why is the clio 172 slow

[Tom]

Something does not make sense here

Saxos are rubbish on paper compared to 172s but when you do sums like this its scary

is the 172 rev limit 7000rpm in 5th?

How is it possble for a car with rubbish aerodynamics and 32bhp down on the clio to do 140mph?

ps: if the rev limit was raised on the 172 to 8000rpm it could (in theory+on paper) do 162mph

 

[Tom]

Here you go

1st 36mph/7250rpm, 2nd 62/7250, 3rd 91/7250, 4th 116/7250, 5th 143/7250 or more likely 5th 121/6050

 

[Paul Freemantle]

Auto Car Taest Results on standard cars

Car Top Speed 0-60 0-100 30-70 bhp

Pug 106 122 8.2 23.9 7.7 120

Clio 172 137 7.1 17.9 7.0 172



Paul

 

[Tom]

there you have it Rich

they use gps timing gear so you is wrong

 

[rt172]

There is Autocar test results and then there is trying out in real life. Which do you think is more accurate?

 

[Tom]

test results

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by tomclio1.2 on 04 February 2003


Here you go

1st 36mph/7250rpm, 2nd 62/7250, 3rd 91/7250, 4th 116/7250, 5th 143/7250 or more likely 5th 121/6050

Are these for a 106 GTi or a Saxo VTS???

The ratios are different for the 2 cars, just wanna check you knew...



What "should" 130mph in 5th gear be revving at?!

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by tomclio1.2 on 04 February 2003


there you have it Rich

they use gps timing gear so you is wrong

They are not even correct to manufacturers figures?!

Summat wrong there...

 

[Tom]

? i got em from peugeot?

im not stupid i know the saxo\106 boxes are not the same

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by tomclio1.2 on 04 February 2003


? i got em from peugeot?

im not stupid i know the saxo\106 boxes are not the same

Just checking...

No offence!

 

[Tom]

Ok autocar figures are not wrong. they use the latest gps timing gear and incredible drivers.

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by tomclio1.2 on 04 February 2003

test results

But not from Autocar...

Why have other mags tested them in the mid 7s to 60 then?!

 

[rt172]

Didnt Autocar have the 172 down as something like 0-60 in 8.5 seconds until quite recently?!

 

[Tom]

Because(other mags) they are sh*te and dont test properly plus the car may not have been run in (just like the clio tested had not - it posted 0-60 in 6.6secs at the 0-100-0 day 3months after that test)

the only other way is to cross check figures with Auto und Motor sport in germany who test in simliar ways

 

[Craggy]

look at that, 1.1 secs slower to sixty and only 0.7 slower 30-70. as for tubs of sh*te lol

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by rhys172 on 04 February 2003

Didnt Autocar have the 172 down as something like 0-60 in 8.5 seconds until quite recently?!

Yeah...

I have an AutoCar test in front of me for the mk1 172 -

0-60 - 8.2secs
0-100 - 24.0secs
Speed - 127mph

So seems they have changed their minds?!

 

[Craggy]

if tom says there right there right rich, 172 faster 0-60 but the 1.6 powerplant overturns it through the gears he he

 

[Rich-D]

Craggy -

Get some pukka timing gear strapped to that VTS and PROVE this lot wrong!

We both know they are that quick...

 

[rt172]

Nah Rich-D, theyve not changed their minds. What happened is that ALL 172s used to be 0-60 in 8.2, then Autocar re-tested and they all received a sudden boost of power. Isnt that right, Tomclio, what with magazine tests ALWAYS being right and a substitute for real life

 

[Rich-D]

I see...

 

[KDF]

Just thought I would butt in to this intensive discussion

When I was looking for a new car I looked at both the 106 GTi and the Clio 172

This is what I came up with:

Pros for 106 GTi

1) Superior Handling
2) Cheaper Insurance

Pros for Clio 172

1) Good Handling
2) Faster than 106 GTi in a striaght line every time (106 Gti was not whipped, but was beaten confidently everytime)
3) The standard equipment level and build quality was far superior to that of the 106 (all this extra stuff like climate control and its still faster)
4) Safety levels which I believe to be better than the 106
5) 106 GTis were just a bit too common for my liking (too boyracerish)
6) Still returns good MPG
7) there were loads of other pros but I cant remember now cause it was a few months ago that I bought the car now.

 

[SHORTY]

look lads just put it down to the 106 gti and the saxo are a load of boll**ks
times this times that, f**k em, send them to the other forums where they can bullsh*t about each other tubs of sh*t

as far as i concerned the 172 is the car for me , maybe i will fit some performance parts and destroy every f**ker insight

by the way i had 140mph from my car, i didnt belive it but it was there in front of me, as for the dick head with the 106 gti145mph, year right
the next thing he will be telling me is that he broke the f**king sound barrier

long live the 172 crew

Shorty

 

[172@18]

1ST

3RD CLIO 172 2ND

106 GTI VTS

AND THATS THAT lol

 

[SHORTY]

nice one KDF for the information, as for butting in dont worry we need more people with good things to say, and you have hit the nail on the head,

well done mate

mailto:cr172@18">cr172@18 top one mate thats the way to get the message across
wicked

hey maybe all the clio172 owners can get together and have a slaughter of 106 gti /saxo vts day in the near future

that would be wicked

cheers shorty

 

[Craggy]

lol @ this guy, maybe you should go to the dreamers forum iv been here a while if your referring to me as someone to go else where



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

[No.6]

And Ive been here from whenever I first registered with this bizzare user name!

Rhys

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

[Ben H]

We could all produce endless test figures to trump each previous set of figures...

...for my part Id like to add the 1991 Autocar test of the Clio 16v that gave it 0-60 in 7.3, 30-70 in 7.1 and *better figures* all round than both the (particulalry dodgy) 172 and 106 GTi tests...

But I know that the 172 is quicker than the 16v and that its just too close to call between the 16v and 106 GTi. Thats not to do with figures - its practical experience.

People can argue until they go blue in the face that a 106 or VTS is going to get slaughtered by a 172 - but the video evidence, courtesy of Craggy, confirms otherwise (at least in a straight line).

I used to think that the 106/VTS duo werent worthy of comparison with the 172/16v/Willy. But Ive opened my mind - and I suggest other people do too.

 

[SHORTY]

now now let not get personal
there is a kiddy where iam from and he got a 106 gti and thinks it a rocket ship

what car have you got , why would someone be involved with clio sport
website if they got a 106gti or a saxo

dont get it

shorty

 

[Craggy]

that is bizzarre

 

[Craggy]

cos i have a williams as well

 

[SHORTY]

all i got to say is the 172 will destroy a 106gti and a saxo vts

 

[Ben H]

Craggy - post the vids of the VTS and the 172.

I have no agenda to push here as I drive a 16v.

 

[Nick Read]

Shorty - Craggy has the Cliosport credentials, you just need to have been around a little longer to realise why. His Willy is undergoing major restoration work so he runs around in a VTS until the insurance runs out.

IMHO - the VTS is fairly quick but I wouldnt say in the same league as a 172, its basically a short geared sprint car, as a lot of hot hatches are these days, 0-60 is what people want, so it doesnt matter if it cant do 130 on the motorway, as long as it cracks 0-60 in 7-8 seconds.

Personally I dont believe a standard VTS or 106GTi can do a genuine 130 anything, let alone 140+

At these sort of speeds all you need is half decent aerodynamics and POWER. Doesnt matter how quick you can get to 60 through low final drive/gearing or light weight, if you havent got the outright power then you wont run a decent top speed. Theres certainly an argument for saying who cares if you cant do 130-140, as long as youre quick over the sprints. Who honestly does that sort of speed anyway? I cruise at around 100-120 on the motorway, on a clear road, any more just costs huge amounts in fuel and is tricky if theres anyone else on the road.

Not that Im saying that I love Saxos. But VTS and 106GTi are quite quick, not as quick as a 172, but not as slow as some people think. Most VTS/GTi owners do seem to think they drive rocket ships though!

 

[Craggy]

dont know the link now ben, although my saxo is 3 seconds faster to 100 now since then. and iv drove it more. against paddys too(152bhp @ wheels), i wouldnt mind a go at another

 

[SHORTY]

thanks nick for putting me in the picture, i dont want to come across as a tw*t , but it just pisses me off when people think there car are something
there not.

just like all the kids around my way with 106 gti blasting up and down the
motorway thinking they have rocket ships.

cheers shorty

 

[adiclio16v]

i wouldnt mind another go against the saxo craggy

i wouldnt mind seein wot it makes on the rollers too, an somemore ap-22 testin needs to be done

adi

 

[Simon]

Would be interesting to compare the cars over the QTR mile from standing start. Anyone got a computer image of their runs.

Lets have a show of QTR mile results with car modification details and see what sort of figures we get.

 

[CUPSTAR]

The other evening on that itv program like top gear it had the cup, the 106 and the vts and the overall winner was the vts...of course clio quicker, 106 better build quilty but the vts was the overall winner.....the 172 is a fab car as is the 106 and saxo but im not being negative but a 140mph + genuine speed is just not possible from those 1.6 engines the gearboxes just wont take it....please note before anyone come on and sl*gs me off i did say a genuine time. Saxos are good cars and very nippy but too common, 106 better quality than the vts but slower..and the 172 in a league of its own..maybe saxos owners are becoming a bit niffed now there times are coming to a end!!!! VTRs though are just poo!!!

 

[Viv172]

The simple fact is that no one likes to think theyve spent their hard earned cash on a dud, and if trashing every other hot hatch is their way of justifing their choice then they will, its human nature, regardless of the facts. So let em say what they want, they will convince them selves they are right, so its pointless arguing.... just quietly thrash em if they get to close!!!

VTS and 106 are good cars, Ive driven both along with all sorts of hot hatches since the golf gti, but I can honestly say Ive never driven a hot hatch quite like the 172 (or am I just justifing my car!!! )

 

[local]

Right just thought I would put a opinion in as well, I have raced all three cars in question in my 1600 16v not from a standing start but 30mph- onwards, my conclusion

106 Gti- Got beat but wasnt a great deal in it.

Vts- once again got beat he pulled a couple of cars lengths away then no more.

172- Got whopped, i think he did infact make me his b**ch

I think i need a faster car! 3 losses, nightmare