Good natured ZR160 debate...

[Dave]

what do u think of:

"Personally I dont think that much to the Clio. Having worked on Clio Cup Scholarship days and driven loads of them on circuits and endured the frightening experience of being alongside a "Revved up wanna be racing driver"! I dont think the 172 or the 182 puts out the power so well, the car feels empty in the delivery, and the chassis certainly isnt a match in technical stuff or very high speed stuff. Brakes on Clio not in the same league.

Dont get me wrong, I am not having a dig! Clio is still an impressive package but best as a fast road car. Clio race cars are frightening on the limit, its going to go off, just dont know when!

The ZR is a much more engineered performance package whereas the Clio is a small car with a big engine and it shows. 6 of us all put in faster times on a test track with a ZR160 over a Clio 172. (3 were ex Clio Cup Racers)"

 

[Martin]

I thought the 172 would hammer a Zr160 round a track/straight line ..well anything really. I know I had the legs on one in my williams.

 

[Dave]

the above is a quote from another site not from me BTW!

 

[iceblue182]

the writer must of been on space dust as it contradicts everything else ever written.

stats show its slower and less powerful than a 172, cup and a 182.

its not a more engieered package! its based on a 20 year old honda floor plan. i have driven both (mrs has a zr) and its not bad but not in same league as the clio. it understeers much sooner, its heavier and less nimble. brakes are shockingly bad when pushed and have Very little feel.

it may be easier to drive quickly for a novice but if you know what your doing clio will be quicker ALWAYS!

 

[Dave]

I thought the above too. But there is lot of debate in the other corner.

 

[iceblue182]

link?

 

[andy_leitch]

Quote: Originally posted by iceblue182 on 18 October 2004

its heavier and less nimble.

Too right it is. Its about as heavy as a golf and its only a 1.8 with 160bhp too. it probably doesnt have the same rattles or character as i like to refer to is as but still, its just not as good. Its like the CTR debate. Its not even in the same class as a clio. Its a family hatchback. They call it a hot hatch when one of their competitors is a 197bhp CTR. Theyre at the bottom end of the hot family hatch. I bite my thumb at whoever wrote that.

Ta, Andy

 

[Dave]

http://www.xpower-mg.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5f103656d20a2197baea3eab1d3d9419&p=206185&posted=1http://www.xpower-mg.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5f103656d20a2197baea3eab1d3d9419&p=206185&posted=1

If you go over play nice. They are a good bunch same as over here.

 

[bsimmer3000]

i tryed one of them cars out. wish i hadnt even got into the bloody thing. was boring as hell. x-girlfreinds punto was more fun to drive and fatser lol

 

[iceblue182]

i will ;o) just intereted to read some deluded posts!

 

[Lagerlout]

Im still laughing about a Rover 25 being a "much more engineered performance package".

HAHAHA-HAHAHA-HAHAHAH-AHAHAH-AHAHA-HAHA!!!

 

[geoff_clio182]

Quote: Originally posted by hip_spasm on 18 October 2004


what do u think of:

"Personally I dont think that much to the Clio. Having worked on Clio Cup Scholarship days and driven loads of them on circuits and endured the frightening experience of being alongside a "Revved up wanna be racing driver"! I dont think the 172 or the 182 puts out the power so well, the car feels empty in the delivery, and the chassis certainly isnt a match in technical stuff or very high speed stuff. Brakes on Clio not in the same league.

Dont get me wrong, I am not having a dig! Clio is still an impressive package but best as a fast road car. Clio race cars are frightening on the limit, its going to go off, just dont know when!

The ZR is a much more engineered performance package whereas the Clio is a small car with a big engine and it shows. 6 of us all put in faster times on a test track with a ZR160 over a Clio 172. (3 were ex Clio Cup Racers)"

If hed worked on the Scholarship days he would know that they dont use 172s/182s, they use the 1.6 versions!

 

[peterh2]

He is probably getting confused. Not surprised there 160bhp cars are faster round a track than a 110bhp clio. Would be a totally different story against a Renault sport clio though

 

[andyrich]

My grandads got a MG ZR...

Nuff said....!!!

 

[Tom]

I believe that rovers are the future...

 

[jon_r]

lol, anyone else for a sing along?

 

[unofficialPete]

Quote: Originally posted by peterh2 on 19 October 2004

He is probably getting confused. Not surprised there 160bhp cars are faster round a track than a 110bhp clio. Would be a totally different story against a Renault sport clio though

Do a search for a Clio Super 1600, little more than 110hp

 

[Turkish]

ive looked everywhere in my glovebox and i cant find any werthers original and theres no tartan rug on my back seat *sobs*

 

[Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by BluePete on 19 October 2004

Quote: Originally posted by peterh2 on 19 October 2004

He is probably getting confused. Not surprised there 160bhp cars are faster round a track than a 110bhp clio. Would be a totally different story against a Renault sport clio though

Do a search for a Clio Super 1600, little more than 110hp



Yeah but the 220bhp rally cars arent used either so whats your point?

 

[lou_m]

My mate has a ZR, only a 1.4, and its not bad for a 1.4. Brakes are really sh*t though. Overall no comparison to a clio 172/cup/182



lewis

 

[KDF]

How can the 172 brakes be crap when it will out break a ferrarri and porsche ?? Dont know about you lot but when I first got the 172 all my passengers had to wear head protection to avoid brain injuries from the windscreen.

Soon got used to the brakes though.. lol

 

[sn00p]

Quote: Originally posted by KDF on 19 October 2004
How can the 172 brakes be crap when it will out break a ferrarri and porsche ?? Dont know about you lot but when I first got the 172 all my passengers had to wear head protection to avoid brain injuries from the windscreen.

Soon got used to the brakes though.. lol


yeah, brakes on the 172 are awesome! My dad drove my 172 to the dealer one day and drove his volvo back, after getting back into his car he thought there was something wrong with it! (apart from it being very big and underpowered, but thats another story....)

 

[Mitchy]

I think you lot are being a bit harsh on the ZR.

It weighs more, has less power and less torque but would still hold onto a 172. Not saying it would beat it, but a 172 would defo not be losing it.

158/128 vs 170/147........The 172 is lighter also.

IMO it looks a lot better than the clio and its handling/brakes are also a match for the 172.

172cup and 182 are a different story however and the ZR160 would struggle.

 

[TheJesus]

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 19 October 2004


I think you lot are being a bit harsh on the ZR. - nah

It weighs more, has less power and less torque but would still hold onto a 172. Not saying it would beat it, but a 172 would defo not be losing it. - its down on power and up on weight so you therefore deduce that a 172 would not leave it??? Whats your logical IQ?

158/128 vs 170/147........The 172 is lighter also. - you saying the ZR is somehow faster? lmao

IMO it looks a lot better than the clio and its handling/brakes are also a match for the 172. - I seriously doubt the handling is better, I would be very surprised if it could even keep within sight of the 172 round a track.

172cup and 182 are a different story however and the ZR160 would struggle. - how can near identical cars be a different story, theres f**k all difference between em all... Cup looks the best by far though.

 

[phunkey_monkeh]

Are the Super 1600s 220bhp ?

 

[RobFenn]

Theyre comparing a race car to a road car. The Clio Cup racer is COMPLETELY different to drive than the 172 road car, theyre being narrowminded.

It would take experience to get used to the Clio Cup racers, i would suggest the guy you quoted isnt a very experienced driver of cars which give little/no assistance. Just because hes driven them a lot doesnt mean he has got any better.

You only need to pick up a car mag to see a 182 is a better car, or perhaps hes a yet unfound Schumacher...

-Rob

 

[TheJesus]

Quote: Originally posted by RobFenn on 19 October 2004


Theyre comparing a race car to a road car. The Clio Cup racer is COMPLETELY different to drive than the 172 road car, theyre being narrowminded.

It would take experience to get used to the Clio Cup racers, i would suggest the guy you quoted isnt a very experienced driver of cars which give little/no assistance. Just because hes driven them a lot doesnt mean he has got any better.

You only need to pick up a car mag to see a 182 is a better car, or perhaps hes a yet unfound Schumacher...

-Rob

even then surely hed be even more Schumacher in a Clio?? lol

 

[homerjay]

Quote: Originally posted by TheJesus on 19 October 2004

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 19 October 2004


I think you lot are being a bit harsh on the ZR. - nah

It weighs more, has less power and less torque but would still hold onto a 172. Not saying it would beat it, but a 172 would defo not be losing it. - its down on power and up on weight so you therefore deduce that a 172 would not leave it??? Whats your logical IQ?

158/128 vs 170/147........The 172 is lighter also. - you saying the ZR is somehow faster? lmao

IMO it looks a lot better than the clio and its handling/brakes are also a match for the 172. - I seriously doubt the handling is better, I would be very surprised if it could even keep within sight of the 172 round a track.

172cup and 182 are a different story however and the ZR160 would struggle. - how can near identical cars be a different story, theres f**k all difference between em all... Cup looks the best by far though.

damn i need a clapping smilie...

 

[RobFenn]

Maybe because hes called "Rally Matt" means he instantly becomes "driving god". Whats he drive a Group N MG ZR? Group N being a road car...

-Rob

 

[muz]

Having just come from a ZR into a 182 i can give an honest and unbiased opinion (Was waiting for this sort ot thread to pop up!)

The 160 ZR is a fast car. It handles well but understeer is a problem. Ok so it is based on an old platform but that just means they have had loads of time to develop it! The engine is thrashy and has a variable cam system that means low power low in the rev range but when it revs it screams (A la CTR, Celica T sport etc)

Due to the nature of the clio it has more torque and low end grunt however that engine is heavy and without the cup chassis I feel a little worried about how the car will break if you push it too far! Never the less it is significantly faster than a 160 and I am sure round a track would blow it away.

As for rattles nothing in this world rattles as badly as a ZR ! Nothing!

The two cars are very different and I must admit to loving both and really enjoying driving them. It tells a story that I now have a Clio and before I had a ZR but I wont hear a bad word against them! (Apart from build quality, rattles, bad dealers etc which both cars seem to share...)

An argument will rage on and on because people are proud of what they drive and will defend it. All the hot hatches out just now with 160 + BHP are very good(Mini, ZR CTR Clio, Leon, Golf ,Focus172) but they are all different to Drive and have different qualitys and bad points!)

 

[sn00p]

Quote: Originally posted by TheJesus on 19 October 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 19 October 2004158/128 vs 170/147........The 172 is lighter also. - you saying the ZR is somehow faster? lmao[/QUOTE]


Thatll probably due to the "constantly deployed parachute" that 172s had fitted as standard from the factory.

 

[Matt16v]

Not been in a 172 but actually driven a 2.5 V6 MG Z-something round Brands and it was BORING. Supposed to be 180 bhp but felt like a shopping cart. I know its a little unfair as drove the turbo to Brands that day but still, I had expectations on it and it was cack.

As above the Rover 25 is based on a car over 20 years old. The rear suspension is older than the 1st testiment of the bible!!!

 

[Iain C]

ive driven the 160 and really liked it..tho not as good as my cup. Thats why i chose the cup.

I rekon it would give a 172 a hard time tho

 

[TheJesus]

Quote: Originally posted by Iain C on 19 October 2004


ive driven the 160 and really liked it..tho not as good as my cup. Thats why i chose the cup... and its not a Rover

I rekon it would give a 172 a hard time tho, well, in terms of which spends more times on the ramps at the dealer

aaah, more fuel to the fire... (warms hands)

 

[RobFenn]

Ive driven the ZS and it is a fantastic machine. Undervalued IMO, it has a decent chassis and double wishbones at the back i believe? Which explains it..

The problem with peope dishing out opinions of the ZR is that the kind of people who do generally dont know what theyre talking about, it might be their 2nd or 3rd car and they havent really learnt how to drive properly, hell, probably havent got out of FWD! So, people tend to be stuck in their bubble. Which means this topic is pretty trivial to be honest.. I havent driven the ZR other than an 105 testdrive so i wont give an opinion, but ill stick up for the Clios because i know theyre the best hot hatch out there!

-Rob

 

[TheJesus]

plus the Clio is smaller, lighter and more powerful... kinda gives the 160 no hope in the performance stakes, which is the original point of the topic. To be fair they are a really nice looking car and pretty quick from the odd two ive left on the m-way ... sorry, meant runway, private of course... its actually in my back garden (no inuendo please, i know some of you cant help but link things like back garden and runway, so thought id get there first )

 

[Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by RobFenn on 19 October 2004


Ive driven the ZS and it is a fantastic machine. Undervalued IMO, it has a decent chassis and double wishbones at the back i believe? Which explains it..

Front and back. pretty awesome machine to drive as is the zt

 

[jon_r]

Yup the ZS is a different machine altogether, its great fun.

 

[Mitchy]

Quote: Originally posted by TheJesus on 19 October 2004

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 19 October 2004


I think you lot are being a bit harsh on the ZR. - nah

It weighs more, has less power and less torque but would still hold onto a 172. Not saying it would beat it, but a 172 would defo not be losing it. - its down on power and up on weight so you therefore deduce that a 172 would not leave it??? Whats your logical IQ?

Jesus, ie motorway blast. There would hardly be anything in it, a 160 would be in close range of a 172 bumper.

158/128 vs 170/147........The 172 is lighter also. - you saying the ZR is somehow faster? lmao

Who said anything of the kind? Better power/more torque and a lighter car suggests a bashing to the other. It doesnt!

IMO it looks a lot better than the clio and its handling/brakes are also a match for the 172. - I seriously doubt the handling is better, I would be very surprised if it could even keep within sight of the 172 round a track.

I never mentioned better handling, i said would match. To add to this argument, i have here in front of me an old autocar review from 05/03. It was a review of the best hot hatches for under £15k, remember?? The ZR160 actually got rated quite badly, due to the interior/driving position etc but when it came down to lap times, it done quite well. The clio cup lapped in 1min 27.03 and the ZR160 lapped in 1 min 29.09 so 2 secs in it between cup and ZR. If you take into account that this was a cup and not a 172 then that 2 sec will shrink to maybe 1/2 sec. Like i said a ZR will hold onto a 172 round a track and it will certainly keep in sight. Facts like these speak a thousand words.

172cup and 182 are a different story however and the ZR160 would struggle. - how can near identical cars be a different story, theres f**k all difference between em all... Cup looks the best by far though.

Near identical cars?? Try telling that to the cup owners.

 

[Yugguy]

Ive driven the ZS180, cracking car, proof you CAN make a silk purse out of a sows ear.