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!

Has anyone seen this

wow .. thats a mk2 172 with a 0-60 time in the 6.6 region .. that answers my question from the other whether anyone had managed a sub 7 second 0-60.... well impressed... I thought i read a 0-100 time of 17.9 though, is 19 good ???
  Corsa 1.3 CDTI

Yepp I was going to add that.

Also did you see the weight they had down for it 1059kgs for the 172 !!!

sorry - i thought it was a mk1 because the new v6 had just come out and i thought they were racing it against the mk2 ..... oh well, im getting the mk1 anyway well is the 19 secs to 100 good ??

ive seen a 17.9 0-100 forthe 172 and a 16.2 for the CTR but thats the best ive seen it do ... still ive seen a quicker 0-60 for the 172 than i have for the CTR
  Clio v6

Many moons ago that was one of the reports that gave me so much enjoyment to read when I owned a 172.

The Clio 172 is truely a car to be respected.

Dont listen to the likes of Evo magazine when they say such things as " Forget what the factory figures qoute for this Clio V6". "We feel 0-60 in 5.5 seconds is nearer the truth"

And so can be said for the 172. I reckon it was a great deal quicker than the brochure said.

truth is, the V6 is underpered, but 285 is easy to get.....very easy.

and it will hussle around a track faster....which is all that matters....
  CTR EK9 turbo

It certainly would. I love the V6 and isnt the new one coming out with 260bhp? out of any car gazed at on the road, the V6 definately gets the most attention! just imagine a staight-through "zorst"!!

No question a CTR is faster to 100, 6 gears and all them revs, but figures Ive seen show its all after 80, up till the its the same.

Autocar timed a 172, 24 secs to 100, and I cant believe they wernt trying. They tested run in ones at 17.9 (LHD Mk1), 19.08 (RHD Mk1) I have the issues of Autocar in front of me. So plenty of variation, what would a run in CTR do ?

However in ther article where they say the 172 makes the V6 look clueless under braking they lie twice. They say the reaction time in the 172 was longer, the figures show it shorter, they say the overall braking time 100-0 was 3 tenths less in the 172, the figures show it was three hundredths less, they are so full of sh*t.