i could read book times and stats until my eyes exploded and still wouldnt really know, in the real world would they get raped but the likes of scooby's and other performance cars or more on the level of vts gti's and that kinda perforamnce level. im considering getting one and i love power and all things fast but also thinking of a scooby or rx-7 but always had a soft spot for the 172. any opinions welcome. also are they easy to upgrade the performance. im after bang for buck.
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.
Mk4 .:R32
They are fast, but a scooby would beat it in a straight line. the 172 is quality around corners and roundabouts though. with a couple of small mods your looking at about in the late 6's to 60, top end of 140mph. It's all about personal preferance, if you want people to hear you before they see you and you don't mint a large insurance and petrol bill, get a scooby. If you aren't too fussed about going 0-60 in under 6-7 seconds, and want something fun and nippy that you can throw around corners.....get a 172. Obviously turbo cars are much easier and cheaper to tune the engine than non-turbo cars. It's weather you wallet can face filling it up every couple of days.
The last comment about filling up every couple of days was about a scoobs by the way - 172's have awesome MPG for a quick car, I average around 35mpg.
The last comment about filling up every couple of days was about a scoobs by the way - 172's have awesome MPG for a quick car, I average around 35mpg.
Last edited:
RenaultSport 197
Walk away from the RX-7 (unless you're prepared to pump lots of money into repairing its w*nkel rotory engine if you rag it around).
FYI, If you look at a 350-Z its quicker and has a higher top end then an RX-8
Little Newms
ClioSport Club Member
182, D2 Td5 & 840CI
Impreza P1
I owned a 172 Cup for a year then switched to a scooby (bug eye)
The Cup I loved it was so damn quick and loved to rev , cornering ability was immense, but I had to many niggly problems that were costing 100 pound to 150 pound extra a month.
The Cup was £1100 to insure and the scooby £1300 so not to much difference in insurance, and im only 21 just !!!!
The scooby is a serious tool coming back from Southend I was doing 145mph behind another scooby and he was still pulling away.
It's cornering ability again is even better than my Clio.
However everyone knows what they are , I preferred the Clio as it was a street sleeper and people would what the hell is in that . (the element of suprise)
The scooby also only returns 27-28mpg on a run and when you drive hard well.........
I'd have a Clio again maybe as a track day weapon but my scooby and R5 gtt surfice me to say the least
Good luck fella car hunting
The Cup I loved it was so damn quick and loved to rev , cornering ability was immense, but I had to many niggly problems that were costing 100 pound to 150 pound extra a month.
The Cup was £1100 to insure and the scooby £1300 so not to much difference in insurance, and im only 21 just !!!!
The scooby is a serious tool coming back from Southend I was doing 145mph behind another scooby and he was still pulling away.
It's cornering ability again is even better than my Clio.
However everyone knows what they are , I preferred the Clio as it was a street sleeper and people would what the hell is in that . (the element of suprise)
The scooby also only returns 27-28mpg on a run and when you drive hard well.........
I'd have a Clio again maybe as a track day weapon but my scooby and R5 gtt surfice me to say the least
Good luck fella car hunting
Martin_172
ClioSport Club Member
i love 172's, handle ok standard, handle awesome when modded, 5k kick adds to the hardcore feeling they have.
but my mates got a 300bhp mk1 sti impreza and i know id MUCH rather have that even if it does only get about 10mpg, it makes it worth while when it roars and shoots flames on gearchange lol
but my mates got a 300bhp mk1 sti impreza and i know id MUCH rather have that even if it does only get about 10mpg, it makes it worth while when it roars and shoots flames on gearchange lol
allright cheers guys, im coming up 21 so insurance is dropping. for me on a wrx is £1200 old shape which i think is reasonable and afforrdable, but i know servicing costs are high but i want to beat my mates (me needs power) sounds childish but true lol, mates got a 2.2 prelude which i must add isnt as fast as i thought it would be, he beats the valver but not by the margine i thought.
Slightly in a straight line. Not around the corners imo.
Last edited:
thats ace!
Mk4 .:R32
I would love a P1. But like Kris said, they are rare, but to find one that is in very good condition is ridiculously rare, and plus they are expensive. If I was you I would try and save another couple of grand and get a 172 cup. Then look into performance mods like decat, carbon induction kit, GDI, coilovers!!! In unison, they will make a big difference.
I agree on the comparison to VTS/Gtis in a straight, line, my Mrs mk2 172 can pull away from my VTS a few car lengths on long straights, but i reckon mine will turn slightly quicker. Although it wouldn't be enough to keep up round the track, the clio is still a decent cornering machine.
Imo, the Clio is much better on high speed corners, feels more planted on standard suspension because the VTS isnt quite as well set up as standard and tends to get a little skitty. A well set up VTS is a different matter, as would be a well set up 172.
172s are great cars, and to be honest, the only reason i would buy an impreza over one is for the sound/mod-ability, because standard they aren't that much to be desired imo. The best bit about a Clio is that it is so chuckable and quite a raw hatch for this day in age, but what it lacks is grunt top end.
Look at the 0-100 times and u will see a 172 does it in about 18s standard, so its no slouch, but its after that it gets a bit breathless thanks to its aerodynamics and lack of out-right power. But lets be honest, since when does top speed matter except for pub talk?
Imo, the Clio is much better on high speed corners, feels more planted on standard suspension because the VTS isnt quite as well set up as standard and tends to get a little skitty. A well set up VTS is a different matter, as would be a well set up 172.
172s are great cars, and to be honest, the only reason i would buy an impreza over one is for the sound/mod-ability, because standard they aren't that much to be desired imo. The best bit about a Clio is that it is so chuckable and quite a raw hatch for this day in age, but what it lacks is grunt top end.
Look at the 0-100 times and u will see a 172 does it in about 18s standard, so its no slouch, but its after that it gets a bit breathless thanks to its aerodynamics and lack of out-right power. But lets be honest, since when does top speed matter except for pub talk?
182
well in a traffic light blast, my m8 had a scooby sportwagon (with big boot) turbo'd jobby, and he didnt exactly mince it away from me in my 182... in corners i had him, even with 4-wheel drive, a big barge shaped object, didnt fill him with the most confidence
they are a good going we car i think, up there with the likes of civic type r's focus rs etc(standard of course) i suppose for fwd u wont get much quicker on b roads, on a straight 2.0 turbo cars will prob be quicker esp up over 100mph
but the only cars that will take it a step further in terms of out right speed are the likes of 4wd and rwd turbo'd cars
and i have to add that a healthy 172 is noticeably quicker than a vts/gti
i have owned a 106gti and i now own a 172 and the 172 is def quicker it did make 186bhp on the rolling road though so its quite a bit up on power over a standard 106gti/vts
but the only cars that will take it a step further in terms of out right speed are the likes of 4wd and rwd turbo'd cars
and i have to add that a healthy 172 is noticeably quicker than a vts/gti
i have owned a 106gti and i now own a 172 and the 172 is def quicker it did make 186bhp on the rolling road though so its quite a bit up on power over a standard 106gti/vts
ex Clio 172 owner :(
I used to have a VTS and my 172 doesn't feel any quicker. I actually think it feels slower due to being bigger and higher up. I had a go against a few 172's in my VTS and there was nothing in it. Defo handle better than a 172. More of a thrill to drive.
That said. I still prefer the 172 overall but as a drivers car, the VTS is more hardcore and puts more of a smile on your face.
That said. I still prefer the 172 overall but as a drivers car, the VTS is more hardcore and puts more of a smile on your face.
Clio 172 mk2
It isn't about outright speed...any c**t can point a car down the motorway and max it out (done daily by reps in oil burners).
Where the 172 shines is in the fun department.....good handing & steering.
Subarus are quick but after owning one myself I probably wouldn't have another...the petrol consumption was just ludicrous.
Where the 172 shines is in the fun department.....good handing & steering.
Subarus are quick but after owning one myself I probably wouldn't have another...the petrol consumption was just ludicrous.
ex Clio 172 owner :(
Probably but I'm talking from the point of view of a VTS to 172 FF driver.
MarkCup
ClioSport Club Member
Ditto that, sums it up perfectly.
cock mobile.
Agree with this as well.
My Cup was certainly quicker than VTS / GTIs, admittedly in the corners this was less obvious, for the same reason a Cup could keep up with more powerful machines itself.
