RS3 197 - Straight Line Thread

[chris182]

there is talk of a Megane 250, but to be honest I doubt they will be increasing the power on the new clio sport, not even in the cup.

What cup?

People keep assuming there is going to be a cup.

There is no equipment in the 197 they can afford to leave out to make it lighter.

I cant see them taking A/C out, i could be wrong, they cant take ABS out, they could put recaro's in as standard to save some weight but that would put the price UP, not make it cheaper.

As for 0-60 times, Renault probably supply all the mags with a 'basic' 197. You then start adding all the things you want to make it as well specced as a 182, what weight does that add?

 

[MarkCup]

RenaultSport cars with Cup options are now a fairly staple part of the Renault range...with the Cup bit almost being a brand in its own right.

It might not be a serious lightweight, but I'd bet my left knacker that there'll be some form of Cup options available for the 197 in 12-18 months.

What those will be is anyone's guess...highly likely to be some chassis "improvements" though.

 

[Mattieuk]

Good write up Roy.......thank f**k I splashed out on the Megane instead

 

[gazcaddy]

So they gave it 10 extra BHP for no reason did they?

Roadtest figures suggest the 182 is a good 1+ second faster than a ph2 172, not a huge amount i know, but still...

The main purpose of the 182 was so that renault could say there hot hatch had more power than Peugeot!

The 182 was designed to be the best of both worlds, i.e have the pace and handling of the 172 cup (i.e extra 10bhp) and the spec of the 172. Remember at the 182 launch Renault said there would be no cup version for this reason, they soon changed their tune

In reality though we all know theres nothing in it in terms of performance between the 172/182 variants

 

[gazcaddy]

RenaultSport cars with Cup options are now a fairly staple part of the Renault range...with the Cup bit almost being a brand in its own right.

It might not be a serious lightweight, but I'd bet my left knacker that there'll be some form of Cup options available for the 197 in 12-18 months.

What those will be is anyone's guess...highly likely to be some chassis "improvements" though.

Agree, I would be very suprised if a cup version or cup packs dont come out

 

[chris182]

Agree, I would be very suprised if a cup version or cup packs dont come out

Not saying your wrong, but what are they going to leave off it to make it lighter?

 

[rory182]

maybe they'll do a proper cup again, take out sound proofing and air con and put plastic windows in and thinner glass... and poverty seats lol

think they'll do a trophy?

 

[Kiev85]

and poverty seats

just a plywood bench

 

[Martin]

Not saying your wrong, but what are they going to leave off it to make it lighter?

It's over 1100kgs ffs could easy shave 100 kgs off

 

[Rich]

Maybe they will go all hardcore with some proper buckets and lose the back seats etc totally - we can dream!

 

[jayxx83]

Lighter wheels would be a start, mabye they may come out with more exotic features that are options on more expensive cars. Remember reading that Xenons on a new 911 are something silly like a 1k option, and the 182 and 172 had it all for its all inclusive price. How about a carbon roof ala BM CSL, to make it more exotic at realistic everyday prices?

 

[Munson]

How about some decent power? That would be a good place to start

 

[Darren555]

It's over 1100kgs ffs could easy shave 100 kgs off

Not easy at all. The extra weight is due to it's greater impact protection and is inherent with the chassis design. Believe me, the Clio/Micra shell provides stunning protection for both driver and passengers. In the accidents I have seen, it's as if there is an invisible full roll cage fitted.

How about a carbon roof ala BM CSL, to make it more exotic at realistic everyday prices?

Carbon and realistic prices in the same sentence!? Put the crack pipe down :rasp:

 

[muz]

Maybe they will go all hardcore with some proper buckets and lose the back seats etc totally - we can dream!

Kinda like what Mini did with the GP?

 

[Mitchy]

Am i missing the obvious?

Your all bleating on about power figures, but its torque that accelerates the car! Does the torque/weight ratio of a 197 match up with the 182?

Then there's how flat the torque curve is, the 197 may be up and down, the 182 very smooth across the rev range?

I dont know, ive not seen any printed maps of torque for both cars but just thought its more relevant that torque was mentioned?

Perhaps the 197 has less torque with a smaller range with obviously more weight?

Or you may be right, the car may only produce 180bhp!

 

[blink172]

The extra 15hp is just to compensate for the weight, why would you release a new car to directly compete in performance terms with its supposed big brother? It seems to be intentionally slow, but it handles and stops better with more torque lower down.

 

[gazcaddy]

Am i missing the obvious?

Your all bleating on about power figures, but its torque that accelerates the car! Does the torque/weight ratio of a 197 match up with the 182?

Then there's how flat the torque curve is, the 197 may be up and down, the 182 very smooth across the rev range?

I dont know, ive not seen any printed maps of torque for both cars but just thought its more relevant that torque was mentioned?

Perhaps the 197 has less torque with a smaller range with obviously more weight?

Or you may be right, the car may only produce 180bhp!

The torque curves of the 182 and 197 are virtually identical in shape as is the BHP line.

As for torque accelerating the car, I had a little play with a VW Passatt (168bhp & 258lb/ft torque) now my 182 is way up on power to weight BHP but way down on torque and down on power to weight torque. No suprise though on a 30-80 stretch I went past him with ease.

So as for torque accelerating the car, im not entirely sure of the physics what I do know is that it is BHP/per tonne is the best guide to how well a car will accelerate. The 197 has decent power to weight ratio (159bhp per tonne), similar figures to a CTR but its 2.5secs slower to 100. The figures dont add up!

 

[Mitchy]

Gazcaddy, was the passatt a diesel though?

Not a fair comparison then as 1 revs to 7500rpm and the other revs to 4500! Its hardly surprising you flew past him. If those figures were from a petrol car i think you would have struggled! Actually you certainly would have struggled!

Does the 197 have a 6sp box?

 

[blink172]

Yup, but at 3-4k revs you still doing 65-70 in 6th, not a cruising gear.

 

[Tyson-182]

^^ Of course it was a diesel, no petrol car with 168 bhp would have that much torque and yes the 197 has a 6-speed box.

Tyson.

 

[gazcaddy]

Gazcaddy, was the passatt a diesel though?

Not a fair comparison then as 1 revs to 7500rpm and the other revs to 4500! Its hardly surprising you flew past him. If those figures were from a petrol car i think you would have struggled! Actually you certainly would have struggled!

Does the 197 have a 6sp box?

Yes it was a diesel, no petrol car would have that much torque over bhp.

Thing is ive had a play with an meg 225, Audi TT, WRX in the past all have about 225bhp and similar torque and there has been nothing in it, despite the fact that they have about 70lb/ft of torque more than the 182.

 

[Dubai182]

Torque comes into play at higher speeds i find,when i was having a good go with my friend in his R32 we were pretty neck and neck til 90 or so then he literally leaves me standing as he can just keep going...

 

[Englebert]

Torque has it's benefit with any gear acceleration.

As Tom mentioned on the first page, i think it's probably a weight issue. If you read EVO about 90% of the cars tested are heavier than stated.

I would be confident that almost every CTR is bang, but as we know already from the 172/182, people have got varying power.

 

[GordonD]

The issue with how much power the Clio engine produces is the same issue engineering-wise as the issue of Clio handling.

An engineer can make a simple thing do one job well. It usually takes a more complex solution for it to be able to do all of lots of different things with conflicting requirements well.

So the simple rear suspension on a Clio can be made to handle well on a smooth road - you can even make a live axle work well in a race car that's only has to race on smooth tracks - but it needs something like the complex multi-link rear end of a Focus to be able to be engineered to work well on a range of road surfaces.

And its the same with the Clio engine. How well it does the job depends on the area under the power/torque curves. So they can tune it to higher and higher power outputs, but all that does is move the torque curve up the rev range. It doesn't increase the area under it. They could improve the area under the curve a bit with variable timing on the cams, but they don't, they only use it to cut emissions. By comparison Honda has built a more complex engineering solution with its I-VTEC engine. Two separate cam profiles and variable timing on both intake and exhaust cams means it can give near-optimum solutions for BOTH maximum torque AND maximum power for the engine size. Its smarter, it can walk AND chew gum at the same time, it can watch an exciting game on TV AND eat pretzels at the same time. That complexity increases the area under the power/torque curves compared to the simpler one-solution Clio engine. Renault could only match the Type R engine for area under the curve by building either a bigger motor - which it can't because that engine won't stretch any further - or by going to a more complex engine.

In Clio 3 form the engine had to be tuned to give 17 ps more just to capable of the same top speed despite the larger body. But because the engine was just a "hotter" version of the same simple engine that just moved the torque curve so there was less torque, and a lot less torque per tonne of bodyweight, at low speeds. So it feels gutless if you put your foot down to accelerate or overtake without first changing down.

Bizarrely, Nissan, Renault's Japanese subsidiary, had an engine comparable with the Tyre-R engine years ago. The SR20VE. Repeat, the VE. It had comparable horsepower with the Type-R (>200 bhp out of 2 litres) with great torque and torque curve. And it had great performance in the Clio 3 weight cars it was fitted to. But its too physically big to fit in a Clio.

 

[chris182]

Not easy at all. The extra weight is due to it's greater impact protection and is inherent with the chassis design. Believe me, the Clio/Micra shell provides stunning protection for both driver and passengers. In the accidents I have seen, it's as if there is an invisible full roll cage fitted.

Couldn't agree more.

People going on about making it lighter as though its going to be easy to lose 100kg, and make it cheaper at the same time.

This time it hasn't got xenons to lose, the car doesn't come with them to start with.
I cant see them losing A/C, not when everyone else is putting in their cars. Cant even take rear speakers out, it doesn't have any. Cant lose the spare wheel, because even though the exhausts now look wide enough apart to have a wheel well, we still dont get one.

As i've said, its a pretty basic car to start with, so not that many areas to lose weight from.

 

[Loopz]

It would be possible to use lighter materials, but that inevitably leads to a more expensive car, wich is kinda ironic, considering the previous cup version was actually cheaper than the base version.

But today's manufacturers are restricted with both active/pasive safety regulations, back in the old days it was just irresponsible to build a "dangerous" car, today it's also illegal. Their hands are pretty much tied. And even if it was possible to somehow get around the regulations, they still have to make an economicly viable car...it's all about compromises.

 

[Englebert]

It is hard to see how they will make the car better without hiking the price. I can't see them developing the engine anymore, unless they suprise us all with a turbo.

They could probably shave a bit of weight by reducing soundproofing, changing the wheels and having a more basic/race interior.

I imagine the big change will be trick suspension.

 

[tameracingdriver]

unless they suprise us all with a turbo.

Cant see them using a turbo. I think they wanted to avoid it, because frankly, the days of normally aspirated screamers seems to be numbered. Personally I prefer normally aspirated engines for hard driving, their delivery is just more rewarding.

I think if Reno do make a "Cup" version, then all it will be is something along the lines of the 182 cup (as compared with a 182 FF) whereby they just change the wheels / suspension slightly and shed a little bit of weight (say 20-40 kg).

I very much doubt you will get another Clio Cup model as hardcore as the original 172 Cup ever again, somehow.