seat leon ’R’ vs 172 sport

[livio]

which is better

 

[Messiah]

172 to 60 and 100 Seat has a higher top speed. Cupra easy/cheap to get more power though. Both similear kit, 172 a little cheaper. Both look good. Up-to-you.

 

[desmondo]

I was along side one of those Leon Cupra Rs the other day on the Mway sliproad. Must admit I was well impressed They look much better in the metal than what Ive seen in the press photos.

Looked hard as nails in red. Didnt see how the thing shifted though he pootled off onto the mway. Must have been running it in!

Rich

 

[BUTRE]

I think you should also consider which is better tuned (engine of course).

There is no point of keeping them std.

 

[Rich-D]

Standard v standard...

The mk2 172 is fractionally quicker to both 60 & 100 than the Cupra R, but theyre very close. The mk1 is a shade quicker again, then the Cup again slightly quicker than that, so in a drag style race, the Clio(s) would always be just in front.

However, the Seat (having a turbo) has a lot more torque than the Clio with 199lb/ft (compared to Clios 147lb/ft), which peaks at an amazingly low 2100rpm (compared to Clios 5400rpm) and a great big fat band of torque throughout the rev range. So mid range and in gear flexibility are huge on the Seat which will just pull like a train in any gear at any speed.



Modifying...

The Seat has the VW/Audi 1.8 20v turbo engine in there, so tuning potential is huge and you can get a hell of a lot of power (reilaibly) from that unit, so there is the makings of a very quick car!

A lot harder to get massive power out of the 172 engine, so without spending the debt of a small African country then youre not gonna see the same sort of power gains.

Simple fact is that turbod motors are easy to tune.



A guy at my work has a red one and it does look hard as nails in the flesh and so much better than in the mags. My mate at work with a CTR was saying hed probably go for a Leon next.



Pound vs performance as standard though and the Cup is the clear winner.

 

[Simon172]

I dont think ive seen one in the flesh, but believe they are pretty darn quick - dare i say in road conditions something to really think about when contending with. In gear times are bound to be impressive, and of course as everyones said: tuning potential. Plug in a jabba-the-hut ecu and youve got yourself a supercar, apparently.....

Ive no idea what they are like through long bends and i assume the grip is going to be good - they have quite large rims dont they? im yet to test drive one, so ill find out for myself soon!

thanks, si

 

[geordiepaul]

I had a test drive in a Cupra R last saturday and I wasnt as impressed as I thought I would be but then my expectations were high. It certainly doesnt feel as quick as my 172 but then Im not saying it isnt its just the power delivery is totally different. Its very much like an Audi S3 to drive without the 4WD.

The handling is no where near the 172! It so much more heavy and its very softly sprung which really put me off cos I was seriously considering changeing. I was offered one for £15500 was was £1500 under list without even trying!!!

 

[matt_arundale]

0-62 7.2 seconds, top speed 147mph, 210bhp and 18s as standard, sign me up with a yellow one anyday, dark rims and red calipers!

Matt

 

[Ben H]

Sounds like a big rotten banana to me!

 

[R3OBC]

matt, couldnt agree more! they are mint! My dad has the Skoda cough cough lol RS wi the 1.8T 180bhp, you can get a selectable chip, and at most, with optimax mode on, 220bhp and 230ish lb/ft torque!!! I want a turbo next just wait for my dad to upgrade lol

 

[teady172]

Well soon find out lads!

Me - MK2 172

Brother - Cup on Tuesday

Dad - Leon Cupra R in the Summer

P.S - "The mk1 is a shade quicker again" - ??????????

 

[livio]

i had the choice of all the hot hatches and i test,ed all of them,im very happy with my 172 sport mk 2