ClioSport.net

Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.

Cup or fat 172





Apart from the obvious visual differences is the cup blatently quicker than a norm 172 mk2 has anybody swapped with one of these cup drivers or vice verc-- ...pete..?
 
  2012 WRX Waggon


I dont think blatently quick describes the difference, its a few 10ths to 60 - though it does have different brakes and suspension (i think).
 


has no abs, and the suspension is 3mm lower, there is nothing in it on the road but on track if both cars are driven by good drivers the cup will have a slight advantage due to the lower weight. this question normally turns into a bun fight as cup owners seem to think the cup is massively quicker. ask cbs cup (christian) me and him raced from swindon to cheltenham at speeds upto !30 mph and you could not split the two cars at all
 
  S2000


It depends how you quantify massively quicker. On the move there is not much between them. But try racing it off the line or over the 1/4 mile and there is a noticable difference!
 
  Weeman sucks ****


Cups are also a bit more tail-happy, especially round the round-abouts due to naff all inside...WEY HEY.

Silly taking ABS off i think, renault.
 
  Abarth 500


Loonys right - blasts from between 50mph right up to !30 see very little difference between the two cars (I do weigh a little more;))...

The reasons I opted for the Cup is that I liked the colour, theres less of them about but most importantly - it was cheaper!!!!
 


Cups are also a little wider on the ground, Not by much, 20mm at the front and 10mm at the back. This helps with the handling apparently, I have not driven a normal 172 so cant really comment,

I would expect on the road there wouldnt be much difference, On the track however maybe a different story.



The wheels are nicer on the Cup.
 


Quote: Originally posted by cbscup on 28 July 2003


Loonys right - blasts from between 50mph right up to !30 see very little difference between the two cars (I do weigh a little more;))...

The reasons I opted for the Cup is that I liked the colour, theres less of them about but most importantly - it was cheaper!!!!
hehe excuses excuses christian, you may be a little more "cuddly" than me but im a bit taller so probably not that much in it
 

Lee

  BMW M2C


With a title like "Cup or Fat 172" Id say you have already made up your mind which you prefer, sounds more like someone trying to start an argument to me. Thats like me saying 172 or low spec Cup?

Both cars are fantastic, at the end of the day its all down to what you put higher on your list of priorities. I like all my toys, and for the few days a year I might get the car on track compared to all the days I sit in traffic I know what suites me better. It might be different for you.
 

KDF

  Audi TT Stronic


Well if he did want a argument it didnt really work (yet)..

Everyone has givin a pretty honest opinion I think and its up to him now to decide.

Yes you can call the mk2 172 a fatty cause its the heaviest of the 3 (mk1 172, mk2 172 and Cup)

In that company yes its heavier, its hardly a rick waller though is it ?
 


Ill start a dummy spitting session:



CUPs & 172s ARE CRAP!

AND SO ARE THE PEOPLE THAT DRIVE THEM.

(that should do it!!)
 


Bugger! Come on you fairies, this should of provoked a full scale war!!

Lee, stop being nice:mad:

And dont call me Steven, only my misses and my mum call me Steven, and thats when ive been a naughty boy :oops:
 


calm it please, Iv already got a mk2 172 fat version, just crave a little more power sometimes, by the way if I had £25.000 I wouldnt spend it on a Renualt Clio V6 mk1 ya mug !...there not that much quicker
 


No, me nither mate, there a bags of sh*te!!

But I need that 3.0L V6 to carry my huge carcass around, you see im very over weight!
 


Anyway f**k off Pete, im trying to hi-jack this thread!!

Ive got all the right ingredients Me, Lee and im sure that Loonys floating around here somewhere?
 


floating/wafting could be construed as an anti gay statement, i am offended that you would use this blatant critisim of m lifestyle choice and im off to complain to Jas, steve you are a big bully :(
 


Quote: Originally posted by steveV6 on 28 July 2003


Anyway f**k off Pete, im trying to hi-jack this thread!!
here are steves list of demands :

lots of pies

a new V6 in black (now not later in the year)

a 50" plamsa tv

life long supply of cold beers

and numerous nudie ladies with big jugs to generally hang about the place

he will contact you with a list of further demands when he can work out what he wants :D
 


Well, now you mention it....

.....I do like larger women with big bangers and girthy arses, you see I like something to grab hold of, no stick insects need apply!

As the profesor in the Italian Job said "I like em big";)
 


lol, nowt wrong with a few extra pounds on the bum and tits, women are supposed to have curves so its all good, but i do draw the line at rolls of fat lol. oh and slightly bigger girls try harder plus they make you breakfast in the morning, hehe ;)
 


oh and steve do you remeber "baby got back?" trying to remeber how it goes something like"i like big butts and i cannot lie other brothers cant deny when a girl walks in with a ........"
 


Quote: Originally posted by visceral on 27 July 2003


I dont think blatently quick describes the difference, its a few 10ths to 60 - though it does have different brakes and suspension (i think).


Your average 172 vs your average cup on the strip the 172 will get slapped.
 


Top