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.

Power plot of under performing 172



  (ex-2.0 Hybrid)CorradoVR6


Only looks like 125!!

I am no expert but the power curve looks a little strange after 5500rpm. An ecu problem maybe??
 


mmm, had a half hearted race with a 172 tonite in bracknell, I had a bad day and all my gear changes were wrong, have to say though those cars are fast, even if they look like s*** compared to the valver, but the valver always wins on looks regardless !
 


Quote: Originally posted by scotty16v on 01 November 2003

mmm, had a half hearted race with a 172 tonite in bracknell, I had a bad day and all my gear changes were wrong, have to say though those cars are fast, even if they look like s*** compared to the valver, but the valver always wins on looks regardless !
Some 172s are faster than others. My mk1 172 is much faster than my mk2, but there are MK2s that are exactly as fast as my mk1. My best 1/4 mile run in the MK2 172 was 15.6, with the rest late 15s and 16s :eek: A full second quicker in the MK1.

Big flat spot in bhp from 5500rpm. The torque is up and down all over the place. If Jonnyboy sorts out the RR at the same venue Ill get a decent comparison between the two.
 


I dont really have a clue when it comes to engines etc so i want to know how can there be such a difference? Paddy had almost 20 hp on you. :confused:
 


We need paddy to take a pic of his graph from the same day and put it up here. Im sure his torque and power was a bit "wonky" (the technical term) too, but it made a load more bhp.
 


think your self lucky rhys my car didnt even make it onto the rollers as the exhaust fell off 1 miles from the rolling road:mad:

another clio rolling road would be good though so I could compare how my car runs against other clios on the day.
 
  ICE'dberg MK2 172


Just a thought.....I remember someone else posting about an underpowered one and when they fitted an IK he found the air feed to the filter had become crushed/twisted in a way that made the bore a lot smaller hence lack of air hence low power.

I also had a similar problem with my viper....the air feed and split and I lost about 10bhp......should have checked all was ok BEFORE I RRd it..doh!
 
  CTR EK9 turbo


i think this issue of squashed air feed pipe to the airbox is common. Whenever the techno wizzes at Renault do a service or anything to my car involving removal of the airbox, they always put the air pipes back on the wrong holes resulting it squashed-tight pipes and bngger-all air getting to the airbox! Its really noticeable and i often forget to check if theyre on the correct way, in fact i might go and check now! i give them a good squeeze to re-form them into round tubes as its very tight and hard to see down there. Im not sure what the shape of the mk.2s are like, i guess they have a similar design, but enter a square box....... Really makes a difference. Also if they are disconnected, a very noticeable difference is well, noticed!
 


Ive gone back to my std. mk1 airbox and filter, but instead of the rubbish tubes that Renault supply, Ive used silver "Green" tubing to get airfeeds from underneath the car. Who needs a PiperX Viper :D. Looks like the K&N filter doesnt give any extra "go" over the standard set up.

Looks like all the extra 1/4 mile power was given by the decat pipe alone. Would be interested to see what my modded air tubes do.
 


From your graph, your peak torque is about 123lbft if you calculate it at 4500rpm and 105bhp. Thats pretty pants, especially for a 2.0 16valver. The way the torque curve drops off suggests its a breathing problem. Im pretty sure Simon172 is right. Weve fiddled around with his pipes (oh er) after the monkeys have serviced it and it makes a big difference. The rest of the deficit is probably down to you not fully wearing/thrashing it in, and also you tested it in July in a workshop with just a big fan for air, during the hottest Summer on record!!

Fiddle with the pipes and get it tested now - its probably a lot better now cos it feckin freezin outside.
 


Ive not got that car anymore! Ive got a MK1 172 now which is much quicker than the one from that graph.

Oh yes, it was thrashed from 650 miles and it had about 8k miles on it when it was RRd I think.
 
  320d M Sport


ill dig my graph out.

the 2nd RR we went to (nobles) they said my car was all wrong, graph goes up,down and up down all way thru, that was last year.... i need to go RE again.
 

Rich-D

ClioSport Club Member
  E90 LCI 330d


Quote: Originally posted by m@thew on 02 November 2003


another clio rolling road would be good though so I could compare how my car runs against other clios on the day.
There is one in the pipeline again at RE actually...
 


Top