front track has is wider by use of longer components as opposed to adjusments, engine has bigger capacity and different components to what is was derived from (16v) chassis is strengthened even further than the valver was from the others(dont know what was done mind). and possibly the biggest and most appealing change is the gold writing on the rear quarter and tailgate. that makes it oh so appealing and a cult car. i mean, how cool would it be to have a 172 cup mclaren? just for the name eh. imo would make it so appealing.
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.
front track has is wider by use of longer components as opposed to adjusments, engine has bigger capacity and different components to what is was derived from (16v) chassis is strengthened even further than the valver was from the others(dont know what was done mind). and possibly the biggest and most appealing change is the gold writing on the rear quarter and tailgate. that makes it oh so appealing and a cult car. i mean, how cool would it be to have a 172 cup mclaren? just for the name eh. imo would make it so appealing.
and from an owners point of view no matter what car im parked near in traffic i never feel humbled cos i know the guy in the hot hatch next to me is probably more interested in my car than i am in his. which is nice, must say i am rather partial to the 172 as well, particularly the yellow mk1.
Craggy - I was only talking about cosmetic differences, since the point being made is that it is impossible, or at least difficult, to tell from looking at the two which one is a 172 and which one is a 1.2.
I take on board what you say about mechanical changes, (there are also many changes between a 172 and 1.2 obviously) and I like having the Renault Sport badge on the back of my Yellow 172 !!! (So thanks for the complimentary opinion on my car!!!!)
And a few years back if I had been able to afford a Williams I may well have owned one too !!!
Why does his sodding opinion matter anyway? Can you really take him seriuosly, with the references of a 162? I thought wed had this discussion about 6 months ago!
I prefer the look of the MK2 and Im now convincing my self to wait to get a MK2 V6, becuase it looks so much better!!
teady mate i seem to remember having THIS discussion with you about 6 months ago too.
my opinion doesnt matter to YOU but to ME it does and this site is for people to express their opinions ........is it not?
so u dont like my opinion of some things............i prob dont like your opinion of some things either but i dont try to put u down for it do i?
but must agree with you.......172 vs v6. no competition mate the v6 would win evry time ..just on pure looks alone
The williams was replaced - they stopped making it and f**ked up by making a 2 and 3 - oops - poor willy 1 owners - we now have the next generation clio and the 172/Cup is clearly a faster car AS STANDARD well all agree to that I think
errrrrrrrr i havent lost to a 172 yet.........theres only 1 that iv seen post better times than my williams and thats quite well modded
now im not sl*gging anyones car off but IMHO i think the new clios are fukk ugly compared to ph1 2 models whichever spec it is and that is MY opinion .
personal opinion yup, but that probs becoz ure into older motors who bought a williams before the 172 came out - reverse the situation and ud probs be biased to a 172 if u had bought one having never bought a Williams- my opinion though - ok!
errrrrrrrrrrrrrr just for the record i bought my williams at the beginning of this year......didnt know the 162s were that new lol
and why would i want to buy a car that is slower and more common????????
just my opinin (and prob nearly 100 172 timing slips as proof) ok
Im not sl*gging here either mate but its down on paper that the cup and 172 as standard are better specd and quicker than a standard Williams, now I dont know how many mods uve done, but ur 14.8 claimed time is not the standard quarter mile time for a williams, so I assume u have modded ur motor - with that assumption I dont think ull be firing much ahead of any cups u do hit the drag with! But let us know how u get on (22BHP extra, 200NM torque, 138+, 14.8 quarter mile, 16.9 to 100 - factory standard figures which will be pissed on once run in) What are the STANDARD figures for a Williams (dont tell me I already know)- end of story and nuff said - immaturity setting in - Im defecting to the Nova forum....
Renault Laguna Coupe
14.41 to 100??? So a quarter mile in the low 14s / high 13s. I dont think so. Only 1 way to find out though...
cupsize mate the mods iv done to my williams are as follows
with k&n panel filter and de-cat pipe it can run 14.800 1/4 s with slips and witnesses to prove...ask nick read
with all above + powerflow cat back zorst pulls 149 bhp at wheels and best run yesterday was 14.883........again with slips n witnesses as proof..maybe mines just a quick standard one cos mine seems to have a bit of an edge on the others in the list
and as for a cup running a 14 sec 1/4 ..........bollox a bit of weight lost and a few xtra mods dont count up to em bein 2 seconds quicker than a 172 mate no matter whos drivin it
2 live - and when you have been in one or driven one or been up against one ( a Cup that is) you might have a view that will be listened to - at 10 miles on the clock the cup feels faster than a 172 that also seemed to be a "quick standard one."
time will tell, but its no good giving opinions on what you cannot possibly know at this stage, otherwise dont be surprised when nobody listens to any of your opinions, as they might all be based on supposition as well and not fact.
kis mate i havent been in 1, driven 1 or raced 1. but from what iv heard of the cup ...........its just a 172 with the loss of a few things and a few xtra horses pulled from somewhere....much like the williams/16v
but you can ask all the people that turned up at york yesterday or the r/r day in bury last month........valvers , williams and 172s
at the r/r day the majority of the 172s were pulling the bhp figures of the old valvers maybe a little higher, on the strip they are pulling not far off the same times, e.g outkasts 15.9 to a few 172 s that were pullin 15.5 upwards
2 of the willys there yest were pulling high14s low 15s quite a bit quicker than the valvers and some 172s, and they are the 2 (probably)known fast ones only getting beaten by nicks nosd valver and tims very tweeked 172
so to say that the cup is going to be 2 secs quicker than that is IMHO unbelievable
i mean if it is then fair play.but until ive seen it first hand i dont believe it
hang on a minute, the cup is supposed to be 2 secs faster than a willy/172 on the 1/4mile?!
Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick there, but that does sound a bit extravagant. Would be great if its true, but where did you hear that?
there certainly wont be 2 seconds in it.. more like .4 of a sec.. that is simple math by the weight reduction of 89 kilos. (That presumes all other items are equal - driver weight, fuel load, driver ability)
and, Jon, by the vavlers, I presume you mean the 1800s ??.. they were not close to the 172s on the rolling road... ??
As for the times, the williams is lighter (apart from the rust build up due to the age lol)... but, in all honesty, there is no way that a std williams would be near (in 1/4 mile sense) a cup..
Joe..
Thankyou Capn! Now lets change the record Im bored now - lol
Oh and 2live - 14.41 - (0.4 secs over standard) was with the back bench out, front passenger seat out and my 15inch trackday alloys on so quite very possible me thinks! 14.8 is the out of factory book figure and we all know how inaccurate they are after a while - buy a cup mate ull love it (and Im not dis-ing the Williams - sacrilege!!!!!!) Just dont underestimate the new boy!!!!
slarty mate ...........theres no rust on mine lol
ask mat brown .........its got his seal of approval lol
mat wheres me sticker??????????
and the 2 seconds come from the 0-100 time quoted at 14.1 (i think)somewhere on this forum meaning its either gunna b about that for the 1/4 or its gunna b doing 100+ over the line which is a fukkin quik car....something the standard williams and 172 have no chance of beating....and a very tweeked 1 will struggle
all im saying is that a williams with same mods is about 1.1 secs quicker over the 1/4 than a valver
and i think best u can hope for is about 0.5-1 sec quiker in than standard 172 in a cup ............putting it still in williams territory maybe slightly quicker but there wont be as much in it as first thought i dont think
S2000
Jon mate a standard 172 will pi55 all over a standard 16v or even a slightly modded one (ask Nick Read as you say). And quoting Daves 15.9 against 172s (at York) 15.5s upwards... ask Dave how a 172 compares to his 16v (be honest Mr Goodyear
Quote: Originally p)osted by 2 live on 07 October 2002
kis mate i havent been in 1, driven 1 or raced 1. but from what iv heard of the cup ...........its just a 172 with the loss of a few things and a few xtra horses pulled from somewhere....much like the williams/16v
but you can ask all the people that turned up at york yesterday or the r/r day in bury last month........valvers , williams and 172s
at the r/r day the majority of the 172s were pulling the bhp figures of the old valvers maybe a little higher, on the strip they are pulling not far off the same times, e.g outkasts 15.9 to a few 172 s that were pullin 15.5 upwards
2 of the willys there yest were pulling high14s low 15s quite a bit quicker than the valvers and some 172s, and they are the 2 (probably)known fast ones only getting beaten by nicks nosd valver and tims very tweeked 172
so to say that the cup is going to be 2 secs quicker than that is IMHO unbelievable
i mean if it is then fair play.but until ive seen it first hand i dont believe it
SO THERE !
Your Lemoness - I must admit to being confused lol.......
if...
on paper a Willy should no way be as quick as a 172 - yet you are saying it is.
then surely he is disagreeing.. ?
and if
on paper a cup is faster than a 172 - yet you are saying it isnt
then again he is disagreeing ??
so..
if he has to MAKE UP YOUR MIND WHICH WAY ROUND IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
then can he have anovver choice pwease....
Joe..
wayne, never underestimate SOME of the willys out there, having raced jons on strip, and on road im sure it would beat any standard 172 having raced a few myself, it really is that quick, lve never been beaten by a 172. and there was one 172 at york yesterday that wanted a good f**kin cos it was letting the side down, thankfully no-one off here, but people in the crowd were like "thought they had over 170 bhp", he was getting f**ked by everthing, got beat by a rusty old gte nova. and as for your bad start and its over comment, i invite any 172, including the cup (but not tims) to have a race from 60mph upwards, doubt youll come past, at best youll keep up. now thats fact cos i have raced a few 172s. and a 1/4 mile is a very good test of a cars straight line ability
craggy
S2000
Craggy, dont get me wrong im not saying ANY Willy is slow let alone the specially good ones and im not saying I dont like them, I do, but I still think id beat any one of them from 60 over as you suggest or from a standing start unless I messed up the start. Shame you are a long way from me cos id love to compare whatever the result. I agree 1/4 mile is a good test of straight line ability (for testing out mods mostly) but if you cant get a good start that doesnt mean youve got a slow car does it, and its how fast it is on the road that matters to me thats why when I get to the strip I wont be stripping out the backseats and errr not much else to strip out really actually, cos on the road they will be in.
