Not 172bhp in a 172 according to REDLINE!

[Cord-172]

In Redline this month there are a load of facts about Renault (somewhere near the begining of the issue). One of these facts is that:

"..contrary to believe a Clio 172 doesnt have 172bhp...it just doesnt!"

What do they mean by this? I know that 172 is measured at the flywheel but this is the case for most advertised bhp readings isnt it? I know that a member here had his 172 Cup RRd at 185bhp at the flywheel so it cant be that these cars are less powerful than renault state? Do REDLINE have a clue what they are on about or are they just being tits?

 

[Steveold]

You cant trust the readings at the flywheel unless you take your engine out and put it on a dyno.... Renault advertise the 172 as having 172 bhp so all of them will be around 172 at the flywheel give or take 5 or so coz no engine is the same.....

 

[RSTDL]

When renault developed the 172 it was in response to the Peougeot 306 GTi -6 which was the hot hatch market leader at that time - I think it had 170/1 BHP so Renault responded with a cleverly named car with 172 BHP just to rub it in a bit! Same way RS Focus has 212BHp just pipping the Seat Leon Cupra R as the most BHP for the money in that market - its all about who can get the most power from their new engines. Paul172Cup or Danny had 186BHP at the flywheel as standard, I reckon most of the cups will match that if we all got them dynoed - I believe there is big variations in the 172 engine though with some only recording less than 130BHP at the wheels, while others go to 153BHP at the wheels.

 

[Anders]

I thought the figure was 172 PS, which is around 170 Bhp??

 

[Nagra_mk1_172]

I thought that they called it the 172 because it has 172PS (PS = european equivalent of BHP), is that not right ?

Anyway, regardless of what Redline mag says, it DOES have 170 BHP !

 

[Dansta]

The cups seem to be doin really well on the rollers, mine, pauls, and the recent standard or near standard ones on the RR days

I wouldnt worry about what revs say!

its like steve says no engine is the same!

 

[RobFenn]

I was pretty sure the GTI-6 had 167bhp..

Its been higlighted on the forum that power outputs seem to be all over the place, maybe redline tested a dud or something?

 

[geoff_clio182]

In truth most of the RRs have proven that the 172s (not Cups) are down quite a bit on the 172bhp claimed. Mine was only pushing 160bhp as standard, but this went up to 172bhp when I had the Hill Power Induction on. Other owners I know have had similar readings. The bhp also varies massively with some cars only putting out 150-160bhp up to 180-185bhp.

 

[Steveold]

On the renault web it says bhp....

 

[RobFenn]

I think the Cup engine is bench tested whereas the 172 isnt which would explain what Dans saying.

 

[towser]

It is as someone already said 172ps and the 306 GTi-6 had 167 BHP

 

[Steveold]

Its not its 172 BHP!!!!!

quoted renault web site





Fuel Type
Unleaded Petrol



Injection Type
Multipoint Injection



Maximum Power - bhp DIN (kw ISO)
172 (124)



Maximum Power (revs/min)
6250



Maximum Torque - Nm ISO (mkg DIN)
200 (20.7)



Maximum Torque (revs/min)
5400

 

[BaBOo]

172Bhp,

169ps,

124kw.

 

[eagle]

My Cup feels tons quicker then my old mark 2 172, feels like a different engine!! Not sure if my old 172 was a duffer.

 

[Steveold]

Prob coz its lightweight?

 

[McBunny]

hey stop making me worry about the car i just put my deposit down on !!!! hey but maybe if my car is down on power i can get the insurance for less i seriously doubt it but it would be nice to think so

 

[172man]

dont think mine is... REDLINE pah... more pages taken up with p**n lines than actual facts.

 

[McBunny]

must admit redline is just the same as trevs and lax power will have to get my new one on a RR straight away then

 

[McBunny]

mine felt lively enough but there again i have never driven anything like it before, only things with way more power and rwd/4wd or way less power and fwd it felt faster than the ferrari 348 i was driving 375bhp rwd but there again it didnt seem like i was doing 145 at the time but didnt feel as fast as the 300bhp escort cossie grp n rally car

 

[paddymph]

hmmmm, thats all im saying.

 

[telford_mike]

The truth is out there.......

 

[paddymph]

 

[Simon172]

Sometimes my car feels slow - usually when its cold or when it hasnt been thrashed believe it or not!

Hmmm, these Cups seem to be pretty quick! Im thinking when this next gearbox blows up i might ask them to slip in a mk.2 gearbox with its shorter ratios....

 

[paddymph]

i find it hard to believe that Cups are rolling out of the factory at 186BHP? Surely Reno would be advertising that if it were the case?

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by Anders on 20 February 2003

I thought the figure was 172 PS, which is around 170 Bhp??

Yup, thats what I am lead to believe too...

PS is another measure of engine power, not quite the same as bhp, but close.
i.e. Jap cars have 280 ps = 276bhp

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by RobFenn on 20 February 2003


I was pretty sure the GTI-6 had 167bhp..

They do, thats correct.

 

[Craggy]

its right that 172s vary in power. will be interesting to see if paddy can cut the mustard racing against the clock @ york he he, then theres no excuses in finding out who is fastest. provided there tested on the same day in the same conditions tho

 

[teady172]

Rich according to the Renault website and all the Clio 172 literature its 172BHP, some recent rolling road figures would suggest slightly higher!

 

[paddymph]

and lower!!!

 

[Rich-D]

Yeah, I know that the Renault website says 172bhp, but it is DIN, so what is the difference?!



As for varying power outputs, then most, if not all cars can vary from the manufacturers "alleged" power output and there are good ones and bad ones.

Like Paddys boggo 172 makes more power than it should (152bhp @ wheels), strangely my 306 Rallye does too (151bhp @ wheels), with both being tested on the same rolling road. These are both good examples of their models, wheras my mate has a mk1 172 that is nowhere near as quick as it "should" be, so that is a bad example.

 

[teady172]

You raced yer mates duff 172 by chance?

 

[paddymph]

Hi Rich,

You going to the RR day Craggys sorting?

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by teady172 on 20 February 2003

You raced yer mates duff 172 by chance?

Yup...

We raced when I used to have my 106 GTi and I was sat one his rear bumper all the way up to 100mph!

We were both shocked.

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by paddymph on 20 February 2003


Hi Rich,

You going to the RR day Craggys sorting?

Dunno?!

I was gonna go to the North West ClioSport vs PGAC one that Brun was sorting, along with Dan from PGAC...

Any more info on this one Craggy is organising then?!

Should be able to come if I am free when its on.

 

[172man]

i undertook one and left it quite easily coming onto a motorway. I just pulled away.. they are quite nippy though but not fast.. your mate should of taken it back

 

[Frosty]

To clear up this whole DIN, BHP, PS, KW thing.

172 BHP (DIN) is what Renault quote. DIN is the BHP standard in Germany. Power figures are governed by PS, DIN and SAE to name a few which are all from different countrys (Japan, Germany and America). Each of these are standards to calculate power.

The power figures from each only differ because some counties refuse to use metric, and others refuse to use imperial mesurements.

Consider this: SAE say that a horse (1 BHP) has the ability to move 33,000 lbs of weight a distance of 1 foot every minute. As we all know, exact imperial to metric calculations are a pain, so DIN say that their horse can move a weight of 450,000 kgs a distance of 1cm every minute, which is roughly the same.

It works out that a SAE horsepower is 98.629% of a DIN horsepower.

Im sure that DIN is used throughout Europe since we are all using metric. A cars horsepower claims will nearly always reference the system in place for that country (or region). I think that when Japan state bhp instead of PS, they are stating DIN.

I hope this has cleared up any queries.

Laurence.

 

[Dansta]

i know its hard to believe about the cups higher output, but ive been shocked myself. I havent seen one underpowered one so far. all the results have been good. even the lase rolling road that loads of peeps went to, the cup came out on top with justa filter, and a standard one in third place? mine went in, and so did pauls.
I dont know why, but were not complainin.

 

[RSTDL]

Its only called the 172 in UK because in Europe its the RenaultSport 2.0 16V and its output in Europe is measured in PS which is 170 , but in UK coz we are backward using BHP that translates into 172BHP hence the name 172 in UK - thats why the 172 Cup is known as the Jean Ragnotti because 172 means nothing in France other than it comes after 171 and before 173 in a long list of numbers! Noticed on http://www.renault.bewww.renault.be that they have a cup logo in the same font as the clio badge on our motors - how would we get one cut to go beside the clio on the 172CUP - check it out peeps!

 

[Rasclart]

hehe cool go on there and Find a little game ragging a clio round a track b*****d to control helps to read french as well

http://www.community-clio.be/http://www.community-clio.be/

 

[JJ172]

Just got my own 172 Mk2 tested on BB Tuning RR....

Engine Power (measured)...177.3bhp@101mph / 6485 rpm

Engine Power (corrected)...172.6bhp@101mph / 6485 rpm

Wheel Power (measured)...149.4bhp@101mph / 6485 rpm

Torque (corrected)...150lb/ft @ 5459 rpm

Temp was 9 Celcius, and the car has done under 5k miles



So, am I one of the lucky few with a real 172?!!! *LOL*