Mk1 172 Vs Clio Cup

[Mr172Mk1]

I currently have a Mk1 172 thinking of selling and getting a Cup for a change.

Is it worth it or should I may be looking at the 182?

 

[cup_racer]

I have a cup, and think its great, but i havent driven a 172 or 182 to compare it to.

There are lots of extras in the 182 compared to the cup, but if you can get a reasonable cup, then go for it.

 

[RobHardyUK]

if u can stretch to it id say the 182 as its same speed but lots more equipment

but there are lots of bargain 172 cups now! so tuff choice! either im sure ull love

 

[CHRIS172CUP]

Ive driven both the cup and standard which are pretty similar, the cup just feels a little lighter but it might be psychological?! Not yet a mk1 or 182 but I love the look of the mk1 more than the mk2.

Why not just put the money towards bits for your mk1?

 

[D-CUP]

Whats your budget?

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by Mr172Mk1 on 14 January 2005


I currently have a Mk1 172 thinking of selling and getting a Cup for a change.

Is it worth it or should I may be looking at the 182?

Ive driven both on the track and the Cup is definately the better of the two. On the road the Cup feels better, but the gap is widened on the track, as the mk1s understeer more, the handling & steering isnt quite as sharp, and the gear ratios on the mk1 do not suit the engine characteristics as well as the ratios in the later cars (mk2, Cup & 182).

However, on the road theres not a massive difference, as the mk1 is not much heavier, has a more aggressive power delivery, and a set of Eibach springs will transform the handling.

 

[m_darby]

I think the gearing is better in the mark 1, less revs at motorway speed and higher gearing for over taking.

the cup no doubt handles better but when i was looking for either a 172 mark1, mark 2 or cup last year, price was a factor. I got a 172 mark 1 for less than 7k with 14k miles on it and a cup with similar mileage was 9k +.

for everyday driving, the mark 1 is better equiped and is understated on the road. from the back it looks like a normal clio so when some one tries to overtake it shocks them.

Ive got the cup alloys on my mark 1 so looks better from the side. Just keep an eye out on bargins because there are ones about


[Edited by m_darby on 14 January 2005 at 11:06am]

 

[st33ly]

Good question mate as i currently have a mrk 1 and am selling and was thinking of getting a cup around June, It will be interesting to see what people write on this thread. I work for Renault and the thought of purchasing a new 182 had crossed my mind as I can get a really good deal on one but dont fancy spending £11k= on one! My mrk 1 is mint and has an A4 folder full on service bills, new tyres, brakes and even a new spare key receipt!If anyone wants to have a look am based @ reno in kirkcaldy, fife! Ive driven a 172cup a few times and thought it was great apart from finding the steering being heavy!

 

[stevoversteer]

Im in the same boat of choosing between mk1 and cup. Only things that put me off the cup are the crappy seats and this no ABS issue which keeps rearing its head on this forum (how much of it is actually down to driver error i dont know, but still...). Im sure the straight line pace and handling would outweigh these factors though

 

[geordiepaul]

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 14 January 2005


Ive driven both on the track and the Cup is definately the better of the two. On the road the Cup feels better, but the gap is widened on the track, as the mk1s understeer more, the handling & steering isnt quite as sharp, and the gear ratios on the mk1 do not suit the engine characteristics as well as the ratios in the later cars (mk2, Cup & 182).

However, on the road theres not a massive difference, as the mk1 is not much heavier, has a more aggressive power delivery, and a set of Eibach springs will transform the handling.



The power delivery on the MK1 is less agressive due to lower gearing and understeer?? I need ice for mine to understeer. My MK1 handles far better than my MK2

I dont particularly like the gearing but it does make for a better cruising car (if you dont have an aftermarket exhaust that is)

 

[rabbos]

I drove a couple of 182s, one cupped the other std, and a couple of 172 cups before settling on the 172 cup...well mine has factory fitted climate control which was a major plus as well as generally about £2-3000 cheaper than 182, which is a hell of a premium for some leather seats that I will bugger.

I also felt that the 172 cup was and still is the most hardcore standard clio option (realise that clio isnt exaclty grrrr masculine!) and its the quickest

 

[CHRIS172CUP]

stevoversteer, the seats arent that crappy, think theyre the same underneath as the leather options, I find mine well supported but theyre too high (as every car mag has moaned at). But a cup was released for a purpose and is tracked honed. Mine will be getting the yozza treatment soon hopefully.

All I say is imagine a proper cup version of the 182 given its a more refined car.

 

[Lagerlout]

Quote: Originally posted by geordiepaul on 14 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 14 January 2005


Ive driven both on the track and the Cup is definately the better of the two. On the road the Cup feels better, but the gap is widened on the track, as the mk1s understeer more, the handling & steering isnt quite as sharp, and the gear ratios on the mk1 do not suit the engine characteristics as well as the ratios in the later cars (mk2, Cup & 182).

However, on the road theres not a massive difference, as the mk1 is not much heavier, has a more aggressive power delivery, and a set of Eibach springs will transform the handling.




The power delivery on the MK1 is less agressive due to lower gearing and understeer?? I need ice for mine to understeer. My MK1 handles far better than my MK2

I dont particularly like the gearing but it does make for a better cruising car (if you dont have an aftermarket exhaust that is)

Strange. My Mk2 172 handles far better than the Mk1 I drove??!! Springs and dampers were uprated for MK2 and it shows imho..... and the 5th in the Mk1 is like reverse...lol

 

[Mr172Mk1]

WoW cheers for all replies, lots of different opionions! Wicked!!!

I like this from "m_darby"

for everyday driving, the mark 1 is better equiped and is understated on the road. from the back it looks like a normal clio so when some one tries to overtake it shocks them.

Thats so true mate!

 

[edde]

Quote: Originally posted by lagerlout1 on 14 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by geordiepaul on 14 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 14 January 2005

the mk1s understeer more, the handling & steering isnt quite as sharp,
However, on the road theres not a massive difference, as the mk1 is not much heavier, has a more aggressive power delivery, and a set of Eibach springs will transform the handling.

The power delivery on the MK1 is less agressive due to lower gearing and understeer?? I need ice for mine to understeer. My MK1 handles far better than my MK2

Strange. My Mk2 172 handles far better than the Mk1 I drove??!! Springs and dampers were uprated for MK2 and it shows imho.

The mk1 and Mk2 (Cup excepted) have exactly the same dampers the difference is down to setups and the different sized wheels and offset (although the lower weight of the mk1 will have an effect).

 

[stevoversteer]

Hmm, from the numerous articles ive read, i get the impression the mk1 is the better handler as lift off oversteer is much more readily available. However the mk2 is more sensible and more sure footed.

 

[Lagerlout]

Does lift off oversteer serve any purpose??? Sure it may be fun, but it doesnt mean the car handles any better surely??

 

[m_darby]

I admit the cup FEELS more hard core.

the power delivery on a Mark 1 is more aggressive and further up the rev range than the phase 2s. But ive had mine remapped and it is a more progressive shove in the back now!

And yes.... the Mark 1 has the best seats! lol

 

[stevoversteer]

Quote: Originally posted by lagerlout1 on 14 January 2005

Does lift off oversteer serve any purpose??? Sure it may be fun, but it doesnt mean the car handles any better surely??

Yes it is fun and yes it does serve a purpose! It allows a good driver to steer with the throttle and adjust the angle of the car mid bend. This allows corners to be attacked with a great deal more confidence, as opposed to the uncertainty that plough on understeer brings. Furthermore if a corner is attacked too confidently, instead of understeering off the road or running rediculously wide, it is possible to tighten the angle of the car and force it back in the direction of the apex. Yes when you get the car properly sideways it may be fun but it is definitely not fast, but when lift off oversteer is used in moderation, it becomes a much more valuable tool to the driver, thus i believe a good handling front driver should always incorporate the ability to adjust the car in this way.

 

[Lagerlout]

So basically what your saying is if you need to use it, youve miss-judged the bend and went in too hot. So if your a bad driver youd be better off with a Mk1?

Its not exactly difficult to make the Mk2 oversteer either....

The Mk1 I drove understeered a LOT quicker than my mk2 does. Maybe it was a bad one........


[Edited by lagerlout1 on 14 January 2005 at 8:43pm]

 

[geordiepaul]

Quote: Originally posted by lagerlout1 on 14 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by geordiepaul on 14 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 14 January 2005


Ive driven both on the track and the Cup is definately the better of the two. On the road the Cup feels better, but the gap is widened on the track, as the mk1s understeer more, the handling & steering isnt quite as sharp, and the gear ratios on the mk1 do not suit the engine characteristics as well as the ratios in the later cars (mk2, Cup & 182).

However, on the road theres not a massive difference, as the mk1 is not much heavier, has a more aggressive power delivery, and a set of Eibach springs will transform the handling.




The power delivery on the MK1 is less agressive due to lower gearing and understeer?? I need ice for mine to understeer. My MK1 handles far better than my MK2

I dont particularly like the gearing but it does make for a better cruising car (if you dont have an aftermarket exhaust that is)

Strange. My Mk2 172 handles far better than the Mk1 I drove??!! Springs and dampers were uprated for MK2 and it shows imho..... and the 5th in the Mk1 is like reverse...lol



Hmmm! 5th is exactly the same in the MK1 as MK2!!!! Its just its a bigger jump from 4th in the MK1 so it makes it feel slower!!

 

[Sport182]

I just traded my mk1 172 in for a new 182. Have to admit im impressed with the 182 much more refined. Will defiantly miss the aggressive look of my mk1

There are some real good deals out there at the mo on 182s.

My advice would be to go with the 182!!

 

[mr bognor]

Mk 1 is savage feles a bit like a 1.2 below 4.5 rpm then like a train after that i love the way its so un refined savage and a right beast

 

[Mondial172]

Id say a 182 but they do seem to have lots and lots of problems. Not sure why?

I have a Cup but Id say the average joe wouldnt be able to tell the difference between that and a mk2 172. The Cup is a little nervious in the wet (which lets face it happens a lot this time of year).

The 182 seems to be the best of both worlds - It handles like a Cup but has all the gear of the 172. Perfect!

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by m_darby on 14 January 2005


I think the gearing is better in the mark 1, less revs at motorway speed and higher gearing for over taking.

Its a hot hatch though, not a motorway cruiser!

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by geordiepaul on 14 January 2005

Ive driven both on the track and the Cup is definately the better of the two. On the road the Cup feels better, but the gap is widened on the track, as the mk1s understeer more, the handling & steering isnt quite as sharp, and the gear ratios on the mk1 do not suit the engine characteristics as well as the ratios in the later cars (mk2, Cup & 182).

However, on the road theres not a massive difference, as the mk1 is not much heavier, has a more aggressive power delivery, and a set of Eibach springs will transform the handling.





The power delivery on the MK1 is less agressive due to lower gearing and understeer?? I need ice for mine to understeer. My MK1 handles far better than my MK2

I dont particularly like the gearing but it does make for a better cruising car (if you dont have an aftermarket exhaust that is)

Read again... I said the mk1 has a more aggressive power delivery...

Down to the inlet manifold design being changed, the mk1 has slightly less bottom end but is more dramatic when it comes on cam, which I like!

Understeer wise, I was talking about on track mate.

 

[mr bognor]

You tell them Rich-D

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by stevoversteer on 14 January 2005



Hmm, from the numerous articles ive read, i get the impression the mk1 is the better handler as lift off oversteer is much more readily available. However the mk2 is more sensible and more sure footed.

I find that to be the opposite!?

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by geordiepaul on 14 January 2005

Hmmm! 5th is exactly the same in the MK1 as MK2!!!! Its just its a bigger jump from 4th in the MK1 so it makes it feel slower!!

No its not...









Gear Ratios (mph/1000rpm)
Speed in Gear (mph)

Gear
Revs
mk1 172
mk2 172
Cup
182
mk1 172
mk2 172
Cup
182

1
7250
4.8
5.3
5.3
5.3
34.8
38.4
38.4
38.4

2
7250
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.8
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.8

3
7250
12.9
12.4
12.4
12.4
93.5
89.9
89.9
89.9

4
7000
16.8
15.8
15.8
15.9
117.6
110.6
110.6
111.3

5
7000
22.0
20.4
20.4
20.6
154.0
142.8
142.8
144.2

 

[Lagerlout]

I knew I was right ...lol... I didnt have the data that Rich has, but ive driven both and knew there was a difference. Nice one Richy, at least I know Im not going mad!!

 

[geordiepaul]

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 15 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by geordiepaul on 14 January 2005

Hmmm! 5th is exactly the same in the MK1 as MK2!!!! Its just its a bigger jump from 4th in the MK1 so it makes it feel slower!!

No its not...









Gear Ratios (mph/1000rpm)
Speed in Gear (mph)

Gear
Revs
mk1 172
mk2 172
Cup
182
mk1 172
mk2 172
Cup
182

1
7250
4.8
5.3
5.3
5.3
34.8
38.4
38.4
38.4

2
7250
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.8
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.8

3
7250
12.9
12.4
12.4
12.4
93.5
89.9
89.9
89.9

4
7000
16.8
15.8
15.8
15.9
117.6
110.6
110.6
111.3

5
7000
22.0
20.4
20.4
20.6
154.0
142.8
142.8
144.2







Where did you get that from? If you compare the Renault brochures then 5th is same in all cars!! Same RPM at 70mph

 

[Clarkie172]

my mk 1 wouldnt do 154mph i no!

 

[Andy_M]

I dont think the average joe would notice much of a difference, unless they were booting it around a track.

Personaly id save the money and spend it on your Mk1 and that way you get to keep the toys.