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!

Is the MK1 172 better than MK2

Its just all press reports seem to think it but what is your opinions?

Is the MK1 faster? I recall a 0-60 in 6.6 for a mk1 that Evo tested?

if your just looking for pure speed, then yes.

different TB which is larger helps and one odd thing it noticed when dragging a MK1 in my MK2 was ratios.....i have no idea about these.

any way, my MK2 revs to 7750rpm max......his is the std limit, oh BTW, its HKs most power ful clio supposedly. well, he was faster down teh strip, but changing gear after me witha lower rpm lmt(i could her his mega loud zorst mere inches from me out teh window)!!!???

i dunno,

but i enjoyed my MK1 more........the mk2 is so heavy.

oh, but the mk1 banging noise gets annoying.....went through a couple mounts ion a few months.

Would tend to disagree Ben m8.. the TB on the mk1 was not offering the best torque spread (flat curve) due to it being too large and lack of control of opening by the user driver

the change to fly by wire tb on the mk2 sorted this, the absolute power is the same on both models with the mk2 being slightly more tractable through the range due to these change.

I would say there is nothing, or very little in it as the weight increase of the mk2 was compensated by these changes.


Personally I prefer the looks of the mk1 and the fact that you see fewer on the road. Spose thats me just being biased though due to the fact that I own one!

True the mk2 TB is smaller hand has a profile to it where as the mk1 is more like a tin with the lid stuck in it. but ultimately i would take the mk1 Tb for its greater potential.......if we were tog o to work on the the head and get a decent amount of flow. BUT, i know you wil say this is hard on the F4R head....with those large inlets already.......BUT, thre is never nothing we cant clean up.....hehe.

but, having owned and driven both i can say that teh experice in the mk1 was more fun and rewarding , if a little less comfortable and more twitchy....

i feel the mk1 is better......but i like the looks of the mk2 better now.....and to be honest, i hate FBW!!!!

and i know this aint you BUT, i would LOVE a F4 that screamed on TBs and a wild cam to 10,000rpm and power only came on at 5000rpm...whoo hooo....that would be a blast.

whichever one you like best is best for godssake, lets not start this one off again - if you prefer Mk1 then that is best, if you prefer Mk2 then that is best, and if you prefer a 206gti or a ctr then they will be best - its known as "each to their own" I think :D

p.s. of course the Mk1 is best - and in yellow, of course !!! :D

Yeah I like tbs but the trouble is FBWs and tin cans with F4rs stuck inthem get right on my wick. Not to mention the old wd40 xyz.

whaddaya mean it aint me lol !!.. I would love that too hee hee..

For ultimate potential, as you say, you wouldnt use the std tb at all. (If you DID use it I doubt there would be much benefit in either mk1 or 2 as the incredible gain by fitting 4 tbs on even a std engine shows the severe limitations of either design) - unless of course.. ya BLOW it in under high pressure.. hmmmmmmm.. 4 tbs AND turbo charging.. works well for the Suzi Hayabusa lol !

Why hate FBW ??.. maybe getting control of it is not straight forward as a cable system... its actually got great potential (far more than a cable system) as in.. torque control, traction control and... cruise control (Another winter project for me 172 lol !)


I just like the Mk1 becuase it looks more aggressive. Its also a bit more special - especially the rare 172 Exclusive. My mates got his Exclusive up for sale now, and Id be sorely tempted if it wasnt for the 16v/Willy being much better looking (and cheaper!).

I suppose that time is kinder to some cars, and most people seem to prefer the subtle upgrades of the Phase 2 16v/Willy.

The 172 just isnt a car that grabs me in the looks department in the way the 16v/Willy do. Same with the GT Turbo - top of my list for looks, along with the 172s - but they still dont have that bonnet bulge and the flared arched stance.
  CTR EK9 turbo

Some days i think the 16v/willy look better than my car/newer 172s and other days i think the other way around. I just think that i like mine because its new, well a year old now! and still looks new (when its clean). Although any car can look fresh when its kept well and polished etc. I think the main thing i prefer over my car and the 16v/willy is the interior (and engine of course). I think that if i couldnt have afforded my 172 i would have bought a Starlet turbo or honda prelude 2.2 vtec or corrado or something, prob not an older model clio unfortunately. (i think ive gone a bit off topic here, sorry!)

What is the point of this thread??

Ok if youre new to the forum post crap like this, but Danny, youve been on here for ages, surley youve seen topics like this come and go more often than a Dave Seaman blunder!!

I would much rather have my mark 1 over the mark 2 for tha looks and the rariety of the type,but the mark 2 has really grown on me,i especially like the rear lights and the bumper on the mark 2.


Quote: Originally posted by teady172 on 17 October 2002

What is the point of this thread??

Ok if youre new to the forum post crap like this, but Danny, youve been on here for ages, surley youve seen topics like this come and go more often than a Dave Seaman blunder!!
Lets not have a mass debate over seaman PLEASE, HAW! HAW!

Mk1 do look more aggressive but the interior is so much better in the MKII and lets face it most of your time spent with the car is inside.

On the road, the difference in performance between the two is too small to notice and is very dependant on the driver.

Buy the time youve added exhausts, springs and shocks, tyres, induction kits, chips, etc the character of either will be vastly different from standard and by then comparisons will now go by on how much youve spent modding the cars.
  Mk4 MX-5, Smart 451

i agree with JonC, i think the interior on the Newer car is much better than that of the MK1, it is a much more Sophisticated & Up To Date Look. As for the exterior i must admit i wasnt keen on it at first, but it does grow on you, the only thing about the newer car that puts me off is the shape of the cover over the dials?? Pretty yucky, what was wrong with the curved one?

Gaz 2130

I also think that the wheels on the mk2 are a bit plain. They should have the wheels that they put on the Cup. Reno ort to make it an option.
  Scirocco GT TSi DSG

Have to agree about the wheels, I dont mind the Mk2 wheels but wouldhave prefered the Cup wheels.

I like the MK2 more than the MK1 (personal taste) I think the MK2 is more agressive looking from the front and has an excellent interior. Besides my MK2 after three months still makes me smile every time I turn the key.

Performance wise I doubt there is that much in it on average. As we have seen from RR the bhp between standard 172s is quite vast, so the MKI EVO tested from 0-60 may have been a good example/excellent example and the MK2 that managed 7s flat on the final test could have been a good-bad example.

With them being so different within the range it probably only comes down to the driver anyway.

Funny that you think that the mk2 looks more agressive from the front. Most people say the mk1 looks the more agressive of the two. I agree with you about the performance. There is bugger all in it and even with the variation in power output as demonstrated by the rr days 0-60/100 would be much of a muchness.


ClioSport Club Member

You cant decide which of the mk1 and mk2 172sis better by a simple comparison. They are different cars after all.

The mk1 is by far more agressive to look at and is thus preferred by the hot-head boy racer elements. Whereas the mk2 is a more conventional cleaner looking car. The mk1 I think has the nicer front end. But can anyone say they think its back end is as nice as the mk2s.

As far as performance goes, who really cares about the 0.5s 0-60mph advantage the mk1 has, or the advantage the mk2 has in a 0-100mph test.

One way in which the mk1 is significantly better than a mk2 is tyres. OK the contis are brilliant track day tyres but compared the the pilots they are terrible in the every day wet conditions I am beginning to experience in S.Wales as winter grows close.

Being lucky enough to be able to drive both a mk1 and mk2 172, I think it is enough to say that they are both fantastic cars and are usually owned by satisfied owners.
  Mk4 MX-5, Smart 451

i also agree with greeper, i too believe that the Mk2 looks more aggressive from the front.
  Mk4 MX-5, Smart 451

its the DEEP lines running down the front of the bumper and the big lights that do it!!

Just looked at a pic of the Mk 1 in Autotrader last night - looks as dated as the Williams/16V - dont mean that in a derogatory way just as a comparison - the stealth look is back - sharp, lines and edges/bubble look out - it comes and goes in cycles these trends - in a few years well be back to the bubly look !!

LOL......what a great thread.......its all personal of course......but hell, you like what you own right..LOL

anyway, since having owned both cars.....i thought the MK2 looked poo at first, but now i love the MK2 front end and teh mk does look a little dated......BUT WHY DIDNT THEY MAKE A YELLOW MK2!!!!!!

and capt.....our development cup racer (only cost 14.5K!!!!!) had 4 tbs stuck on it and power was up to 215BHP!!!!!! insane.....TVFM!!!

OH, and i dont lie FBV casue i dont.....ergh......feels horrible, althought yes, potential is there to control alot....BUT ergh.....feels so rather pull the throttle open via a string throught the window.LOL