ClioSport.net

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!

  • When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.

Our Clio R27 185....



  Golf R
Well, an opportunity presented itself yesterday to get the R27 rolling roaded, so out of curiousity i whacked it on to see what sort of power it was running.... 760 miles on the clock :eek: but it ran 185.5bhp at the fly, 153.8bhp at the wheels. For such a new and low mileage car i was happy with the figures tbh... after reading peoples negativity towards Renaults figures i was expecting it to have about 170bhp!

Graphs attached :

CopyofScan1.jpg


CopyofScan2.jpg
 
  Clio 197
Not bad but its annoying that they still look at it as 197 to start with. OH well i guess its Renault. Might have to get mine done so i have a base to start with.
 
  Golf R
thats pretty good.

most 182s were around 170-180, so 185 for the 197 is about right :)

yeah i wasn't too displeased when i saw the figures tbh... it feels like a quick one and i reckon with more miles under it's belt it'll get quicker yet :)
 
  Golf R
Does it feel faster than the 182 or is teh extra weight eating the extra power. Not bad for such a tight engine though

it is good at disguising the speed to be honest... as it's not as raw as either the 17/182 you carry more speed without realising it. low down is where it's lacking power, but i'm still putting that down to the fact it's a baby... time will tell but it's more planted at high speeds :)
 
  Scirocco GT 210
RR figures aren't accurate and don't really mean much. As long as it performs on the road as well as it should, then that's the important thing.
 
RR figures aren't accurate and don't really mean much. As long as it performs on the road as well as it should, then that's the important thing.

Dyno Dynamics rolling roads have a good reputation for being one of the most accurate.
 
  Golf GTI PP Mk7
definately an impressive figure, was a good day really.

if my willy had made under 160bhp id of cried i think.

after going for a blast in that r27 too, i REALLY want one, damn my skintness!
 
  ST
Does it feel faster than the 182 or is teh extra weight eating the extra power. Not bad for such a tight engine though

it is good at disguising the speed to be honest... as it's not as raw as either the 17/182 you carry more speed without realising it. low down is where it's lacking power, but i'm still putting that down to the fact it's a baby... time will tell but it's more planted at high speeds :)

Mine is on nearly 3k and the low down torque doesn't seem to have changed from when it was brand spankin...the 182 was far better at lower revs, below 3k..
 
  Tangoed Works
182 feels nice and meaty compared to the 197 that I drove, but you cant take anything away from the fact that the 197 has so much more road presence. Looks like a right beast coming up from behind!
 
I wouldn't be too annoyed about flywheel power to be honest. I cannot see how this can be accurately measured without removing the engine and actually measuring bhp at the flywheel.

The flywheel is an estimation based on power at the wheels and a set perceived drive train loss. In other words, they have got a figure of 31.7 bhp drivetrain losses between flywheel and wheels.

If, for example your transmission loss is actually less than that, it doesn't have to be by much and then there you are, that's your 197 bhp, if you see what I mean. Drivetrain losses appear to have been estimated at about 19% if I understand that graph correctly.

No doubt someone will correct me if they think I'm wrong, but this is my understanding. I'd not talk flywheel figures to anyone, it's at the wheels figures that really mean the most on the road.

All this is of course before you take into account ambient temperatures that Renault test their engines at and that your engine is tested at, the mileage on each engine, tyre pressures and so on....
 
(besides which they're just bragging rights, I could drive my granny's 1.9 diesel golf quicker than your R27 185.5 ;) )
 
  VRS
182 feels nice and meaty compared to the 197 that I drove, but you cant take anything away from the fact that the 197 has so much more road presence. Looks like a right beast coming up from behind!

i never get the opportunity to see one coming up from behind, they are usually disappearing into a little speck ;)
 
  tiTTy & SV650
sounds fair for a low mileage, see how it loosens up - I'm sure it will make around 195bhp if you run it in nicely.

Everyone always says 182's only make 165 / 170 etc etc but mine made 179 and I was happy to discover that!
 
  tiTTy & SV650
Alan's R27 is a much nicer place to be than a 172 / 182 - more grown up, more planted, better car all round.

Paul's 197 was behind me on a b road once and it was very stable and planted through the twisties where as the 182 was twitching around like mad.

Don't get me wrong I love the 182, but the 197 is a better car.
 
  cock mobile.
Again fine results those were mate, better than I expected for sure!

Cheers for letting me take her for a spin, impressive little fat b1tch ;)
 
  ST
Alan's R27 is a much nicer place to be than a 172 / 182 - more grown up, more planted, better car all round.

Paul's 197 was behind me on a b road once and it was very stable and planted through the twisties where as the 182 was twitching around like mad.

Don't get me wrong I love the 182, but the 197 is a better car.

Cheers mate...


i should get mine RR'd as i have done 12k now.

Seb what sort of mpg are you getting now??
 

seb

ClioSport Club Member
  Clio trophy
Cheers mate...


i should get mine RR'd as i have done 12k now.

Seb what sort of mpg are you getting now??

all depends (as you know ;))

I did a run from home to kent of 140 miles no delays and reset it as i boosted onto the motorway.

i had 30.1mpg when i got home. i averaged (on the computer 75.5mph.) but i spent most of the journey at 80 - 90 with a few miles at 50ish due to speed cameras etc.

i have no idea how accurate thta is tbh.

normally i get 28mpg on a tank due to town driving and due to gonig home quickly at like 3am.

i did a run from london to home and cruised at 65-70 the whole way. got over 34mpg.
 
  2014 Focus Titanium
Shame my girlfriends 172 is performing like a dog. I reckon thats underpowered by about 20bhp. f**king stupid thing, how can that possibly happen to a car thats only 4 years old?
 
  Nissan Pulsar GTiR
I wouldn't be too annoyed about flywheel power to be honest. I cannot see how this can be accurately measured without removing the engine and actually measuring bhp at the flywheel.

The flywheel is an estimation based on power at the wheels and a set perceived drive train loss. In other words, they have got a figure of 31.7 bhp drivetrain losses between flywheel and wheels.

If, for example your transmission loss is actually less than that, it doesn't have to be by much and then there you are, that's your 197 bhp, if you see what I mean. Drivetrain losses appear to have been estimated at about 19% if I understand that graph correctly.

No doubt someone will correct me if they think I'm wrong, but this is my understanding. I'd not talk flywheel figures to anyone, it's at the wheels figures that really mean the most on the road.

All this is of course before you take into account ambient temperatures that Renault test their engines at and that your engine is tested at, the mileage on each engine, tyre pressures and so on....
Plus, a rolling road/dyno actually measures torque, not BHP. The BHP figure is a calculation made using a specific formula.

You should only really use dyno's as a tuning tool, to compare different mods on the same car, on the same day and on the same dyno.

If the OP compares his figures to other cars that used that dyno on the day, that will give a better judge of how good/consistent his output is in comparison. Ambient temps etc don't really come into play as, the dyno operator will use a calculation to DIN standards, to accomodate any atmospheric changes.
But yes, Dyno Dynamics rollers are regarded as one of the most accurate, in the tuning industry.

As the OP has already said, if those figures are to be believed, for such a young car, it would seem a good figure. Once it's lossened up, it should become a little stronger, if looked after.

As for the 197/R27 not being torquey, I couldn't agree less. My fairer halfs R27, with less than 200 miles on it, is very torque for an N/A engine of it's size. On the way home from picking it up, she didn't need to change down from from 6th on the motorway to stay with me.

Oh and don't for get the 197, 182 and 172 figures are all in PS (pferdestarke). The conversion to BHP would put these at 194, 179 and 169 respectively. I'm betting those figures are based on the engine usng high octane fuel too.
 
  FF 182, K5 GSX-R1000
I wouldn't be too annoyed about flywheel power to be honest. I cannot see how this can be accurately measured without removing the engine and actually measuring bhp at the flywheel.

The flywheel is an estimation based on power at the wheels and a set perceived drive train loss. In other words, they have got a figure of 31.7 bhp drivetrain losses between flywheel and wheels.

If, for example your transmission loss is actually less than that, it doesn't have to be by much and then there you are, that's your 197 bhp, if you see what I mean. Drivetrain losses appear to have been estimated at about 19% if I understand that graph correctly.

No doubt someone will correct me if they think I'm wrong, but this is my understanding. I'd not talk flywheel figures to anyone, it's at the wheels figures that really mean the most on the road.

All this is of course before you take into account ambient temperatures that Renault test their engines at and that your engine is tested at, the mileage on each engine, tyre pressures and so on....
Plus, a rolling road/dyno actually measures torque, not BHP. The BHP figure is a calculation made using a specific formula.
It calculates power from the equation therefor it measures power just as accurately as torque. Power = Torque x RPM


You should only really use dyno's as a tuning tool, to compare different mods on the same car, on the same day and on the same dyno.
Same dyno same conditions, they dont read different on a tuesday ;)


If the OP compares his figures to other cars that used that dyno on the day, that will give a better judge of how good/consistent his output is in comparison. Ambient temps etc don't really come into play as, the dyno operator will use a calculation to DIN standards, to accomodate any atmospheric changes.
But yes, Dyno Dynamics rollers are regarded as one of the most accurate, in the tuning industry.
Some dubious operators may allow for incorrect ambients to be measured to show improved gains on mods, most dynos print out these measurements now tho. As per pumping up the tyres.

As the OP has already said, if those figures are to be believed, for such a young car, it would seem a good figure. Once it's lossened up, it should become a little stronger, if looked after.
 
  Nissan Pulsar GTiR
Plus, a rolling road/dyno actually measures torque, not BHP. The BHP figure is a calculation made using a specific formula.
It calculates power from the equation therefor it measures power just as accurately as torque. Power = Torque x RPM
I didn't say that it calculates torque anymore accurately than BHP simply, that a rolling road actually measures torque. Not BHP.
Please read a bit more carefully next time.:rolleyes:


You should only really use dyno's as a tuning tool, to compare different mods on the same car, on the same day and on the same dyno.
Same dyno same conditions, they dont read different on a tuesday ;)
Again, I didn't say it would read differently on any given day.


If the OP compares his figures to other cars that used that dyno on the day, that will give a better judge of how good/consistent his output is in comparison. Ambient temps etc don't really come into play as, the dyno operator will use a calculation to DIN standards, to accomodate any atmospheric changes.
But yes, Dyno Dynamics rollers are regarded as one of the most accurate, in the tuning industry.
Some dubious operators may allow for incorrect ambients to be measured to show improved gains on mods, most dynos print out these measurements now tho. As per pumping up the tyres.
How can they allow for incorrect ambients ?! The machine measures that, with a calibrated thermocouple ! Once again, if you read the thread properly, you would have noticed that I said there is a calculation to DIN standards used, to give you a corrected result. So, what you said is just rubbish ! :rolleyes:
 
  FF 182, K5 GSX-R1000
1. Why mention it then? Has no relevance.

2. SAME DAY! was just jesting with you tho :~

3.What? you cant locate the temp probe in a 'conveinent location'? The correction then incorrectly, corrects it. ;)
 
As a long-standing performance Clio owner, having owned every one from the 16V to the 197 - I can assure you that these engines free up considerably over time. My rebuilt 16V with 100k+ on the clock used to make almost as much power as early 172s on the RR's. Ditto Williams No. 123 - almost every one I've seen RR'd makes 160+bhp as standard and mine was no exception!

But they certainly weren't like that with 750 miles on the clock... Autocar's early test of a low-mileage Williams made it out to be slower than the 10K up Clio 16V they'd tested!

My 197 is maturing nicely with 1,900 miles on the clock. Anyone who thinks a 197 lacks torque at low revs really needs to drive a 16V, Williams, 172 or whatever in direct comparison. I find mine very torquey at low revs and it's happy to give me forward surge on *part throttle* (this is key) at under 2,000rpm. My last car was a reasonably muscular turbo diesel warm hatch and the 197 is actually comparable for torque off full boost. It doesn't behave like a turbo, but for a N/A engine of its size, it's hard to beat.
 
  Nissan Pulsar GTiR
1. Why mention it then? Has no relevance.
How does it not have any relevance ?!
People were discussing a dyno measuring BHP. Is it not relevant to say a dyno doesn't actually measure BHP but torque ?! :rolleyes:

3.What? you cant locate the temp probe in a 'conveinent location'? The correction then incorrectly, corrects it. ;)
Once again, you're confused. The only temp probe I mentioned was the ambient temp probe. The dyno operator wouldn't place the ambient temp probe anywhere. It will usually be part of the dyno machine or at least placed statically in the dyno cell.

The inlet temp probe is the sensor that will be placed in a 'convenient location' as you put it or, indeed near the air filter if you want to be pedantic. ;)
As for the correction part of your post, again, it makes no sense. :dapprove:
 


Top