It ends, here...?

[MarkCup]

I'm fed up of all the arguments about who's year/spec/engine is fastest? I'm bored...and I've made assumptions, so if anyone that was there can correct me where I've gone wrong, please do...

At the rolling road day at Janspeed recently, there were 30 odd cars that turned up, roughly 5 of which weren't clios, and say 10 of which, weren't 172/182 variants.

Out of the 172/182s, there were three 172 Cups.

Of all the cars there, the highest recorded at the wheels figure, was 151, with next highest being 149, 148, and 147, then a few 146's, then down through to a low I think of about 139.

I don't recall anyone there running anything serious engine mod wise...I myself have an ITG panel, and R-sport ECU.

The three 172 Cups were IIRC all over 20k (mine was on about 53k), but so were some of the 182's.

The 151 was recorded by a 182, fitted with a decat, so we'll give that the benefit of, say, 3 bhp, which puts it on 148 (IIRC no 172 Cup had a decat).

So the results were therefore;

1. 1st - 172 Cup
2. 2nd - 172 Cup/Trophy
3. 4th - 172 Cup

Allowing for losses...those results come from ATW performancs consecutively taken on the same rolling road.

The Trophy gets fairly regular track outings, as does mine, but I'm not sure about anyone else?

Accross a random sample then, 172 Cup's genuinely put the most useable power on the road, and allowing for ICE they still tend to be lighter, and are therefore clearly the fastest. But of the MKII's is it because they tend to be owned by more enthusiastic drivers/get thrashed more regularly? I think it is.

If you want a quick one, regularly thrash it, hard, over long distances.

Thank you - the end.

 

[Day]

Well said Mark.

We all joke about it on the forum but whenever I've spoken to people at such days everyone agrees theres so little in it between all of them.

Seems pointless arguing over a car that to be quite frank isn't so quick as everyone makes out. Sure it accelerates well but over at highish speeds we all still get shat on by Mr Audi and Mr BMW etc etc.

 

[Lagerlout]

So the Cup has 1 or 2 more bhp. That's some real useable power right there.. hehe

To chuck in my 2p, I found the biggest difference with the Cup was nothing to do with the engine at all.... after all it is identical.

The way it handles was the biggest difference for me.

 

[Dash]

Does it really matter who has a slightly quicker wee Clio?

 

[ant]

its like arguing who has the smelliest farts.



they all stink.

 

[Tom Rigbanks]

Id like to see the evidence that thrashing a car makes it faster. The power an engine puts out is dictated by the closeness of the metal parts to their set tolerances, not how many times the engine hit the limiter.

An engine will go through a cycle of 'tight' - 'run in' - 'worn'. The more you rev and harder you work it, the quicker it gets through that cycle. So yes you reach the 'fastest' time point more quickly, but then you also aproach the 'worn' time point more quickly too. Pay your money and take your choice.

You cant make a slow engine fast by thrashing it. For that you need it blueprinted.

 

[Stevie]

Id like to see the evidence that thrashing a car makes it faster. The power an engine puts out is dictated by the closeness of the metal parts to their set tolerances, not how many times the engine hit the limiter.

An engine will go through a cycle of 'tight' - 'run in' - 'worn'. The more you rev and harder you work it, the quicker it gets through that cycle. So yes you reach the 'fastest' time point more quickly, but then you also aproach the 'worn' time point more quickly too. Pay your money and take your choice.

You cant make a slow engine fast by thrashing it. For that you need it blueprinted.

I know if I thrash my car for a while it opens up more and there is a quicker response from the engine. I've done this since owning it and have surprised myself with the type of cars I've played with.

Am example of this, I went to the blackpool meet and tonight to Leeds and the car feels rapid afterwards and clearly more potent.

 

[ChrisE]

I'm fed up of all the arguments about who's year/spec/engine is fastest? I'm bored...and I've made assumptions, so if anyone that was there can correct me where I've gone wrong, please do...

At the rolling road day at Janspeed recently, there were 30 odd cars that turned up, roughly 5 of which weren't clios, and say 10 of which, weren't 172/182 variants.

Out of the 172/182s, there were three 172 Cups.

Of all the cars there, the highest recorded at the wheels figure, was 151, with next highest being 149, 148, and 147, then a few 146's, then down through to a low I think of about 139.

I don't recall anyone there running anything serious engine mod wise...I myself have an ITG panel, and R-sport ECU.

The three 172 Cups were IIRC all over 20k (mine was on about 53k), but so were some of the 182's.

The 151 was recorded by a 182, fitted with a decat, so we'll give that the benefit of, say, 3 bhp, which puts it on 148 (IIRC no 172 Cup had a decat).

So the results were therefore;

1. 1st - 172 Cup
2. 2nd - 172 Cup/Trophy
3. 4th - 172 Cup

Allowing for losses...those results come from ATW performancs consecutively taken on the same rolling road.

The Trophy gets fairly regular track outings, as does mine, but I'm not sure about anyone else?

Accross a random sample then, 172 Cup's genuinely put the most useable power on the road, and allowing for ICE they still tend to be lighter, and are therefore clearly the fastest. But of the MKII's is it because they tend to be owned by more enthusiastic drivers/get thrashed more regularly? I think it is.

If you want a quick one, regularly thrash it, hard, over long distances.

Thank you - the end.

LOL i like the post!! :approve:!!

 

[Martin]

Fed up of the arguements so you start another one lol

 

[MarkCup]

Does it really matter who has a slightly quicker wee Clio?

But that is EXACTLY my point.

The facts are clear (and I've not seen any evidence to the contrary yet), move on...ban/delete any threads that turn into slanging matches beacause it doesn't matter and we all look like stupid c***s to the rest of the net.

BenR or AndyGDI or Mike or Alex care to comment on thrashing hard regularly?

 

[Ali]

172 full fats the best

But seriously the cup is the nicest looking car out the lot. If it had the comforts and abs i'd have it in a shot.

 

[trailerparktrev]

I can confirm as I was there there were a couple of higher mileage 172 Cups, with basic mods making very good at the wheel readings, beating the majority of the 182s (mine included) in fact I think they beat every 182!!?@!!!?!?!?

 

[Craig]

i think the trophy looks the best

 

[rory182]

"If you want a quick one, regularly thrash it, hard, over long distances."

Agreed, mines well run in - used to sit on A roads for 700 miles a week averaging 65-75mph, for first 18k miles of its life.

 

[ukaskew]

I can confirm as I was there there were a couple of higher mileage 172 Cups, with basic mods making very good at the wheel readings, beating the majority of the 182s (mine included) in fact I think they beat every 182!!?@!!!?!?!?

I was only on 17k at the time iirc and managed pretty much identical readings to Marks and the other Cup (and higher than the 182s as you say) with just a ITG Panel Filter, so not sure if mileage makes a great difference. Only a few BHP in it either way though.

 

[Davey_182]

My mate has a 172 cup i've a ff 182 we have noticed no difference in performance with one exception........he won't/can't push it in the wet like the 182 can!!

 

[Davey_182]

My mate has a 172 cup i've a ff 182 we have noticed no difference in performance with one exception........he won't/can't push it in the wet like the 182 can!!

 

[Davey_182]

My mate has a 172 cup i've a ff 182 we have noticed no difference in performance with one exception........he won't/can't push it in the wet like the 182 can!!

apologies for repeating myself

 

[Stevie]

lol :clown:

 

[Dan@SJM]

Thats the best way to run in a new engine, hard, giving it lots of load, but not lots of revs, so full acceleration in 2nd 3rd 4th, to bed the rings in nicely. They also seem to last longer if they are given a hard run in.

 

[JayR]

Lol, 172 cups are old now, end of

 

[Iain C]

My cup doesnt really get run hard (well not till recently) and that still put a good figure wilh a piper viper and prospeed.
My cup is on 25k btw

 

[clarkiev6]

what about the v6's then???















lol....JOKING!!!

 

[Dave H]

My mate has a 172 cup i've a ff 182 we have noticed no difference in performance with one exception........he won't/can't push it in the wet like the 182 can!!

Agreed .

Thats why l changed.Unlike a lot of drivers who rate themselves as WRC material l don't so l went for the 182 as l could drive it quicker and more safely.
For me,point to point,in all weathers, the 182 would be quicker.

Oh....and l fecking love Racing Blue

Lets face it when l was 20 in a MK3 escort 1.1 l use to dream of owning a car that looks as good and goes as well an MK1 RS Clio

 

[Turkish]

If only all cup owners would agree there's a gnats c**k difference between performance. The "good/bad one" and driver play more of a part in who's quickest on road/ track than whether there is a cup badge on the back. Sadly there are a few who are too ignorant to accept that as a fact.

 

[Dash]

Would a lighter driver bridge this 0.3242 secs difference?

 

[David_Snaresbrook]

Who cares which is fastest, at the end of the day they are all cheap french rattle boxes, lol.

We've established at most there is 1-2bhp difference at the wheels, so in the real world, on the roads or the track its going to be driver talent that wins the race.

If you want to make your car quicker than the other RS Clios, then get better brakes

 

[w7 sav 182]

put them on a circuit u can av ten brake differance like said above, the driver is the differnace, what can the bhp do if u cant drive the car to the limits...

 

[Turkish]

Or learn to drive, as im sure the amount of cups written off due to the "it was the lack of ABS that caused the accident not my s**t driving" annual cull is proof of.

 

[EVOgone]

BHP is no substitute for a good driver....alls we are talking about is 50kg and 5bhp..

Get some track instruction and you will be a hell of a lot quicker than the above will ever give you.

 

[Dash]

BHP is no substitute for a good driver....alls we are talking about is 50kg and 5bhp..

Get some track instruction and you will be a hell of a lot quicker than the above will ever give you.

So true. I could have 400 bhp and someone with good driving skills could leave me for dust around a track.

 

[CHRIS172CUP]

As I've always said, it's down to the driver.

Good thread, nice one Mark.

 

[Chris n nic]

I guess it`s more down to knowing when to give it some....if you think that the 182 is going to sort everything out if it snaps in the wet then so be it....yes it probably would be easier for a regular driver to bomb around in the wet in a 182 but I get round this by not doing it. If it`s wet then just back off a little....it is VERY rare that I`ll be flying round in the wet..just not worth it imo

Chris

 

[Tom Rigbanks]

Wet rods and tracks are good ways of showing up inhernet handling problems in cars. If a car has a bad reputation in the wet, it usually because the set up is wrong.

If a car is good in the dry and a death trp in the wet, it probably means the car is over reliant on tyre grip and has poor balance as a result. Id also expect such a car to be heavier on front tyres and also maybe have wheels with the wrong offset.

 

[Chris n nic]

I suppose the cups lighter back seats, and lack of a spare wouldn`t help the balance of the car too much. On the std springs I always felt that the back end of my Cup was very twitchy on fast sweeping bends...eibachs on and its a different story...much better and more stable.

Chris

 

[CHRIS172CUP]

Even when I've taken out the back seats in my cup for trackdays I find it a little different, almost too light. Makes the exhaust sound good though

 

[MarkCup]

I think the lightness at the back helps hugely, keeps understeer in check, helps the car rotate on entry, and generally lets you know what's going on.

I've found that so long as you don't do anything foolish to unbalance the car, it moves about, but never really threatens, just kind of wags it's tail from turn-in to apex...and it's great fun to provoke!

 

[ste_brough]

Has there been any arguments about which variation puts out the most power? I thought all the arguments were "which is quicker"? If so, doesn't that make the below irrelevant?

I'm fed up of all the arguments about who's year/spec/engine is fastest? I'm bored...and I've made assumptions, so if anyone that was there can correct me where I've gone wrong, please do...

At the rolling road day at Janspeed recently, there were 30 odd cars that turned up, roughly 5 of which weren't clios, and say 10 of which, weren't 172/182 variants.

Out of the 172/182s, there were three 172 Cups.

Of all the cars there, the highest recorded at the wheels figure, was 151, with next highest being 149, 148, and 147, then a few 146's, then down through to a low I think of about 139.

I don't recall anyone there running anything serious engine mod wise...I myself have an ITG panel, and R-sport ECU.

The three 172 Cups were IIRC all over 20k (mine was on about 53k), but so were some of the 182's.

The 151 was recorded by a 182, fitted with a decat, so we'll give that the benefit of, say, 3 bhp, which puts it on 148 (IIRC no 172 Cup had a decat).

So the results were therefore;

1. 1st - 172 Cup
2. 2nd - 172 Cup/Trophy
3. 4th - 172 Cup

Allowing for losses...those results come from ATW performancs consecutively taken on the same rolling road.

The Trophy gets fairly regular track outings, as does mine, but I'm not sure about anyone else?

Accross a random sample then, 172 Cup's genuinely put the most useable power on the road, and allowing for ICE they still tend to be lighter, and are therefore clearly the fastest. But of the MKII's is it because they tend to be owned by more enthusiastic drivers/get thrashed more regularly? I think it is.

If you want a quick one, regularly thrash it, hard, over long distances.

Thank you - the end.

 

[gazcaddy]

The fastest magazine time for any std RS clio to 60 I have ever seen is from a full fat 182 and it did 0-60 6.3 and the fastest to 100 was the 182 cup in 16.7. So they must be faster

In reality though any road test or rolling roads must be taken with a pinch of salt, as each time they are different.

Ive said it before and ill say it again there is nothing in it in terms of performance between all the Renaulsport Clios

 

[MarkCup]

Has there been any arguments about which variation puts out the most power? I thought all the arguments were "which is quicker"? If so, doesn't that make the below irrelevant?

But my post showed that 172 Cups, put out more power (proven), and weigh less (proven)...quod erat demonstrandum...they are faster (only very slightly on the road where it makes no difference anyway, and quite considerably faster on track). FACT.

No one yet has shown anything that disproves my orignal post.

Ultimately it does all comes down to the driver though...which is why I get so frustrated to see the 10 year old mentality that's rife in here almost permanently lately.

I thought racing tales were originally banned becasue it was a) encouraging dangerous driving on public roads, and b) making us the laughing stock of every other internet forum, but of late, it's the accepted norm in an awful lot of threads.