What looks the MEANEST ! 172/valver

[Tucks]

<<<The front view of the Valver/Willy Swings it for me.

 

[JasperCTR]

Valver for me.

I agree that the 172s/182s look too similar to the std models in the range (although I can tell the difference I sometimes have to look twice), hence I bought a CTR 3 years ago.

Heres the requested pic from above the valver........ nice!

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/jasperctr/Clio16V2JP.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/jasperctr/Clio1.jpg

 

[davebem]

Quote: Originally posted by Si Griffiths on 20 April 2005

gotta be the valver 172 looks too bubbly and friendly to be mean

http://www.xtsystems.com/Si/mean.jpg

That car is mint, love it!

 

[Tom_16v]

No one posting pics of their mean 172s....

hehe!

 

[davebem]

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/Davebem/image066.jpg

 

[fUbAr]

Quote: Originally posted by midge on 20 April 2005

valver, 172 looks like every other clio in the range

i think valver...

even tho this ^ ^ is crap cos the Mk1 172 has as many visual differences from the rest of the range as the valver has. lol

 

[Ben H]

Ive already posted that I think the Valver/Willy look meaner and agree that the 172/182 look similar to the rest of the range (although thats part of the appeal for some).

That said, its because Renault now make "sport" models, which now look closer to the untrained eye to the real 172/182. Just look at the wheels on a Ph3 Dynamique - put my car and my mums together and the average joe has difficulty telling them apart.

Look more closely at the 172/182 and you will see that they do look the part though. The front arches and sills are definitely meaner - and when I park mine up next to the other halfs Authentique every night, theres no confusion over whose is whose car!

 

[Winston]

Quote: Originally posted by Daz on 20 April 2005


Haha.

172 Vs Valver/Williams.

Gotta love it..




Hahaha..these threads are ace!!!!!

VALVER

Mean as fooook!!

 

[coolspot007007]

Quote: Originally posted by fUbAr on 21 April 2005

Quote: Originally posted by midge on 20 April 2005

valver, 172 looks like every other clio in the range

i think valver...

even tho this ^ ^ is crap cos the Mk1 172 has as many visual differences from the rest of the range as the valver has. lol






But all Clio 2s lack the most important one, the bonnet bulge

Even a blind man on a galloping horse can spot that a mile off

 

[tomdbomb61_djtj]

i think the mark 1 172 from the front looks mean.



BUT

you cant get much better than the 16V for the mean as fook bonnet and the flared arches , hats off

 

[Red Valver]

Valver....pure p**n

 

[blink172]

I dont really see how you can compare them. It would be like comparing a Mk1 golf GTI and an R32. Both styled for different eras

 

[Jase16v]

^^^^ Well said

And obviously the Valver! but i would say that lol

 

[domn8]

Valver, but as much as I would hate to let it go, after my Valver I would probably look for a 172/182.... then again.. no I wouldnt Id just spend a few ks gettin it like new. Valver, maybe not faster but this poll is about meaner.

By comparison for its time would it have been quicker than 172/182??

 

[Tom_16v]

Quote: Originally posted by Red Valver on 21 April 2005

Valver....pure p**n

Exactly!

 

[TomS]

Quote: Originally posted by Tom_16v on 21 April 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Red Valver on 21 April 2005

Valver....pure p**n

Exactly!



LMAO!

Totally agree though!

 

[Ben H]

Quote: Originally posted by domn8 on 21 April 2005


By comparison for its time would it have been quicker than 172/182??








The 172 was probably the first of the recent rash of hardcore hot hatches (2000) - and 170bhp is still a lot more power in a little hatch than most other supermini manufacturers are doing in 2005.

The 16V was also pretty much the most hardcore of its day (1991). There werent really any direct competitors then in terms of power in the supermini class either. 140bhp doesnt sound like a lot now, but remember that even the 106 GTi and VTS of 1996 (5 years later) came with 120bhp.

Id say they were both at the top of their game in their respective eras. But neither was "quicker" for its time than the other.

[Edited by Ben H on 21 April 2005 at 4:43pm]

 

[clio_rt_1.4]

Valver

 

[JayR]

Valver all the way!!!

Taking nout away from the 172s as the car manufacturers need to keep going forward and modernising there cars but it dont cut it as mean/fast looking car........Its still nice but lets face it if although there not as quick in reality youd sooner get your average mondeo driver move over for a Valver/Willy than you would the more pretty 172!!!

 

[eves]

even though i love my 172 to death still think my old willy looked meaner

[Edited by eves on 21 April 2005 at 10:39pm]

[Edited by eves on 21 April 2005 at 10:45pm]

 

[eves]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/eves/mycar.jpg

 

[Andyvalver]

Looks loads meaner. Even with 172 wheels lol

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/Andyvalver-picture122.jpg

 

[Tom_16v]

^^^ lol!

They look class like that!

 

[JayR]

I want summa them wheels!!!

Suit a Valver better than Turinis do imo!!!

 

[Neil Petrol]

Since its about looking the MEANEST its gotta be the Valver... Not to say that 172/182 dont look good to though!