The Mind Boggles.. (Clio 197)

[Keydogg]

Can someone help me out here?

Just been looking at the specs of the Clio 197/New CTR/Corsa VXR compared with the old 182/CTR and one thing jumps out at me which seems odd.

Looking at the specs, see if any of you lot something looks weird?

Clio 182
BHP 180
Weight 1090kg
0-60 6.9
Top Speed 139mph

Old CTR
BHP 195
Weight 1204kg
0-60 6.4
Top Speed 146mph

Clio 197
BHP 197
Weight 1240kg
0-60 6.7
Top Speed 134mph

New CTR
BHP 198
Weight 1267kg
0-60 6.4
Top Speed 146mph

Corsa VXR
BHP 189
Weight 1223kg
0-60 6.8
Top Speed 140mph

Anyone notice anything unusual? That's right, the 197 top speed. Now I have been on a couple of sites to confirm this and that figure appears to be right. So what am I missing??

Everyone says the dominating factors of top speed are power and aerodynamics, and weight doesn't really come into it. So how can a car that is aerodynamically better than its predecessor, have 15 more bhp, yet its top speed be 5mph down? Surely with that kind of power the top speed should be up with the CTR? At least 140?

Now before anyone starts to slate, I know that this speed does not matter in the real world, but if the top speed is so little, it begs the question that is it just gonna be average after 80mph? In my GF's 172, after 3rd gear it always left a bit to be desired, but i put that down to brick-like aerodynamics and lack of out-right power. But now, the 197 looks even worse in this aspect!

Things I thought it could be were:

Short gearing - surely the CTR has short gearing, but can still keep going well over a tonne. So that can't be it!

Rear Diffuser - so many people have dismissed the splitter saying its more of a sales gimmick than anything, and really only has the same effect as a spoiler (such as the CTR's) so I doubt that would restrict the top speed by THAT much.

So, in conclusion, on paper a hatch that has 195 bhp "should" easily get 140mph or more. Why does the clio not? I just don't understand!

*Disclaimer* I don't actually car about top speed at all, but looking at top speed can often suggest how the car will perform in real life terms rather than just looing at 0-60.

 

[jongsr4]

I think its got to be down to the gearing, maybe they needed to keep 5th pretty short so that it could still accellerate well

as you say, top speed isnt that important so maybe they sacrificed a bit of it for accelleration

 

[Keydogg]

but it has 6 gears so that should'nt really come into it too much.

 

[MOFO]

they are always wrong, our mini cooper 52 plate we had about 3years ago had a book top end of 120mph but we had 135 out of it against a golf gti, did have some minor mods done to it tho,

 

[Keydogg]

they are always wrong, our mini cooper 52 plate we had about 3years ago had a book top end of 120mph but we had 135 out of it against a golf gti, did have some minor mods done to it tho,

mate that doesn't include speedo inaccuracies. Places like parkers and whatcar measure top speed with GPS gear, speedos don't mean s**t

I can get 135mph on the clock out of my VTS but i know realistically thats about 127mph.

 

[jongsr4]

but it has 6 gears so that should'nt really come into it too much.

Good point! forgot about that

 

[gaz44]

Not sure your research is very accurate.

 

[Josh@Renparts]

but it has 6 gears so that should'nt really come into it too much.

the 6th gear is shorter than the 182's 5th gear... to compensate for the extra weight so it didn't affect acceleration/overall power too much so it does come into it a lot.,.

 

[Keydogg]

but it has 6 gears so that should'nt really come into it too much.

the 6th gear is shorter than the 182's 5th gear... to compensate for the extra weight so it didn't affect acceleration/overall power too much so it does come into it a lot.,.

really? i didn't know that. I'm guessing they did that so its more of a track weapong and better acceleration upto silly speeds, but i still think it's a little excessive! its 10mph off a CTR top end so i wonder how the 2 would compare round a track!

As for my research - done on parkers and verified on whatcar.

 

[Fred@BTM]

top speed has bugger all to do with anything

 

[Graham Gooch]

top speed has bugger all to do with anything

Pub Bragging rights, thats about it.

 

[AlexS]

Its interesting that as you move further down the list the weight increases, yet the 0-60 gets quicker and quicker. Obviously there is a slight increase in BHP but not huge. I guess it must be the short ratios in these 6spd boxes.

 

[Keydogg]

top speed has bugger all to do with anything

did you not read the full post? i already put i'm not actually bothered about the top speed, im bothered about the indication it gives. if a car that is 197bhp and will only hit 134mph i would be asking some serious questions before buying it. 0-60 means even less than top speed does imo. what i am saying is if it only hits 134mph then its likely it will be pretty damn slow after 100mph.

But now people have told me that its down to the gears being so short, this might be a different case, it might actually fly all the way up to top speed and just be limited by the revs.

 

[Steve2004]

I read somewhere that the clio's rear diffuser has caused it to lose a few mph of top speed. God knows has accurate that is.


To be honest it's probably why some people have said already, the gearing. 6th gear in the 197 is very short indeed.

 

[mini-valver]

I cant see the pint in it's 6th cog if it's shorter than a 182's 5th. Surely you'd want to add a 6th onto a 182 box?

 

[ChrisR]

For starters, is 5mph, wow.

Secondly, it is down to the gearing, it's stupidly short on the 197 The shorter gearing is there thorughout the box to help lug the extra weight around and to enable you to keep in the power band better (i.e. to hopefully improve mid range), although if it requires an extra change then that would add time in.

I guess it's a toss up between the time taken to change or the time taken (in the 5 speed) to get back in the power band.

 

[Munson]

But with it's alleged 194bhp and such short gearing, why is is so 'slow' to 100mph? I've never understood it TBH. I love the 197 but the figures don't add up and never have done IMO.

 

[Graham Gooch]

But with it's alleged 194bhp and such short gearing, why is is so 'slow' to 100mph? I've never understood it TBH. I love the 197 but the figures don't add up and never have done IMO.

They are not putting out 194bhp, that fact is plainly obvious.

 

[Munson]

But with it's alleged 194bhp and such short gearing, why is is so 'slow' to 100mph? I've never understood it TBH. I love the 197 but the figures don't add up and never have done IMO.

They are not putting out 194bhp, that fact is plainly obvious.

Yeah a drew that conclusion a long time ago. I would not be surprised to read a figure closer to 187bhp or some such. Still a fantastic car, with a misleading name IMO

 

[Phill1978]

top speed has bugger all to do with anything

for some it does, and i read its actually 131 GPS tested Vmax from auto car ! on a long straight.

I know of times when people are being a wee bit silly and dragging aruond the roads (which face it happens) are going beyond 130 on long bypasses and empty m.ways at night, daft but the 131 indicates as one person said top end power from 80-110 lets say which on a road blat does get reached at usual max before slowing is it going to be s**t slow ?

i think the lack of a genune 194bhp is also a factor

 

[ja.jack]

Cant remember seeing where the extra 15bhp comes from. ie 197-182.

Fred, Ben, pmurray ect do you know? and can we have it retro fitted to our mk 2's.