Going from a 172 to 182?

[dirtyboy]

Anyone done it? Preferred it?

I know the 172s were notorious for not actually making that on rollers, so are 182s in a similar boat?

I can't find a nice clean 172 Monaco since mine was W/O, so am being forced really to look at 182s. Not as much as a fan looks wise (172s go under the radar a bit more IMO) but I still like it.

Unless anyone's selling a Monaco!?

Thoughts appreciated, thanks!

 

[Budgie]

Shut your eyes when driving and you'll not notice the difference between the two.

 

[dirtyboy]

Shut your eyes when driving and you'll not notice the difference between the two.

Reassuring to hear.

 

[dirtyboy]

Might get a Megane 225 then....surely they're quicker!? lol!

(top end doesn't bother me, just enjoy acceleration!)

 

[Akay]

As @Budgie said, I had a 182 and now a 172 and couldnt really tell the difference.

 

[R3k1355]

I doubt you'll notice the difference either, especially if you do a few bits and bobs to it.

They don't make mega power either, if you do induction, exhaust and a remap you'll probably get the 182 figure but any more than that requires fairly deep pockets.

 

[Goodj]

Reassuring to hear.

It's the truth. All you gain is a chavalious exhaust.

Megane will be quicker off the mark, but because its a bigger car, you may not really feel it.
Same goes for the newer Clios (197/200)

Can you not just get a 172 and money your way?

 

[R3k1355]

It's the truth. All you gain is a chavalious exhaust...........

........which rots like a total b*****d, and renault will charge you hundreds of pounds to replace.
So you go aftermarket, only to find half don't fit very well and others are loud as f**k!

172 exhausts on the other hand are a fair bit easier to come across, plus you get a spare wheel.

 

[JackD]

If you're after a car which has good acceleration, don't buy a Clio. Or if you do, buy a turbo'd one.

They're not about acceleration as standard, just a great handling all rounder which cost pennies to run.

 

[Goodj]

They're not about acceleration as standard, just a great handling all rounder which cost pennies to run.

Like a front-dragging MX5 in fact.

Indeed, there are many similarities. Including how, every 5 years, you need to chuck 1/3 of the worth of the car at it in parts and labour to keep it on the road

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

If you're after a car which has good acceleration, don't buy a Clio. Or if you do, buy a turbo'd one.

They're not about acceleration as standard, just a great handling all rounder which cost pennies to run.

I wouldn't describe them as slow...

In fact they're probably quicker acceleration than 90% of other cars on the road. As far as an all rounder, I wouldn't have anything else for the money. But sure- if you want a fast car then you could probably get something a little bit faster for the money.

 

[dirtyboy]

My 172 was like a rocket off the line, I think the longer 1st gear in a 172 made it pretty potent, if not the 0-60 time overall.

 

[Goodj]

In fact they're probably quicker acceleration than 90% of other cars on the road.

If you'd posted this in 2005, you'd probably be spot on

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

0-100mph in ~16 seconds for a standard car is not an average figure even today.

 

[Goodj]

0-100mph in ~16 seconds for a standard car is not an average figure even today.

but it isn't as OMG SO FASSST! as it was when the 172 Ph.1 came out and was the xcheapest way to go silly-fast.

Besides, who does 0-100 anyway? In the real world a sales rep on a mission in their Mondeo will leave a Clio choking on their emissions unless said Clio is being revved up and pedalled like it's a qualifying lap.

They're definitely quick enough to get yourself in trouble / have silly grin on your face. No denying that.

 

[cat171]

Taken from an older thread posted on here when I just googled this,

The folloing are all on test:

Evo magazine:

Phase1 172 - 18.2
Trophy - 17.3
182FF - 17.5
172cup - 17.7
172 - 18.9

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

In all fairness I plucked 16s from my mind as I've seen plenty of 172Cup vids of them doing it in 15s but they are usually freak engines and my Ph1 did it in 17s on video so I went with 16. Even if we agree on 17 I'd still stand by my statement that that's probably quicker than 9 out of 10 cars on the road.

 

[R3k1355]

Is the Trophy lots lighter or something?

 

[Goodj]

Is the Trophy lots lighter or something?

Not by a vast amount, especially not compared to a 182 Cup. If anything the huge seats and tea-tray spoiler would make them heavier...surely?

 

[McGherkin]

Yeah, clios are not fast cars in a straight line. My mind springs back to my first encounter with a 325i, which is the day I learned just how slow the clio is.

 

[realnumber 1]

Although not the quickest cars the clio's are hardly what I'd describe as slow! Certainly don't think a 325i should be quicker as suggested above lol.

Oh and to the OP. I did the change and don't regret it. Got a newer one with less miles and in a colour I prefer. Plus it was a bonus to get cruise control on it.

 

[McGherkin]

Although not the quickest cars the clio's are hardly what I'd describe as slow! Certainly don't think a 325i should be quicker as suggested above lol.

Oh and to the OP. I did the change and don't regret it. Got a newer one with less miles and in a colour I prefer. Plus it was a bonus to get cruise control on it.

It has a 50+bhp advantage.

 

[Knuckles]

It has a 50+bhp advantage.

Bhp sells cars. Torque wins races.

 

[McGherkin]

And a Clio doesn't have much.

 

[Knuckles]

And a Clio doesn't have much.

I know, I just wanted to be a part of this thread.

 

[Ol’ Tarby]

They're the same car, bar an exhaust.

 

[realnumber 1]

It has a 50+bhp advantage.

No they don't, they have 214bhp and and weigh around 350kg more!

Not to mention they only have 184lb of torque which doesn't win races...

 

[McGherkin]

No they don't, they have 214bhp and and weigh around 350kg more!

Not to mention they only have 184lb of torque which doesn't win races...

214-160ish=54ish. And clios only have 150lb of torque on a good day.

BMW's walking it.

 

[realnumber 1]

Most 172's make more than 160. 182's tend to make at least 170.

I'll mention again, 350kg more. 152 bhp/ton I don't think they'd walk it tbh

 

[McGherkin]

HOU's engine's pretty strong compared to most and it got dicked.

 

[realnumber 1]

HOU's engine's pretty strong compared to most and it got dicked.

Well I guess that only leaves one other point of failure flol.

 

[McGherkin]

Well I guess that only leaves one point of failure flol.

No, it just means that the more powerful car is unsurprisingly faster.

 

[N4TH4N]

No, it just means that the more powerful car is unsurprisingly faster.

It isn't a quicker car at all. My dad's got one. We often have a play of a weekend down to devon etc . My 182 minces it with ease tbh. 0 to 60. 30 to 70 etc etc. Always keeping the 182 revved up and in the correct gear etc. Doesn't cause me any issues.

When i say mince I don't glide off into the sunset of course but i am certainly ahead. If you lost out to one either that one in particular wasn't standard or yours is fucked.

 

[McGherkin]

So in other words it's modified then. Because nothing else was an issue.

Level to about 100 but from there onwards it's pulling.

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

lols at this.

 

[N4TH4N]

But to Op. I prefer the 182. I like the chavvy exhaust lol. Nicer colours on the 182. 172s look more like 1.2s but some people prefer that.

 

[dangerous dave]

I can't tell you why the 182 is awesome as its not my place to say.. All I can say is.....when you know


You know.