Vee 0-60??

[mace¬]

Is the Vee's 0-60 time of 6.2 really achievable day to day?

I must admit when at the lights I don't rarely build the revs high and drop the clutch as I'm worried about the amount of traction and destroying the clutch if done to often.

So I'm going to get hammered for saying this but I feel my old mans 172 is quicker? I really don't ever feel like I'm getting under 7 seconds in the Vee but it might just be the weight.

opinions or shut up?

 

[LegoHead]

Re: Vee 0-60?? slow ass clio!!!!

they arent called ph-quick for nothing.

I think V6 are all about the looks, as apparently the handling is crap and speed on paper is not too impressive.

 

[Dafthead]

With larger engines, the power delivery is so linear that they never feel as fast as they are

 

[mace¬]

I know about the performance on paper and things like that, I know its not a world beater but I just think in the real world 6.2 is not achievable day in day out.

And don't believe the handling bit. They handle very well. In the dry the traction is brilliant but the same with any rear wheel drive car and especially short wheel based your going to get punished on a road if you over step the mark. Its a fact of life.

 

[Brown.]

V6 is lazy speed.... the majority of the quick accel is first gear.... every where else 172/ 182 wont be far behind.

 

[® Andy]

The only time I've ever "timed" mine was using a video camera on the speedo. Didn't do the 4.5krpm dump the clutch "Clarkson" approach, because frankly the Mk2 clutch doesn't like that, so was basically quick off the clutch and fast on the accelerator. From the video footage, 60 came up in around 5.5s, so yes reckon it is easily achievable . Similarly evo did 5.8s in a Mk1, but never tested the Mk2.

 

[B16DOE]

when people think of the v6 and how quick they are they all ways think of the 255 and its figers the fact is the v6 230 aint as quick as they like to think

 

[mace¬]

V6 is lazy speed.... the majority of the quick accel is first gear.... every where else 172/ 182 wont be far behind.

So am I right in thinking that 0-30 and 90-140 the Vee dominates but it has that mid speed slump due to the weight and gearing?

 

[jayxx83]

why not go head to head with your old mans 172.

 

[mace¬]

why not go head to head with your old mans 172.

Risk my old man winning?? no chance.

 

[Brown.]

Think i remember a quote from some where that the mk2 was improved over the mk1 as the clio cup was very close to the performance figures of the mk1 vee..... might of even been wikipedia.

 

[Dafthead]

let his tyres down a bit first to ensure a victory

 

[Brown.]

taken from wiki:

Phase 1 version being some 300 kg (660 lb) heavier than the sportiest "regular" Clio, the 172 Cup. Due to this, even though the V6 model had significantly more power, it was not markedly faster than the 172 Cup - accelerating to 60 mph (97 km/h) in 6.2 s compared to the Cup's 6.7 s - though its maximum speed was more significantly higher (146 mph compared to 138 mph). The Clio V6 Phase 2 gained even more weight but offset it with even more power resulting in a reduced 0-60 mph run at 5.6 s and a 153 mph (246 km/h) top speed.

 

[mace¬]

Well, why I was asking is because I've fallen in love with Liquid Yellow. I will be really stretching myself for a LY vee so I am seriously considering Pxing for a LY 182. Am I being silly or is the vee only got the look at me presence over a 182??

 

[jayxx83]

182 all the way over a mk1 v6 for me. No offence, but having the MK1 just looks like you couldnt stretch to a MK2 and the petrol consumption doesnt really justify given the performance. All IMO of course.

For wow factor, both vees have it in the bag and for those not in the know, they do snap necks.

 

[mace¬]

182 all the way over a mk1 v6 for me. No offence, but having the MK1 just looks like you couldnt stretch to a MK2 and the petrol consumption doesnt really justify given the performance. All IMO of course.

For wow factor, both vees have it in the bag and for those not in the know, they do snap necks.

I disagree, I could have afforded a non special Id paint Mk2 but decided that I was only going to use it for weekends and rarely on the track so there was no need for the extra understeer added into the Mk2 as I would never wish to push it that far on a public road anyway and the better interior wasn't an issue cause I'm only driving it 10-20 times a year!!

I can see what your saying but there is a reason for not spending an extra 3-4K!!

 

[AlexS]

I would probably take a mk1 Vee over a ph2 Rs if only for the residuals.

 

[Ads_172]

Mk1 Vee all the way. Liquid is a stunning colour, but I wouldn't go from a V6 to a 1*2 of any description... completely different cars IMO.

 

[ddouble]

when people think of the v6 and how quick they are they all ways think of the 255 and its figers the fact is the v6 230 aint as quick as they like to think

its quite well documented amoungst vee owners that speedwise theres basically nothing between the mk1 and mk2 on the road.

the clutch is stronger in a mk1 so you can give it some welly off the lights if you really wanted to.

id be amazed if your dads 172 could beat it!!!! maybe your vee is a bit poorley?

if your worried go up against him on a wet day and you will win easily :rasp: with all that traction theres no chance of wheelspin and you can eat front wheel drive cars.

 

[J4 WYB]

Ive just got a mk1 vee and absolutely love it compared to my 172, speed isnt everything and the vee has bags more low down torque so driving everyday dont have to constantly change gear to look for the 4.5k "kick" can use 6th gear all day long even at 30mph.

Its everyones personal choice but I now which i prefer (until i run out of money for petrol lol)

 

[Fred@BTM]

the V6 is a very hard car to launch, i've managed it once!

too many revs and the clutch burns
not enough revs and its bogs

^there's about 100rpm in between the 2 of them!

 

[Timmay]

i think if i were to have a v6 it would just be a cruiser - still have a 172 for quick blitz's tho

 

[mace¬]

Took the Vee out this weekend and it is safe to say its going nowhere. Unless someone wants to lend me another 10K so I can get a LY vee?

 

[J4 WYB]

lol I love LY but to me its not worth spending the extra cash to go from mk1 to mk2 plus LY paint.

You had yours for long?

 

[Ali]

I used one of those ghetto G metres and did a 5.88 and a 5.91...But then the clutch started to stink so i thought better and left it.

How people compare the vee to a 172/182 is beyond me! It's considerably faster across the board. above 90 is will destroy a 1*2...Not just pull away it will reel them in and pass with ease!

 

[mace¬]

lol I love LY but to me its not worth spending the extra cash to go from mk1 to mk2 plus LY paint.

You had yours for long?

About a year now. I hadn't given it a good drive for a while but it did put the smile on my face when I got back in it.

 

[ClioV6_Lancs]

lol I love LY but to me its not worth spending the extra cash to go from mk1 to mk2 plus LY paint.

You had yours for long?

I thought exactely this when I sold my mk1 to Iridium (Dan) and subsiquently wrote off the idea of basically buying the same car over again. Looked at TVR T350's, Exiges etc before settling for a mk2 LY Vee. It astonished me how different the phase 2 is to drive compared the first V6. More power is noticible - mainly because of revised gearing, handles 100 times better and feels more confident on the road. quality all round is miles better than the mk1. I also think the mk2 looks nicer with new bumpers, vents, wheels etc and has a 'meaner' presence on the road. The first Clio V6 was ahead of it's time in terms of outrageous development but think the faults/niggles on it made it somewhat of a collectors only car. The mk2 is more elegant and I could imagine my mum driving it to the shops (though it is only in theory in practise never as I doubt I would have any wheels left on the return trip). but it really is a more all round drivable car....Renault got it right the second time!

 

[J4 WYB]

lol I love LY but to me its not worth spending the extra cash to go from mk1 to mk2 plus LY paint.

You had yours for long?

I thought exactely this when I sold my mk1 to Iridium (Dan) and subsiquently wrote off the idea of basically buying the same car over again. Looked at TVR T350's, Exiges etc before settling for a mk2 LY Vee. It astonished me how different the phase 2 is to drive compared the first V6. More power is noticible - mainly because of revised gearing, handles 100 times better and feels more confident on the road. quality all round is miles better than the mk1. I also think the mk2 looks nicer with new bumpers, vents, wheels etc and has a 'meaner' presence on the road. The first Clio V6 was ahead of it's time in terms of outrageous development but think the faults/niggles on it made it somewhat of a collectors only car. The mk2 is more elegant and I could imagine my mum driving it to the shops (though it is only in theory in practise never as I doubt I would have any wheels left on the return trip). but it really is a more all round drivable car....Renault got it right the second time!

Got to admit I do like the mk2 vee but unfortunately budget wouldnt allow it, I think as I came from a ph1 172 I am impressed with the build quality and speed but if I drove a mk2 172/182 or even vee I would be dissapointed.

At the moment I am very happy with the mk1 but would love a mk2 when I can get one, although I do prefer the front of the mk1 if I am honest.

 

[caeteez]

Is an R26 quicker than a Vee? Only ask because during a convoy to Bluewater Duncx was in his Meggy and the thing looked like it shifted very very well indeed. Similar power too.

 

[ClioV6_Lancs]

Be close:

R26 0-60 = 7.2
V6 = 5.8

Top end Vee would win though! I raced one to Renault world series last year on the bypass I get letting him catch up then booted it - left the R26 for dead.

 

[RichRSi]

As so far as 0-60 I'm not fussed about that. I don't own one by the way.

Imo it is the type of car you buy when you fully know that for the money you could get something quicker and better handling but are prepared to make a few small sacrifices becuase of the way it makes you feel.
The 197 is a superb car but is not captivating imvho, if it were a celebrity it would be Peter Andre sat next to De Niro the V6, you know who everyone would be queing to talk to.

At the moment I am very happy with the mk1 but would love a mk2 when I can get one, although I do prefer the front of the mk1 if I am honest.

I love the Mk1 shape, I share your opinion on the front end styling. lucky for me the colour I prefer is silver too, due to it's popularity it will make it easier to find what I want when I eventually come to buy.

 

[Iridium]

I chose a Mk1 because I think the front looks better and if I had a Mk2 it would have to be Black, and I didn't think they were worth the £6k premium (at the time) over my Mk1. I'm in the lucky position to have been able to choose though - but I must admit, I only chose a Vee because I couldn't afford a Zonda. I know I know, I'm a pikey...

Even people who can't stretch to a Mk2 can't be accused of been cheap - they're still willing to stomach insane parts prices, 20mpg combined and Grp 20 insurance...

The speed thing, well I chased a Mk2 for about 20 miles on the way back from FCS heh - sometimes I pulled on him, sometimes t'other way round - obviously dependdant on coming off roundabouts and differing drivers etc - the summary point was that there was nothing at all in it - like when we got on it at the same time the only difference was from lower revs I was a little quicker (the 230 spec engine makes more torque lower down) then at higher revs he was a little quicker, then when we changed gear the cycle repeated itself. Conversely we got quite far ahead of the RB182 that, once we'd backed off (left dual carriageway onto single carriageway), felt the need to flash his lights then finally do a dodgy overtake into oncoming traffic and cut the guy in the Mk2 up to the point where if the Mk2 hadn't braked sharply I wouldn't like to imagine what would've happened. The 182 was with us till about 60 (so around 3rd gear) then there was quite a difference in the way we pulled away. I have similar experiences with my mates GSi Turbo Mk4 Astra - although the difference isn't till 80 and hasn't really been explored too deeply heh.

However that was by the way - you're a tosser and you let the side down in a big way.

Evo reckon it does it in 5.8 the Mk1 timed with their own gear and to be honest I think that's achievable - I've never done a full boar start properly because I fear my clutch heh (although I hear the Mk1 clutch is stronger than the Mk2?), but setting of 'briskly' with Nexan rear tyres I pulled a 5.9 using the highly scientific "phone in hand with stop watch on it" method

I think in good conditions, with good tyres etc you'd easily get a sub 6 properly timed. And on low fuel/one passenger - I think it would do maybe a sub 5.5 - but I'll let someone else try that

I'd agree with Matt (Clio_V6_Lancs) on the other points though - the Mk2 interior is a lot better, and the handling is certainly more neutral - although I can't help but feel if I were a driving god the Mk1 might be the better handler because it just won't understeer heh. But I'm not so that's a mute point

Dan

 

[Turbo 200]

Is the Vee's 0-60 time of 6.2 really achievable day to day?

I must admit when at the lights I don't rarely build the revs high and drop the clutch as I'm worried about the amount of traction and destroying the clutch if done to often.

So I'm going to get hammered for saying this but I feel my old mans 172 is quicker? I really don't ever feel like I'm getting under 7 seconds in the Vee but it might just be the weight.

opinions or shut up?

They don't feel much quicker than my cup when I've driven them, they feel about the same - would be disappointed in the performance for 27k!

 

[cat171]

182 all the way over a mk1 v6 for me. No offence, but having the MK1 just looks like you couldnt stretch to a MK2 and the petrol consumption doesnt really justify given the performance. All IMO of course.

For wow factor, both vees have it in the bag and for those not in the know, they do snap necks.

I disagree, I could have afforded a non special Id paint Mk2 but decided that I was only going to use it for weekends and rarely on the track so there was no need for the extra understeer added into the Mk2 as I would never wish to push it that far on a public road anyway and the better interior wasn't an issue cause I'm only driving it 10-20 times a year!!

I can see what your saying but there is a reason for not spending an extra 3-4K!!

I agree with Mace on this.

I prefer the front end of the mk1 too, the colour of mine in a complete bonus tbh

How people compare the vee to a 172/182 is beyond me! It's considerably faster across the board. above 90 is will destroy a 1*2...Not just pull away it will reel them in and pass with ease!

Exactly. They are two very different cars to drive.

I also agree with Dan (Iridium) too.

 

[ClioV6_Lancs]

Not all about outright performance though with the Vee...similar discussion going on at V6Clio.net about the under performance from a 3litre engine. The V6 makes up for this in other areas. there's not many other cars I can think of for 27K that get the attention of this car and what car (hatch wise) can boast to getting 3rd place in Evo's car of the year 2003 only beaten by a Gallardo and GT3.

 

[Ali]

i love my Veee! Even more now that i'm stunting in Recaro's!

 

[cat171]

i love my Veee! Even more now that i'm stunting in Recaro's!

Get some pics up lad


< club 14k too

 

[Phill1978]

Be close:

R26 0-60 = 7.2
V6 = 5.8

Top end Vee would win though! I raced one to Renault world series last year on the bypass I get letting him catch up then booted it - left the R26 for dead.

lol 7.2 ?

autocar tested the megane f1 at 6.01 not even the R26 with its gripy diff.

pace wise most megs are 225-235bhp and 230lbft (1345kg vs v6 1400kg) so the pace should be identical to the v6 on the road perhaps at 120mph the vee pulling ahead slightly.

of course put a map on one and then i think 280lbft and 270bhp would be infront of the vee

and handling.. err the vee isnt the best all round but i guess it looks really nice and sounds great.

 

[TRW1]

The gearing is the main reason for the performance differences between Mk1 and Mk2 V6. Renault's figures suggest 0-60 of 6.4 for the Mk1 and 5.8 for the Mk2. In reality I think they are both pretty similar at around 5.8 on average, as EVO magazine found.

The Mk1 has a very low 1st gear and will get away to 30mph quicker than the Mk2. Unfortunately it then jumps to a 2nd gear that is too tall and higher than the Mk2 and so the advantage is lost again. Going on to 100mph the Mk2 will pull away significantly, getting there some 2-3secs quicker, again due to the lower and closer ratio gears.
Though the Mk2 has 25bhp more it is also heavier and power to weight is still very close to each other. Note that torque, which is the figure that counts when it comes to acceleration, remains the same in the Mk2 as in the Mk1.

I have a Mk1 and did extensive testing with gps backed accelerometers as used by all the major car mags and consistently achieved figures from 5.5 to 6.2, averaging at about 5.8secs.
To get good figures you do need to launch with 3-4000rpm and dump the clutch. If you load the gears prior to launching, rather than just pushing the clutch to the floor and dumping it, the gearbox/clutch aren't hit as hard. I had no issues despite some serious attempts at a good time. As Fred mentioned, it's not easy to nail it.........

 

[Ali]

i love my Veee! Even more now that i'm stunting in Recaro's!

Get some pics up lad


< club 14k too

All in good time my little prince! Still got the passenger side seatbelt to sort...One bolt was too tight. So needs air gun'd off!

you need recaro's in your life tho!