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.
Good natured ZR160 debate...
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
Errr yes they do, its mainly supplied by Buckingam Group who maintain the surface at Silverstone, it is done in Prixmat (R) as is Donnington, Goodwood, Pembrey, Rockingham. Other circuits use other versions I think one is made by Shell that was used at Croft and Knockhill. Oulton, Cadwell, Brands, Coombe and Thruxton all have special hi grip race surfaces.
Although not yet a MSA/FIA certification requirement, thats on its way, it is demanded by insurers of most speed venues.
There are regulations for classes of international and world championship rounds that it is mandatory under FIA regulations. It is also manadatory under CART regulations with the exception of "Street" circuits
http://www.contractjournal.com/home/Default.asp?type=3&liArticleID=22040http://www.contractjournal.com/home/Default.asp?type=3&liArticleID=22040
isnt this what donnington is now surfaced with?
/y0z
Ziel Nurburgring
Matt, dont take this the wrong way mate. But your on a clio site, with clio enthusiasts, about to pick an argument with someone who does trackdays as a hobby, Careful what you say.
This isnt intended to rile (sp) you, but your on shakey ground with Rob.
Got any pics of your group N for us to have a butchers at?
I have worked with lots of the instructors at Brands, most of us work all round and I think they werent tell you the truth!
The surface at Brands is a high grip co-efficient surface. When Indy cars came over they had to test sample the circuit all over to reasure the CART people that it was upto spec, which is a hi grip surface. Just to make sure I just called the facilities manager at Silverstone, who also used to look after all the Octagon circuits and he confirmed it is in a rival material to Prixmat but the same spec.
I am not trying to argue for the sake of it but I am right, call the circuit and speak to the facilities people.
Us intstructors will tell "Billies" anything especially if it makes us look good!
I always struggle with pictures on these things! If you wanna see some pics go here http://www.mg-xtremerally.comwww.mg-xtremerally.com sorry if Im not supposed to post a web address, delete if its not permitted!
Factory cars, we run 3 for rally passenger rides, slightly different to full rally spec. The cage is different, has a lower door cross making getting in and out easier.
200 bhp, 201 Nm, 0-60 4.8 sec (straight cut syncro box with homolgated ratios, 1st is like 2nd, 5 th is like 4th in a road car box. Runs out of revs at 118mph but gets there pretty quick!
Oter than that most Group N stuff is standard spec. These run like a dream and are vitually bombproof!
Leda adjustable suspension, various versions and development kits etc as we are sponsored by them. Mintex 1177 front pads and 1155 rears, again a sponsor. Pirelli P6000 road tyres for most of the passneger ride stuff even on gravel, makes it more fun! another sponsor! Powerflex bushes in the suspension and engine mountings, some are development bits as again we test their new stuff.
Cars are reinforced motorsport shells, lightweight, no unused captives! seam welded etc. We used to run a trick programme on the ecu that backfired and shot out flame but it frightened children!
Power comes from a special factory tune on the ecu, changed air filter and huge exhaust! The trick stuff is all in the electrics!
Brakes are adjustable for rear bias and we both left foot brake so they are pretty nimble.
where is their info about these sq gear boxes?
Now everyone has had their point.
i have just changed from a 206 gti to a clio 182 with cup packs ect...
before that i had a vts and before that a vtr
two of my mates have got mg zr 160
when i had a race with them in my 206 we stayed together all the way to 80mhp and then the mg started to edge in front. Remember 206gti are 138bhp.
Now i have my clio even at just over 1500miles and their cars are run in.
I left both of them about 15 car lengths. and they are well impressed with the clio, they said they where both giving full go.. so its not just like ive raced a dog of an mg.
Sorry i have test driven every hothatch under the sun from 206GTi 180s, Focus RS, Civic Type R, Mini cooper S works, MG ZR 160, Golf 1.8T 180, the lot it took me over 12months to find a car i love to drive and is a true hothatch.
I not even i die hard clio fan, dont like the look of them that much, plus every tom, dick and harry gots one. But it is truly a beast
FN2 Type R +MK6 Golf
I can understand MG owners trying to defend there purchase.....they are good cars but only a good attempt at a proper hothatch.
My mum used to have a rover 200 and thats what the MG is with a body-kit,an elaborate marketing plan to get rid of the 70 trillion body shells that are lying around the country.
The engineers at MG are amongst the best there is no mistake,but even they cant make the things what they want them to be...I must admit though the newer shape one that plays footie is a better attempt to salvage some dignity....but the fact remains...you cant improve a flawed design by throwing power and big brakes at it
No offence intended but they are now trying to sell the older shape ones at my local ford garage...old shape but new if you know what i mean.....
It would appear they have become the poor puppy in the car market where everyone is trying to lend a last hand before it dies......
ian
Posted on both Cliosport and Xpower sites
Glad these threads have calmed down a bit now. Whats the point getting all het up over who has a better car, because there will always be better cars than what youve got?
Id like to point out again, not only have I owned both cars in question, I was members of both forums before this thread started. I am totally unbiased with my opinions on the peoples and the cars.
Theres some good people on both sites ( which is one reason why Im a member on both ). Rally Matt looks like he knows his stuff and you have to respect him for that - ZR guys sl*gged Clio guys off and vice versa - touche...now time to stop and get back to the important thing of enjoying your car - whichever one it is, its good!
Only reason I changed from a ZR was due to the number of problems I had with it, other than that I loved that car and I didnt want to let it go. It looked, sounded and drove well, other Xpower members said I just had been unlucky and had a "bad car" and probably I did ( in the near 2 years I had it, there was only 1 week where a problem did not exist ). I am very happy with the Clio, it feels better build quality than the ZR, ive found it quicker for the type of moutainous B roads, A roads and motorways I drive than the ZR was, it has been more economical, level of equipment is better ( climate control, Xenon lights, ESP etc ), insurance is cheaper ( Insurance company gave me over £200 back whilst still on ZR insurance ). The downsides of Clio compared with ZR are, saying "The MG" sounded better and made me feel more special than saying " The Renault", I preferred the ZR looks, I felt more part of the car with the ZR.
The decision I made to change to the Clio was definitely the right one, I am much happier without all the hassles of the ZR being in and out of the dealers without anything getting sorted out properly, but put it this way, if I owned an MG, but with Jap reliability, Clios interior level of equipment, engine and transmission, ZRs exterior looks and driving feel, I would be an even happier man.
Well said Steve!
On a technical side, the Clio has a narrower power band than the ZR 160, although power and torque are higher, peak torque is at 5250 rpm and peak power at 6500, the ZR is 4500 to 7000. It will be intersting to see if a more flexible engine is more effective than one with more of eveything but in a reduced rev range. Has anyone got a power torque graph of a standard 172/182?
I know this is a bit off topic but I mentioned the QS5 system earlier, as it is a robotised manual, technically the basics can be grafted onto any manual box, thats the theory and the software works it all out activating the change motors. Software is there to be interfered with and could quite easily be tweaked to give a better shift critera. Would be fun to strap it onto a 182, just to see if would work! As I said I did the dealer launch for the QS5 and doing dealer visits, we had a whale of a time trying to blow it up but to be fair it coped although I know some of the launch teams did have a few hicups, like the 70 mph "Go on try and engage reverse, its ok the system wont let you, oh s4it it has, the gearbox is mullered!"
Cant find the power torque bits, someone post a link!
Elise/VX220/R26
For all the figure quoting and stuff (yawn) 172 are quicker than zr160s, simple fact. One of my neighbours has one, thay are decently quick no denying that but 172 is quicker through all gears and you can throw it into corners "frighteningly quicker" this is what my m8 said when he was in the car with me, he thought he was going to die when I braked into a corner about 2 seconds later than he said he would in the zr.
Its plain common sense, the zr might have a few flash bits on it but its essentially a 14 year old design! The current ZR should have been replaced before it was even created! nThe 172 has one of if not the the best engines ever created in its class along with true go kart handling.
This was a long thread so thought Id look in.
Confusion to say the least regarding what he basis of comparison is but there are some salient points.
Rally Matt is certainly right about a good driver being able to make up large differentials in "on paper" / pub bragging figures. Ive seen this been put to good effect many times on track. The number one upgrade for any car is the driver.
As a decidedly average driver I wouldnt fancy my chances against a pro in a slower car.
The only way to accurately measure the relative performance is to take a number of drivers and get them to drive both cars. Ive seen this in other groups where the "mine is better, faster, better, quicker" arguements hve gotten out of hand.
Re where the Torque /power are produced in the rev range - yes that will have an effect, but typically only on the road, as on the track youre going to be "in the power band" all the time.
...and dont ban him - hes been remarkably good natured!
Banning him would be an abuse of your powers
Absolutely.
Cant find the curves myself either Matt!! They were from a Cliosport rolling road day some time back......
I know most people poke fun at the MG because they are based on an old design but does that immeadiately mean they are no good?? Not sure my self.....
ps 172 is better
[Edited by lagerlout1 on 20 October 2004 at 8:53pm]
I have just read through this whole thread and I think the above pic above sums it up for me. I didnt even consider an MG when buying the 182 but did consider the CTR. I had a play with a ZR 160 the other day at the midlands meet as his was acting like a d1ck pushing his way into our convoy, I showed him who was boss on the DC up to the speed limit, no contest really.Quote: Originally posted by Daipac on 20 October 2004
That Clown comment was a bit unfair I thought !
http://erc.qmuc.ac.uk/cliosport/gallery/full/1098279006__Clowns.jpg
Sorry, couldnt resist..............
Oh and the 182 was handling as good as Elises at Spa and the brakes suffered no fade during the whole day and were absolutely amazing, infact I remember reading that people rate them as only second to porsche brakes, and Phil Bennet, he had a thing or two to say about the 182.
Thats my opinion anyway.
Luckily the clutch just disingrated, following it it looked like they had just had a bird strike! Feathers of clutch plate flapping about! One of the shfts in the gearbox was poking through the casing at a jounty angle and most of the gear box oil was doing a good impression of waxyoil! Car stopped pretty quick! Nearly had another Clio QS5 in the boot!Quote: Originally posted by BossCup on 20 October 2004
I bet that called for a change of underwear
Oh god youve gone an upset a Volvo owner now. He did not say ALL Volvos are big and underpowered did he! he said his dads was. And whats the point of comparing a said volvo to a clio 182 anyway, what ya getting at? They are hardly the same class of car now are they!
The question id like to know is could Rally Matt beat your volvo round his technical track? i bet he would thrash it!
Well Im up for the challenge! lol
This is probably a mad idea but maybe we should all organise our own massive group test of a whole range of cars, no poncy journos, just real people with their cars.
I told you was a crazy idea!
