Lovely "Custom" Ford Puma

[Ali]

Hypercar

You still got yours mate?

Think so, it's the garage somewhere.

I dont have the press releases about what they were planning to hand so cant give you exact figures I'm afraid, but it was along the lines of upwards of 200bhp per tonne, IIRC it was something like 270bhp and 1200kg, a far cry from where they ended up.

Nice cars, so again dont think im against them, Im not, I just feel they dont quite live up to the hype thats all, first time I drove one it just wasnt anywhere near as good as I had expected it to be from the hype around it, hence I didnt buy it.

Look at the trophy,

They were 285bhp...but detuned for road use...
They were also 1100 before all the clobber and safety gear took charge...

They delivered on what they thought they would achieve, but then the "powers that be" put a halt to that! It's not unique!

It could of been better, yes, do we care. Nope.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Think so, it's the garage somewhere.



Look at the trophy,

They were 285bhp...but detuned for road use...
They were also 1100 before all the clobber and safety gear took charge...

They delivered on what they thought they would achieve, but then the "powers that be" put a halt to that! It's not unique!

It could of been better, yes, do we care. Nope.

Always a shame when the accountants get involved, would have been an immense car if they were allowed to make it to its proper potential, im sure we all agree on that.

 

[Gally]

I found it hard to disagree with you before Chip as I thought you would be pretty independant and knowledgable in your thoughts, especially in the Frps case due to now working for a Ford mag.

I'm just a little astounded that you didn't think it was that good and you thought a 172 was not only better but in comparison to it's lower model, more special. When on paper it's a crazy thought.

 

[Goodj]

when I've got a spare 6k, I'll get an FRP

 

[Chip-mk1]

I found it hard to disagree with you before Chip as I thought you would be pretty independant and knowledgable in your thoughts, especially in the Frps case due to now working for a Ford mag.

I'm just a little astounded that you didn't think it was that good and you thought a 172 was not only better but in comparison to it's lower model, more special. When on paper it's a crazy thought.

The 172 has FIFTY percent more power than the next model down!

 

[Chip-mk1]

when I've got a spare 6k, I'll get an FRP

Bet you a pound that you dont!

You'll do what lots of people do and testdrive one and feel a bit underwhelmed as to why it costs 3 times what a 172 does and you'll keep your 172, lol

 

[Goodj]

Then I'll remember that it's marginally better built, infinately more cult and possibly cheaper to run.

Hell, the insurance is gp.12!

 

[Munson]

Then I'll remember that it's marginally better built, infinately more cult and possibly cheaper to run.

Hell, the insurance is gp.12!

And has a decent gearbox?

 

[RDH]

Wow this thread exploded.

I've never driven one so I can't comment on that, but on looks alone I'm not really a fan of the FRP. And for people who are saying they are more desireable, I'd say again that it was more of an opinion than a fact.

I would honestly love a drive of one just to see what all the fuss is about!

 

[Chip-mk1]

And has a decent gearbox?

Has a much better gearbox than the 172 as it includes a limited slip diff if you get one specced right.

Shame renault didnt do the same!

Definately the frp wins hands down on that front!

 

[Chip-mk1]

Wow this thread exploded.

I've never driven one so I can't comment on that, but on looks alone I'm not really a fan of the FRP. And for people who are saying they are more desireable, I'd say again that it was more of an opinion than a fact.

I would honestly love a drive of one just to see what all the fuss is about!

Desirable is a strange word to try and quantify.

Given that they cost more, I guess one could argue that means people desire them more if they are prepared to pay more for them, but that same logic would also mean a 2 year old vectra was more desirable than both, lol

 

[Goodj]

The FRP has bodywork that only the V6 boys can say looks worse than their Clio.

 

[Gally]

The 172 has FIFTY percent more power than the next model down!

I don't understand your point.

Has a much better gearbox than the 172 as it includes a limited slip diff if you get one specced right.

Shame renault didnt do the same!

Definately the frp wins hands down on that front!

80 of them came with LSDs. It also doesn't make a difference to the gearbox, the drive yes, the feel of the gearbox no.

Desirable is a strange word to try and quantify.

Given that they cost more, I guess one could argue that means people desire them more if they are prepared to pay more for them, but that same logic would also mean a 2 year old vectra was more desirable than both, lol

The price doesn't really matter in this context. We're talking about the cars. I don't desire cars because they are more expensive, I usually desire them because they are better looking or just better in general. The Trophy is the same price as an Frp.

 

[Goodj]

I'd have a 12-year old FRP over a 12-year old M3.

 

[Chip-mk1]

I don't understand your point.

You asked why I was saying the 172 was more of a step up from its next model down than the puma, I was pointing out that it has twice the power advantage over the next model down, ford just tweaked the existing engine (well harvey did for them, lol) where as renault shoehorned a relatively massive 2.0 engine into the relatively diminuntive bay of the clio, which is a pretty dramatic change.

80 of them came with LSDs. It also doesn't make a difference to the gearbox, the drive yes, the feel of the gearbox no.

If you mean you cant feel the LSD when changing gears then no of course not, who the hell would think that, LOL

The price doesn't really matter in this context. We're talking about the cars. I don't desire cars because they are more expensive, I usually desire them because they are better looking or just better in general. The Trophy is the same price as an Frp.

Im not a big fan of the trophy TBH, suspension changes were good, seats look awesome but arent very comfy, I like the red.
I dont think on balance I would ever pay the premium for one, but I judge cars on merit rather than rarity, others are of a different opinion so the value reflects that.
Much like although I did have an rs500 previously I would only ever really consider the normal 3 door not a 500 if getting another one someday, on the basis that the value nowadays of the 500 is silly compared to the 3 door considering there is so little difference between them, only had mine in the first place as it was a bargain.

 

[Chip-mk1]

I'd have a 12-year old FRP over a 12-year old M3.

Would depend what it was for, FRP would be a lot cheaper to run as a trackday car, i love m3s but with the number of trackdays I do a year I couldnt afford the tyres bill, lol

 

[Goodj]

As a daily, I'd still take the FRP.

Cheaper in all respects (except brake rebuilds?) and the name doesn't immediately conjure up images of skinhead muscle-Marys, purveyors or contraband or keyboard-warriors.

Present company all completely excepted, of course

 

[RDH]

The FRP has bodywork that only the V6 boys can say looks worse than their Clio.

Again I'd say that it is more of an opinion than a fact. I personally think the Clio looks better, but people clearly think the Puma looks better. Nobody is really right or wrong.

 

[Gaz.]

WTF happened in here? Chip, well, I'm lost for words.

 

[Gally]

You asked why I was saying the 172 was more of a step up from its next model down than the puma, I was pointing out that it has twice the power advantage over the next model down, ford just tweaked the existing engine (well harvey did for them, lol) where as renault shoehorned a relatively massive 2.0 engine into the relatively diminuntive bay of the clio, which is a pretty dramatic change.

So it's all about engine power then? Suppose they could have dropped a 2.0ltr turbo in it and made it grp 20 insurance and sold even less of them?

What about the bespoke suspension, honed by rally drivers, Stig Blomquist to name one? The aluminium front wings, brakes, suspension track ect.. It's so far from a 1.7 Puma.

I had one until the day I bought the Frp. The reason I looked at the Trophy is I believed the frp would be too similar to the standard Puma, i'm glad I took the risk. Totally different car.





If you mean you cant feel the LSD when changing gears then no of course not, who the hell would think that, LOL

Has a much better gearbox than the 172 as it includes a limited slip diff if you get one specced right.

You worded it totally wrong. The Ib5 gearbox LSD or not surpasses anything Renault came up with.

So it's all about engine power then? Suppose they could have dropped a 2.0ltr turbo in it and made it grp 20 insurance and sold even less of them?

What about the bespoke suspension, honed by rally drivers, Stig Blomquist to name one? The aluminium front wings, brakes, suspension track ect.. It's so far from a 1.7 Puma.

I had one until the day I bought the Frp. The reason I looked at the Trophy is I believed the frp would be too similar to the standard Puma, i'm glad I took the risk. Totally different car.

 

[Goodj]

I guess if 1*2's weren't everywhere they'd be a bit more special in my eyes.
but they are, so they're almost as generic as a Golf SE

Besides, peeps on here spend hundreds on splitters, arches etc. to try and make a cheap hatch look like something special. Wheras Tickford build the FRP to be special enough out of the factory.

Sure, we could all argue about 1.7 160hp not being enough, but it was a ph.1 era vehicle, that only had 170, out of a 2.0, that's not exactly special.

 

[Hixle]

Im not a big fan of the trophy TBH, suspension changes were good, seats look awesome but arent very comfy, I like the red.

So you're not a fan of the Trophy, yet like the three things that make it one. Hmmm.

 

[RDH]

I guess if 1*2's weren't everywhere they'd be a bit more special in my eyes.
but they are, so they're almost as generic as a Golf SE

I wouldn't go that far tbh. Fair enough there are alot more than FRP's, but they aren't everywhere.

 

[Goodj]

They are everywhere. really.

And that's before you start on the 1.172's.

OK, maybe not SE generic, but they certainly aren't head-turningly special anymore, unless people are turning around to see what motor is making that god-awful racket, just to see a small hatchback with a "special" exhaust

 

[RDH]

No I agree with you on they don't look special.

I just disagree with you when you say they are everywhere. Very rarely do I see another on a road. I know of 2 other within about 5 miles of me.

 

[Chip-mk1]

So you're not a fan of the Trophy, yet like the three things that make it one. Hmmm.

Correct, The changes are ok, but not enough to make me a fan of them, I think the money would be better spent on starting with a normal phase 2 172 and upgrading it yourself rather than pay the premium for suspension thats worn out and seats that I dont find comfy even though I think they look nice.

 

[Nick172Cup]

Would love a drive of a FRP myself, too many people get hung up on power when talking about 'fun' cars on here. The only down side to the FRP for me is the shocking interior and the stupidly low profile tyres, but other than that I love the arch gap/flared arches/colour. Do lol at the 'i'd rather have a FRP to an old M3', i'm sure thats a great opinion on someone thats never owned one!

 

[.Adam.]

1*2's are everywhere these days. I remember a year or two ago I rarely saw them, but now I see one probably every day.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Besides, peeps on here spend hundreds on splitters, arches etc. to try and make a cheap hatch look like something special. Wheras Tickford build the FRP to be special enough out of the factory.

Not my thing at all, not into all that "trying to look different" thing, prefer cars for driving them.

Sure, we could all argue about 1.7 160hp not being enough

152bhp IIRC

but it was a ph.1 era vehicle, that only had 170, out of a 2.0, that's not exactly special.

Its not the engines specific output of 85bhp per litre im saying was "special" to use your word, it was that renault shoe horned it into a relatively small hatchback, 2.0 cars of that size arent common at all.

 

[Goodj]

thats a great opinion on someone thats never owned one!

Yep, never driven an M3, but have the FRP.

not owned either.

In any case, I'd not have an M3. It's an image thing really I guess.

AMG on the other hand....

 

[Chip-mk1]

Would love a drive of a FRP myself, too many people get hung up on power when talking about 'fun' cars on here. The only down side to the FRP for me is the shocking interior and the stupidly low profile tyres, but other than that I love the arch gap/flared arches/colour. Do lol at the 'i'd rather have a FRP to an old M3', i'm sure thats a great opinion on someone thats never owned one!

The 17" wheel are too big IMHO, im sure they would handle better on 16" or even 15" wheels, although I suspect you would get brake clearnace issues if you tried 15" rims?

 

[Chip-mk1]

Yep, never driven an M3, but have the FRP.

not owned either.

In any case, I'd not have an M3. It's an image thing really I guess.

AMG on the other hand....

Having driven both AMG and M3 on track, I would definately take the M3.
I dont really care about perceived image for cars though, the reason M3's are everywhere is the same reason 172s are everywhere, cause they are good cars.

 

[Goodj]

Sure, a lot of people love them, but I dont like a lot of people.

I've yet to be fog-light tailgated by an CL55

 

[Nick172Cup]

Yep, never driven an M3, but have the FRP.

not owned either.

In any case, I'd not have an M3. It's an image thing really I guess.

AMG on the other hand....

Fair enough. Having had mine a few months now (16 year old E36 M3) its comfier/quieter/better built than any of the Mk2 Clio range, wont comment on the FRP since I havent owned one. Amazing drivers car none the less, chassis is a lot of fun and you dont need to be going fast to enjoy it.

No offence but I do chuckle to myself about 'image' part. The day I buy a car to impress others is the day I put a bullet through the side of my head, never understood it to be honest with you.

Anyways I wont bore you with more M3 chat...

 

[Goodj]

S'alright, I had an MX-5.

a fat bloke, in an mx-5?

yeah, I heard it all.

But it was a great little motor.

In fairness, a Lada Riva is better built and quieter anda alot of Mk.2 clios these days

 

[Chip-mk1]

Lol @ having an mx5 and also saying you care about image.

I really like mx5s as they drive really well, but thats gotta be about the worse car possible for a bloke image wise, unless you put it up against a pink ka convertable or something, lol

 

[Munson]

So now the only thing that makes a car special and unique from its peers, is how much extra power it has?

 

[Goodj]

So now the only thing that makes a car special and unique from its peers, is how much extra power it has?

lap times h'actually.

 

[Russ_16v]

Top gear board?

 

[Munson]

1*2's are everywhere these days. I remember a year or two ago I rarely saw them, but now I see one probably every day.

That doesn't really make much sense TBH. There are no more 182s on the road now than there were on the day they stopped building them. In fact common sense suggests there will be less. TBF though, I suppose there may be more in your local area due to more youngsters now owing them, and probably spending more time on the road just cruising about looking baus?