true 0-60 of the 172 mk 2 clio

[172UK]

Hi im new here so forgive me if this has been asked before.

Im curious to find out what 172 mk2 owners think their true 0-60 times are ?

i have raced friends cars who should have a slightly faster time but my 172 seems quicker than theirs. i know a lot has to do with drivers reactions but am curious to see what other 172 owners think.

is the brochure 0-60 a true guide as ive also heard you should take 0.5 off the official figures ? is this true?

thanks for any help on this subject.

Jess

 

[Tom]

6.6-6.8

 

[172UK]

wow that quick ? i thought it would be around 7.0 - does it depend on if the car is "run in" so to speak tom?

 

[Daipac]

It will vary from car to car but there are a few people who have had them 0-60 tested at events like Trax, etc. I remember reading a post where someones brother did it in around 6.6 in his MKII 172.

 

[172UK]

thats quick !

was that with an unmodified 172 ?

 

[Daipac]

Not sure to be honest.

 

[Rick_172]

I have seen an official Renault brocher which says 7.4 for the 172 and 6.9 for the Cup. I know for a fact that it isnt as slow as 7.4 cos it is faster than a Saxo VTS (0-60 in 7.5).

Any official times (i.e. track days) would be good... I have been having arguments about this myself.

Doesnt the Autocar article on Cliosport give the Mk1 172 a 0-60 in 6.4?!?!?

 

[rickyboy]

Yawn!!

 

[172UK]

hi rick_172 yeah ive seen that article ! not sure how accurate it is though.

opinions vary on the true speed but it would be nice to see some of the members post their 0-60 times

ohh and rickyboy - if it bores you then you know what to do.

 

[Rick_172]

Agreed, i have tried searches already but no definitive results.

 

[BrynO]

dont forget lots of the mags report 0 - 62 not 0 - 60 which is prob where the 7.4 came from. Lots of long strings on this subject in the archives but dont expect a definitive answer as there is and can not be one given that no two cars, drivers, conditions, blah blah blah are the same! for what its worth my MK1 did 6.9 secs measured on the AP22 at Santa Pod which is pretty well what the book says it should.

 

[172UK]

good comments Bryn0 - its very true about the varous conditions , drivers etc. i didnt realise the times were to 0-62 - good point.

6.9 is pretty quick ! hope my 172 is similar ? (2003) model

 

[Rick_172]

yeah all good points like. the stats in cliosport seem pretty much the standard. 6.7 for cup, 6.8 for Mk1 172 and 6.9 for Mk 2 172

 

[Paul_P1]

The Renault website always stated 0-60 in less than 7seconds for the MK2 172. I managed 6.9 on my AP22, also did a 15.0 1/4 mile, must have been mid 6s in that run!

 

[Chris n nic]

Quote: Originally posted by Paul_P1 on 22 March 2004

The Renault website always stated 0-60 in less than 7seconds for the MK2 172. I managed 6.9 on my AP22, also did a 15.0 1/4 mile, must have been mid 6s in that run!

I hope mid 6s is 15 sec 1/4 mile...mine must be v low 6s or Ive got an awesome mid range!

Chris

 

[spengy]

I did a lot of research into this a while ago when i bought my 172 and these seemed to be the most consistant stats from the various sources I found:

172 MK1 0-60 in 6.9 sec
172 MK2 0-60 in 7.0 sec
172 CUP 0-60 in 6.7-6.8 sec

The MK1 is suppose to be very slightly quicker than the MK2 because of the gear ratios. But the cup is obviously quicker because it looses some weight from the standard MK2. E.g. spare wheel, leather, A/C etc...

It always makes me laugh when people go on about saving weight on theyre clios. Surely it depends a lot on the driver as well, as this adds most of the extra weight to the car. I wonder what the result would be if I raced someone driving the exact same car as me but weighing only half my weight (Me 16st them 8 st). They would be saving 112 lb of weight compared to me and my car. Not sure what the weight saving is on a cup but i doubt it is as much as that.

 

[Paul_P1]

Chris, I reckon you would have been running 6.0/6.1!

 

[Rick_172]

89 kg weight difference cup and 172

i weigh 10 stone! lol

 

[spengy]

Quote: Originally posted by Rick_172 on 22 March 2004


89 kg weight difference cup and 172

i weigh 10 stone! lol

This is exactly my point, ever noticed how much slower your car is when youve got 1 or 2 extra people in the car.

 

[172UK]

excellent points spengy

 

[Floodie]

howdy yall... on the weight subject its been doing my head in lately too.. have a cup but also want a decent sound system in it.. this weighs 19kgs total which is around 3 stone.. So ive figured that if i go down to 11stone in weight then ill be fine - hmm.. im a kipper 63" so may look a little stupid at that weight .. besides.. with it in the car i notice NO difference at all.. it probably does but i cant feel it - maybe the slight extra weight helps get the traction down better! hmm

Also, if the cup and 172 are about .4 secs (0-60) and around 89Kgs apart then with my 19kgs added i "should" have lost (using these ratios) in theory about 0.08 secs to 60mph but Gained a fantastic sound which im more than happy with...

Nice

 

[TheRoninV6]

didnt evo test the 172 MKII @ 6.3 the second time they had the car???????

 

[Dash]

Its under 10 seconds.

 

[Brazo]

Quote: Originally posted by TheRonin_172 on 22 March 2004

didnt evo test the 172 MKII @ 6.3 the second time they had the car???????

Evo consistently trtied but couldnt get it below 7 secs.

Perhaps autocars test pilots are lighter than evos? It woul account for their faster times!

 

[spengy]

Its not all about 0-60 times anyway, unless you spend all day racing people off the lights, or drag racing!

Mid range and cornering speed is just as important IMHO.

Some cars dont look good 0-60 on paper because of theyre gearing. I know the Civic Type has problems here as it has to change into third just before it reaches 60mph where as most cars will get there in second gear. Mind you once above 60 and into third gear the CTR really starts to shift and this is where it starts to get the edge over the 172.

 

[Lagerlout]

I would say 6.9 - 7.0 is about par for the course for a 172mk2.... I would be very surprised if mine wasnt capable of consistent sub-sevens... in the hands of someone who can actually launch the fecking thing anyway.....!!

 

[cliotuRS]

i got 6.9 to 60 in my MKII.. may not of been acurate but my three runs were 7.0 - 7.0 - 6.98 so yea MKII is a deffo consistent 7.2 if you account for gear change or passenger weight or ammount of fuel.. but at V.best 6.9 IMO

BTW my car runs the fastest when one notch under half full??

 

[ChavyBoy]

Quote: Originally posted by spengy on 22 March 2004


I did a lot of research into this a while ago when i bought my 172 and these seemed to be the most consistant stats from the various sources I found:

172 MK1 0-60 in 6.9 sec
172 MK2 0-60 in 7.0 sec
172 CUP 0-60 in 6.7-6.8 sec

The MK1 is suppose to be very slightly quicker than the MK2 because of the gear ratios.

Uh !! They run the same engine/gearbox IIRC.

The Mk1 is slightly lighter than the Mk2 thats what might make the 0.1 difference.

 

[McBunny]

sure it has different ratios

 

[ChavyBoy]

Not as fair as I was aware, it was things like the alloy bonnet and no climate that made the difference. Maybe it did but I was always lead to believe it was just the 16v and willy that had different ratios.

 

[KDF]

Quote: Originally posted by James on 23 March 2004
Its under 10 seconds.


hmm, depends if you change from 2nd to 5th like I have done in the past then its more like 4 minutes..

 

[KDF]

Quote: Originally posted by dogmaul on 23 March 2004
sure it has different ratios


The mk1 deffinatly has a longer final drive, not sure about 1234 though.

 

[McBunny]

what happend to 5 !!!!!! or is it only a 4 speed box

 

[KDF]

Quote: Originally posted by dogmaul on 23 March 2004
what happend to 5 !!!!!! or is it only a 4 speed box


Slap self, re-read my post and repeat..

 

[McBunny]

erm reread still only got 4 gears and the final drive so where is the 5th as final drive isnt 5th gear its something else

 

[KDF]

okay final drive I meant 5th.. and yes I am just about to slap myself..

 

[McBunny]

can i do it too

 

[jongsr4]

Quote: Originally posted by ChavyBoy on 23 March 2004


Not as fair as I was aware, it was things like the alloy bonnet and no climate that made the difference. Maybe it did but I was always lead to believe it was just the 16v and willy that had different ratios.

Yeh im pretty sure that the Mk2 has very slightly longer gear ratios than the Mk1

 

[Mondial172]

See Jon youve gotta get a MK1

 

[Andyman]

Fourth gear in the mark 1 is out of this world you get a kick in the back from as low as 30mph if you floor it.