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!

Some clarity on the 172 Vs Meg F1.



  197
Okay, I'm a little behind here (12 hour time difference) so please excuse me, also please excuse the new thread about the old thread.

I'll try and be clear about what went on during the 40 minute dice (please bear with me).

This was a very unusual situation where two cars were driven absolutely flat out on public roads over such a long period of time. I live in the South Island of New Zealand, it's about the same size as England and Scotland combined but has a population of only 1 million people, consequently the rural roads are almost deserted (we encountered only three other cars during the whole 'episode'.

The roads were a mix of very tight and twisty switchbacks, long sweepers and straights up to a mile or so in length. The surface was coarse volcanic bitumen, undulating and occasionally very bumpy. The weather was cold (8 degrees centigrade) and dry.

The driving style was 10/10ths (sometimes scary) by both drivers and my tyres were overheating 2/3rds of the way into the dice, promoting more understeer and a slightly looser rear end. I also broke a front wheel bearing over a particularly lumpy part.

There seems to be some consternation over my use of the term 'annhialated'. I'll try to explain.

In figurative terms I would guess that the F1 was taking between 3 and 6 seconds per mile out of me (visually it was about 10-20 car lengths). The greatest discrepancy was in the bends where the F1 turned in with so much more composure, less roll and at a higher speed. The grip levels were in another league too (my own tyres are only a month old) and this was the defining aspect. Put simply the F1 could hold a speed through any given bend that my Clio couldn't match. Combine this with tauter body control, earlier throttle application on the exit of a bend and far better 'in gear' sprinting ability and before I knew it another 2 car length gap had opened up.

There has been a lot of talk about power to weight, torque to weight and 0-100 times. I understand that there is only a second or so difference in that often quoted figure but anyone who has read independent performance tests on these two cars will know that the Megane murders the Clio with it's in gear acceleration, witness the third gear 40-60 times of 3 seconds dead for the F1 versus 5.5 seconds for the 172. In fourth it's an even bigger gap (4.1 seconds Vs 7.5 for the Clio from 50 to 70). The Megane F1 is very slightly lower geared than the Clio and as many have mentioned it has 81lbs ft more of torque. Testing times can vary from car to car and place to place but no standard 172 is ever going to come near the F1's intermediate sprinting times. I am pleased to say that on the straights it was closer than I would have thought possible, the highest speed that I reached was an indicated 203kph (127mph) and it seemed fairly level (I've got a horrible feeling that he could have gone quite a bit quicker though).

The only other variable is driver ability and I'd like to be modest here and say that I am no Sebastien Loeb. I am an enthusiast though, sometimes an 'over' enthusiast, and occasionally an 'up and over' enthusiast. The Clio is my 54th car, my 5th this year and I'll lose no opportunity to go for a bloody good blast in whatever car it may be. The driver of the F1 had balls the size of melons and wasn't afraid to give his car an absolute pasting despite the fact that it was brand new (meaning it will only get quicker with a few more miles), he confessed to me that it was the first time that he'd driven it in anger (weep)! Ultimately I believe that you could have put Juha Kankunen in the Clio and he wouldn't have kept up with the Megane. My car, by the way is very 'together', has covered 36000 miles, has full dealer history miles and has been well cared for. When I first drove it it took my breath away and I have no reason to doubt that all 170 nags are present and in good health. Likewise the chassis.

My Clio is an extraordinary little thing, so visceral, so punchy and so capable, made all the more so because it only cost 5000 pounds. The Megane is even more capable but I really don't like them, subjectively they leave me cold and visually they look like an Edwardian dress with wheels. Beauty is in the eye etc etc.

As I said in the first thread, the game has moved on and much as we would all like to think that our 172's/182's and Cups are invincible I'm afraid to say that they're not.

As for the Trophy, well that's another matter altogether.
 

ian Bojo 182

ClioSport Club Member
  FN2 Type R +MK6 Golf
good write up mate.At least your honest and i am a fan of the meg but dont like its rear end

ian
 
  197
I know what you mean about the rear end Ian, from my perspective it got less disturbing to look at the further it pulled away from me!
 
  clio 200 F4Rt
good stuff.

like i said in the other thread, in gear times are fare qquicker in the 225
 
  Nissan 350Z
Good post.

Hot hatches are indeed getting faster and faster, but I'm finding that they are also getting less and less fun. Safer for sure, but also more sanitised.

The Clio 172/182 is, for me, one of the last "old school" type hot hatches, and it has now demised. The only ones left AFAICT are made by Suzuki (ignis sport and swift GTI), in so much as they are dimunitive cars with little weight, cheap price and naturally aspirated engines.

Problem is, people tend to want cars now that are a jack of all trades. They want them to be safe, comfortable, and fast, in any gear, at any speed. Most people dont like to rev cars hard, and this is why we have seen a demise of cars like this.

TBPH, having owned a Skoda Fabia vRS a couple of years ago, and having driven many turbocharged hot hatches since, I would have no hesitation in going diesel if ever I wanted a car with turbocharged characteristics. Pretty much all of the turbocharged cars I've driven all seem to be about the midrange, and although you cant rev a diesel as high, the midrange power subjectively feels significantly stronger. I've always felt that turbocharged cars, whatever the fuel used, never feel as good to thrash as normally aspirated screamers and usually dont sound as good either. With that in mind, I would take diesel all day long for this type of car now; subjectively, a Fabia vRS with just 130 bhp felt significantly stronger in the midrange than a 180 bhp Ibiza Cupra 1.8T, despite it not being as quick, yet it returns double the MPG and doesnt sound any worse except at tickover. Once chipped, they feel silly quick, but its mainly about sensation - the clio as standard IS just as quick, but the difference is, one needs to rev it much harder.

Only problem I tend to find now is with having a high revving screamer of a car, you do tend to be encouraged to driving like a hooligan, I know I do.

For me, the early cars had it done right. They were highly affordable, cheap to run cars. For me, the likes of the original mk1 and 2 Golf GTI's, the Pug 106/205/306 GTI, Clio Williams and 1x2's were truly great hot hatches in as much as they fit the bill of being fast, affordable cars, relatively lightweight, naturally aspirated and just pure balls out politically-incorrect screamers! Now we have the 197, which in fairness is a bit lardy, and at £16k and with huge 17" wheels with 215 tyres (very expensive), poor fuel ecomomy, while it is almost as close as you can still get to old school, its very much one of the new breed IMO. Then theres the new turbocharged hot hatches, with frightening, often sub-20 MPG fuel economy. The cars I mentioned earlier (the Suzukis) are now more old school in their approach, but unfortunately, cant really measure up with the classic hot hatches from yesteryear.

Sorry for rambling on :eek:
 
Seems fair to me, although in-gear times only really matter if you dont know what gear you should be in. I mean, anyone who uses 3rd gear in a Clio from 40-60 clearly doesnt actually want to drive quickly :)
 
  197
Mr Birkett, I appreciate and understand your comments but I disagree with your statement that 'modern' hot hatches are less fun. Less tactile maybe, less visceral and more refined for sure, but less fun?

What I see happening is the fun taking place at higher and higher speeds (not always a good thing) but to say that an Alfa GTA, Megane F1, 197, New Golf GTI or Clio V6 are less fun than, say a 172 or 182 (or Suzuki Ignis?) is highly subjective. Exiting a sweeping 75mph lefthander with the throttle nailed in third gear in Clio V6 would be a euphoric experience! As it probably would be in any of the aforementioned cars.
 
  197
Roy Munson said:
Seems fair to me, although in-gear times only really matter if you dont know what gear you should be in. I mean, anyone who uses 3rd gear in a Clio from 40-60 clearly doesnt actually want to drive quickly :)

To be honest Roy the Megane so convincingly trounces the 172 through the gears that even if it stayed one gear higher at any given time it would still be quicker (independent test figures, not mine) and if you want to look higher up the rev range the story is the same.

Eg: 60-80 in third (Clio) 5.5 secs (Megane) 3.7secs. The F1 will actually cover the same increment even in fifth in only 5.9secs. This is one quick car.
 
  Nissan 350Z
The thing is, needing to go over a ton to have fun (which is certainly the case in many of the new cars I've driven) isnt really a good thing on british roads. The Clio is good fun at almost any speed below a ton. I've driven many cars that are simply no fun at all until you are deep into ban territory.

You are right though, it is subjective. Each to their own, but I definitely find the new stuff all too samey, heavy, expensive and less involving than the old stuff.

If you had access to the latest Evo magazine, you'll see that the Alfa, and Megane dont feature anywhere in their "greatest FWD cars", and although the Golf GTI does, it loses out to the likes of the Williams Clio, 182 Trophy, Mini, and Integra. They even made a point about the new Golf GTI, and said that because its so composed and refined, you find yourself going faster than in the others to have the same amount of fun, and when you do its weight hampers its responses. I think they said something about needing to go deep into license losing territory whereas in a Clio or 205, you could have great fun at 80 and keep your license. Who cares if they arent much good over that.

TBH, I see more and more cars these days doing nothing other than going after "pub bragging rights" figures rather than actually concentrating on making a car that is rewarding to drive regardless of performance figures.
 
speedynz said:
To be honest Roy the Megane so convincingly trounces the 172 through the gears that even if it stayed one gear higher at any given time it would still be quicker (independent test figures, not mine) and if you want to look higher up the rev range the story is the same.

Eg: 60-80 in third (Clio) 5.5 secs (Megane) 3.7secs. The F1 will actually cover the same increment even in fifth in only 5.9secs. This is one quick car.

For sure mate. I was only really commenting because sometimes I feel in-gear times mean squat if the driver isnt going to be in that gear while trying to make swift progress :)
 
  VaVa
Is it possible to get out of gear times ? Always puzzled me why it's called 'in gear'. lol.

In gear times, when comprehensive like most Evo tests, are very relevant as they give you a good idea of the characteristics of an engine. They usually list 40-60 in 2nd, 3rd and 4th....
 

Ex-User (19928)

ClioSport Club Member
  BMW M4; S1000 RR
Roy Munson said:
Seems fair to me, although in-gear times only really matter if you dont know what gear you should be in. I mean, anyone who uses 3rd gear in a Clio from 40-60 clearly doesnt actually want to drive quickly :)

In gear times are relative at any point. Whether you're at peak torque or in a gear above. The point is, if you had the Megane and the Clio having a race from 60mph, the Clio would be left behind in the cold.

This means coming out of corners the superior torque of the Megane will trounce the Clio.
 
Laingo said:
Is it possible to get out of gear times ? Always puzzled me why it's called 'in gear'. lol.

In gear times, when comprehensive like most Evo tests, are very relevant as they give you a good idea of the characteristics of an engine. They usually list 40-60 in 2nd, 3rd and 4th....

In gear means in one gear. 40-60 in one gear. 40-60 in 3rd is not really a sensible performance benchmark in NA Clio since if you were trying to go fast you'd be in 2nd gear for this speed bracket. It is of course a good way to compare one cars performance against another, but it can also cloud actual performance through the gears.

The derv pervs like to quote in gear times. I think a Fabia VRS actually has better in-gear times than a 182, but it gets to 100 about 5 seconds slower. High torque engines are always flattered by in-gear figures. Especially in the lower ranges like 40-60 in 3rd. IMO it is not a measure of how the performance might compare to a low torque high reving NA.

NB. I'm not saying the Clio is quicker than a 225 by any stretch of the imagination.
 
cliokhunt said:
The point is, if you had the Megane and the Clio having a race from 60mph, the Clio would be left behind in the cold


No, that's your point.

My point, was that 40-60 in 3rd is a bad in gear time to quote when comparing a Clio to a 225, since neither car would be in 3rd if both were being driven with the intent to go fast. I'm not debating that the 225 is a quicker car, but it's not so much faster as in gear times might have one believe. This is a simple fact reflected in the 0-60 & 0-100 sprint time of each car.

It's not rocket science :)

BTW. Before the usual suspects surface. This is just my views on the in gear times as an isolated subject. Nothing more, nothing less :) I think it's a superb car and I am still considering buying one. IMO it's better than my 182 in every way, but I still have to drive one to see if the experience floats my boat...and I'm sure it will.
 
Last edited:
  Nissan 350Z
cliokhunt said:
In gear times are relative at any point. Whether you're at peak torque or in a gear above. The point is, if you had the Megane and the Clio having a race from 60mph, the Clio would be left behind in the cold.

This means coming out of corners the superior torque of the Megane will trounce the Clio.

The main problem i find in the Clio is waiting for it to come on cam. Doesnt come on cam till about 65 mph in 3rd, and when not in its camzone, its nothing special.

The other day I had a play with a 350Z - much more torquey car. Both started off after taking a left turning, presumably we were both in 2nd, he just pulled away straight away, and it seems like ages sometimes waiting for the car to come on cam. Probably should have used 1st since i was only doing 20 mph after the turn.

I think we all agree on one thing. The Megane is faster. I'm sure most people would also agree that the Megane would NOT annialihate a 172/182 IF both cars were driven with intent. It would win, but it would not be a huge victory. The 182 would probably tail off after about 110 or so though.
 
  insignia
pbirkett said:
The main problem i find in the Clio is waiting for it to come on cam. Doesnt come on cam till about 65 mph in 3rd, and when not in its camzone, its nothing special.

The other day I had a play with a 350Z - much more torquey car. Both started off after taking a left turning, presumably we were both in 2nd, he just pulled away straight away, and it seems like ages sometimes waiting for the car to come on cam. Probably should have used 1st since i was only doing 20 mph after the turn.

I think we all agree on one thing. The Megane is faster. I'm sure most people would also agree that the Megane would NOT annialihate a 172/182 IF both cars were driven with intent. It would win, but it would not be a huge victory. The 182 would probably tail off after about 110 or so though.

Your clio doesnt come on cam until about 65mph in 3rd!!! Are you kidding? It kicks in well before that speed in 3rd gear.
 
  Nissan 350Z
Not on mine it doesnt.

The camzone on mine seems to be:-

2nd gear - 45 - 65
3rd gear - 65 - 90
4th gear - 85 - 110ish

You generally have to change up at 7200 rpm in 2nd to get in the cam zone in 3rd.
 
  MKIII 138
pbirkett said:
The 182 would probably tail off after about 110 or so though.

your talking straight line again,


not the fact that out of tight corners the meg will probably be at a point where it can use loads of torque over the clio in that situation its faster, in a straight line its faster overall then id say its faster
 
Last edited:
  MINI JCW
fmp_ said:
good stuff.

like i said in the other thread, in gear times are fare qquicker in the 225

The through the gear times according to autocar (30-70) are 5.8 for both cars, thats a full fat 225 and full fat 182

obviously if both drivers planted their right foot in 3rd at 30 the 225 would murder the 182.

I think over all the 225 is quicker, but as long as the 182 is being driven to its full potential (being in the right gear) it can just hold on to the megane probably until the end of 3rd gear (90mph) after than the 225 will disappear
 
  MKIII 138
gazcaddy said:
I think over all the 225 is quicker, but as long as the 182 is being driven to its full potential (being in the right gear) it can just hold on to the megane probably until the end of 3rd gear (90mph) after than the 225 will disappear

again thats straight line talk
 
  Nissan 350Z
meggerman said:
your talking straight line again, not the fact that out of tight corners the meg will probably be at a point where it can use loads of torque over the clio in that situation its faster, in a straight line its faster overall then id say its faster

I never said it wasnt faster.

Sure, tight corners, low end torque is going to come into its own. If its a really tight corner, best to use first in a Clio IMO.

If you can keep it on cam its not that bad through the corners though.

To be honest though, theres more to driving than just speed. Being concerned about speed and speed only is sad in some ways, because theres ALWAYS something faster (unless you are mega rich and can afford anything).

I wouldnt really describe the Clio is fast. Its nippy enough to be a giggle though, but its about how it drives to me. Little car, big engine, nimble, good on corners, good sensation of speed, plenty of feedback = fun.
 
  MINI JCW
meggerman said:
again thats straight line talk

thats correct,

One of the probs I find with the 182 is that when accelerating off a rounabout at about 25mph, you will probably be in 2nd gear when in reality you should be in 1st as it will nearly do 40mph in 1st. The problem with being in 1st that its soo bloody noisy!
 

Ex-User (19928)

ClioSport Club Member
  BMW M4; S1000 RR
Roy Munson said:
No, that's your point.

My point, was that 40-60 in 3rd is a bad in gear time to quote when comparing a Clio to a 225, since neither car would be in 3rd if both were being driven with the intent to go fast. I'm not debating that the 225 is a quicker car, but it's not so much faster as in gear times might have one believe. This is a simple fact reflected in the 0-60 & 0-100 sprint time of each car.

It's not rocket science :)

BTW. Before the usual suspects surface. This is just my views on the in gear times as an isolated subject. Nothing more, nothing less :) I think it's a superb car and I am still considering buying one. IMO it's better than my 182 in every way, but I still have to drive one to see if the experience floats my boat...and I'm sure it will.

I am being general aswell Roy.

The thing you don't seem to grasp (even on the topic of diesels) is that in gear acceleration doesn't just mean from 50 in 5th. It could be 40-60 in 2nd, the Megane will still get the jump with it's higher torque output, sure it won't be a lot at those high engine speeds, but it will be enough.

And going to the VRS for a second, diesels always have poor launch times down to the useless 1st and almost pointless 2nd gear. Up from there you see very different results (even going through the gears).

Coming out of corners you might not be at an optimum engine speed in either 2nd or 3rd, say you're doing 55mph in the Clio, so you're either going to shift very soon after leaving the corner, or have a dead spot. This is where the higher torque gives it the power out of the corner when it is just below it's powerband.
 
  Trophy 265/500
I would have seriously considered a Meggy Trophy, but they were snapped up too quickly. The F1 graphics do worry me, as does the feel of the steering, but it's a minty car for the money, no doubt.
 
  MKIII 138
portland said:
I would have seriously considered a Meggy Trophy, but they were snapped up too quickly. The F1 graphics do worry me, as does the feel of the steering, but it's a minty car for the money, no doubt.

well m8, there is a cup in mercury grey if you like the colour, ultrablue, albiblue, black etc.. there is the leather laden climate version that can have a cup pack specified or you can save pennies and get the cup, the F1 colour is ultrablue same as avaliable on the 225cup the only difference is that the F1 has stickers and black wheels + mirrors +recaors, personally i prefer the anthracite wheels and mirrors and no stickers but like the F1 colour hence why i went for ultrablue cup225 + recaro seats option. the F1 does have climate control but the standard aircon on cup will do for me hot or cold thats all i need may even be lighter than climate unit if only by 1 or 2kg lol.
steering is totally revised for the facelift models even without cup pack or prefacelift + cup pack, new tube design, some ruber bits, and computer system relaxed for more feel also the worst bit before was the self centering system which is now gone.

the only thing was the F1 had softer rear to make it less twitchy under extreme driving i belive but i think by now any new facelift cup models will have this as standard also.

cup pack has this..

• Cup Chassis -

18" Lightweight Anthracite Alloy Wheels
Anthracite coloured door mirror housings
Dunlop Sport Maxx tyres 235/40 R18 (ilo 225/40 R18)
Drilled front and rear brake discs
Uprated front and rear spring rates
Re-tuned front / rear damper settings
Increased brake master cylinder diameter

feel is much improved, ok its no 172/182 but it can corner as fast if not faster so its just about learning the car imo
 
  Renault Laguna Coupe
this size
 
  Clio Trophy
it wont leave a trophy ;) no way unless its a runway. the difference this guy is talking about would be the same difference between a trophy and a 172
 
  197
Roy and Mr Burkitt, I like your thoughtful posts and agree with a lot of what you say.

On the topic of 'modern' hatches being 'too' quick I also agree although I don't believe that it makes them less fun.

My last 6 cars have all intentionally been more about fun at lower speeds because my driving licence simply won't stand any more infringement notices. It's often been written that cars such as the current crop of Evo's and WRX's are only fun at speeds that will wilt your licence, they are almost 'over' capable and as such I steer clear for fear of finding myself staring down the barrel of a laser gun as I close in on an easy 150mph. I do miss the enormous slug of accelerative torque that you get from one of these and I'll confess to being immature enough to have been very unhappy at being 'left for dead' by the Megane.

All is not lost however as unless I am 'dicing' with a big bad monster hatch then I can derive great pleasure from a little low speed, wet weather sideways action in something like an MX5.

The 'dice' did get me thinking though and practicality aside I think that the perfect car would be a Lotus Elise. It's innocent, frugal, fun at low speeds, affordable and exotic enough to make everyday driving feel special. The best part is that when 'Johnny Megane' has a go and male testosterone takes over from more pragmactic thinking then....well you're in with a good chance of holding your own and on the right day, with the moon in your orbit, a fresh set of Michelins and 98 0ctane in the tank you might even drive away from him.
 
  Nissan 350Z
Agree on your thoughts with the Lotus. In fact, the Exige is my favourite as it offers blistering performance in the real world, and basically handles like nothing else this side of a Caterham.

I've been out for a ride in a standard Elise (135 bhp K series engined model). The Clio would probably be slightly quicker on anything but 0-60, but being 6 inches off the deck in such a tiny car and with a loud engine, meant it pretty much felt quick enough, and the handling was great.

I'd have one tomorrow.... but the main thing that puts me off is that I do, occaisionally need some practicality. Its only got 2 seats so I'd have to kiss goodbye to the admittedly rare occaision i actually have more than one passenger. Also, it was difficult to get in and out of, and the seats were very hard - this is not a car one would probably wish to undertake any long journey in. I think as well, as I use my car for work, it would probably get a touch wearing driving around speed bump littered roads in the city.

In many respects for me, the Clio is a good compromise. Its always comfortable - a little cramped perhaps, but 99% of the time theres just me in it so no real need to have a big car anyway. However its naturally aspirated engine and good handling make it appealing to keen drivers.

The Clio is one of the last real "old school" hatches, and even then, I find myself driving very fast a large percentage of the time. My old 1991 Golf GTI for example, would not be able to keep up with this Clio, however, much of the time it felt just as quick as it was just more raw and involving - the very thing that seperates good hot hatches from great ones, so even the 172/182 cannot be called as raw and hardcore as the older machines. Thats the way cars are going and we will never really see the return of cars like this IMO. Even sports cars are getting softer as well. The kind of cars nowadays that can claim to be as raw as the old school cars are cars which have virtually zero practically, and usually high price tags.

Its a shame really.

I have even thought about getting an MX5 myself - they handle very well, and are fast enough, but shallow as it sounds I do believe I would miss the pace of the 182.
 
  197
Mr B, you touched on a point before about subjective assesment and how a car can 'feel' fast without actually being fast and an MX5 is a master of that. I've owned three of them and as well as being very good at 'ducking under' the speed limit they are also one of the world's most reliable cars, incredibly practical for such a small thing and a joy to drive at any speed. 70mph top down in one of these things feels like 90-100 in your average tintop. There are so many around now that they only cost a bowl of rice too.

Now I think that an MX5 with the Clio 182 engine would do you nicely.
 
  Renault Laguna Coupe
TrophyBoy616 said:
it wont leave a trophy ;) no way unless its a runway. the difference this guy is talking about would be the same difference between a trophy and a 172

Total amount of Trophys that passed me at Brands Hatch last weekend:

0 ;)

were you there?
 
speedynz said:
witness the third gear 40-60 times of 3 seconds dead for the F1 versus 5.5 seconds for the 172. In fourth it's an even bigger gap (4.1 seconds Vs 7.5 for the Clio from 50 to 70)


50-70 in 7.5s seems a lot for a 172cup?

I know when I'm pushing my V6 255, I keep the revs between 5.0k and 7.2k(rpm), thats where power really comes in on V6, using that, 40-60 is 2.7s and 50-70 is 3.6s....Now if I get 3.6s from 50-70, I'm sure the 172cup should do better than 7.5s?
I wouldn't dream of using gears that allowed the revs to drop below 5k when pushing it hard :)

And from I here about the 172/182 its very important to keep it "on cam" with having lower torque.....so I'm with Roy on that one ;)

What is the 30-70mph through the gears time for both the 225F1 and 172cup out of intrest? :)
Infact what are all the times for both cars, in all gears? would be of interest, as you seem to have all the figures :)

I do agree with you about the looks though...lol ;)

Simon
 
  197
Simon I will post all the figures but don't have time now.

I did state that figurative analysis can vary wildly from car to car and Autocar's original road test was with a 172 running 95 octane fuel and not showing the pace that an earlier French press car had shown. This is backed up by the difference between the figures for the 182 and 172. The 182 was markedly faster in the intermediates, not Megane quick but far off either.

It's always best to gather as many test results as possible, read between the lines (press cars are always strangley quick) and note the mileage, track conditions and weather to discover the true sprinting ability of a given vehicle.

Example:

50-70 in 3rd gear.

Clio 182 4.0secs

Megane 225 3.2secs

Clio V6 255 3.6secs
 
  197
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh and as you asked specifically, 30-70mph figures for 182, V6 and 225 are identical, all of them do it in 5.8secs (there's a can of worms).
 


Top