phase 1 172 v 172 cup..

[Guy]

from another site:

The mk1 172s are quicker than the mk2,the difference between a cup and a mk1 172 is f**k all plus you still get leather

discuss...

 

[Guilbert]

Who cares!

There is hardly anything in all the clio sports to even worry about, IMO

it depends what you want, leather or not.

 

[Trojan]

Not had any run-ins against other Renault Sports yets so can't say either way. A lad who I work with has a Cup however so I'll have to have a spirited drive with him sometime, see how the 2 cars compare.

 

[Gareth]

ffs, not again, Renault Clio Sport *** who cares. All the same, unless each driver is an exact robot copy.

 

[Guy]

im not on about performance here.. im on about the differences.. im not that clued up on the mk1s so dont know the ins and outs of them...

theres alot more difference in the cup suspension to a mk1 and handling department isnt there??

 

[Day]

Weight is similar, wider track on the cup so handling is much better.
Speed is fairly similar between all of the 172 variants.

 

[Neil82]

Cup is a good 75 kg lighter than a mark 1 172 (alloy bonnet one)

 

[Mondial172]

Doesn't the mk1 have longer gearing or is it the other why round?

 

[gazcaddy]

There is nothing in it in terms of performance between any of the Renaulsport Clios, there are only a few BHP/Per tonne difference between the lots of them. Then put into the mix factors such as amount of fuel on board, weight of driver and the actual power the engine produces and there is bugger all in it

 

[Christopher]

Doesn't the mk1 have longer gearing or is it the other why round?

nope.

Mk1 172 has shorter gearing iirc.

Looked at a couple of Cups when i was hunting around, very nice cars. I just wanted some luxery with my performance. Cabin was worse equipped than the Dynamique i was changing from.

 

[Loopz]

Cup is a good 75 kg lighter than a mark 1 172 (alloy bonnet one)

hm...i know the Cliosport weighed the mk1 at around 1100kg...but have they also weighed the cup?

 

[McShug]

Right here we go.. Having owned a MK2 1.6 16v, a MK1 172, a MK2 172, a MK2 172cup and a 182 with both cup packs, I think that I am in a better than average position to comment.

First the MK1 1.6 16v - Seemed to be lacking in the power and performance front. Having come from another 1.6 16v, not a Renault, it did not do all that I thought it would.

Then there was the MK1 172 - What a top car. Loads of power, well specked, nice seats, branded wheels and the alloy bonnet, Renault were thinking of us in those days.

Then there was the MK2 172 - To be totally truthful, a bit of a let down. all that was good in the MK 1 striped away. OK so they gave us cruse control and a speed limiter, esp and climate controls instead of air-condition. But it was just a shame that they had to fix something that was not broken.

Now the MK2 172cup - Now the only way to look at this car is as something completely different to the others. It is a hooligan. Ok it is the newer shape but that is pretty much all that it shares. No esp, no abs, no air con and it only weighs 1015Kg you get the idea.

And finally the 182 - Here we have all the toys in a car that now has the history of having a hooligan in the family. It has nice alloys, good ride and handling a bit of refinery but with the hint of nutter lurking in the background.

So what would I have. Well I drive a 172cup and the wife has a 182.

This is all just my opinion it is not intended to start a Mines better then Yours row.

 

[Christopher]

^^that's what i thought after driving the Mk2 172!

seemed detached and 'floaty' after the Mk1.

so you can guess what i bought.

 

[Ad]

^ I genuines dont think my MK2 172 was worse than my 182.

Floaty is not a work a would use for any of the RS clios.

Other than the cup, it comes down to finances imho. you buy what you can. I stretched to a MK2 172 when I got mine and had no regrets

 

[Neil G]

Prefer the look of the MK2 cars myself.

I definately wouldn't say the Mk2 172 is 'floaty' at all.....in fact I think it's probably got the best steering of any car I've owned/driven.

 

[Martin_172]

you get fast 172s and not so fast 172s not every one is the same and not ever driver is the same!

 

[Guy]

you get fast 172s and not so fast 172s not every one is the same and not ever driver is the same!

well yeah.. no s**t.. im on about the difference between cars. other than 'just leather'

i.e. wider track, stiffer suspensions. etc

 

[ben_p]

ive got a mrk1 172 . the handeling is not up to much, 5th gear is pooh, hasnt got many toys but its a mint car, its the same as aa mark2 it just feels faster, to be completly honest if i had th e choice i would have the mrk2 just for the few extra toys, i had the money ton buy one, but i made a big saving with the mrk1 i dont re gret this in any way btw,

i had had to re choose i would have a 182 , full fat cup packs,

 

[Lagerlout]

I hated the mk1 172 i drove. The way some people describe the handling on this site I'm beginning to wonder if I drove a bit of a dog. It was very soft and had tons of body roll. Turn in was sharp though, although I felt the mk2 was better overall.

The mk1 I drove seemed to have more of a pronounced 5k kick which made it feel quicker when going for it but very sluggish when just tootling about.

I find the gearing better in the mk2 also, although it's a trade off - there are times when I wish I had a long 5th like the phase 1 for motorways etc.

The dash/steering wheel in the mk1 felt and looked like it was about 10 years old. And I hated the bubbly cutesy look of it. And I prefer the grey mk2 leather on the seats.

All entirely subjective.

Bottom line for me is that they're all good cars and all the people who own one (whichever variant it may be) usually love it to bits which is testament to what good cars they are. And luckily for us there is a Renaultsport Clio to suit everyone!

 

[blaze]

Well said Lagerlout, MK1 had the worst suspension of all RenaultSport Clios. More roll and softer. The anti roll bars were less stiff than the MK2'S as well.

 

[Nafoff]

as someone who has not owned any of the above cars or hasen't had the chance of driving any i probably don't have much right to have a say...but...as this is a discussion forum i will anyway.

if i was to go out and buy one of these cars listed i think it would be really close between the mark1 and the cup...all the others have to many toys etc and i think i am a raw car person as it were...looks wise i think i would have to go for the mark1 as i think it has more character..but only just...from a driving experience i can't comment.....but hopefully i will have the pleasure one day....

 

[nejjam]

yup who cares? besides the mk2 172's look nicer than the mk1's

 

[Paul C]

very intersting read and nice to see a few different sides. its certainly got me thinking of which one to get!!

 

[Lagerlout]

Well said Lagerlout, MK1 had the worst suspension of all RenaultSport Clios. More roll and softer. The anti roll bars were less stiff than the MK2'S as well.

I didn't know that about the arb, but I can definitely believe it.

The mk1 doesn't handle that badly imho, just the mk2 handles better.

The mk2 still has a fair amount of body roll, but i find it nicely progressive and I can feel the chassis loading up which is a bonus for a numpty like me. lol.

 

[Day]

yup who cares? besides the mk2 172's look nicer than the mk1's

Well constructed post.
On a side note... of all the problems I've had with my car, why do they still happen on the new ones?

You would think that issues would of been resolved after each facelift.

Would you not?

 

[Lagerlout]

LOL... The 182's get all of the 172's problems as well as a few of thier own.

Let's hope the Mk3 is better in that respect, if nothing else...:dapprove: :dapprove:

 

[Dave H]

I went from a mint 1.9 205 gti which was putting out 163bhp to the 172 Cup.

It was like getting into a luxury car compared to the Pug.Still no ABS,traction control etc.But the Cup would eat the Pug which was not slow.

And....the Cup cost £10.5k new.........10.5 f**king k new.......bonkers! The Pug cost more than that back in 1991!!!!!!!

 

[Rich-D]

In terms of straightline performance, there's not much in it between the mk1 & Cup, both weights are very similar, ditch the spare wheel in the mk1 and you're virtually the same as the Cup, however the gearing is different, closer ratio's on the Cup (same as mk2) which give it an advantage.

Handling wise, the Cup is far better, I've done trackdays in both and the Cup is a completely different car, much sharper, less roll, loads of grip, wheras the mk1 is a little soggy and has a tendanct to understeer, it's a safe setup.

But, the handling can be sorted on the mk1 for not a huge amount of money or effort.

 

[blaze]

Largerlout, appreciate some sanity.

Just for info the torque curve is far flatter in the MK2, which we all know gives better drivability/punch through the gears.

Before anyone comments I have had the lot and driven many others of the same. All cars vary and so my comments are always said with a codicile!!!!!!

 

[Rich-D]

Just for info the torque curve is far flatter in the MK2, which we all know gives better drivability/punch through the gears.

This is very true, the mk1 is a more peaky engine, there's a more dramatic change @ 5000rpm when they come on cam, but with less low end grunt.

A mk1 with that punchy top end performance with the closer ratio's of a mk2 would be a superb car IMO

 

[brabbsy2o05]

Having only been a passenger in the Ph2 i can't say, but i do prefer the looks of the Mk2 Ph2 172