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!

Not so fast 172

  Clio 200 FF

went out for a bit of a blast in my 172 today, decided to go up snake pass as its nice and bumpy / bendy not just a boring flat road. I got near the bottom (manchester side) and caught up with a peugeot estate (406?), this car was 2 up and as soon as he saw me he put his foot down. Hmm i thought id get past him but to be honest i was just matching him , no way would i be able to pass. I know diesels (if it was one) are more torquey buy for a car that size and 2 up i should have left him for dead :(

Join the club!! I had the same thing happen the other day (not with a 406 though) and was left wondering!

The fastest current 406 estate is the 3.0 V6 Executive which does 0-60 in 8.3. The fastest diesel 406 estate is the 2.2HDI 136, which does it in 10.5. So either way you should be quicker.

Out of interest, what sort of "race" was it. i.e. from what speed to what speed. How long did it last and what gear and revs did you start from

I think Im starting to spot a pattern with the races that I seem to not do as well in, and its all linked to the gear I start in. Just wondered if it was the same for you.
  CTR EK9 turbo

Dont underestimate the estate V6 406s!!! they are really quick!!!? I used to work (summer job) for a subaru, peugeot, ssangyong, isuzu garage delivering and valetting cars and got to drive every different sort of peugeot under the sun not to mention every scoob! (which was fun) Anyway, one of my favourite cars to pick from the parking lot (for sale cars) to take to lunch was a Green 406 V6 - it was REALLY fast! and such a big car as well, i dont know what bhp or lb/ft it puts out, but im sure its pretty good. Dead impressed with it, and im sure in-gear times would be impressive as V6 engined cars are torquey. Also, the matter of acceleration/weight doesnt effect cars so much when theyre moving and they are quite airodynamic being estates an all...

Strangely-capable cars! not sure about its cornering capabilities.....

0-60 times can hide a lot of other importnant info! Many fast cars "hide" in the 8-9secs 0-60 figure league.

The 0-60 of the Willy and 16v are identical at 7.7 by the book, while the Willy is quicker to 62mph. Thats becuase the 16v can just make 60 in 2nd, whereas the Willy has to change to 3rd to make 60. So at that 60mph point, the Willy will have already changed gear into 3rd, while the Valver will lose a crucial few nanoseconds after!

it was the same with the mk1 golfs they reached cult status where as the mk2 where just out lived

mk1 clio sports are desting to become a cult car

I reckon they might be slightly more desireable amongst enthusiasts as time goes on, as they are rarer and have a reputation for being a smidge quicker. Put it this way, Id prefer one - but were the enthusiasts and I dont think the Phase1 172s will be more expensive on the open market in years to come than the Phase2s.
  Clio 200 FF

when i caught the guy up we were doing about 45ish, it is a steep hill up the snake pass and we could only get to about 70-75ish as its quite twisty. 3rd gear was too low so i was in 4th most of the way


  Audi TT Stronic

i dont know why your sl*gging of mk2s, yes they may be a bit slower (still to be proved to myself) but to me they look 10x better than the mk1 .. plus there is so little a gap speed wise between mk1 and 2 that its down to driver skill.

I would never think about getting a mk1 cause i think they look dated .. but I dont come on here and post that crap (until now).. each to there own sorta thing.

your comments we could do without.

Here here _KDF - this must be the only place where some drivers of what is essentially the same car b**ch as to what is the better one. Anyone would think you were driving rival brands with some of the comments that fly around!! They are both 172s! The comments are really unnecessary.

Anyone remember that video of the Impreza vs Cup and Impreza vs 172? Take a look at the first one where the Cup is racing the Impreza. Look at the 172 behind the Cup - sticking to its backside like glue, and thats a Cup, not a Mk1 172, so how the hell can a mark 1 172 kill a mk 2????

To say that a Mk1 172 will in any way "kill" a Mk2 is totally ludicrous. The Mk1 might be slightly lighter but it really isnt going to make a great deal of difference in the real world. I seem to remember reading that the Mk2 was geared better to improve low down pull - whats to say it doesnt make anything it loses up because of that??

Regarding the looks, its personal preference. None of the newer sports Clios (apart from the V6) look anything REALLY special compared to the lower end models. This goes for the Cup too - this is only distinguishable to the untrained eye by its unique paint colour. I have just as much trouble telling a Mk1 172 from a non-172 mark 1, as I do with the Mk2. In fact, Id be honest in saying that Im rarely sure its another 172 coming towards me until its right on top of me. The only time I can guess better is when the lights are on and I see the Xenons (for a Mk2)

Way too many kids on here these days. What ever happend to "useful" Clio information, Its just "mines" better than yours now, childish bullsh*t.


  Audi TT Stronic

It had to be said im afriad.. im not starting a new argument, just couldnt read the rubbish anymore about a mk1 killing mk2 .. this and that killing my 172..

"I think i will sell my 172 and get a scooby" etc..

Shorty.. if you hate your clio that much, and you think its that slow.. for god sakes sell it and move to

I did a search on your posts shorty and most of your latest posts are sl*gging off the 172. As to usefull information and less kids on this board, that is what it was like when i joined up.


  182 Arctic Blue

Robby, possibly the car had a 2.2 HDI these are very torquey engines and a simple Van Aaken chip can get them up to 173 BHP and 315 ftlb of torque.... id imagine them to be quite impressive in the higher gears although i suspect the clio would easily pass it to 60!

Shorty, makes no difference if you get a scooby or not. Learn to drive properly and you might not get wasted by Ladas! LOL ;)
  CTR EK9 turbo

mk.1 172, mk.2 172, CUP, CTR, theyre all pretty much the same performance wise. Mostly down to the driver id say...

i cant see why you couldnt beat a 406 barge?

ive raced everything from a new astra to fast bikes across snake pass, and everything got whipped hehe. apart from the bikes. Although it is down to the driver. once i raced this nutter in a van estate and although i was nearly ramming him i never had enough room to pass, he was taking bends on the other side of the rd where i was still on the correct side, i did eventually get past the weiner and duely waved at him, at that time i stormed away never to see him again, so was much much faster etc.

Look _KDF You are missing the point ,

The mk2 172 looks just like a standard clio i should know i worked for
them for 5yrs, they look the same as the 1.2 dynamique
renault did not change the look of it that much and the wheels look like wheel trims

Get a mk1

Shorty what have you been taking? Must be some bad sh?t !

How can you possibly say a mark 1 is faster than a mark 2 cause they aint thats a fact, its down to the driver and that specific car. And as for saying a mark 1 172 looks better than a mark 2 well thats just laughable. The mark 1 is a nice looking car but looks very dated already, a willy still looks good 10 years down the line but the mark 1 just looks boring 2 years down the line.

Try to respond in an adult manner and try to back up what you are saying then we might listen to what you have to say (doubt it tho)



Quote: Originally posted by SHORTY on 17 March 2003

tom why dont you get a 172 front bumber and wings to put on

thought about it but who am i kidding it looks great as it is

i think the mk2 face is ugly the rear is the best part

but the front is harsh and needs more curves

I agree with that in some respects but styling wise its down to the individual. I personally prefer mk2s but people shouldnt be claiming that their view is the only view! Shortys just been making an idiot of himself.

check this guy out,
i worked for renault for 5 yrs the mk1 is cult status and the mk2 is just another chance for renault to make money from the clio range, when we had the launch for the mk2 clio everybody didnt like the crap plastic grille you get on them, also if you put a 172 sport next to a 1.6 sport they look the same , renault did not change much at all look at the wheels they look like wheel trims, now come sure somebody wil agree

The next best thing to a clio172 mk1 is the cup at least they put a wicked colour on it, and a decsent set of wheels.

so put that your pipe and smoke it

If you put them side by side they look different, and if they do look similar, who cares? That doesnt mean theyre bad looking...

The point is youre generalising your own opinion, dont be narrow minded for god sake, no wonder Renault Uk is in such a state when people like you worked for them.