172, Tiguan
For those who are not signed up:
http://www.renaultsport.co.uk/roadcars/clio182/thecar.htmhttp://www.renaultsport.co.uk/roadcars/clio182/thecar.htm
Quote: Originally posted by J_rt on 03 December 2003
new 182= 0/62 in 7.1
mk 2 172 cup = 0/62 in 6.7
mk 2 172 = 0/62 in 6.9
errr am i missing something here? i would have thought the new 182 would have been marginally quicker than the 172s with 10bhp more!!!
weight
Well, the 182 is most likely heavier than a mk2 172, so going off the fact that the Cup has an extra 13bhp per tonne more than a mk2, then even if the 182 weighed the same as a mk2 it would still be down on the Cup in terms of power-to-weight ratio!Quote: Originally posted by Rhys on 03 December 2003
So thatd make the 182 about 6.9 to 60. Its only an extra 10bhp, torque appears to be remaining unchanged at 200nm.
I thought so too. I wonder what is making heavier? The air conditioned glovebox?Quote: Originally posted by blink172 on 03 December 2003
inst the 182 losing the spare and a few other bits? Meaning it should be lighter???
But gaining other stuff, so swings & roundabouts...Quote: Originally posted by blink172 on 03 December 2003
inst the 182 losing the spare and a few other bits? Meaning it should be lighter???
But remember they initially said the mk2 weighed the same as the mk1 as at that point they didnt know exactly...Quote: Originally posted by geordiepaul on 03 December 2003
The 182 is the same weight as the 172 it says so in black and white. 1110kgs!!
Actually, I think it is!Quote: Originally posted by dash on 03 December 2003
And it could be a misprint...
Quote: Originally posted by D-CUP on 03 December 2003
Face it, the CUP is still the quickest![]()
And Ill completely impartially back this statement upQuote: Originally posted by Darren555 on 03 December 2003
After a mk1 you meanQuote: Originally posted by D-CUP on 03 December 2003
Face it, the CUP is still the quickest![]()
![]()
Yup, theyve put mailto:200nm@5400rpm">200nm@5400rpm, and on the previous page said peak torque is now at 5250rpm.Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 03 December 2003
Actually, I think it is!Quote: Originally posted by dash on 03 December 2003
And it could be a misprint...
Look at the torque figure (rpm) on that 182 spec list, then see what rpm peak torque is actually achieved at for a 182...
Id take anything writen on that webpage with a pinch of salt...Quote: Originally posted by Rhys on 03 December 2003
Yup, theyve put mailto:200nm@5400rpm">200nm@5400rpm, and on the previous page said peak torque is now at 5250rpm.Actually, I think it is!And it could be a misprint...
Look at the torque figure (rpm) on that 182 spec list, then see what rpm peak torque is actually achieved at for a 182...
I think your timings are completely wrong there........ a mk2 172 is not 6.9 no way its a lot slower.....Quote: Originally posted by J_rt on 03 December 2003
new 182= 0/62 in 7.1
mk 2 172 cup = 0/62 in 6.7
mk 2 172 = 0/62 in 6.9
errr am i missing something here? i would have thought the new 182 would have been marginally quicker than the 172s with 10bhp more!!!
I was also wondering what I would use this for?Quote: Originally posted by zedx19 on 04 December 2003
Whats the point in a air conditioned glovebox????? If I wanted a fridge in my car Id buy a motorhome not a Clio!!!
Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 04 December 2003
But is this a hot hatch, or a luxury car?!
IMO theres no need for stuff like air-conditioned gloveboxs or cruise control, etc... on hot hatch, and theyre just cramming everything in there now!
Fair enough, stuff like leather, aircon, etc... is fine, no probs there, but some of this stuff is OTT
The basic clio (which the 182 is based on) is a supermini, go through the current spec of the c2, 206, mini, micra etc
The clio needs to be competative an a\c glove box is a gimmick that may or may not be usefull it its simply a hole in the glovebox and a pipe from the ac fan unit.