when ive seen these quoted, its always been the other way round for the 172 mk1 and mk2!?!?!? is that right?Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 05 November 2003
mk1 172 - 7.11secs
mk2 172 - 6.34secs
Cup 172 - 6.67secs
mk1 V6 - 6.25secs
Did you not read my comments then?!Quote: Originally posted by Rorrie on 05 November 2003
when ive seen these quoted, its always been the other way round for the 172 mk1 and mk2!?!?!? is that right?
Yeah, theres no way a car with only 200 miles on the clock is gonna give good performance...Quote: Originally posted by phill* on 06 November 2003
how is the cup slower? is that becuase it was not run in
How did you time that?!Quote: Originally posted by phill* on 06 November 2003
i recon i could get 6.7-6.6 out of my MK2 172. cos when i did the run @ 6.99 i had a female passenger and 1/2 a tank. so on my own with 1/4 tank
I seem to remember a dashingly handsome bloke in a gorgeous silver mk1 172 the same day beating a red MK2 with PADDYS on the plate down the strip a few times. I seem to remember him getting 14.603. Dunno who he was though.....Quote: Originally posted by Chris nnic on 05 November 2003
I would guess that Paddys probably does 0-60 in high 6s. Maybe 6.7ish?
The only way to do it properly is with some kind of performance meter (i.e. an AP22) or proper timing gear...Quote: Originally posted by phill* on 06 November 2003
it was done over 5 runs 0-60 with stopwatch on mobile phone. Told her to stop when i was at 59mph to counter delay and also there would be a delay between start and go.. so 6.99 is perfectly feasable M8
Yeah, it has to be mounted correctly or you can get a wrong reading...Quote: Originally posted by Mitsi on 06 November 2003
those AP-22s are crap no? apparently if u tilt them a certain way u get quicker times?
**cough** backseatsout! **cough**Quote: Originally posted by paddymph on 06 November 2003
**cough** standard! **cough**
Excuses excusesQuote: Originally posted by paddymph on 06 November 2003
***cough*** broken 4th injector and 4 inch hole in backbox! ***cough***
i presumed that the induction kit would make the mk1 fatser and as the mk2 was standard - it would be even more oposite - didnt have a clue warm weather slowed it down if you have an open ait induction kit i know bugger all about engine modsQuote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 06 November 2003
Did you not read my comments then?!Quote: Originally posted by Rorrie on 05 November 2003
when ive seen these quoted, its always been the other way round for the 172 mk1 and mk2!?!?!? is that right?
It had an open induction kit fitted which was not helping as it was warm weather, shown up more with a cr@p 0-100 time.
Also, that particular mk1 was never a "quick one" and my old 106 GTi was easily a match for it, so a bad example in our group test.
However, that mk2 was feckin rapid, so made the mk1 look even worse!
Sorry, thought that was common knowledge...Quote: Originally posted by Rorrie on 07 November 2003
i presumed that the induction kit would make the mk1 fatser and as the mk2 was standard - it would be even more oposite - didnt have a clue warm weather slowed it down if you have an open ait induction kit i know bugger all about engine mods