Valver versus 182/172

[Rodg16v]

Is there really that much difference in performance ?

I presume handling is considerably better

interested to know...i presume lots of people on here have driven both

cheers

 

[clean16v]

TBH handling is not as much of a strength as outright straight line power, through twisties i doubt there would be an awful lot in it, in a straight line the valver is considerably slower.

 

[Dan_mk1]

Nothing in it.

 

[182 sport]

Yeah ive raced a few valvers in my 172,and its not hard to pull past them.standard vs standard ofcourse

 

[_Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by Dan_mk1 on 07 February 2005

Nothing in it.

Id say the same.

Its all depends on the car really. Some valvers are quick and some are shocking!

With just a filter, exhaust and decat i went past a mk1 172. Slowely but went past!

 

[Rich_16v]

Own both and the 172 is deffo quicker in terms of straight line speed in standard form

Round the corners theyre both pretty good

I prefer the driving position of the 16v

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by clean16v on 07 February 2005

TBH handling is not as much of a strength as outright straight line power, through twisties i doubt there would be an awful lot in it, in a straight line the valver is considerably slower.



id echo this, valvers handle well so on a twisty back road they will be well matched but on a straight line drag the 172/182 will drop them (although i wouldnt say considerably just noticeably) all they guys i know that own a valver and have been out in my 172 or 182 have all said theyre faster (the 172/182).

 

[182_blue]

i think this is going to be a long one

 

[Dan_mk1]

Its all been said before, Ive stayed with standard 172s till 110/115. But mine is lightly modded, do the same to the 172 and it would pull on me.

 

[u33db]

Yer std for std 172 is quicker in a straight-line, modd vs modd...well it depends what the money has been spent on...

 

[Mitchy]

A standard 172 is capable of a 0-100 in 18.0

A clio 16v does it in around 24.0 with a williams around 21.0

Enough said really.

 

[_Tom]

Once mine was modded with chip, filter ect i can viuch i stayed with a cup.....dont really care who beleives me as the cars gone now.

Alot of it is down to the driver on the road though. He may have missed a gear? I doubt it though!

 

[Rodg16v]

considering the 172/82 has 30+ more bhp the difference doesnt seem to be that great ? Is the 172 a lot heavier ?

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by Rodg16v on 07 February 2005

considering the 172/82 has 30+ more bhp the difference doesnt seem to be that great ? Is the 172 a lot heavier ?



yup, quite a bit heavier.

 

[_Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by Rodg16v on 07 February 2005

considering the 172/82 has 30+ more bhp the difference doesnt seem to be that great ? Is the 172 a lot heavier ?

yep!

 

[Rodg16v]

so how many BHP do u think a valver would need to keep up with a 172, about 155 est ?

 

[dudelove]

Quote: Originally posted by Rodg16v on 07 February 2005
so how many BHP do u think a valver would need to keep up with a 172, about 155 est ?


Rip out the interior, sort the suspension, and some decent brakes/tyres.

Watch it keep up then (through twisties anyway)

 

[Dan_mk1]

Mines 150bhp, runs 15.5 1/4 mile.

 

[TomS]

Agree about driving position, the 182 felt bizarre to me compared to the 16v.

 

[rory182]

Quote: Originally posted by TomS on 07 February 2005




Agree about driving position, the 182 felt bizarre to me compared to the 16v.

182 driving position sucks, 172 was the same

 

[Andyvalver]

Raced a 172 last summer down a lovely twisty road with a 1/2 mile straight at the end which then starts to sweep to the left. Round the twistys there was nothin in it really, got the the straight and he decided to go for the overtake. He got level and was sloooowwwwwly pulling past but he didnt get far enough and had to brake cuz of the on coming bend. Dont seem to be that much quicker really in my experience.

(all driving was done on a private twisty road at silly speeds)

 

[JayR]

Yeah i race 172s and 182s all the time and have no probs goin past them in my 140bhp valver!!!

On a serious note id quite like a shot at one just to see the difference but i wouldnt expect to be near it really!!!

Just to give an indication of the difference, i had a fairly low to high speed blast with a mates CTR (similar performance to 172) a few months back and he had no trouble pulling a fair bit on me!!!

 

[Clarkie172]

ive had both n my 172 is considerably quicker

 

[cat171]

i had a play against a mk2 172 in my standard 16v, he pulled quite considerably on me, till it hit the magic 4k mark then i began to pull, sadly i only got about 2 car lengths behind.
I also had a go against a mk1 172 (it had 17s on it & an oval magnex exhaust) off the lights there was sweet fa in it, we had it up to about 60 odd.

botheof these were me on my own, as were they.

 

[y0z2a]

I am really suprised at the responses here.

I brought the valver that TomS has now, and thought it was really slow compared to my cup, but was just as much if not more fun in the corners.

I may be forgetting how my 172 was as per standard.

/y0z

 

[Bryan]

std 172 - 1/4 mile 15.1/15.2

std 16v - 1/4 mile 15.6/15.7

above times frmo experience, and living 20 minutes from santa pod

about 0.5 seconds difference in a straight line, not much in terms of time, but it is a couple of car lengths @ 85mph

round the technical sections of a track, id say they will be evenly matched, its a case of who would be the better driver

 

[cat171]

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 07 February 2005


A standard 172 is capable of a 0-100 in 18.0

A clio 16v does it in around 24.0 with a williams around 21.0

Enough said really.

Is a valver really that bad to a ton?
I thought it was about 20 secs to get there, any one know for sure?
on these figures?

 

[Sport182]

Black 182s rule they are soooooo fast followed by the mk1 172!

Thats my completely unbiased view

 

[Zorba_the_greek]

Quote: Originally posted by Sport182 on 08 February 2005


Black 182s rule they are soooooo fast followed by the mk1 172!

Thats my completely unbiased view

sure it is..............................................cough cough

 

[JayR]

Quote: Originally posted by cat171 on 08 February 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 07 February 2005


A standard 172 is capable of a 0-100 in 18.0

A clio 16v does it in around 24.0 with a williams around 21.0

Enough said really.

Is a valver really that bad to a ton?
I thought it was about 20 secs to get there, any one know for sure?
on these figures?

Lets not get into this one again!!!!Lol

I posted up a while ago on Valver 0-100 times and i had and still have a vid of mine doing it just short of 20 secs (still not saying its totally accurate )only to be told standard timess for valvers are 23/24 secs!!!

Seems slow to me but i can believe it, like i said i had a blast from 25/30mph to fairly high speed with a mates CTR and i was amased at how easy he pulled!!!

 

[Mitchy]

Standard times are 24 secs definitely. The williams being around 21secs and the 172 being around 18secs. Cup and 182 slightly quicker.

The 16v is not a fast car as standard, its simply normal performance!

Your video needs to show a 0-106mph or so not 0-100.

 

[_Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 08 February 2005


The 16v is not a fast car as standard, its simply normal performance!

Mine was runnin low 7s to sixty from standard. Hardly normal performance!

 

[Martin]

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 08 February 2005


Standard times are 24 secs definitely. The williams being around 21secs and the 172 being around 18secs. Cup and 182 slightly quicker.

The 16v is not a fast car as standard, its simply normal performance!

Your video needs to show a 0-106mph or so not 0-100.

I thought the times were more like this

Cup 17.7
172 18.7
Williams 20.8
16v 22.something

 

[Martin]

Quote: Originally posted by JayR on 08 February 2005

Quote: Originally posted by cat171 on 08 February 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 07 February 2005


A standard 172 is capable of a 0-100 in 18.0

A clio 16v does it in around 24.0 with a williams around 21.0

Enough said really.

Is a valver really that bad to a ton?
I thought it was about 20 secs to get there, any one know for sure?
on these figures?

Lets not get into this one again!!!!Lol

I posted up a while ago on Valver 0-100 times and i had and still have a vid of mine doing it just short of 20 secs (still not saying its totally accurate )only to be told standard timess for valvers are 23/24 secs!!!

Seems slow to me but i can believe it, like i said i had a blast from 25/30mph to fairly high speed with a mates CTR and i was amased at how easy he pulled!!!

To get a true 100mph you have to reach around 106/107mph on the speedo...so that would account for your fast 0-100 time.

 

[Mitchy]

Quote: Originally posted by Tom16v on 08 February 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 08 February 2005


The 16v is not a fast car as standard, its simply normal performance!

Mine was runnin low 7s to sixty from standard. Hardly normal performance!



Yep on your stop watch.

 

[Lunner]

Quote: Originally posted by Dan_mk1 on 07 February 2005

Mines 150bhp, runs 15.5 1/4 mile.

LOL

My RSi is dead on 110bhp and runs a quarter mile in 15.8....figures curtosy of Bambam

 

[_Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 08 February 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Tom16v on 08 February 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 08 February 2005


The 16v is not a fast car as standard, its simply normal performance!

Mine was runnin low 7s to sixty from standard. Hardly normal performance!




Yep on your stop watch.

Nope, on me G-Tech.

 

[Daz]

Quote: Originally posted by Martin. on 08 February 2005


I thought the times were more like this

Cup 17.7
172 18.7
Williams 20.8
16v 22.something

16v slightly higher I think.. but 20.8 for a Williams isnt right!

[Edited by Daz on 08 February 2005 at 1:56pm]

Ok, I know thats right for it being quoted, but, in practice, it aint.

 

[Ben H]

Ive owned a 16V, Williams and now a Ph2 172.

The handling is the 16V/Williams strength - and especially in the case of the Williams the speed thing is right up there with 172s. There seems to be a lot of variation with the F7P/R lump, as 1/4 times will attest.

Ive now bought a 172 - but not because its considerably better than a 16V or Williams. People who think the 16V in particular has "normal" performance clearly havent owned or driven one for long enough to form an opinion that can be taken seriously.

Ive also owned a tuned Fiat Coupe 20V Turbo - easily faster than its standard 0-100 of 14 secs...and Ill tell you this: it wasnt massively faster than my old 16V. I dont care what figures say!

People place far too much faith in science. I also think people take straight line speed far too seriously.

Overall, the 172/182 duo are a definite improvement in most areas apart from handling over the 16V - but theyre certainly no revolution and terms like "much faster" and "better" are well out of place.

 

[JJ!]

But saying all this, your forgetting that the valver is a 13 year old car now!! so to stay in relative touch with its newer more advance bigger brother is quite some acheivement! IMO of course!