confused!!! clio 172 bhp??

[RobHardyUK]

Fly figures are mostly bull anyway. Its wheel figures that should be measured, they are the important ones. Its what you get down on the road that matters.

And pbirkett - your correct the MPS would be quicker, but not in every situation. 4WD is not the be and end all, in the dry I wouldnt throw my money that way. Do remember yeah its about 80-90hp more, but the kerb weight is over 1650kg compared to the FF 172/182 being 1090kg. Thats a massive difference.

Also - 4wd leads back to this topic, of having more transmission lossages.

Peak speeds are the only disapline the extra power would display itself.

Obivosuly the 4WD would be a massive aid in the wet. But here we are comparing two different cars anyway, bit like comparing a cat to a dog.

 

[tameracingdriver]

Must admit I didnt realise they were that heavy (the Mazda). That is a massive difference you're right.

Anyway, a clio would probably be more fun to drive anyway. Who cares about whether it makes its book figure or not as long as you like the way it drives.

 

[Josie172cup]

172 cup

168.5ps/1000kg
195.9nm/1000kg


mazda 3 mps

172.6ps/1000kg
256.2nm/1000kg


imo in a straight line the mazda would be quicker but round a track the clio would have the edge

 

[chris_p]

172 cup

168.5ps/1000kg
195.9nm/1000kg


mazda 3 mps

172.6ps/1000kg
256.2nm/1000kg


imo in a straight line the mazda would be quicker but round a track the clio would have the edge

that's just the power to weight, not forgetting the huge transmission losses the mazda will have, the clio should be faster...in theory

 

[Josie172cup]

i recon the greater torque would make up for that

 

[theduck]

theoretical drag races for the ultimate in geek

 

[chris_p]

i recon the greater torque would make up for that

torque means diddly squat in a race.
Unless it was uphill, or you could only use one gear!

 

[Josie172cup]

ok :dapprove:

 

[chris_p]

ok :dapprove:

that's a good thing Josie! We drive clios

 

[Josie172cup]

i know lol but id love 380nm of torque

 

[scott7912]

Fly figures are mostly bull anyway. Its wheel figures that should be measured, they are the important ones. Its what you get down on the road that matters.

And pbirkett - your correct the MPS would be quicker, but not in every situation. 4WD is not the be and end all, in the dry I wouldnt throw my money that way. Do remember yeah its about 80-90hp more, but the kerb weight is over 1650kg compared to the FF 172/182 being 1090kg. Thats a massive difference.

Also - 4wd leads back to this topic, of having more transmission lossages.

Peak speeds are the only disapline the extra power would display itself.

Obivosuly the 4WD would be a massive aid in the wet. But here we are comparing two different cars anyway, bit like comparing a cat to a dog.

This is more or less what i was going to say, but i was going to add that the 0-60, 0-100 times of the 6 MPS are more or less the same as the clio so i dont think the MPS would be quicker.
As a sort of comparison my mates Accord Type R 0-60, 0-100 times are more or less the same as my Trophy but in the real world my Trophy is faster, proven more than once.

 

[big_yin]

All factory power quotes be it Renault or any other manufactuer are at the Fly figures unless stated otherwise.

The 172 produce around 160 ish BHP at the fly and the highest power quoted from a standard 172 I know of is 170bhp at the fly. And that was taken by Nick Hill on his rollers.

 

[Clio1.6Rxe]

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!

I completely disagree! boxsters handle the same if not better than clios on the twisties. 144 bhp vs 200+ :clown:

 

[Christopher]

i recon the greater torque would make up for that

torque means diddly squat in a race.
Unless it was uphill, or you could only use one gear!

LOL.

Riiiight.

And Clio 172 refers to 172ps, not imperial horsepower.

 

[172Ben]

bhp for bragging rights, torque wins races

 

[Josie172cup]

who you loling at me or chris

 

[Josie172cup]

bhp for bragging rights, torque wins races

thank you some one who finally torques some sense

 

[Christopher]

I was LOLing at the fella who said torque doesn't matter in a race.

 

[Darren S]

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.

Yep - A typical Evo 6 has approx 25% loss, iirc. So a quarter of all power produced is simply lost before it gets to the wheels. :dapprove:

D.

 

[Josie172cup]

I was LOLing at the fella who said torque doesn't matter in a race.

woo another who agrees i just couldn't be bothered to argue anymore

has anyone on here got a mazda 3 mps and we'll race em lol

 

[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!

I completely disagree! boxsters handle the same if not better than clios on the twisties. 144 bhp vs 200+ :clown:

Not in my experience in the Trophy, suppose its down to the driver though. Ive never drove a boxter so i couldnt comment from the point me driving one.
Also in my experience after owning a FF182 and now a Trophy, the Trophy can easily carry you at least 15mph faster through corner and even faster on the exit than my FF182 ever could.

 

[Clio1.6Rxe]

I completely disagree! boxsters handle the same if not better than clios on the twisties. 144 bhp vs 200+ :clown:

Not in my experience in the Trophy, suppose its down to the driver though. Ive never drove a boxter so i couldnt comment from the point me driving one.
Also in my experience after owning a FF182 and now a Trophy, the Trophy can easily carry you at least 15mph faster through corner and even faster on the exit than my FF182 ever could.

Both cars take different lines and accelerate at different times so its hard to compare. As you said its mostly down to the driver