Straight question Re: 172 & VTS

[PJVTS]

Please this is just a genuine question, so no stupid replys sl*gging the vts,

I currrently own a VTS with about 145bhp i went up to the local renault garage at the weekend and test drove a 52 plate 172 with 10,000miles on it,

I dont know what i was expecting but it was not as quick as i expected perhaps i was expecting a massive leap from the saxo!?

however what i did notice was the low down torque it has aposed to having to wait for the cam to come on in the vts!!

what i want to know is 0-60 i dont think there is much in it between (my) vts and a 172, but what are they like 60-onwards??

Before anyone grabs the wrong end of the stick...... im not for one minute saying that i can beat a 172!! im mearley trying to get some info as im very close to upgrading to one, it just didnt feel as quick as i thought and want to know if its the way it delivers the power, i.e straight threw the rev range,

Once again this is a genuine thread so please no rubish posted back!!

Any help appreciated!!

Cheers

Pete

 

[poundrick]

Listen Fella,

I own a 52 plate VTS and a new Cup, I can honestly say the Cup is a lot quicker, I cant comment about the normal 172.

Get yourself out in the CUp you wont be dissapointed.

 

[telford_mike]

LOL - cant wait to see the replies to this one. I presume your 145 bhp is at the flywheel. If so you should see a noticeable difference with the 172 - most have around 165 - 170 bhp though 185 is easy to achieve with a few mods. The 172 is heavier than your Saxo though.

If the one you drove hasnt been thrashed it may still be pretty tight - they need a good seeing-to before they really loosen up.

The 172 is dead easy to drive fast as the power is there all the way from 3000rpm to the redline.

 

[PJVTS]

im tempted to look at a cup being cheaper and all but i quite fancy the leather climate control etc, as you can imagine the saxo lacs all of those!!

in all fairness i was three up when i took it out and tho i did give it some beans, i had the sales guy next to me!

its such a nice car to drive and the breaks are unbeliveable!!

 

[Kelly]

You wont notice a difference in most cars from 0-60. Ive beat turbos and porches up to 60 - at which point they kick my fecking arse LOL. Its not a good indicator of the performance of any car.

Go test drive the clio properly if youre interested.

PS> Glad you got the car out of the little hole it got itself into at Southport

 

[kefkef]

I sold my VTS a couple of weeks ago and get a Cup tomorrow. When i test drove the Cup, i can honestly say it didnt feel very different up to 60, but i think you would be hard pressed to actually distinguish 1 secish 0-60, as it all happens so quickly. I will say though, that in 3rd/4th/5th, it felt a whole different ball game, the cup seemed to just keep on pulling, and i could imagine you could get 3/4 up in a cup, and still have some oomph, whereas my saxo used to struggle with that.

All in all, they are a very simillar type of car, and for £11k brand new you would be hard pushed to find anything to outperform it.

 

[PJVTS]

Mike as i said im not saying its quicker, yes it is 145 @ the fly but it ways next to nothing so it goes well, but thats not the point of the matter!

i wouldnt be this close to buying a 172 if i didnth think it was quicker!! i know im comparing modded to standard and i know the clio has good tuning petential, bb tuning is just around the corner to me.

im not out for an argument!!

 

[PJVTS]

Quote: Originally posted by Kelly on 09 June 2003




PS> Glad you got the car out of the little hole it got itself into at Southport

(was that aimed at me?? im not with you)



Kefkef, cheers mate thats exactly what i thought and yer the sax does struggle when fully laiden!! i bet the tourque of the cup helps it there!!

it winds me up as the sales guys look at me and generally are un helpfull as they think im a dreamer!! im sure this will change come d-day!! i hope!!

 

[poundrick]

Hey will until you have done a few thousand miles in the Cup, it is f**king rapid compared to the VTS

 

[geordiepaul]

But at the end of the day I think it would be very difficult to notice the acceleration difference between the 2 cars since any difference is very small. Especially when your the driver

I can only think of when I put 17s on mine it didnt feel any different but only when you compare it to something else do you see the difference.

 

[adz33]

I would go for the cup mate if you want a big performance increase the cup is about the same as the vts to 40 and then it flies and easily outperforms most cars. It even has a better 0-100 than a scooby wrx. The standard 172 is fast as well but most of them only get the same quarter mile times as my modded 140bhp 106 gti (low 15s and high 14s) whereas the cup is capable of very low 14s quarter mile.

 

[hype]

Quote: Originally posted by PJVTS on 09 June 2003im tempted to look at a cup being cheaper and all but i quite fancy the leather climate control etc, as you can imagine the saxo lacs all of those!!


I dont know how much youre looking at spending but I picked up my 172 brand new for £11,250 on the road from Motorpoint.

 

[PJVTS]

11,250!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



i looked a second hand one 52 reg about 12000 miles was 12500!!!



best be lookin at there web site cheers!!

 

[Ian_182]

the facts are: saxo 0-60 7.6-----0-100 22.6

clio 0-60 7.0-----0-100 18.9

 

[RobFenn]

I thought the official 0-60 of the 172 was 7.4 secs..mk2 anyway

 

[KDF]

7.4 lol.. ye right.. i never take any notice of "official times"

7.4 with 16 asylum seekers hanging out your boot maybe..

 

[RobFenn]

lol that maybe the case but even if it was around seven secs you can lose tenths with a dodgy gear change, too many revs etc etc so i agree 0-60 is a pointless comparison.

-Rob

 

[mikeherts]

Renault time for Mk2 172 is 0-62 in 7.2.

Anyhow, I dont think youll find a lot between the cars, and if you are swapping solely for performance, you may be disappointed (especially with your car being modified 25bhp above standard)

If you werent blown away on the test drive, what will it be like after a few months? I made the same mistake - test drive didnt knock me for 6 but I still bought it thinking it would get better, but it never did.

They are still lovely cars though - just possibly a better upgrade for a VTR driver, as opposed to VTS. Then again, what better performance and toys can you get for the money??? - not a lot!

 

[Dust]

Most Offical Times are taken when the cars not run-in! Autocar or Evo give more accurate times. Or visit the Pod, find out for yourself.

 

[Dust]

U think ud get away with visitin Santa Pod on the Test Drive?

 

[Kelly]

Sorry PJVTS - had you mixed up with someone else I know with a VTS -

 

[PJVTS]

no worries

 

[Tom_16v]

Quote: Originally posted by PJVTS on 09 June 2003

yes it is 145 @ the fly

Just out of interest, what you had done to get that. My brothers got a VTS running 159BHP.

 

[weyland]

Hi,

I think a lot of ppl chose 172 over vts, 50% of time because the vts pedals/steer-wheel/seating layout is just so diabolique! for anyone near or over 6 foot. This is a big issue so let us not delude ourselves ,just like buying too small jeans...shoes..etc.. just because we like their look, it just does not work and we soon realise it.

That said the other 50% of reasons just as important! In standard form (forget modding and stripping) a 172 will be a little quicker, better built , more equiped, looks better to a lot of ppl, better resale value , almost as cheap to run, almost as cheap to buy on import.

Bye Bye

 

[PJVTS]

a lucky purchase of an x plate!! with 130bhp, decat,straight threw centre section,scorpion back box, BMC carbon air box with home made air feed, it was rolling roaded before a couple of mods so im hoping perhaps a touch more now, but as for mods nothing special, it was done at g-force there rollers are guaranteed to 0.1bhp!! lol i should hope so @ £50 a run!! :O

 

[adz33]

My 106 gti was running 130bhp standard and its an r reg, some of them do have extra power.