 30 bhp.

 

[MistaT]

Transmission loss in a fwd car should be around 10-15bhp really. I'd expect 150+@wheels from a 172 on various rollers.

 

[benmore]

right.. I see.

so this applies to all cars right?

so for example

a 225 audi tt wouldn't be 225 bhp at the wheels right? same applies to say for example, an astra vxr 240?

 

[DrR]

Yeah the BHP quoted is what the engine makes, meassured directly at the flywheel.

 

[Steve2004]

right.. I see.

so this applies to all cars right?

so for example

a 225 audi tt wouldn't be 225 bhp at the wheels right? same applies to say for example, an astra vxr 240?

Applies to every single car on sale today yes. :rasp:

Quoted engine power (e.g. 240ps for Astra VXR, 225ps for Audi TT, 150ps for fiesta ST etc) is always the power made at the flywheel.

Power is lost between the flywheel and the wheels in the transmission, which for your average FWD car is a loss of about 18%. Hence why at the wheel figures are lower.

I wouldn't get too wound up on figures though tbh, it's how the car feels/performs on the road that really matters.

 

[benmore]

so therefore, to compare a car by the BHP made is the same as to compare it at the wheels, so there is no actual need to determine @the wheels power right?

I mean, an ST might make 120 at the wheels, while mine may make 140 or 150 at the wheels, giving 20 odd bhp difference, which is the same as the actual quoted power differs by?

so what is the point in working out @the wheels? or do cars vary alot like RWD to FWD or 4x4 etc?

 

[Munson]

^^On a rolling road it's only possible to measure power at the wheels. The flywheel figure is calculated from this.

 

[benmore]

oh my word. sorry to be so thick mate
we all gotta learn somewhere.

(lack of common sense there I think on my behalf)

 

[bmh.01]

so therefore, to compare a car by the BHP made is the same as to compare it at the wheels, so there is no actual need to determine @the wheels power right?

I mean, an ST might make 120 at the wheels, while mine may make 140 or 150 at the wheels, giving 20 odd bhp difference, which is the same as the actual quoted power differs by?

so what is the point in working out @the wheels? or do cars vary alot like RWD to FWD or 4x4 etc?

Losses vary depending on the transmission setup, 4wd has very high transmission losses comparitively. Would imagine FWD would be the most effiecient then RWD then AWD, as you have less pieces in the chain where losses can occur.

 

[DCC_CUP]

I read somewhere, can't quite remember where, that the 172 CUP engine is 'cherry picked'? I'm not qualifying that either so don't shoot me, yeah?!

 

[bmh.01]

I read somewhere, can't quite remember where, that the 172 CUP engine is 'cherry picked'? I'm not qualifying that either so don't shoot me, yeah?!

They do tend to make slightly better power as far as i'm aware.

 

[bmh.01]

I read somewhere, can't quite remember where, that the 172 CUP engine is 'cherry picked'? I'm not qualifying that either so don't shoot me, yeah?!

They do tend to make slightly better power as far as i'm aware. Its like anything though, you get good ones you get bad ones.

 

[DrR]

Lack of Air con? And does the ABS get power from the engine to, or rather not in the cups case.

 

[Andyman]

Transmission loss in a fwd car should be around 10-15bhp really. I'd expect 150+@wheels from a 172 on various rollers.

Pre mods, mine was 133 atw, 169 ish at the fly on a phase 1 - 150 atw would be cam'd up medium state of tune at a guess


Performance car figures are always quoted at the fly not the wheels (pretty obvious )

Sure a Nissan Sunny GTiR Pulsar only has something silly like 150 atw after transmission losses..?? I know the figure is suprisingly low

 

[Munson]

oh my word. sorry to be so thick mate
we all gotta learn somewhere.

(lack of common sense there I think on my behalf)

The flywheel figures quoted by the manufacturer will be taken from an engine dyno which measures power and torque at the flywheel/crank. Or perhaps not in Renaults case None of it really matters, they're all quick fun cars regardless of the numbers.

 

[Ollie82.]

I read somewhere, can't quite remember where, that the 172 CUP engine is 'cherry picked'? I'm not qualifying that either so don't shoot me, yeah?!

You will indeed hear about Cups making more than the usual. MarkCup's is one in particular.
Mine also churned out 177 back in June.....i reckon they are blueprinted.

 

[kyle172]

interesting. figures are nice to know when chatting cars with friends.

 

[scott7912]

Figures mean sh*t.

If your driving and someone in a civic typeR tries it on and you keep up, if not go faster then you know its doing its job.
I constantly get subaru wrx and boxters trying it on with me, in the straight they are just the same, maybe the boxter is a bit slower, coming off a roundabout or on the twisties the wrx is good but the boxter doesnt stand a chance.

Just today i came up against a Mazda 6 MPS 260 bhp, in 1st gear there was no difference, in 2nd at about 5500rpm i started to gain on him, into 3rd i was still pulling towards him, then the twisty road came, he just didnt stand a chance, i was pushing it but i kept having to back off so i didnt crash into the back of him. Extra 70bhp in his car and it may as well have been a 1ltr corsa.

BTW i think mine had about 144bhp at the wheels on my last look!

 

[John D]

I read somewhere, can't quite remember where, that the 172 CUP engine is 'cherry picked'? I'm not qualifying that either so don't shoot me, yeah?!

You will indeed hear about Cups making more than the usual. MarkCup's is one in particular.
Mine also churned out 177 back in June.....i reckon they are blueprinted.

More likely to be the benefit of no AC and how they are driven* IMHO

i.e. very hard! due to the generally more enthusiastic Cup driver.

Anecdotal evidence certainly indicates 172 Cups are more likely to make the book power than other RS Clio. At the CS rolling road day I attended there were three 172 Cups all of which made book or above. Mine produced 169bhp/153lbft (with Prospeed cat back & sports cat, neither of which really add power but obviously help), a standard Cup managed 172bhp IIRC!

 

[coatesy]

Figures mean sh*t.

If your driving and someone in a civic typeR tries it on and you keep up, if not go faster then you know its doing its job.
I constantly get subaru wrx and boxters trying it on with me, in the straight they are just the same, maybe the boxter is a bit slower, coming off a roundabout or on the twisties the wrx is good but the boxter doesnt stand a chance.

Just today i came up against a Mazda 6 MPS 260 bhp, in 1st gear there was no difference, in 2nd at about 5500rpm i started to gain on him, into 3rd i was still pulling towards him, then the twisty road came, he just didnt stand a chance, i was pushing it but i kept having to back off so i didnt crash into the back of him. Extra 70bhp in his car and it may as well have been a 1ltr corsa.

BTW i think mine had about 144bhp at the wheels on my last look!

that guy must not know how to drive then as 3rd and 4th gear would be where his extra torque and power help him pull on u.agree with everything else though

 

[tameracingdriver]

With all due respect there is no way a Clio Sport will accelerate faster than a Mazda 6 MPS. They will be faster in every situation. 4WD will afford it superior traction off the line, and then, it will have a superior top end thanks to its extra power which is best part of 100 BHP more and better aerodynamics.

The Clio is quick but the Mazda is in a different league.