Its a 0-100-0 shoot out between the Clio 172 and the V6. There are lots of others including M3 vs Evo VII:
http://www.warrender.co.uk/test0011/clio-wide.jpg
Quotes include: "The 172 made the V6 look clueless"
Makes interesting reading.
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.
Has anyone seen this
- Thread starter Simon172
- Start date
Its a 0-100-0 shoot out between the Clio 172 and the V6. There are lots of others including M3 vs Evo VII:
http://www.warrender.co.uk/test0011/clio-wide.jpg
Quotes include: "The 172 made the V6 look clueless"
Makes interesting reading.
Nice one Simon. Perhaps Renault will read it and slash £10K off the price of the V6! Hey.. I can dream cant I?
wow .. thats a mk2 172 with a 0-60 time in the 6.6 region .. that answers my question from the other day...to 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 ???
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
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.
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.
