Long lost valver stats

[Craggy]

i know people have moaned before and rightly so about valver stats not making it to many magazines, i also remember how some said they saw a 172 0-100 at 24 secs, now considering the valvers 0-100 in 24 secs i was like doh!, probs a car description misprint and not the car figures. check this out:-

http://members.lycos.co.uk/Pug106GTi/Misc/Autocar_106v172.gif

 

[Rich-D]

That is my pic Craggy...

It is a Group test (there were other cars too) in a back issue of AutoCar I have and those are the times they got for a 106 GTi and a mk1 172, so I scanned and cropped it.

Must be 2 years ago I scanned that in.

 

[Craggy]

i got it off some geezer on pgti rich, saying how 172 was slow!, wonder where he got it from he he

 

[myky16]

thats bull, my valver can do 60 quicker than that and for sure a 172 would!!

 

[Ben H]

Whoa! When was that test date?? Are they really for the 172??!

I have in front of me the November 1991 in-depth test of the 16v. It gives

0-60 as 7.3

0-100 in 22.8

30-70 in 7.1

50-70 in 8.9

Apart from the 0-100, those figures are radically different!

Im not saying that every Valver is always going to produce the November 1991 figures and every 172 is going to make those figures above - but the 172 they tested above must be a dud!

 

[ak_uk]

Maybe they ran it on UL or SUL....

 

[KDF]

nah that is well wrong, I have a mk2 172 standard in every respect it does a consistent 0-60 in 6.8 seconds, and that is in the wet loosing tracion in 1st gear.

no danger, either that or they tested a duffer one with only 130bhp at the wheels.

 

[Rich-D]

It is definately for a silver mk1 172, Ive just dug it out and it was the edition of AutoCar from 3 May 2000.

There was a group test with the mk1 172 & 106 Gti, plus a 306 GTi-6, a Seat Leon 20V T, a Fiesta Zetec-S (which got smoked) and a Proton GTi.

From the pics though, it was wet when they did this...



Results -

1st - 306 GTi-6
2nd - 106 GTi
3rd - Seat Leon 20V T
4th - Clio 172
5th - Proton GTi
6th - Fiesta Zetec-S



This was not just a test of straightline performance though...

 

[Mikey16vClio]

Well, if u want performance from ur 16v at all costs people. Make some serious holes in your air box.

I know a guy that did it and claims it could do 0-60 in sub 7s. I believe him to, cause that car was faster than mine. Problem was that the car only lasted a couple of months after carring out that little modification.

 

[007]

Times change dramatically sometimes after the engine is run in a bit.

I have the Autocar Road test for the Willie if anyone interested. I havent got a scanner at the mo tho.

Some test stats from 8 the december 1993 - tested in the wet so the 30-70 is most likely to be the most accurate (less chance of wheelspin)

0-30 = 3.1

0-60 = 7.7

0-100 = 20.8

30-70 = 6.9

 

[Rich-D]

Reading the article in full...

They do mention that the 172 they tested in this article, was different in both character & pace to the one they first test drove on France when they were launched. They went on to say it wasnt quite the fireball they first thought it was!

Me thinks they got a duffer here!

 

[Jonathan]

The Autocar roadtest 172 MK1 produced those figures, very poor. Before that they timed a LHD one at 0-60, 6.6sec & 0-100 17.9sec in a preview. Later in two seperate 0-100-0 issues it produced similar (way faster than the roadtest) figures. The roadteset one must have been a duffer, not run in etc.