What's new
By:
ClioSport.net

This is a sample guest message. 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.

Which is Quicker? - Mk2 Ph1 Clio Renaultsport or Clio Williams

danzman1991

danzman1991

Hi,

I was just wondering.. In the real world - which is quicker, a Mk2 Ph1 Clio Renaultsport or a Clio Williams?

Parkers says the Mk2 Ph1 does 0-60 in 7.0 seconds and has 200nm of Torque, however has no figures for the Williams..

I did find this website (http://www.performance-car-guide.co.uk/clio-williams.html) which says the Williams will do 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and has 175nm of torque however I'm unsure how accurate these figures are?

Just a thought!

Thanks,
Dan.
 
My williams was s**t slow. Slower than a stock 172 by a fair margin. Felt quick, but really wasn't. 172 is both faster and quicker...but then ironically alot of the Williams are quicker up the strip. Never figured that one out myself.
 
My 172 is quicker than my old Williams, but not by a huge margin. I'd say the Williams was a sweeter drive, and will hold good value if you buy a good one.
 
williams on the 1/4mile and track are very quick, especially when piloted by northern folk, even now they show the 172/182/V6/197/200/225/230 gang who's boss

great fun, shame about the rust
 
I have found they are about the same. I've had a Williams, 172 and 182. In the 172 I raced Northy (Williams 3, did have an exhaust, panel filter and 4-2-1 manifold though and my 172 was standard) on the motorway various times to quite high speeds and there wasn't much in it.
 
Pres said:
Them torque figures are wrong btw, should be 150ish for the ph1 and less for Williams
Click to expand...

Newton Meter's - 200

Pounds ft torque - 147 lb-ft

Hes not wrong, you on the other hand, well, the failure is strong.
 
My willy felt stronger, but in reality there was no difference... I think it just felt quicker because its a tin can!
 
Shorter ratios and lower rev limit make it feel quicker but there's certainly no difference.
 
? The figures are widely available, look in either Evo or Autocar magazines M8 (and look out for tests they've carried out rather than what the manufacturer says, although it is sometimes misleading, e.g. if it was a wet day when the car was tested).

Ph1 is a second quicker to 60. Although TBH not sure that's a huge difference, not really that big a difference any ways.
 
Rob669 said:
? The figures are widely available, look in either Evo or Autocar magazines M8 (and look out for tests they've carried out rather than what the manufacturer says, although it is sometimes misleading, e.g. if it was a wet day when the car was tested).

Ph1 is a second quicker to 60. Although TBH not sure that's a huge difference, not really that big a difference any ways.
Click to expand...


yeah was gona say nearly a second to 60 quicker but its all down to the pilot
 
Ah, my thinking was that they were fairly similar and that it's mostly down to the driver to determine which is quicker..

Regarding the torque figures, I've never understood lb-ft, Newton Metres ftw!
 
Willys are a lot quicker with a higher rev limit and a de-cat mind, 0-60 is in the 6's with a higher limit
 
Ali said:
My williams was s**t slow. Slower than a stock 172 by a fair margin. Felt quick, but really wasn't. 172 is both faster and quicker...but then ironically alot of the Williams are quicker up the strip. Never figured that one out myself.
Click to expand...

aye..but your williams was a shitter........plus you cant drive for s**t ;)

williams all day long ...........proved countless times.
 
Fred@BTM said:
williams on the 1/4mile and track are very quick, especially when piloted by northern folk, even now they show the 172/182/V6/197/200/225/230 gang who's boss

great fun, shame about the rust
Click to expand...

and wel have a less ;)


rust just makes them weigh less.........and as we all know.......less weight......more speed lol
 
Brother has a Williams (standard) apart from cat-back exhaust well looked after.
It's pretty quick but feels faster than it actually is because its so tinny.
My 172 is however is definetly quicker in a straight line (cat-back) only. Saying that my 172 is just as quick as the 182 I used to own. (Sold 182 to free up cash at the time).
 
So just by raising the Rev Limiter and with a De-Cat, a Williams can do 0-60 in 5 and a bit seconds on the standard clutch/gearbox? Surely not?
 
2 live said:
aye..but your williams was a shitter........plus you cant drive for s**t ;)

williams all day long ...........proved countless times.
Click to expand...

lol! true, but it was book BHP. And still slow! And yours is also a bucket. all 15 of them! ;) 5's to 60....aye aye! ;)
 
danzman1991 said:
So just by raising the Rev Limiter and with a De-Cat, a Williams can do 0-60 in 5 and a bit seconds on the standard clutch/gearbox? Surely not?
Click to expand...

i have to agree lol ... nearly 2 seconds off the proven figure ... maybe the 5 and a bit seconds was on the rollers ...to get mid 5,s i reckon it would need to in and around 300bhp
 
I'm actually glad I don't own a williams anymore - they're like 50 times faster than a cup and could give concorde a run for its money don't you know..

Raise the limiter fit decent tyres and yes they're a little quicker but it doesn't lose 2 f**king seconds off its 0-60 times christ! I really do hope I didn't spout s**t when I owned mine.
 
well a quick williams will do the 1/4 mile in 14sec dead (at about 100mph) no 172/182 will get near that without work
 
the 5.6 was timed at york....still have the printout somewhere.


and yes...raised limiter will allow you to hit 60 in 2nd gear instead of 3rd. even in std trim the car was timed......on a bad run i might add.....at 7.01....so a second and 1/2 with a gear change less.....very feasible.....btw..the 7.01 was at brunters with its shite surface for pgti magazine shootout, with gps..... argue the case with them too.....
 
For reference, my old willy engined mk1 16v had an exhaust, filter and chip, and ran 0-60 in 5.22 timed at York, and I ran it down the Pod doing 14.0 @ 100mph about a million times lol

I think my Clio now is about as punchy, but I needed ITB's to do it, and I know I wont ever get it to 60 as quick. hoping for the same 1/4
 
Russ_16v said:
For reference, my old willy engined mk1 16v had an exhaust, filter and chip, and ran 0-60 in 5.22 timed at York, and I ran it down the Pod doing 14.0 @ 100mph about a million times lol

I think my Clio now is about as punchy, but I needed ITB's to do it, and I know I wont ever get it to 60 as quick. hoping for the same 1/4
Click to expand...

5.22s to 60, WTF.......!!!>?
 
I've had 3 ph1 172's, and 2 williams. To this day i'd still say the williams is slightly quicker through the gears to the rev limiter in 5th... i've only had 1 ph1 that'd hit the rev limiter in 5th, and that took alot of autobahn(about 4 miles!) but the williams i own now will hit the rev limiter in 5th within 1.5 miles from stationary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Resurrecting a Ph1 Clio 2 (non-RS) in South Africa
Replies
2
Views
3K
Razmann4k
R
R
New Clio 200 EDC member
Replies
27
Views
15K
James
James
B
Clio MK2 - no spark. Need advice
Replies
8
Views
5K
Morefire
M
T
Clio 172 ph1 - budget track car
Replies
0
Views
2K
theman.e4
T
Une_Baguette
My first car! Clio 1.2
Replies
1
Views
2K
imprezaworks
imprezaworks
Back
Top