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!

Willy Advantage Over 16v


ive been trying to get a clear picture of what benefits a williams has over the 16v. basically its torque low down, its power band. in that case would a modified 16v (gasflowed, cams, chip) be able to do the 1/4 mile in the same time as a chipped williams then ? if they had the same bhp that is. ive seen a few ppl here have valvers around the 160/170 mark and i presume that a williams chipped would be the same. im saying this as the 1/4 mile dosent really involve the low down torque, so the rest of the band would be quite similar. whats the best time anyone has had from an orig 1.8 lump anyway ? im asking as my cars booked in for the work, and im considering trying it on 1/4 mile. the last thing is how much diff do 17" wheels make in a 1/4 mile run, everyone that possibly can change there wheels, it is a significant amount then ?

  mk2 172

well i doubt very much a 16v with stage 2 can touch a williams, when mine was standard i think nick will admit i caned him in his stage 2 form, although he was shod with 18s was closer when the nitrous was on tho. now i dont think ill race him in a hurry lol, then again if my latest plan comes together.......... in a year or so

i would have though an 150 bhp willy vs a 150bhp valver would be quite similar as they weigh the same (ish) and a although the willy has more torquethe valver has longer gearchanges

craggy, to be fair thou ures seems to thrash anything and everything, there seems no logical reason y a 16v wouldnt keep up imo, just wondered if anyone had a good explaination y that wouldnt be the case. as ppl have said before a willy with a bigger power band would be hard to keep up with coming out of corners depending on the revs of the gear u were in at the time, but apart from that a 16v with stage 2 should outstrip a willy standard any day i would assume, because of the higher bhp and a presume torque (i have seen no figures for torque thou after stage 2 work thou)

Does seem that the Williams engine are knocking out a fair bit more than the claimed 150bhp at the fly though. Think how quick Craggys to be more than 150bhp. Then there is Jon & Geds that got close on 150bhp at the wheels at the Bury RR day......15bhp more than my 172. Just wondering if maybe Renault were wrong about Willys having just 13bhp more than Valvers. Just an idea though.

Anyone else had their standard Williams RRd?

  mk2 172

like rhys said cse, there are a few more missile williams about, look at 2 lives, and geds power figures, also jons 1/4 mile times 14.8:eek: for almost standard.
  clio 20v

racin a vtr round the twisties the other day really showed the valvers lack of low-down torque ,coming out of the slow corners at 25-30 mph i had to wait till it hit 4k and then i reeled it in rapidly and it required lots of down changes to keep it in the top 3k revs whereas a willy would hav easily been able to overtake

point taken craggy, although there are always a certain amount of cars that overperform, renault seem to make this a speciality :) there are 172 and 16v that kick out power above there specs

and yeah, thru twisties a willy would always have it, just would have thought that a stage 2 16v should have a standard willy on a straight, bhp is higher, torque i assume is aswell, suppose that u just dont hear about the normal willys racing around, would be interested in finding one that is pushing 150 and compare it against a stage 2 16v, or a high performace willy or summat

I think my time is still the fastest for a 1.8 lump with only basic mods, i ran a 15.3 qtr and had an air filter, zorst and pbv. In standard form i was running 16.1

As for what difference 17s make, from experience id say around 0.3-0.5 second.
  20VT Clio & 9-5 HOT

Adam was that with 15s on mate? Ive put the phase 1s on for the winter and it seems quite a bit faster.

  Clio 197

I did a lap of the ring on the back bumper of a rally prepped Willy with my bone stock one. He was supposedly putting out 180+ HP but there was nothing in it on the straights and I was backing off in the twisty bits.

I was pleasantly surprised, but the other car amy have been a bit out of tune or something.

From 0-90 i have stayed exactly level with a williams on the straight. It was only when we hit 4th gear that the willy past me about 2 cars lengths in front. (and that was running 16s)

Ide say from my driving experience that a williams would surely have a 16v on the twisties, however on the straight i know that a williams has a tough time getting past the valver because of the lengendary powerband at 4000rpm.

Myself and Night.Icon should be up for a test when the weather gets better. Basically, John has chip, filter, exhaust n decat (John ?), I have filter, decat N chip, so in the mods department, we are fairly even. We shall see then.


What are the differences as far as the exterior goes? (obviously gold wheels and blue paint but what else?) Ive seen loads of valvers and im not sure if its cos theyre lowered but IMO they look better than the williams.

The only differences i know about of the exterior is the wheels as you said and the badges thats it, not only the williams bagdes but the 2.0 badge by the side indicators (also depends which model 1,2 or 3).

Renwill, that would be good to compare to get a rough estimate, but you will have more bhp as u both have the same mods, its just a question of how much u will lead i reckon

A Williams also has a wider steering rack and the brake discs are thicker!? - Well according to my sources they have!


(P.S. How comes my standard car apart from K&N Induction logged 169bhp on a rolling road up north last year at a Renault Sports Club day? - Every other car seemed to be getting realistic figures on the RR but mine? - Was the track dodgy for just my car? Is that possible? or has someone done something to my car I dont know about?)

Yep CSE, I take your point. Night.Icon has the exhaust advantage so it may make it a more even match. This is not a bitchy, mines better than yours deal, just a simple thing Night.Icon and I arranged as a comparison in answer to TOPGEAR saying the Williams is 1 second faster to 60 than the valver. Still, well have to wait until the weather improves.


The Williams did not have a wider steering rack or thicker brake discs. The majority of the mechanicals are from the car it was a special edition of - the Clio 16v.

It did have a 34mm wider front track than the 16v, which is why the wheels on a Willy fill the arches a bit more. This was partly done by using a different wheel offset. The gold Speedline wheels were also 0.5" wider than the 16vs Speedline Vega alloys. The Willy used Renault 19 16v front lower suspension arms and anti roll bar, with uprated shocks front and rear - although the rear suspension design was the same as the 16v.

The rest of the suspension and the brakes were the same as the 16v, as was the body (apart from badging).

Ive seen loads of standard Williams make near to 150bhp at the wheels, so Id guess they make about 170bhp at the fly - which is well above the standard quoted 150bhp. Ive also seen the same with the 16v, early Megane Coupe 2.0 and the Spider (which all use the F7 engine series). But Ive also heard of the same group of cars making below the quoted figure - a Megane 2.0 making 110bhp at the wheels, for example.

yeah, odd how some cars are really high on bhp, presume there are loads that are under, but i dont think anyone is gonna shout about that so its less known :)

bill, will be good to see if they are right on that then, ive never seen stats that show that.
  williams and trophy

yeah its weird about difrences in power,.......... but getting back to the original post lol

now mat brown has the fastest n/a valver that ive come across. but its a 2 litre transplant with hill power this n that cams etc. ........................... but its only the same as a standard willy (well mine anyway) so to get a valver as quick as a willy your lookin at spendin a hell of a lot of money, knowing u wont get ANY of it back on resale..........................


u can just put the money u were gunna mod ur valver with towards a willy, tune it a little n STILL get ur cash back(well a bigger part of it)if u decide to sell it and still be quicker than a higher modified valver.

all this is IMHO and in my own personal experience i would rather drive a willy, even a standard one, above a highly modified valver.



I guess its what floats your boat really. The whole tuning verus just buying a complete package will never stack up really well - but then look at what Nick Read is doing. Hell have a car that cost easily as much as a specd up Scooby and still wont have 4WD, but the machine hell have is almost unique and will provide far more ownership enjoyment that a Scoob. (y)

But I think whats being said is if you want to create a Willy replica then youre probably better off buying a Willy in the first place.

At the end of the day, the 16v is a cult hot hatch in its own right.

Thankfully its good enough and different enough to drive from the Willy to say theres a clear choice when it comes to the cars - i.e. do you want a high rev screamer or a torquey back road beast. Some people want to tune what they have - not necessarilly to make it into a Willy - and keep the high reviness that makes the Clio 16v what it is (Im one of them!).

Overall, the Williams is probably the more desireable car. But dont forget its essentially a special edition of the 16v!:D
  Clio 197

It would be interesting to know if there were any invisible body modifications to stiffen the shell. Thicker gauge steel, seam welding, more spot welds, or additional bracing for instance.

Many homologation specials have a lot of extra bits that you never see and are often not even mentioned in any brochure, but serve to amke the car stronger or more competitive.