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!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
MERCEDES CLS AMG
Lol
portal172 said:
Ah, but does it?
Many people think that the 205 is small, engine-bay wise, but a V6 from a 406 coupe will go in there; it's very tardis-like, but without the pear-shaped-headed freak they call Billy Piper. And why? Because they want to.
Regards
ps - yes, I still would.
pps - the "Watch choo talkin' 'bout" was Gary Coleman's catch-phrase in Different Strokes, but then you probably already knew that.
Andy D said:
I've assumed that the comment I read was regarding a Renault V6, for some odd reason (probably as I've been looking at doing this on my Mi16) I thought it may have been a Peugeot engine that'd been used.
The Clio engine is quite large for an average 2 litre.
Regards
Fred2001Dynamic said:
They use the 406 box, and although it's tight, it does go in. The biggest 'moan' is that it's 40kg heavier than the Mi16 engine, which isn't the end of the world.
Is it a case of someone having tried it, and failed, or is this just general concencus?
Regards
MERCEDES CLS AMG
The question is ...... why ???? the V6 is as fast as a 182 so whats the point ? i saw a 205 with a 406 V6 lump in at York Dragstrip and it could only manage high 15's
The secret to a powerful car is " power to weight ratio " a powerful lightweight engine in a car that weighs nothing
The secret to a powerful car is " power to weight ratio " a powerful lightweight engine in a car that weighs nothing
j3ned said:
Simple, and for the same reason it was done in the 205 (although I can only assume that the conversion you saw was poorly executed):
The 3.0 V6 is easily tuneable to 260-280bhp, with relatively simple modifications, and so clearly the P2W ratio would be considerably higher than the 172. In addition to this, the V6 has considerably more torque, considerably lower down the rev range, and this would make it more tractable than the 172 engine.
Regards
Andy D said:
I'm told that the original design for that V6 belongs to Citroen and not Peugeot.
It's probably one of the finest V6 engines in production, my 406 V6 coupe was easily one of the best cars I've owned. I'm determined to fit that engine in something else, even if it kills me!!
Regards
MKIII 138
Floodie said:
or up your arse.
V6`s sound mint and have lots of torque thats one great reason.
but id prefer the 225 RS engine and box in there, now that is tunable to 275 from just a remap and prolly not as heavy as the V6 engine, how much heavier is the 2.0T megane lump than the 2.0 na of the clio ?? relocating item like battery would even up weight a bit and fitting a carbon bonnet.. then uprate a few things to reach 300bhp and cruicially 290lbft `ish and you would have a car that prolly wouldnt get traction for 4 gears, so uprating suspension and fiting LSD would be a good option that said thre are lots of Seats runing over 250hp in a small hatchback and some 350bhp monster on IHI turbo`s so it is possible on FWD
Hondata'd EP3 Type R
50bhp from a re map????
172 Dave said:
Your argument doesn't work as the Subaru WRX and Subaru NA are equal constants; they have the same boot, the same 4wd, yet the heavier car does not handle worse than the lighter car.
WRX out-handles the 2.0 sport, despite being heavier.
M5 out-handles the 540i, despite being heavier.
Focus RS out-handles the ST170, despite being heavier.
Why on earth would the springs have to be massive, the additional work caused by the heavier weight would be done by the dampers primarily?
Regards
and yet none of those comparisons are fair as all of the heavier carsvare designed to be faster and better handling! the NA subaru, is in no way shape or form a sports car, as subaru will admit, the st170, a rather poor sports car, the focus rs, an amazing one, the m5, a sports tuned 5series, a 540i, an old mans cruiser. point made
I agree both Subarus are equal to a degree, however the WRX clearly clearly outpaces the sport so is it a case of the WRX is simply quicker due to the power difference as opposed to the handling characteristics.
Dropping the heavy lump in the front of the Clio is a grand yet optimistic idea, by my reckoning (and if i recall right) the 172 is only just over a tonne in weight, as opposed to the WRX being just short of a tonne and half? (sorry couldnt be fussed to look them up) There is next to no weight over the rear of the Clio, hence the trademark lift off of the rear wheel; you drop the heavy lump in and it will be nose heavy into any apex. Bloody quick i agree and on an airstrip -stunning! Dont think i'd fancy the carousel at the 'ring in it though! Sorry, springs was ill phrased you are right the shocks would primarily sort the extra weight, springs would need uprating too though! I think you would end up with all forms of geometrical problems though to counteract the extra pounds.
Dave
Dropping the heavy lump in the front of the Clio is a grand yet optimistic idea, by my reckoning (and if i recall right) the 172 is only just over a tonne in weight, as opposed to the WRX being just short of a tonne and half? (sorry couldnt be fussed to look them up) There is next to no weight over the rear of the Clio, hence the trademark lift off of the rear wheel; you drop the heavy lump in and it will be nose heavy into any apex. Bloody quick i agree and on an airstrip -stunning! Dont think i'd fancy the carousel at the 'ring in it though! Sorry, springs was ill phrased you are right the shocks would primarily sort the extra weight, springs would need uprating too though! I think you would end up with all forms of geometrical problems though to counteract the extra pounds.
Dave
not really a good comparison.
Saloon vs hatch?
WRX is by no means a car to take as a base for a good handling car, its positively bland and you have to be super aggressive to have any fun.
The weight offset on the WRX isnt as large due to the primarly wheel base, and F/R split. Plus the polar moment is not in the same place as a fwd clio.
Take a alfa 147 GTA.........fast......BUT, prime example of understeer, again you have to be pretty brutal to get it to tuck in.
But yea, it could be fast......but not keeping the OE suspension setup, you'd have to pretty much re-engineer the basic package to get the thing to be anywhere near neutral.
it certainly wont be a drivers car, fast in a lazy way, but not my cup of tea.....maybe yours.
Saloon vs hatch?
WRX is by no means a car to take as a base for a good handling car, its positively bland and you have to be super aggressive to have any fun.
The weight offset on the WRX isnt as large due to the primarly wheel base, and F/R split. Plus the polar moment is not in the same place as a fwd clio.
Take a alfa 147 GTA.........fast......BUT, prime example of understeer, again you have to be pretty brutal to get it to tuck in.
But yea, it could be fast......but not keeping the OE suspension setup, you'd have to pretty much re-engineer the basic package to get the thing to be anywhere near neutral.
it certainly wont be a drivers car, fast in a lazy way, but not my cup of tea.....maybe yours.
theduckeatspork said:and as everyone here knows, better suspension = better handling! you really answered your own question there, and helped proove my point. thanks 4 that
The point was that the additional weight isn't a serious enough factor to prevent the conversion from being done.
Lancia put an extra 300kg over the front axle on the Delta shell to make the Integrale; won the WRC title 6 years in a row.
Point proven?
the problem with clio will be that it will have so much extra weight in the front and nothing to balance it out in the back and it already is quite front heavy, hence lifting of the rear wheel! lancia delta is a different car, different chassis, therefore cant compare, so no, point not proven!
