Could you lot give me the spec on these

[SAX_MAN]

Im interested in BHP,TORQUE in LB/FT, and Kerb Weight.

Clio RSi

Clio 16v

Clio Williams

I know Evo timed the Williams at 20 secs to 100 mph and Top Gear timed the RSi at 30 secs to 100 mph, how quick is the Valver?

 

[SAX_MAN]

Nobody knows the bhp,torque and weight of these Clios?!!

 

[Hartge Bob]

Try the car specs on the ClioSport homepage for the valver and the williams

 

[tonykart]

rsi

110 bhp

155 Nm

946 kg



16v



137 Bhp



158 Nm

990 Kg



Willy



150 Bhp



175 Nm



982 Kg



cheers



p.s Nm -> Lb/Ft convert yourself

 

[MrBean]

You lot?

 

[Ben j]

Quote: Originally posted by tonykart on 02 July 2003


rsi

110 bhp

155 Nm

946 kg



16v



137 Bhp



158 Nm

990 Kg



Willy



150 Bhp



175 Nm



982 Kg



cheers



p.s Nm -> Lb/Ft convert yourself

how is the willy lighter than the valver?

 

[Illusion]

Lighter chassis and shell as far as i know.

 

[Ben j]

arnt they the same ?? surely the shell def is! and as far as i know the chassis is the same too?? just got wider track?? correct me if im wrong?

 

[007]

Maybe there was a fat barsteward in the valver when the weighed it? Nah according to Autocar from 1992 the valver is 1020kg - WTF that can be right either!

 

[aaronc]

The willy should actually be slightly heavier due to the extra CCs.

 

[SAX_MAN]

VTS is a flyweight

935 kg

 

[SAX_MAN]

Just cos it has 200 more cc doesnt make it heavier! Surely the Willy engine is a bored out Valver engine isnt it?

 

[aaronc]

VTS - My standard valver does 0-60 in 7.1 consistently - 15.5 1/4mile - and around 18 seconds to 100mph.

standard except for backbox and decat.

 

[Ben j]

not standard then ? no?

get yaself back to southend next meet aaron!

 

[aaronc]

well near enough...........no engine mods. so stick 0.2s onto those times.

 

[SAX_MAN]

Thats not a standard Valver then! It has a de-cat!

I reckon the Valver will be right bang on VTS performance, the Willy has 150 bhp and Evo timed a standard one at 20 secs to 100 mph so a 137 bhp Valver would be about 22/23 secs to 100 mph.

 

[007]

The autocar valver test was 7.7 to 60 when new,

the re-test they got 7.4 and the car had more miles on it.

They also got 21.4 secs to 100

and a 30-70 of 7.1 secs

above with 9,000 miles on the clock!

 

[aaronc]

Quote: Originally posted by Ralphy_VTS on 02 July 2003


Thats not a standard Valver then! It has a de-cat!

I reckon the Valver will be right bang on VTS performance, the Willy has 150 bhp and Evo timed a standard one at 20 secs to 100 mph so a 137 bhp Valver would be about 22/23 secs to 100 mph.

Sorry mate no way. Had my valver for nearly 5 years now. Only put a decat on it last year. My 0-100 was 20secs dead completely standard. Its a bit more run in now and as its breathing more easily so hence the 2 secs lower. Its even lower than that now! timed at 16.5seconds recently.

 

[Matbrown]

Going back to the weights.

When i was in the MOT station last week i noticed that they had the 16v as being heavier than the williams on there Autodata sheets.
But they also had the 172 cup as only being 10kg lighter than the 172.



Mat.

 

[172@18]

I SEE THAT EVO PUTS SAXO VTS IN THE SUPER MINIS UNLIKE THE VALVE AND THW WILL IN THE HOT HATCHES....

 

[007]

I reckon the 990kg seems closest to correct!

 

[SAX_MAN]

16.5 secs 0-100 on a Valver!!! No chance!! Thats equal to a Focus RS, Alfa 147 GTA and Golf R32! Absolutely no chance.

 

[Ben j]

Quote: Originally posted by matbrown on 02 July 2003


Going back to the weights.

When i was in the MOT station last week i noticed that they had the 16v as being heavier than the williams on there Autodata sheets.
But they also had the 172 cup as only being 10kg lighter than the 172.



Mat.





cup probably is mat. just that the engines actually do have 172 that makes the difference

 

[SAX_MAN]

Quote: Originally posted by cr172@18 on 02 July 2003


I SEE THAT EVO PUTS SAXO VTS IN THE SUPER MINIS UNLIKE THE VALVE AND THW WILL IN THE HOT HATCHES....

I also see the VTS is a four and a half star car

 

[SAX_MAN]

The Valver isnt listed in Evo

 

[007]

I think the Williams is a 5 LOL

The Saxo is small & light tho - thats why it shifts with a 1.6

 

[SAX_MAN]

Quote: Originally posted by 007 on 02 July 2003


I think the Williams is a 5 LOL

The Saxo is small & light tho - thats why it shifts with a 1.6

Couldnt agree more mate. Williams is a legend of a car, best Clio ever in my view.

VTS will destroy any other 1.6 apart from a Caterham!!

 

[aaronc]

Quote: Originally posted by Ralphy_VTS on 02 July 2003

16.5 secs 0-100 on a Valver!!! No chance!! Thats equal to a Focus RS, Alfa 147 GTA and Golf R32! Absolutely no chance.

No i agree, does seem a little low! However the car was completely stripped out for the 0-100.

 

[007]

TBH I have driven my mates old Saxo (VTR) a fair bit and really really enjoyed it. It had a shaper turn in than my Williams and the handling was very similar. That VTR was the main reason I didnt buy another Ford this time. I used to be astoninshed at how it cornered.

A VTS was on my list but I ended up with the Williams - more to be different than anything else. The looks I get for a 8 year old Clio are amusing.

 

[172@18]

VTS will destroy any other 1.6 apart from a Caterham!!

COOPER S BBR WILL TORTURE YOUR VTS

 

[SAX_MAN]

Quote: Originally posted by cr172@18 on 02 July 2003


VTS will destroy any other 1.6 apart from a Caterham!!

COOPER S BBR WILL TORTURE YOUR VTS

Ok i asked for that! Someone has been reading this months Evo! The standard Cooper S is no problem for me though.

 

[172@18]

ITS ALL GOOD CRACK!!

 

[TD172]

Cooper S IS SUPERCHARGED THOUGH. My supercharged VTS would destroy it by about 2 seconds to 60 and a lot more to 100

 

[Paul16V]

I reckon a williams could be lighter as the weight they state could be for the willy 1. no sunroof, ABS etc.

The 16v weight could be the maximum, with sunroof and abs 990kg

The willy engine aint gonna be heavier really. Its pretty much the same block. maybe a couple of kilos.

 

[Slugger]

Quote: Originally posted by Ben j on 02 July 2003

Quote: Originally posted by matbrown on 02 July 2003


Going back to the weights.

When i was in the MOT station last week i noticed that they had the 16v as being heavier than the williams on there Autodata sheets.
But they also had the 172 cup as only being 10kg lighter than the 172.



Mat.






cup probably is mat. just that the engines actually do have 172 that makes the difference

No ben its 89kg lighter

 

[rt172]

Quote: Originally posted by Slugger on 02 July 2003



No ben its 89kg lighter

Than a MK2 172.....!

 

[007]

Surley it depends really on how fat the driver is in the end as cars with no people dont go that fast unless its Kit!

 

[SAX_MAN]

Exactly. If i came driving along on my own in my brand new 172 and i see Tommy up in front in his brand new 172 Cup taking his big fat mumma to the shops, surely my 172 would be quicker cos of the weight advantage?!

 

[Ben H]

Quote: Originally posted by dj illusion on 02 July 2003


Lighter chassis and shell as far as i know.

The Willy shares every chassis and body part with the 16V, apart from a slightly enlarged and colour-coded rear spoiler (certainly on Phase2 ones).

The weight of different models will vary with the options and time of manufacture. A late Phase2 will weigh more due to extra soundproofing and side impact bars, as will those with the leather option and ABS. Believe it or not, metallic paint option cars will weigh a kilo or two more (lacquer as well as paint).

 

[adiclio16v]

willys have no side impact bars, no sunroof , no door speakers, no elec mirrors (willy 1s) and probably other things but i cant think of wot they are

adi