Well... the 172 is as quick as the V6

[Rich-D]

Tonight (courtesy of my mate who owns our local Renault garage) we went out and had a little play with the various models of RenaultSport Clios, to see how they compare.

We ran a mk1 172, a mk1 V6, a mk2 172 and a Cup all against each other on some superb A & B roads and then used an AP-22 to get some rough figures too.

We were suppossed to have Captian in his mk2 172, a Civic Type-R (would have been interesting) and an Ibiza Cupra (1.8 20v T) too, but they couldnt make it this time. However, we shall be doing some more in the future...

The mk1 just got trounced by all the other 3 all night, but the rest of them were surprisingly close.

The best part of the whole night was the fact that the Cup (with less than 100 miles on it) and the mk2 172 (about 8000 miles on) were virtually as quick as the V6 (quite a lot of miles on) and we got the figures to prove it!

Figures from AP-22:

Clio 172 mk1:

0-60 - 7.1secs
0-100 - 21.2secs


Clio 172 mk2:

0-60 - 6.34secs
0-100 - 17.07secs


Clio Cup:

0-60 - 6.67secs
0-100 - n/a


Clio V6 mk1:

0-60 - 6.25secs
0-100 - 16.57


We were impressed when the mk2 172 ran a 0-60 just 0.42secs slower than the V6, but when the 0-100 time was a mere 0.5secs slower we were gob smacked!!!

The Cup was not too far behind either for 0-60, but we had to abandon the tests and so never got a better 0-60 run in and a cr@p 0-100 run in, so no real figures, just the general feel and the "on the road" comparison to go off really.

The "on the road" comparison showed that the Cup is deffo as quick as the V6 as well, no doubt.

Drove the Cup most of the night (I was hogging it), then the Mk2 on the way home (to get a good comparison) and they are different in more ways than youd think.

The Cup is similar performance to the mk2 172 in a sprint start, but get it rolling and the mid range punch and top end are just superb. It just picks up so well in the higher gears at speed and just stuck to the V6 like glue. Once its run in then I have no doubt that we are talking about some serious piece of kit!

Handling wise, the mk2 is better than the mk1 too (better steering) and is a very nice drive, but the Cup just has a slightly different feel and is more responsive and twitchy (cant think of the right words) on the steering and the feedback is excellent, great sharp turn in, something that makes it excting to drive.

As for the question about the seats being cr@p, well thats b0ll0x, they are great, comfy & supportive and I found the driving position fine at 6 3" tall, with my size 12s, so most people aint gonna have any trouble.

The toss up between a Cup and a mk2 172 is a close one to call. Both are great cars and offer different things, but I can feel myself edging towards the Cup...


p.s. I am still buzzing after all that!!!

 

[teady172]

Theres no way in this world a MK2 172 will do 60 in 6.3 s, as much as I would like to claim it could! I just dont trust the AP unless fully setup!

Regarding the Cup feeling stronger at higher revs, this just seems strange to me. I dont doubt your findings however, it only leads me to think that indeed the engine has been tweaked. Reduced weight will only really affect the initial get away, as the speed increases over 100 weight isnt reallly an issue!

How did the V6 feel over 100, surley it had a lot more punch?

P.S Ya jammy git!!!!!

 

[Jonathan]

Sob Sob, poor old Mk1, but surely at 4 secs down to 100 it must have been a bit poorly or a bit of a duffer !

 

[Infinicar]

Rich, interesting results. Some pretty fair conclusions drawn there. Im sure it will generate some interesting responses.

However, my standpoint doesnt change. If I am to replace my Williams for another Clio in the future, the engine will not be in front of me.

Paul

 

[geoff_clio182]

I really wish I could believe those figures but there is no way a MK2 is nearly a second quicker than a MK1! Jas and I have had many a put a foot down when Ive been following him and there really is nothing in it. Either you had a exceedingly quick MK2 or a MK1 with a diesel engine in!

 

[Rich-D]

Dont forget, these figures are only a rough guide and not to be taken to the letter.

As for that mk1, it has never been quick and my old 106 GTi was just as quick (this is that one Teady), which we proved on several occasions. Needless to say, the owner was not happy.

What we need is a known "good" mk1 to run a fair comparison. Anyone in the NW area, near Captain?!

Also, it is a fact that the engines are NOT the same in a Cup as a normal 172, there are both mechanical differences and a re-mapped ECU. Even the review in Auto Express (I think its that one) mentions the ECU is different.

Ive got the pukka glossy Cup literature sat in front of me too (not many of them about) and there is stuff like a roll cage, bucket seats & harnesses on the options list too!

 

[teady172]

Is yer mates MK1 an import form Belgium by chance?

Does the brochure mention any performance mods?

 

[Rich-D]

Teady -

Why, what is special (or not) about Belgium ones?!

Its wierd because it does not run well on Optimax?!


As for performance mods, I assume you mean for the Cup?! If so, yes & no.

It says you can specify items to make it into a race-ready package, which "include" items such as -> carbon-metallic brakes, a 6 or a 10 point roll-cage, a fire extinguisher, safety harnesses, full race seats.

Its not a definitive list, that will be a separate piece of literature, similar to the Peugeot Sport catalogue that Pugs get.

 

[teady172]

Some Belgian imports are 166BHP.

My car flies on Optimax!

 

[forest172]

that mk1 must be knackered. Mine did 1/4 at my first attempt in 15.1something seconds and reached 93mph, at santa pod.

 

[Rich-D]

Well... that could explain a lot then!

It is an import, of "unkown" origin and has never been as quick as I/we reckon it should be.

Anyway we can tell?!

 

[teady172]

Im sure there is some marking on the engine. Look for any KW reading that does not match 124KW(cant remember exactly what tho!)

 

[Rich-D]

Gonna have to check it out then...

He was *not* happy though and the words "for" & "sale" cropped up more than once!

This is the car that initialy put me and a couple of others off the 172s, but luckily I have been priviliged enough to drive various examples, so realise it aint a true representation.

As my friend Teady here knows only too well after many a heated debate on a different forum!

 

[teady172]

You must admit then a well run good 172 would cain a VTS 106 GTi then!

 

[Rich-D]

Lets not start that one again...

 

[MarkB]

Youve definitely got a dodgy Mk1 172 there - there is no way there is that sort of difference between the cars - even if it was 166 instead of 172, there still wouldnt be neat that sort of difference - it is definitely a duffer.

Also, I dont believe the V6 vs Mk2 comparisons - i.e. almost the same - having driven a V6 for the first time last week it is in a different league - there is no way you were driving it anything near its potential as it would wipe the floor with all the other motors there, it really is a totally idfferent car... Get Neil172 to take you out for a spin in his V6... then state the above!!!!

Are you going to the RR in Bury in September Rich ?? If so I will be there with my Mk1 172, so we could do some figures for it then if you like.

 

[Sangy]

Regarding the Cup, I have been promised a brochure by R-Sport by my sales chap at Renault. In the standard Cup brochure it details the race pack which includes harnesses nad race seats as well as a chocie of roll cages. The R-Sport catalogue details all the performance mods that are available and are covered by warranty. id be more than happy to make a few copies ( courtesy of the works copying machine! ) or post the details up here if anyone was interested?

Rich :- I was one of the worst people for moaning about the seats but having taken a Cup for a test drive yesterday I also dont think they are as bad as everyone made out.

 

[BenR]

i work for renault and here are the facts.

166 is basically what all 172s come out the factory with. ours do, yours do, frances do!

our cars are UK spec.....and i have tested the clio to the same 166bhp.
172 is factory results i.e. perfect conditions, but its nothing to worry about. fuel ratings have a fairly big influence and UK Mon rating is lower than frances etc etc, we have 98 standard. Renault account for this in their programming....and it does have its drawbacks....the knock sensor can only do so much, and they break, so you can rely on it fully to check for mon rating.

As for the V6, its good but not that good. I test drive them all the time after works been carried out (i kinda hustle a 172 around at the same pace. Accel is good, but not good enough, hog them). And sincei have been racing for 12 yrs, i like to think i know what goin on. Compared to the 172, its not much differnce and i could probably handling is absolutely piss poor for the spec it carries and in some ways, down right dangerous! the 172 is much more balaned and preditable. only place you could possibly exploit the V6 is on a track. Sorry guys if ive disappointed you....i would still have the V6 though...just for the box and noise!!

 

[Rich-D]

MarkB -

Not sure if Im going to the RR, but if I do then would love to get some proper times for a good mk1.


- - - - -


Sangy -

Get that photocopier going mate!


- - - - -


BenR -

I agree with your comments about the V6.

 

[BenR]

DOH!
last paragraph should read:

"As for the V6, its good but not that good. I test drive them all the time after works been carried out (i kinda hog them) Accel is good, but not good enough. And since i have been racing for 12 yrs, i like to think i know whats goin on. Compared to the 172, theres not much differnce and i could probably hustle a 172 around at the same pace. handling is absolutely piss poor for the spec it carries and in some ways, down right dangerous! the 172 is much more balaned and preditable. only place you could possibly exploit the V6 is on a track. Sorry guys if ive disappointed you....i would still have the V6 though...just for the box and noise!!"

dunno why the sentances got screwed up!!

 

[Sangy]

Just received a call from the Sales bod at Renault who has said that the R-Sport catalogue has been delayed as they are still validating the parts

They are aiming to release it at the same time as the first Cups come into the Showrooms which is early September.

 

[Simon172]

Rich-D - was that the mk.1 that youve driven on track days etc with the cone airfilter?

 

[Rich-D]

Yeah, that is the same car.

 

[Rich-D]

Ok, have had the AP-22 at work today and we ran the Civic Type-R at lunchtime...

0-60 - 6.54secs
0-100 - 13.54secs


Now, dont start getting all upset people as we do NOT know how accurate that is!

But... AFAIK it was all setup correctly with the weights, CDa, etc... all right, so will look when I connect it to the laptop later and analyse them.

It did feel fookin quick though!

 

[Jock_071279]

no offence mate but every review ive seen of the mk2 172 have never had a sub seven second 0-60 ..... i for one would love to believe u but im just not conviced .... maybe if u had someone like captian slarty there then it would be easier to swallow

Jock

 

[duckson]

Theres been a few with sub 0-60 runs.

BTW it was my Civic...how accurate the run is i dont know!

In real world terms there isnt going to be alot (not really noticeable when driving) between mk2 172, Cup and CTR in speed.

 

[Dan K]

those results seem to make alot of the motorpress results wrong. Mk1 in EVO has a 6.6 0-60 and the mk2 slightly slower at 7.2( i think), so even the mk1 was driven badly or as mentioned above it was shagged.

Myn is not shagged and it totally flys

 

[Rich-D]

Jock_071279 -

Well, you aint read much then...

Evo quotes 0-60 in 6.6secs for a 172 for starters, then the AutoCar review of the Cup has that down at 6.5secs I believe, so I have no doubts about those times!

Captain is the guy that owns the AP22 and he set the thing up before I used it, so are you saying theyre wrong?!


- - - - -


Dan K -

Dont forget that with different cars, different drivers and different conditions, they cannot be taken literally, I did say this earlier!

That mk1 is not right, weve always know that...

 

[Jock_071279]

evo qoutes 0-60 in 6.6 for MK1 172 not the the mk2 172 !! i do not question any other time apart from the MK2 time ..... im sure im not the only one.

 

[Rich-D]

Hey, thats what the AP22 says mate...

It was fookin quick for a mk2 though and nearly as quick as the V6 on the road too.

 

[Dash]

Sounds like you had a great fun filled evening.

I just did some calculations too.

The V6 rear wheel weights as much as a whole MK2 172.

The V6 twin exhaust weights 3 times more than a Clio Cup.

The V6 is just like a MK1 172 but is poorly with a bad case of Mumps.

So the results where as I expected.


Qoute MarkB :

"there is no way you were driving it anything near its potential as it would wipe the floor with all the other motors there, it really is a totally dfferent car..."

Quite.

 

[Jock_071279]

i know u have no reason to lie about the results ... u dont own a mk2 172. Do u ?? its just when u hear and read reviews where proffessional race car drivers have driven cars and get 0-60 times of 7.2 etc.... u start to believe that. Then when someone comes along and says they beat that by nearly a second it makes u wonder why the race car drivers couldnt do it in the first place so its hard to believe.... but i am aware that so much gos into what a 0-60 time can be ....weather conditions, fuel, tyres, mileage... i guess thinking about it it may not seem that impossible

 

[Adam Munn]

I think my screens broke!

Its telling me that according to the ap22 that the civic did a 0-100 of 13.5 well i know my evo does 0-100 in 13.5 so im thinking that you are wrong or you mis-typed????

Am a bit dubious as to a 172 recording a 6.3 0-60 was the car standard? Im starting to agree with teady that these ap22s are inaccurate

 

[Rich-D]

I said it before and Ill say it again...

Do NOT take those times literally as we dont know how accurate these AP22s actually are!

All I know is that on the road, driving them head-to-head, then there are no times & figures, only real results!

 

[Simon172]

Well, I think that the cone filter on the mk.1 would account for the lack in performance, as the original airbox is fine (hence, designed by renault etc.). So, problem solved, you have proved that the AP22 is innacurate (13.5 seconds to 100).

 

[teady172]

JOCK

It is plausable that the MK2 has a sub seven 60 run, maybe not that quick tho. Check out yer Autoexpress figures! 0-6- - 6.7!!!

Anyway that AP is not set up correctly -
FACT!

Ive got one and dont rate it all!

 

[teady172]

Or even 0 - 60 6.7!

 

[Jock_071279]

im looking at a mk2 cliosport autoexpress review and it says 7.1 !!??!!

i went to roadtest->archive-> renault

 

[Nick Read]

hehe theres a whole can of worms here...I just cant believe that any standardish or standard 172 will do low 6s of any kind. Theyre quick but not that quick. The 0-100 in 13.5 seconds is bloody quick and sounds well off the mark. If that is a true reading then I wanna see it 1/4 mile - with that kind of acceleration Id be surprised not to see a 12 or 13 second 1/4 mile time. And anyone who goes quarter miling knows that that is a bloody incredible time for a road car.

As Ive said plenty of times before, there is no substitute for head to head quarter miling with proper external timing gear. An onboard accelerometer is no substitute although can give good before and after comparisons when youre modding just the one car, just like a rolling road cannot be an absolute way of comparing two cars but only a way to test before and after on the same car.

Ive seen plenty of supposed quick 0-60 cars get toasted over the 1/4 mile by cars that genuinely were fast. Theres a lot less chance of messing up, variability if you will, like on a 0-60 run.

On 0-60 runs you can lose a second or two easily by a not quite perfect start or gearchange etc. Over the longer quarter mile test, or even the 0-100 this isnt so much of a factor.

 

[teady172]

Why the hostility, I can show you the review if you want!