Performance Figures

[Dash]

This all looks a bit odd to me. From what I read, I would rather have a new MK1 172 ?

MK1 172 (Cliosport specs page)





0-100 kph / 0-62 mph
6.8 secs

Maximum speed
138 mph
220 kph



MK2 172 (Cliosport specs page )





0-100 kph / 0-62 mph
6.9 secs

Maximum speed
138 mph
220 kph



172 CUP ( Renaultsport.co.uk )





TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION: Clio Renaultsport 172 Cup

Engine
16-valve, 4-cylinder developed by Renaultsport

Capacity
1998cc

Max Output
172bhp & 6,250rpm

Max Torque
20.7Nm @ 5,400rpm

Gearbox
5-speed, close ratio

Speed Measurements (approx.)
0-62mph: 6.9 seconds

Top speed
138mph

Brakes Front
280mm vented discs and calipers

Brakes Rear
228mm vented discs and calipers

Wheels
Speedline Turini, 16 x 7 inch alloys

Tyres
Continental Sport Contact 195/45R 16

Weight
1021kg



182 ( Renaultsport.co.uk )






TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION



Engine


16-valve, 4-cylinder developed by Renaultsport



Capacity


1998cc



Max Output


182hp & 6,500rpm



Max Torque


200Nm ISO (20.7mkg DIN) @ 5,400rpm



Gearbox


5-speed



Speed (approx.)


0-62mph: 7.1 seconds



Top speed


139mph



Brakes Front


280mm



Brakes Rear


238mm



Wheels


16-inch alloys



Tyres


205/45 R16



Weight


1110kg

 

[telford_mike]

Hmmm. Renault are always a bit conservative though. Helps to keep the insurance down too.

 

[specialK]

conservative or not, the comparison between the Mk1 and the Cup are completely wrong - there is no doubt on this earth that the Cup is quicker (asuming the driver can drive of course) the evidence of this can be seen every day between the Sunflower and the Cup !!

 

[phill*]

these figures are not important really, if your slower off the mark than someone else your gonna lose times like these.

 

[paddymph]

hmm, dont think weve had conclusive proof that any of the 3 models are quicker/slower than each other!

nearest we got was when Rich-D AP22d them all on the same night.

 

[viceroy]

Maybe you just have a slow sunflower?

I personally dont take manufacturer specs as gospel...nor do I take magazine times as gospel either...

 

[specialK]

I dont have a particularly slow sunflower, (well I would say that anyway! ) and even if the drivers swap it is still the Cup that is faster - in fact that particular cup will be vouched for by lots of people as faster than most clios it has come up against - it has a few mods now, but even when it was new it was faster than any Mk1 or Mk2 it came up against

anyway viceroy - youre just jealous cos you couldnt find a sunflower !!!!

 

[woodleadam]

There is minimal difference between the cars, so little infact that it is too hard to state what is faster. They are supposed to produce the same power but have different weights, but as we all know renaults engines come out of the factory producing all different powers. It depends on the driver really cos the cars are so similar. Technically the cup is slightly lighter so it should feel minutely more responsive. Testing one cup against a mk2 and a mk1 doesnt work cos each mk1 is different, each mk2 is different and each cup is different. SOme cups are faster than others and likewise. Cups are great because of their value, mk2 are great for their spec and value etc. So all you gotta remember is MINES THE FASTEST!!!!

 

[ChavyBoy]

One fact is the cup doesnt have aircon, this mean no auxiliary belts to drive the unit which in turn means no power drain, even whent he aircon is switched off the unit is still being driven, that is gonna make a difference and combined with the weight it WILL make a difference.

 

[specialK]

it is different - dont care what the logical answers are - the cup is faster - everyone I know is faster!!! the weight makes a difference or whaterver else, like Chavy says the aircon will make a difference - whether you like it or not, drive a Mk1, Mk2, Cup or whatever, the Cup is faster!!!

edited to add: there will always be exceptions to any rule.

and I dont drive a Cup so I have no reason for saying they are faster!!!

 

[viceroy]

Quote: Originally posted by specialK on 28 November 2003


anyway viceroy - youre just jealous cos you couldnt find a sunflower !!!!

Yep...that is so true...

 

[weyland]

Who cares?, cup and 172 are passe now that the 182 will be the fastest of them all. What was the point of the cup if gonna be replaced by something faster and more desirable? Answers on a postcard please. (please not say marketing.........)

Bye Bye

 

[m@thew]

the cheaper price of the cup helped them shift alot more of them than they would have done 172s



SALES not marketing

 

[weight]

theres good and bad of all 3 models quoted, 172 mk 1, 172 mk 2, cup and no doubt the 182.

for all the arguments that will come over the next 12 months, someone somewhere will have a mk 2 172 that is faster than a 182.

Just take at as there all the same and move on, as the diff isnt going to be huge!

 

[m@thew]

we will have to wait for someone to take a 182 to the dragstrip to see how it compare, and as you say will most likely be in the same range as the 172s

 

[007]

Does someone want to work the figures out?

I reckon from a quick calculation that the Cup has a better power to weight than the 182.

 

[weight]

power to weight isnt a very good indication

Torque spread/delivery vs weight is the most important IMO and i sure as hell cant say which is gonna be better

 

[tumbleweed]

I know some cup drivers think they are urban warriors behind the wheel of the stripped cup, 172 drivers are content with having the extra comfort and luxury at the expense of .2 of a second...If cup drivers are so content, why do they spend so much time modding them to go faster?...is there self doubt there on driving ability, which is re-enforced with some extra BHP?

The daddy will be the 182, since it will be the new black and anyone with cash should upgrade from a cup, 172 if like me their car is their hobby.

 

[Neil82]

hehe most ppl dont upgrade their Clios to other Clios as owning one in your life is more than enough, if I was to replace my Cup it would definatly not be another Clio Sport (unless it was a 2.0 turbo)

 

[weight]

interesting view points, but this is going to explode if u dont use your words carefully.

pros and cons for all models, that we are all aware of!

no point going over old ground, whatever you own will be superceeded by something better. Fact of life. Reno would be out on its arse if it didnt.

except the clio 1s of course

 

[tumbleweed]

but cups, 172s, 182s have performance, as do Civic Type Rs...to get into the early 6 second terrirtory requires something in the £20k+ bracket which is disappointing.

 

[Griff]

LOL @ this thread! Copy and paste from this site and that....... No wonder the figures are crap!

Me thinks Dash is being abit naughty by starting this

 

[adiclio16v]

hmmm if i was to sell the valver and get a newer car it wud prob be a mk1 172 with work or a cup

but imo the cup interior is gash, the valver 1 is much better

however only the cup and mk1 172 would compare performance wise to the 2.0 valver jus more expensive it wud defo need mods

adi

 

[Dash]

Quote: Originally posted by griff_90 on 29 November 2003


LOL @ this thread! Copy and paste from this site and that....... No wonder the figures are crap!

Me thinks Dash is being abit naughty by starting this

No naughtyness intended. You are exactly right about the copy and paste. I really put this in to show all the mixed up figures floating about the internet already.

I was of course waiting/hoping for the "Those figures are all a load of crap" posts. Not to start another war by size queens.

Going by what I found in just 10 minutes, it has instantly put me off from ordering what I thought might be the "Daddy". 10bhp more etc sounded great until Renault adds their ballast.

I guess we will just have to wait for those definitive Autocar/ Evo tests

 

[weight]

we need to see a torque plot, to see where the extra 10hp is being made, if its in the power band say 4.5 to 6k?? then it could make a big diff on the road.

if its low down, the diff between all 4 cars could be very slight.

its hard to say without seeing power plots

 

[D-CUP]

I like the way 172 owners use the quickest recorded 0-60 against the CUPs slowest recorded 0 - 60. How about we use EVOs times eh?

CUP - 6.5

172 - 7.1

CUP is over half a second quicker. Thats a LOT!

 

[Dash]

Evo do tend to be a little more encouraging with their figures. They said the MK1 V6 was more like 5.7. Which would make the MK2 V6 about 5.0 ?

Are all these cars faster than we are being told?

 

[weight]

0-60 who cares???

thought this was aimed at the new 182, not yet another argument between 172/cup owners.

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by phill* on 28 November 2003

these figures are not important really, if your slower off the mark than someone else your gonna lose times like these.

Very well said...

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by paddymph on 28 November 2003


hmm, dont think weve had conclusive proof that any of the 3 models are quicker/slower than each other!

nearest we got was when Rich-D AP22d them all on the same night.

And that was inconclusive!

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by weyland on 28 November 2003


Who cares?, cup and 172 are passe now that the 182 will be the fastest of them all. What was the point of the cup if gonna be replaced by something faster and more desirable?

Very much doubt the 182 will be faster...

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by Neil82cup on 29 November 2003

if I was to replace my Cup it would definatly not be another Clio Sport (unless it was a 2.0 turbo)

Snap...

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by weight on 29 November 2003


we need to see a torque plot, to see where the extra 10hp is being made, if its in the power band say 4.5 to 6k?? then it could make a big diff on the road.

if its low down, the diff between all 4 cars could be very slight.

its hard to say without seeing power plots

But they ALL very anyway and no 2 cars are "exactly" the same, so different examples will be quicker than others.

We did a RR event last Sat (22nd Nov) and I have got all the power & torque plots in Excel to compare.

They were all different and even seemingly identical cars could be very different!

 

[BrynO]

Errrm, I think the 0 - 62 times for the 172s on the original post are actually 0 - 60 times. Believe Reno quote more like 7.2/3 for the 0 - 62, which makes the Cup and 182 times look more logical. Anorack moment over.

 

[Klang1.6]

Quote: Originally posted by tumbleweed on 29 November 2003


I know some cup drivers think they are urban warriors behind the wheel of the stripped cup, 172 drivers are content with having the extra comfort and luxury at the expense of .2 of a second...If cup drivers are so content, why do they spend so much time modding them to go faster?...is there self doubt there on driving ability, which is re-enforced with some extra BHP?

The daddy will be the 182, since it will be the new black and anyone with cash should upgrade from a cup, 172 if like me their car is their hobby.





what a load of rubbish, can tel u are a 172 driver(no-offence to anyone eles),

i bet if you went alongside a cup, u couldnt resist racing it to see if your faster!

bet you modded ur 172 too

 

[swelch]

Since it is basically the same engine, the difference will be down to power to weight ratios.

At present a Standard CUP is 171BHP per tonne. This is far better than the 172.

What we need to find out is the weight figures for the 182 and work it out on a BHP per tonne basis and that should give a fair assumption.