RR on standards 172

miketree · Jul 21, 2003

Has anyone RRd an out of the showroom 172?

If so,did it make much diference?

Rich-D · Jul 21, 2003

Much difference to what?!

paddymph · Jul 21, 2003

eh?

my standard 172 made 152@ Wheels, that was with about 3K miles on.

Neil82 · Jul 21, 2003

He means has anyone got a brand new 3 mile 172 had it RR then run it in to 5 k miles then had it RR again to see the difference.... got paddy your a bit thick I tell thee proper bo you are.

Bryan · Jul 22, 2003

paddy do it again after a couple of thousand more miles, the transmission will have loosened up considerably and should in theory be producing more power

also the 172 only has 172PS (not bhp) this equtes to around 160bhp (so many 172 owners are unaware of this)

Roamer · Jul 22, 2003

Soz Bambam but your very wrong with your conversion there mate, and I quote:

Power/Energy

1 BHP (SAE) = *1.01387 BHP (PS) = 0.7457 KW = 33,000 lbs/ft/min.
1 KW/Hour = 3412 Btu/hrs. = 1.341 BHP/hrs. = 3600 Kilojoules
* For all practical purposes SAE and PS (Metric) horsepower are the same

Bryan · Jul 22, 2003

so it works out at around what then??

i did say around

not going on any specific figures, only on what i have seen on a few rolling roads

not many 172s are anywhere near 172bhp

Bryan · Jul 22, 2003

Quote: Originally posted by bambam on 22 July 2003
not many 172s are anywhere near 172bhp

this is a general thing, from what i have seen, based on no physical facts

Roamer · Jul 22, 2003

it would be 169.6469961632161914249361357965BHP(SAE) just to be exact

Bryan · Jul 22, 2003

and how many produce anywhere near that?

Rich-D · Jul 22, 2003

Quote: Originally posted by bambam on 22 July 2003

also the 172 only has 172PS (not bhp) this equtes to around 160bhp (so many 172 owners are unaware of this)

Not according to Renault!

It is 172bhp in the literature, on the website, etc...

As for ps to bhp conversion, it would make 172ps = 170bhp so marginal difference!

Rich-D · Jul 22, 2003

Quote: Originally posted by bambam on 22 July 2003

and how many produce anywhere near that?

Some do, some dont...

Like with all cars, its very rare you get them all producing "exactly" what the manufacturer claims.

There are some 172s & Cups on here that are producing more as standard though!

JJ172 · Jul 22, 2003

RRd my Mk 172 @ 3000 miles (approx.) at BB Tuning and it output 172bhp and 149 lbft torque

miketree · Jul 23, 2003

Sorry guys (and gals) I shouldve been more specific.

What I meant was... Has any one had their out of the box 172 RR TUNED ?

JJ172 · Jul 23, 2003

RR tuned? Surely you need to remap the ECU to effect a tune (or turn the radio on!)

philip · Jul 23, 2003

I think most people put on an IK/zorst first and then have a remap. You may find somebody whos fitted a unichip to a standard car. Search for unichip threads. A unichip on a standard 172 will probably give you another 8-10bhp and better torque. In hindsight, I would actually start with that directly before doing anything to the IK/exhaust.

Roamer · Jul 23, 2003

Oh and the 172 is quoted as 172 bhp (ps) not 172 bhp (sae)

just for the record, and it would come out to be 169.65bhp(sae)

tonykart · Jul 23, 2003

Djeez its just a standard folks. BHP stands for brake horse power, PS is German for Pferde starke a.k.a. PK in Dutch which is paardekracht, and in French called CV (Chevaux)

Which in the end comes out on bhp=ps=pk=cv !! normal Clio 2.0 RS has 169 SAE (power calculated including the loss)

cheers

Rich-D · Jul 23, 2003

Quote: Originally posted by miketree on 23 July 2003

Sorry guys (and gals) I shouldve been more specific.

What I meant was... Has any one had their out of the box 172 RR TUNED ?

There is nothing to tune...

It aint like an older car where you could set the timing, or alter the carb!

paddymph · Jul 23, 2003

still confused.?

and Neil, im a bad invisible racin car mutha f*cker! shamone.

Tim-Grove · Jul 23, 2003

Bit of a freak occurrence form my old 172, it put out 174bhp for some mad reason???? Thing is about 2 weeks before it put out 10bhp less????

http://erc.qmuc.ac.uk/cliosport/file.php?image=1058975415__rrprint1.jpg

conrad · Jul 24, 2003

rolling road tunes are never 100% accurate and varients of power outputs are not un-common. also conditions may help cause diffrent readings colder weather will usually give better figures.

BenR · Jul 24, 2003

RR are perfectly acurate when measuring ATWs, why? because they measure a KNOWN value, they calibrate it.........so its accurate.

Its fly calculations that are never on the mark.

Rich-D · Jul 24, 2003

Yup, I always quote the @ wheels figure too...

Tim-Grove · Jul 24, 2003

The day it put out 174bhp was a lot cooler than the first time i had it Rolling roaded when it was red hot, and it was also running on optimax and had a bottle of octain boster in the tank. It put out 131bhp at the wheels. Not bad from a bog std 172

.

Rich-D · Jul 24, 2003

Quote: Originally posted by Tim-Grove on 24 July 2003

It put out 131bhp at the wheels. Not bad from a bog std 172 .

Not that good really...

My old 306 Rallye was 142bhp @ wheels standard, then I fitted a Group N air filter and re-ran the thing a few minutes later and got 151bhp @ wheels.

Thats from an allegedly lower powered engine!

Paddys standard mk2 172 made 152bhp @ wheels though!!!

Tim-Grove · Jul 24, 2003

So 174 and 131 are crap then, fare enough. You wont see many 172’s that put out more than 172bhp most struggle to put out 165bhp.

BTW my car only had 2000 miles on it when it put out that power.

paddymph · Jul 24, 2003

Rich, youll soon FEEL the power when i toast your suacer, err cup i mean

Rich-D · Jul 24, 2003

Quote: Originally posted by Tim-Grove on 24 July 2003

So 174 and 131 are crap then, fare enough. You wont see many 172’s that put out more than 172bhp most struggle to put out 165bhp.

BTW my car only had 2000 miles on it when it put out that power.

So youre saying it was 131bhp @ wheels and 174bhp @ fly then???

Thats a loss of 25% mate and waaaay too much for a fwd car!

Its more like 15% loss, hence why I thought your @ wheels figure was poor....

007 · Jul 24, 2003

My ATW figure seemed way too low when I got my cars RRd too. As Ben says I was aware that the ATW figure is the only accurate one but after the last RR I had im not sure.

We worked out the with the performance my car was getting on the AP22 and using a GPS & camcorder its should be about 160bhp. The RR came out at 163.5bhp ATF - but only 113bhp ATW! Doesnt make any sense.

Rich-D · Jul 25, 2003

That is wierd!

Like I said earlier, my Rallye was 151bhp @ wheels and Paddys mk2 172 was 152bhp @ wheels and although these are good results, you "should" be seeing somewhere in the 140s @ wheels for a standard 172

Transmission loss is no more than 15%

Tim-Grove · Jul 25, 2003

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 24 July 2003

So youre saying it was 131bhp @ wheels and 174bhp @ fly then???

Thats a loss of 25% mate and waaaay too much for a fwd car!

Its more like 15% loss, hence why I thought your @ wheels figure was poor....

Forgot to mention this happened about a month after the RR day as some people on hear might remember.

http://erc.qmuc.ac.uk/cliosport/file.php?image=1059146522__g.jpg

It went back to Renault for a new gearbox because it blew up. It did feel quite a lot faster when it came back. But still 174 is a good output you have to agree for a standard 172.

Rich-D · Jul 25, 2003

Quote: Originally posted by Tim-Grove on 25 July 2003

But still 174 is a good output you have to agree for a standard 172.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is...

RR on standards 172

Similar threads