Its official the 197 is slower than the 182

[dazraffan]

renault say so

http://www.renaultsport.co.uk/commu...etail.asp?QuestionID=961&ExpertID=6&TopicID=1


Panel of Experts
New Question
Roadcars

JoeyDon asked 197??

I test drove a 197 recently and found it well, slow compared to the standard 182cup I owned. Where the 182 kicked into life at around 5500rpm, almost ripping my arms out, the 197 seemed to have nothing left and I dont think its my immagination but this is a much slower car than the 182. Is there a problem with the 197, as I wanted to buy one but with its performance the other day I wouldnt waste my money? Have RenaultSport slowed this car down or are they simply lying about its performance stats?

Allen Collen responds

Whilst the 197 is more powerful than the 182, it is heavier and therefore has a lower power to weight ratio, 159hp/tonne compared to 167hp/tonne for the 182 Cup (this also compares to 150hp/tonne for a Golf GTi and 140hp/tonne for a Mini Cooper S). This impacts on the performance and it's true that the 197 is slightly slower than the 182. Autocar's independant road test timed the 0-60 acceleration at 6.9 seconds, whereas the 182 they tested did the same in 6.3 seconds. The 'kick' that you felt with the 182 was when the valve timing changed. On the 197, the valve timing is continuously variable and therefore has a linear acceleration

 

[Brad182]

page cannot be found!

 

[Alan]

Indeed ^^

 

[seb]

likewise

 

[Dash]

http://www.renaultsport.co.uk/commu...etail.asp?QuestionID=961&ExpertID=6&TopicID=1

 

[seb]

JoeyDon asked 197??

I test drove a 197 recently and found it well, slow compared to the standard 182cup I owned. Where the 182 kicked into life at around 5500rpm, almost ripping my arms out, the 197 seemed to have nothing left and I dont think its my immagination but this is a much slower car than the 182. Is there a problem with the 197, as I wanted to buy one but with its performance the other day I wouldnt waste my money? Have RenaultSport slowed this car down or are they simply lying about its performance stats?

Allen Collen responds:

Whilst the 197 is more powerful than the 182, it is heavier and therefore has a lower power to weight ratio, 159hp/tonne compared to 167hp/tonne for the 182 Cup (this also compares to 150hp/tonne for a Golf GTi and 140hp/tonne for a Mini Cooper S). This impacts on the performance and it's true that the 197 is slightly slower than the 182. Autocar's independant road test timed the 0-60 acceleration at 6.9 seconds, whereas the 182 they tested did the same in 6.3 seconds. The 'kick' that you felt with the 182 was when the valve timing changed. On the 197, the valve timing is continuously variable and therefore has a linear acceleration.

 

[rory182]

couldnt find it but basically a renault dude replied saying aye the 182 has better power to weight and is faster, the 197 has continuously variable valve timing so has a flatter acceleration i.e. no 5k kick.

^ beaten to it

 

[Gaz_]

well thats waste of time then!, i will be buying old school clio's for a while yet then lol!

 

[blaze]

well nice to know people still get the cam arrangement on a 172/82 wrong, and that's a professional?

The valve timing did not change as stated has been explained so many times before, purely the cam profile. It's no Honda VTEC.

Oh my this is professional feeback. ffs.

 

[gazcaddy]

We all know the 182 is a quicker car in a straight line

 

[Griff]

Allen Collen responds

The 'kick' that you felt with the 182 was when the valve timing changed.

Wrong... Why do people still confused over this...!?!?! :banghead:

 

[barley182]

So basically the amount of money fueled into the 197 resulted in an uglier, heavier slower car.

The 0-60 difference is minimal though, so it would come down to the driver, could be fun, especially in a few months when the excuse of "breaking in the engine" has been worn thin!

 

[gazcaddy]

So basically the amount of money fueled into the 197 resulted in an uglier, heavier slower car.

The 0-60 difference is minimal though, so it would come down to the driver, could be fun, especially in a few months when the excuse of "breaking in the engine" has been worn thin!

Overall though its a much better car

 

[seb]

handles better than the 182 without doubt.

none of this s**t torque steer, or crap driving position, or sudden urge at 5500rpm due to a crap engine in the 182.

197 may be (MARGINALLY) slower, but i know what i would rather have.

 

[gazcaddy]

handles better than the 182 without doubt.

none of this sh*t torque steer, or crap driving position, or sudden urge at 5500rpm due to a crap engine in the 182.

197 may be (MARGINALLY) slower, but i know what i would rather have.

Agree the 197 better but disagree on the engine. At least the 182 has some urge in it

 

[canky]

197 may be (MARGINALLY) slower, but i know what i would rather have.

Yer a 172 cup

 

[seb]

yeah its one of those things you love or hate. i prefer a smooth build up so the 197 is beeter in my opinion than the 182.

its life, everyone likes different things!

 

[seb]

Yer a 172 cup

if i wanted to go into a ditch backwards...

I would have to have air con so that rules out most cups. Plus it still has a s**t seating position. (imo)

 

[canky]

if i wanted to go into a ditch backwards...

I would have to have air con so that rules out most cups. Plus it still has a sh*t seating position. (imo)

r u a crap driver then lol :rasp:

Agree with the seats could do with some recaros in my cup original seats are crap

 

[ChrisE]

Yer a 172 cup

Ditto!

 

[tameracingdriver]

Funny, if the 197 was SOOOOO much better like most people on here seem to like to say, funny how evo rated the Trophy and Williams better than it.

People go on about the handling. Personally (and i may well be alone by the looks of things) I like the driving characteristics of the 182. Its edgy, raw feel, with torquesteer and everything, the whole car feels like a powerful terrier straining on its leash. I've driven a Mk3 - not a 197 but still i can imagine how the car handles based on this and although it was good, they've more than likely just engineered all the fun out of it.

Technical superiority does not a fun car make. The thing about the 172/182 is its charm is in its faults, IMO.

Edit: and as for the 172/182 having a crap engine, LOL. Its the same engine!! Just with a few tweaks

 

[Munson]

well nice to know people still get the cam arrangement on a 172/82 wrong, and that's a professional?

The valve timing did not change as stated has been explained so many times before, purely the cam profile. It's no Honda VTEC.

Oh my this is professional feeback. ffs.

Eh? The 182 engine cannot change the cam profile (the Honda VTEC does).

All the 182 engine can do is adjust the timing. It does this at 1500rpm. The 5k kick isnt a change of profile OR timing, it's just the engine coming on cam.

 

[seb]

Funny, if the 197 was SOOOOO much better like most people on here seem to like to say, funny how evo rated the Trophy and Williams better than it.

People go on about the handling. Personally (and i may well be alone by the looks of things) I like the driving characteristics of the 182. Its edgy, raw feel, with torquesteer and everything, the whole car feels like a powerful terrier straining on its leash. I've driven a Mk3 - not a 197 but still i can imagine how the car handles based on this and although it was good, they've more than likely just engineered all the fun out of it.

Technical superiority does not a fun car make. The thing about the 172/182 is its charm is in its faults, IMO.

Edit: and as for the 172/182 having a crap engine, LOL. Its the same engine!! Just with a few tweaks

well you know what i meant, it is a brash engine imo.

I know it's the same engine, but it feels like a different one, that is better imo.

Shame you haven't actually driven a 197... Maybe save your opinions until you have?

Like i said before imo the 197 is miles better, but people will always prefer the older models, just like people prefer the mk1 to the mk2.

 

[blaze]

Seb, it's amazing the people who have generally no idea.

A 182 might have a very slight advantage in a straight line. (not why any of the RS cars are designed to do anyway), They are hot hatches and the handling is all, not the 0-60. There are plenty of cars that will be slower in a straight line than any "boys" car yet be a better car.

These road warriors have no idea that a couple of tenths is nought. FFS the car is better it has been improved upon. Handles better/brakes better and is generally better than their now cheap hot hatch.

Every winter we have the daft RIP for Cup owners. Why RIP???. Because the car is faster and does not need ABS, the driver is always at fault afterall. They could not see the hazards? Then why are they the cars backwards in a wall/hedge/back garden?????

no matter what, it means poor driving

Drive too fast on a road without driver aids and you will die???

Now the cup owners will state the "it's desiged for tracks" fair but irrelevant. Who only drives on a track. It will be on a road for a huge proportion anyway. Renault never stated that anyway.

What's even more laughable is the Cup is worth more than any RS Clio. FFS no!! It was and will always be a cheaper variant, it won't be a classic as it outsold the FF's in the very limited time available. People want cheap and they got it.

Game has moved on. Live with it. If a 197 can't beat a 172 cup ( round a twisty LOL) I'll eat it's diffuser. The point of the car, (not some Americanised 0-60 crap.) Is it's strenght.

Afterall all old Rs owners have statd the "needs lots of miles to bed in" Go figure. Now I have no reason for this. Just a bunch of DRIVING GODS

 

[Munson]

Funny, if the 197 was SOOOOO much better like most people on here seem to like to say, funny how evo rated the Trophy and Williams better than it.

People go on about the handling. Personally (and i may well be alone by the looks of things) I like the driving characteristics of the 182. Its edgy, raw feel, with torquesteer and everything, the whole car feels like a powerful terrier straining on its leash. I've driven a Mk3 - not a 197 but still i can imagine how the car handles based on this and although it was good, they've more than likely just engineered all the fun out of it.

Technical superiority does not a fun car make. The thing about the 172/182 is its charm is in its faults, IMO.

Edit: and as for the 172/182 having a crap engine, LOL. Its the same engine!! Just with a few tweaks

I agree to a certain extent. Although the 197 DOES handle better than a 182, it is somewhat less involving in the way it goes about it. The lack of torque steer isnt a bonus IMO. It is a better car, but not in all ways. It is defintely slower too. I would have one tomorrow if it was fast.

 

[seb]

I agree to a certain extent. Although the 197 DOES handle better than a 182, it is somewhat less involving in the way it goes about it. The lack of torque steer isnt a bonus IMO. It is a better car, but not in all ways. It is defintely slower too. I would have one tomorrow if it was fast.

thats the beauty of cars, one mans chalk is another mans cheese.

 

[Munson]

Seb, it's amazing the people who have generally no idea.

A 182 might have a very slight advantage in a straight line. (not why any of the RS cars are designed to do anyway), They are hot hatches and the handling is all, not the 0-60. There are plenty of cars that will be slower in a straight line than any "boys" car yet be a better car.

These road warriors have no idea that a couple of tenths is nought. FFS the car is better it has been improved upon. Handles better/brakes better and is generally better than their now cheap hot hatch.

Every winter we have the daft RIP for Cup owners. Why RIP???. Because the car is faster and does not need ABS, the driver is always at fault afterall. They could not see the hazards? Then why are they the cars backwards in a wall/hedge/back garden?????

no matter what, it means poor driving

Drive too fast on a road without driver aids and you will die???

Now the cup owners will state the "it's desiged for tracks" fair but irrelevant. Who only drives on a track. It will be on a road for a huge proportion anyway. Renault never stated that anyway.

What's even more laughable is the Cup is worth more than any RS Clio. FFS no!! It was and will always be a cheaper variant, it won't be a classic as it outsold the FF's in the very limited time available. People want cheap and they got it.

Game has moved on. Live with it. If a 197 can't beat a 172 cup ( round a twisty LOL) I'll eat it's diffuser. The point of the car, (not some Americanised 0-60 crap.) Is it's strenght.

Afterall all old Rs owners have statd the "needs lots of miles to bed in" Go figure. Now I have no reason for this. Just a bunch of DRIVING GODS

Last time this topic came up, you had not driven one either. As for the rest of your post...have you ever thought of buyng a webcam and rambling on about random unrelated rubbish to anyone who'll listen to on YouTube? FFS it'd save us the ball ache of having to skip your inane random arguments. Can we please have an ignore feature added to this forum software?

READ THE f**king TOPIC TITLE.

 

[gazcaddy]

Blaze the 182 is significantly faster than the 197 in a straight line. nearly 2 secs to 100.

overall though the 197 is a better car (it should be for £17.5k when its specced up), I think the 197 would be quicker round a track but it will be close, it will be interesting to see how it fairs round the top gear track?

I really liked the 197 when I drove it but I wouldnt buy one for £17k as for that you are looking at VXR, CTR, ST, 225 money and the 197 is simply no match for these

 

[Munson]

Phew just found the ignore list. Silence is golden. No more knobs interupting topics that I'm interested in, so they can argue points that are not invloved.

 

[Karlos182]

Last time this topic came up, you had not driven one either. As for the rest of your post...have you ever thought of buyng a webcam and rambling on about random unrelated rubbish to anyone who'll listen to on YouTube? FFS it'd save us the ball ache of having to skip your inane random arguments. Can we please have an ignore feature added to this forum software?

READ THE f**kING TOPIC TITLE.

LOL - and I think I have to agree with alot of what you said there Roy. :approve:

 

[gazcaddy]

Last time this topic came up, you had not driven one either. As for the rest of your post...have you ever thought of buyng a webcam and rambling on about random unrelated rubbish to anyone who'll listen to on YouTube? FFS it'd save us the ball ache of having to skip your inane random arguments. Can we please have an ignore feature added to this forum software?

READ THE f**kING TOPIC TITLE.

Roy it always happens, one thing is mentioned (i,e performance) and then people mention something else (i.e better build). I own a 182 and can admit the 197 is a better car so why cant the 197 fans admit the 182 is faster.

 

[seb]

the 197 is slower. fact. no denying it

 

[Munson]

the 197 is slower. fact. no denying it

Blaze is a f**king tool. Fact. No denying that either. I'm sure the sad r****d just reads the forums every day waiting for a 197 topic.

 

[blaze]

Munson, Sorry to blow up the sad little boys. I have had a brand new MK1 172. a mk2 172 and now drive a 182 with both packs. These were all done as company cars because I like them. Take it as you like. No issues. All brand new, and love them. I'm nbot waitimg for a 107 topic. I'd love to have my car
to be better. Trouble is, it's not.

You see the trouble is you boys assume. Do you know what that means??? "it makes an ass out of you 'n me"

Munson, go get you're neck in, I did not even comment on you're inability to rationilse. I don't need to or feel the need to be as pathetically abusive as you.

My rationalle was not even aimed at you, yet you have to be the most abusive/ignorant person I've heard or potentialy met. Comments of experience?????? DUH??

Don't forget sticks and stones. Feel the necessity then fine, Whu be so childish????

 

[tameracingdriver]

Speaking personally, i'm not THAT bothered about the actual performance. I'm bothered more about how it feels subjectively behind the wheel.

At 1240 kg, how can the 197 feel as fast? It doesnt, simple as. I'm not actually bothered if it wasnt, as long as it could feel it, but from what i gather from people who've driven it, the 197 feels signiificantly slower. I have no cause to disbelieve them.

I'm sure technically the 197 might be better on corners. However, better as in faster? YES. Better as in more involving? Cant see it. Its too heavy, and lacks the feedback. It also lacks the sheer hooliganism, which in fairness probably slows the 182 down but makes it more involving / exciting all the same. Personally I love the way the 182 tugs at the steering wheel and constantly seeming to ask questions of how brave I am. The 182 is a hooligan. The 197 is more refined, more grown up. Just like every other hot hatch now.

This for me, is what people mourn about the passing of the genuine hot hatch. For me, these cars are supposed to be hooligans. They arent supposed to be fast but unexciting. If I want that, i'll buy a BMW.

I felt the same way with the CTR i drove recently. I could tell it was just as fast / faster than the clio by looking at the speedo. I could tell it would be fast around twisties. However, because it was so competent, and didnt have the character flaws of the clio, it was less likable. Take that as you will.

 

[Munson]

This message is hidden because blaze is on your ignore list.

Bliss :sleepy:

 

[Peperami]

Is blaze able to contribute his opinion, and add to a debate without patronising and putting others down?

Be nice if he acted as mature as his years would suggest, and could try manage it.

 

[philmots]

pmsl at this thread, meeeeeooowwwwww!

 

[Dave H]

Well l sold my 172 Cup for the 182 Cup for a few reasons.
1.The 182 had all the safety features (abs/tc/esp).
2.I loved the colour,the stripes & the wheels.
3.It was rated as a better car by Cliosport members & Evo....basically people who are in the know!

Don't think l'm soft because l've gone for a safer car.I know that in a like for like car l'd probably beat anyone l know round a track.I'm not bragging...its just that most people l know are poor drivers! Ha! I've had a few hairy moments in the 172 (wheels spinning at 80mph going over the Barton bridge on the M60 in the rain,etc)
The whole point of a hot-hatch is to be quick and nimble but the 197 is a tank when compared to a 205 gti,Williams etc.Ok...better brakes,dampers etc but christ....it f*cking needs them too.When will they stop growing? 205 gti 1.9=930kg.197=12 tonnes! FFS lighter means less fuel....save the planet...more petrol to have fun with.Where will the hot hatch be in 5 years time? They will be the size of Audi A4..........b****cks to that.

I'm glad my 182 is better than the 197....as a hot hatch that is!

 

[DebV6]

Blaze, how can you say anyone who doesn't like the 197 as much 'has no idea?' No one's disputing that it is not the better car, but it simply doesn't feel as fun or crazy to drive as the 182! That is just peoples opinions who have driven both! I don't think anyone is saying they dont like it just because it's the new model or cant afford it, if that was the case I'd just admit it, you dont hear people saying they don't like the v6 just because it's the better model from theirs and may not be able to afford it!