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!

Standard Clio 1.2 16v - Just how quick





not quick enough to beat a damn 1.2 nova!! gettin nowhere on my revision so i thought i drive down to my local mac ds, its a bit of a mini cruise night there on weds as well, anyway coming out of the mac ds to a dual carridgeway following this nova, he booted it away from lights and and and..... i cant get pass him
time for a change? Craggy had me thinking about a Punto GT
 
  CTR EK9 turbo


Yep, time for a change matey.....sorry to say it You can make those 1.2s do fairly well if you dont take your foot off the accelerator through gear changes getting the surge when you lift the clutch pedal.
 


I think the performance of a 1.2 16v is excellent. Think of it this way, lets say the 1.2 16v has 85bhp/tonne and can do 1/4 mile in 20 seconds. Now imagine some dirty great sports bike with 500bhp/tonne that can do the 1/4 mile in 10 seconds. By this test, the bike is only twice as quick at the 1/4 mile than the clio even though it has more than 5 times the power. Therefore the Clio must be pretty quick. Hic.

Rhys
 


if we compare the 0-100-0 of the 1.2 vs the 172 though youl see that the 172 can do this twice in the time it takes the 1.2 to do it once. does this make the 172 twice as fast as the 1.2?
 

cDc

  182 Arctic Blue


Make Vauxhall
Model Nova
Engine Configuration 1196cc / 4 cylinder in-line / Single overhead camshaft per head
Power (hp/rpm) 55/5600
Torque (lb ft/rpm) 66/2200
Top speed (mph) 94
0-60 mph (sec) 14.2
Standing ¼ml (sec) 19.6
 


Youll probably find the 1.2 either wasnt a 1.2 anymore or it has a string of mods done to it. For next to nothing you can fit the CAM, manifold, system, from a GTE, fit the twin choke carb from an SR and have a pretty nippy 1.2. Novas are so easy to play with, most people have!

Dont forget that it weighs about 200kg less as std.

The book time for the 1.2 16v is 13secs to 60.
 
  Lionel Richie


i ran 19.98 sec on 17s at santa pod plus full tank and loads of college sh*t in the back i reckon 15s are possible if i stripped it!!!! Good handling/braking car, but straight line - nope!!!
 


when i had the car lowered 60mm on factorys 14s wheels the car feel more chuckable round corners, the performance and braking are also alot more sharper on 14s
 
  2005 Audi A3 3.2 Quattro


What is the rated power for a 1.2 16V at the wheels?

What is the same for a 1.4 16V?

Im estimating the 1.4 to weigh 2700 with driver, and have 86bhp at the wheels...could one realistically expect a q/m in 18.3 seconds @ 74mph?

Considering youre saying a 1.2 could do it in 19.3 @ 70mph
 
  Subaru Forrester


Ive got a 1.2 as my curtesy car at the moment and to be honest I cant wait for my 172 to come back :-(

I dont think it is the 16v version though. Simply doesnt move in 2nd gear.
 


1.2 8V = 60BHP
1.2 16V = 75BHP
1.4 16V = 98BHP
1.6 16V = 110BHP
2.0 16V = 172BHP
2.0 16V CUP = big bag of poo - lol
3.0 V6 24V = 230BHP
 


Top