Brun

And a sound track to die for i assume?

Dark Blue Mark

Oh yes, they do sound loud!

MB

chrisp

My WRX came with 276bhp, extras it has

Panel Filter £50
Fuel Pump £200
Ecutek remap £750
Exhaust(centre and bb) £400

total performance spend £1400

320bhp @ 7100 about 2 months ago


So not exactly a fortune to get to a fair level of performance

chris n`nic

This is true m8...you can`t compare modding a turbo and a NA car...just up the boost and you are flying. The biggest difference mod wise with mine was the rsport ecu which added practically no bhp but seemed to spread the power out so that it doesn`t drop like a rock at higher revs (8000rpm in 4th gear b4 limiter kicks in)

My mods were:


BMC induction kit = £150
Rsport ECU = £240
Decat/exhaust = £260

This improved my 1/4 mile time from high 14`s to 14.1@97.5 mph which is ain`t bad for a fwd motor!

p.s. Sorry if I`ve rambled but I`ve just got in and I have made some alcholic mods to myself tonight!

night all

Chris

Midmotorsteve

what do 172's weigh?

don't worry found it off cliosport

Maximum power 124 Kw ISO
172 bhp DIN
(at 6250 rpm)
Maximum torque 200 Nm ISO
20.7 mkg DIN
(at 5400 rpm)
WEIGHT
ClioSport weighbridge tested vehicle weight 1120 kgs
0-100 kph / 0-62 mph 6.9 secs
Maximum speed 138 mph
220 kph
Drag coefficient 0.36 Cx

any way read this with interest so :

6.9 to 60 mph that isn't fast, 1120kg that isn't a light weight either, my mr2 is only 140 kg heavier don't see how these can be as fast as people claim.

yet to see one on the road, but i'd be really shocked if it could keep up (mr2 exhaust, filter & g-valve @ 15psi, 260bhp) which i think of down the carrageway as about the same speed as a classic scoob with similar mods.

bhp per ton would be :

clio 172bhp 1120kg = 153 (standard)
classic WRX 215?bhp 1213kg = 177 (standard)
stock MR2 tub 220bhp 1260kg = 174 (standard) putting mr2 in 'cause thats what i have and i'm interested to see how it should fair

if we mod them filter exhaust (boost increase for turbo) ECU for the clio

Clio @ 195 bhp?? = 174
classic @ 260 bhp = 214
MR2 @ 260 bhp = 206

so.. scooby would have greater transmission losses 4wd but is well ahead anyway, i really can't see how driven by the same driver a clio can be as fast as the owners say they are. Just thought i'd use figures / calculation because the biggest variable on any car is the driver.

won't even mention torque as we all know the turbos will have about 100lbs more

Daz34

Mk1 1035kg
Mk2 1110kg
Cup 1011kg

Midmotorsteve

cheers was editing

zoog

I refer you all to the old thread entitled "Humiliated by clio cup".

chrisp

Classic WRX is anything from 220ps to 280ps

Classic UK turbo is 208bhp from my94-my98 and my99-00 215bhp

Midmotorsteve

god just looked up the weight for a current WRX 1470kg god they have got fat !!!
to have the identical power to weight as a stock clio they'd need 225bhp, don't know what stock bhp is...

l3wyy

I've been there, down the M11 in a standard Sti8 and going with a slightly mod'd 182, it was a case of just past and then had to go to 145 just to get head way. I 'upgraded' from a Mark Fish mod'ed Mk1 172 and it was quick and with the roll cage round Bedford Autodrome against the 1.6 and 1.8 lotus elise's it played hard expecially on the back straight. The scoob in my eyes is an equal for fun but has the benefit of the 4WD and I just love filling the **** pit up with clutch . Remember theres a lot of difference between the original 172 and the new edition, If I could find a low mileage MK1 172 again, I'd get a charger fitted for one and get Mark Fish to sort out the geometry again. My wife always wonders why I got shot of the little beast, but she loves the Scooby even more. Hope that helps defuse the situation - at the end of the day with performance and dragging away, all it needs is a slow reaction and the guy next door in a 1987 Escort can leave me at the lights!

chrisp

Thats the WRX STI and has 261bhp, the WRX is 1395kgs and has 223bhp, the extra weight came in at the version 2 MY01 to add a 150kgs safety cell.

My WRX is an MY00 WRX RA

Weighes 1240kgs
Power is 320bhp

Power to weight is 258bhp/1000kgs

Midmotorsteve

safe to say you wouldn't expect a clio 172 to keep up then

Dr Evo

Lol.....I know which one Id rather be in....... At least the Scoob looks like a perfomance car and has great street presence....the clio looks like the neighours Micra.......feels like a womans car....nippy all the same.......but very boring.

davyboy

The Clio Cup cost me 10k and does not need "any" money spending on it to make it a great car at the ring.

I had a WRX....and spent money on it, and the Clio is still the better 'ring car.

Pastor

The Clio Cup isn't boring, it does look like a shopping car however but at the price who cares?
I'd have one like a shot if it wasn't for my concerns on build quality and longevity. Instead I bought a classic Impreza and spent a few hundred quid modding it. Interestingly it seems faster in a straight line drag than the Clio's I've run against but would I have the clio in the 'TWISTIES"? I doubt it.

davyboy

....but surely you classic impreza does not come with a 3 year warranty?

Pastor

It didn't have a 3 yr warranty- it does however have a "Proven" Subaru warranty which judging by the experiences of others I won't need. In any case I imagine a chip and exhaust have invalidated it.

My concerns over the Clio are related to the fact it's built by French drunkards and knowing my luck I'd get a 'Friday afternoon' car. Not the worlds most reliable or well built cars which is a real shame as I think they offer fantastic performance and fun for the cash. Almost a proper hot hatch in the old skool sense which has to be a good thing.

I don't fancy spending half my life returning to a dealer who doesn't give a toss over niggling faults.

Mitchy260

Clio's aren't as light as you think.

172 on a weighbridge with full tank of petrol an NO driver weighed 1120kg. With driver and your looking at 1200Kg

I suppose that probably goes with scoobs aswell. 1450kg dry, add driver and fuel/oil/water load and 1600kg

jonc

Why does everyone seem to resort to "its French so it must be crap" attitude whenever they can't find any thing else to slag off about. I had a Clio172 for over 2 years, and it didn't miss a beat and was very reliable. Build is no worse that any other car of this price.

It must be a great feeling going hell for leather in your Scooby only to find that you can't easily get away and in some cases beaten by a Micra looking woman's car thats been built by French drunkards

Pastor

As French cars are built like crap- I should know I've owned 205 GTI's,a 306 GTI6,two 2CV's (don't ask),a Xantia, a ZX Volcane Diesel and had a few Clios and Saxos as rental cars for months on end.
That being the case I think I'm reasonably well qualified to comment on the build quality of such vehicles.
If that wasn't enough my own experience is backed up by just about every survey in the business.
Touched a nerve did we?
I like Clio's but I'm afraid that they are not built for longevity unlike my old piece of jap scrap which is still capable of showing the little French shopping car which way to go on the straights at least, even with 85K miles on the clock and everything functioning as it should. I'd like to see the state of a 172 in 10 yrs time.

jonc

Driving a potentially thrash rental and not having*owned* a Renault doesn't qualify you at all. French build have come along way from the days of 205s etc, and certainly within the past few years have improved dramatically. Though I admit that its not there with Japanese build, but of all the French manufacturers, Renault are better, perhaps due to the alliance with Nissan and the commonizing of parts.

My nerves haven't been touched, just that someone needs to change the record. Incidentally did any of the Clio rentals break down on you? I'm sure a 10 year old Clio Williams will still give your jap scrap a run for you money.

Pastor

The rentals were brand new when I got them from fleet managment, I then ran them for 3 months or 10,000 miles whichever came first. It was usually the miles rather than time that dictated the change. I had 3 Clios all of which had niggling faults, or worse in the case of the 1.5DCI a blown turbo. The Saxos were worse if anything.
Of course this is just my experience you could take a look at some consumer surveys which confirm that French cars are generally amongst the worst built and least reliable.
On the other hand of course I could ignore all my personal experience and the independant data available from various respected sources and listen to you,an ex-owner who may well be biased judging from your responses thus far.
Which do you think is the more reasonable course, looking at it objectively?

I've drawn my own conclusions, I'll let others draw theirs. Sometimes it isn't a case of "changing the record" as you put it but speaking the truth as one finds it.

Generally I reckon a good rule of thumb is that if it smells of sh*t, it usually is.


The Williams comments are quite amusing BTW. If somewhat deluded.

jonc

Well if you do look at the comsumer surveys, you’ll also find that Renualt are the most improved manufacturer among all those finishing above the industry standard. Like I said, although its not up there with Japanese build its certainly improved dramatically over the past couple of years. And while Renault have gone up, Scenic at 68th, Subaru, though they only have the Imprezza in the survey, have gone down the survey to 50th. Subaru had better start smelling the ****, if it wants to regain its former glory.

You are of course entitled to your own opinions and personal experiences, and like wise you are entitled to disregard mine, this is a free society and therefore I’m just airing my own experience, and like to point out that perhaps some recognition should be made to the improvements Renault have made over the years. My responses are no more biased than yours but neither are they as generalised as yours about all French cars. I’m sure Imprezas are no more a stranger to interior rattles than Renault Clios for example, though I’m sure all manufacuters, regardless of countries, will have their fair share of common problems. Where Renault do fail are over cr@p dealers.

Take what you will of all the independent data from various sources, but I’m under no delusions that you’ll find the Clio Williams is one of the finest hot hatches ever to grace our roads and although it may not beat a *modded* Scooby on the straights, its handling finess would still provide a credible challenge in the *Twisties* (dry) especially for a standard Scooby.

Pastor

Of course a Williams would be a hoot on the bendy bits, possibly even faster than many "quicker cars" given the right circumstances. Similarly a 182, probably a lot more fun than them as well. Of that there is no doubt, but in a straight line not even in the same class as my now ageing yet faultlessly reliable car. No trim rattles either. The Impreza (one Z you'll note) also costs about half the price of a Clio and a similar amount for me to insure.
Your comments re: Subaru are fairly amusing if somewhat predictable too. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment, they need to recapture the reliability of their older models. Irrelevant to the matter we are discussing though ie the poor nature of French cars generally and the the reason I won't buy a Clio, despite thinking it would provide a good solution to my needs.
I don't want a good handling, fast car that offers practicality at a reasonable price but is marred by terrible build quality and reliability problems. They may well have improved their position but as they are still amongst the worst it hardly matters really.

jonc

I still wouldn't say it had "terrible" build quality. reliabitliy. Definition of terrible would be a Renault 4 say, but the new Clio's, are not that far off some Japanese manufacturers and neither do they require a service every 4.5k or 6k miles. So considering the performance you get and the intervals between services (12k or 2 years) and the abuse (spirited driving) that these cars invariably get, reliability is good. I've not heard of any instances of piston slap or melted pistons with any of the Renault engines for example. Lets just agree to disagee...

bluenose172

iTrader: (2)

Anyone that thinks a classic Impreza has better plastics or build quality than a 172 is deluding themselves.

Brun

Okay, okay, okay. Quit with the 172 jibes.
Yes it's a fantastic car for the money but it ain't no Impreza.
Having put close to 500 miles on Ma's car i know that i can't own one. I seriously prefer the Mondeo
I would love to put 500 miles on my old Valver just to see if i am remembering it with rose tinted specs. I think i'm not however.
I have been fed up with the Clio having hardly any traction in the damp/wet. Is it a fair assumption that a rwd car has more traction in these conditions?
I have wanted an Elise for ages now so i may just have to see if it is as good as i think it is.

chrisp

Anyone that thinks a 172 has better performance than a classic impreza wrx is deluding themselves

jonc

http://www.btinternet.com/~paulj.ew...il/cupvswrx.WMV

Who's deluded?