renault clio sport could not pull on my old saab
12 December 2005, 09:47 AM
#301
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davyboy
Surely if you have owned both, you are qualified to pass judgement.
I have owned both and not only is the Cup faster, it also WAY more fun, which is actually more important to me
Win Win!
I have owned both and not only is the Cup faster, it also WAY more fun, which is actually more important to me
Win Win!
Davy has clearly owned both and as such his opinion is somewhat more educated than others.
stats say a Clio is a quicker car, he knows a Clio is a quicker car, my experience in the Pug also backs this up.
I'm really not sure what else can be done to hit this very simple and basic fact home.
12 December 2005, 10:09 AM
#302
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Half way up
Posts: 4,791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Jasonius I too have owned both and IMHO there is little in it with the 05 wrx being slightly quicker. They are both highly chuckable.
Er what about this..?
12 December 2005, 10:15 AM
#304
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sunny Aberdeen
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
We were comparing 172 to bugeye and 182 to blobeye.
In both instances the Renault is the faster car.
In both instances the Renault is the faster car.
12 December 2005, 10:17 AM
#305
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sgcooby
In your opinion. Nothing else. So stop going on and on and on and on and on about it. You are both irrelevant and boring.
12 December 2005, 10:29 AM
#306
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wirral
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We were comparing 172 to bugeye and 182 to blobeye.
In both instances the Renault is the faster car.
In both instances the Renault is the faster car.
12 December 2005, 10:49 AM
#307
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj748r
Both the bug eye and the blob eye do the 0-60 in under 6secs and the 0-100 in under 16secs.The 172 and 182 are both about a second behind to 60 and about 2secs behind to 100,how does that make them faster?
12 December 2005, 01:24 PM
#309
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
road test figures i saw for bugeye were 18.7 secs to 100 or summat and seing as the blobeye has only 6 bhp more its going to be hardly any quicker at all,,to get the bugeye or blobeye to 100 in under 16 secs would need modifications ,they just dont have the power to weight ratio to pull it off.Ive seen bugeye at pod (which gives faster times than road tests due to the grip)and it could barely reach 90 mph in 15.6 seconds ,to get to 100 in the scooby you need 4th gear so on top of the 15.6 you have another gear change and then another 10 mph to accelerate in a high gear ,a scoob can only accelerate 10 mph in 1 second in 1st and maybe 2nd gear ,,try accelerating 10 mph in 4th and it will take you 2/3 seconds,,so 15.6 plus 1/2 second to change gear and then 2/3 seconds to accelerate from 90 to 100,,your looking at 18/19 seconds as the mag said.
bugeye bhp/ton 153
172 bhp/ton 162
blobeye bhp/ton 157
182 bhp/ton 171
the scoobs are just too lardy which is why the clios are quicker as soon as the advantage of the scoobies launch is over the clios will begin to edge away.in real terms the clios are a good bit faster because thanks to the scoobs 4wd its faster to 60 mph but then the clio is faster to 100mph ,so not only does the clio make up the lost ground from the launch it then pulls ahead as well.Even a scooby cant defy physics ,petty they still arent the weight of the classic then this arguement would be easily decided.
bugeye bhp/ton 153
172 bhp/ton 162
blobeye bhp/ton 157
182 bhp/ton 171
the scoobs are just too lardy which is why the clios are quicker as soon as the advantage of the scoobies launch is over the clios will begin to edge away.in real terms the clios are a good bit faster because thanks to the scoobs 4wd its faster to 60 mph but then the clio is faster to 100mph ,so not only does the clio make up the lost ground from the launch it then pulls ahead as well.Even a scooby cant defy physics ,petty they still arent the weight of the classic then this arguement would be easily decided.
Last edited by mg driver; 12 December 2005 at 01:38 PM.
12 December 2005, 01:52 PM
#311
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wirral
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As independently recorded in various issues of EVO
Bugeye 0-60 6.0 secs
Bugeye 0-100 18.3 secs
Bugeye 158bhp/ton
Blobeye 0-60 5.5 secs
Blobeye 0-100 15.7 secs
Blobeye 161bhp/ton
Clio 172 0-60 7.1 0-100 18.9 156 bhp/ton
Clio 182 0-60 6.6 0-100 17.5 168 bhp/ton
Lardy maybe,but still pretty feckin quick eh!
Must be in the gearing!
Bugeye 0-60 6.0 secs
Bugeye 0-100 18.3 secs
Bugeye 158bhp/ton
Blobeye 0-60 5.5 secs
Blobeye 0-100 15.7 secs
Blobeye 161bhp/ton
Clio 172 0-60 7.1 0-100 18.9 156 bhp/ton
Clio 182 0-60 6.6 0-100 17.5 168 bhp/ton
Lardy maybe,but still pretty feckin quick eh!
Must be in the gearing!
12 December 2005, 02:26 PM
#312
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj748r
As independently recorded in various issues of EVO
Bugeye 0-60 6.0 secs
Bugeye 0-100 18.3 secs
Bugeye 158bhp/ton
Blobeye 0-60 5.5 secs
Blobeye 0-100 15.7 secs
Blobeye 161bhp/ton
Clio 172 0-60 7.1 0-100 18.9 156 bhp/ton
Clio 182 0-60 6.6 0-100 17.5 168 bhp/ton
Lardy maybe,but still pretty feckin quick eh!
Must be in the gearing!
Bugeye 0-60 6.0 secs
Bugeye 0-100 18.3 secs
Bugeye 158bhp/ton
Blobeye 0-60 5.5 secs
Blobeye 0-100 15.7 secs
Blobeye 161bhp/ton
Clio 172 0-60 7.1 0-100 18.9 156 bhp/ton
Clio 182 0-60 6.6 0-100 17.5 168 bhp/ton
Lardy maybe,but still pretty feckin quick eh!
Must be in the gearing!
Even if the gearing has been changed I still can't see it
12 December 2005, 02:29 PM
#313
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sunny Aberdeen
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj748r
As independently recorded in various issues of EVO
Bugeye 0-60 6.0 secs
Bugeye 0-100 18.3 secs
Bugeye 158bhp/ton
Blobeye 0-60 5.5 secs
Blobeye 0-100 15.7 secs
Blobeye 161bhp/ton
Clio 172 0-60 7.1 0-100 18.9 156 bhp/ton
Clio 182 0-60 6.6 0-100 17.5 168 bhp/ton
Lardy maybe,but still pretty feckin quick eh!
Must be in the gearing!
Bugeye 0-60 6.0 secs
Bugeye 0-100 18.3 secs
Bugeye 158bhp/ton
Blobeye 0-60 5.5 secs
Blobeye 0-100 15.7 secs
Blobeye 161bhp/ton
Clio 172 0-60 7.1 0-100 18.9 156 bhp/ton
Clio 182 0-60 6.6 0-100 17.5 168 bhp/ton
Lardy maybe,but still pretty feckin quick eh!
Must be in the gearing!
12 December 2005, 04:04 PM
#314
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't own a Clio.
I am utterly impartial.
Of the 2 cars I'd probably prefer the Scoob. It'sa better engineered motor, better quality, more robust. HOWEVER, the issue, that I am talking about whilst maintaining total unbiased is the fact that a 172/182 is a quicker, in a straight line car than a bugeye/blobeye respectively.
I am utterly impartial.
Of the 2 cars I'd probably prefer the Scoob. It'sa better engineered motor, better quality, more robust. HOWEVER, the issue, that I am talking about whilst maintaining total unbiased is the fact that a 172/182 is a quicker, in a straight line car than a bugeye/blobeye respectively.
12 December 2005, 04:28 PM
#317
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I reckon a £16k EU import Hawkeye with 5 mods costing c.£2k could at least equal an E46 M3 for acceleration. What will it do to the next Clio Sport with a few mods?
12 December 2005, 04:32 PM
#318
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mg driver
some stats from letstorque bhp site.
215 bugeye .......................225 blobeye
1400 kg ..............................1400 kg
156 bhp/ton ........................163 bhp/ton
0-60 6.30 ...........................0-60 6.03
0-100 18.15 ........................0-100 17.12
60-100 11.85........................ 60-100 11.09
1/4 15.08 .............................1/4 14.81
terminal 91.16 mph ..................terminal 92.99 mph
drag 1/4 14.68 ........................drag 1/4 14.41
drag terminal 93.90 mph ..............drag terminal 95.82 mph
clio 172 ..................................clio 182
1060 kg .................................1060 kg
164 bhp/ton ...........................174 bhp/ton
0-60 6.64 ...............................0-60 6.34
0-100 17.43............................ 0-100 16.33
60-100 10.79 ...........................60-100 10.00
1/4 15.06 .................................1/4 14.75
terminal 92.98 mph .....................terminal 95.04 mph
drag 1/4 14.86 ...........................drag 1/4 14.55
drag terminal 94.61 mph............... drag terminal 96.73 mph
all this proves is that it will be totally driver dependant ,the better driver would win on the strip or track wether he was in the scooby or the clio.The scoob is quickest off the line but the clio is faster once on the move.
p.s ,a blobeye will need 245 bhp to crack a 13.9 sec run so thats one hell of a backbox
oh and the blobeye is 221 bhp not 225 so i twill be a frac slower than the figures say.
215 bugeye .......................225 blobeye
1400 kg ..............................1400 kg
156 bhp/ton ........................163 bhp/ton
0-60 6.30 ...........................0-60 6.03
0-100 18.15 ........................0-100 17.12
60-100 11.85........................ 60-100 11.09
1/4 15.08 .............................1/4 14.81
terminal 91.16 mph ..................terminal 92.99 mph
drag 1/4 14.68 ........................drag 1/4 14.41
drag terminal 93.90 mph ..............drag terminal 95.82 mph
clio 172 ..................................clio 182
1060 kg .................................1060 kg
164 bhp/ton ...........................174 bhp/ton
0-60 6.64 ...............................0-60 6.34
0-100 17.43............................ 0-100 16.33
60-100 10.79 ...........................60-100 10.00
1/4 15.06 .................................1/4 14.75
terminal 92.98 mph .....................terminal 95.04 mph
drag 1/4 14.86 ...........................drag 1/4 14.55
drag terminal 94.61 mph............... drag terminal 96.73 mph
all this proves is that it will be totally driver dependant ,the better driver would win on the strip or track wether he was in the scooby or the clio.The scoob is quickest off the line but the clio is faster once on the move.
p.s ,a blobeye will need 245 bhp to crack a 13.9 sec run so thats one hell of a backbox
oh and the blobeye is 221 bhp not 225 so i twill be a frac slower than the figures say.
12 December 2005, 04:32 PM
#319
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by john banks
I reckon a £16k EU import Hawkeye with 5 mods costing c.£2k could at least equal an E46 M3 for acceleration. What will it do to the next Clio Sport with a few mods?
John, excuse the ignorance, what the **** is a hawkeye, sounds dangerous
12 December 2005, 04:41 PM
#321
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW YAWN!
Who cares. Get on with other things but..
Last car was a 172, now have modded RB5. Both cars can hold there own and are both brilliant fun but clio gets 37mpg. Mate now owns car so i know it wasn't just my light right foot.
11 pages clio versus scooby, someone get on a drag track soon.
PS dont visit this thread very often just commenting as its still showing up as most recent thread.
Who cares. Get on with other things but..
Last car was a 172, now have modded RB5. Both cars can hold there own and are both brilliant fun but clio gets 37mpg. Mate now owns car so i know it wasn't just my light right foot.
11 pages clio versus scooby, someone get on a drag track soon.
PS dont visit this thread very often just commenting as its still showing up as most recent thread.
12 December 2005, 09:48 PM
#323
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MY96 STI
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant believe this thread has reached 11 pages!!
Ill add my 2 penneth worth, seeing as everyone else has.
We are talking about a top of the range clio vs a low end impreza turbo.
Why dont we discuss top of the line clio vs top of the line scooby ie STI?
For all the fast clio owners out there how do you think you would fare against an STI? Or a classic RA for that matter?
Standard classic RA or classic STI would show you a clean pair of heels every time.
Ill add my 2 penneth worth, seeing as everyone else has.
We are talking about a top of the range clio vs a low end impreza turbo.
Why dont we discuss top of the line clio vs top of the line scooby ie STI?
For all the fast clio owners out there how do you think you would fare against an STI? Or a classic RA for that matter?
Standard classic RA or classic STI would show you a clean pair of heels every time.
12 December 2005, 11:20 PM
#325
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mg driver
i would take these firgures as truth as a magazine just tests one car these figures have come from hundreds of each averaged out from running up the strip.No way a blob is 3 seconds quicker to 100 than a bug with only 6 bhp more ,they must have been timing it going downhill.
12 December 2005, 11:35 PM
#326
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Tim-Grove]Waaa hey yet another twist in the plot. How far off topic can this thread get?? I think it was about a Saab many moons ago[/QUOTE/ it wouldnt matter mate how many stats and quotes you posted and what make of car it always comes down to "jap verses crap" !!!!!
they cant take it ,even a old saab **** all over the frog and it get s the same reaction !
tears all round me thinks , why dont they give it a rest and bring something to the table worth posting about ?
instead of the usual **** ,clio s and 306 s which are nothing but parcels of ****
that you wouldnt be seen dead in !!!!
[/QUOTE/ it wouldnt matter mate how many stats and quotes you posted and what make of car it always comes down to "jap verses crap" !!!!!they cant take it ,even a old saab **** all over the frog and it get s the same reaction !
tears all round me thinks , why dont they give it a rest and bring something to the table worth posting about ?
instead of the usual **** ,clio s and 306 s which are nothing but parcels of ****
that you wouldnt be seen dead in !!!!
13 December 2005, 07:33 AM
#327
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sunny Aberdeen
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=darryl90]
OOPS!! Schoolboy error. IF you bother to check back to say the 5th post i think you will find that you clio boys/girls (mainly girls ) who initiated the clio v's wrx thing. I doubt any scoob owners would have bothered posting anything seeing as it was funny enough that an old saab cuffed your *** but seeing as , yet again, some clio owner started spouting **** so obviously we had to intevene. I swear you people have inferiority complexes.
Originally Posted by Tim-Grove
Waaa hey yet another twist in the plot. How far off topic can this thread get?? I think it was about a Saab many moons ago[/QUOTE/ it wouldnt matter mate how many stats and quotes you posted and what make of car it always comes down to "jap verses crap" !!!!!
they cant take it ,even a old saab **** all over the frog and it get s the same reaction !
tears all round me thinks , why dont they give it a rest and bring something to the table worth posting about ?
instead of the usual **** ,clio s and 306 s which are nothing but parcels of ****
that you wouldnt be seen dead in !!!!
[/QUOTE/ it wouldnt matter mate how many stats and quotes you posted and what make of car it always comes down to "jap verses crap" !!!!!they cant take it ,even a old saab **** all over the frog and it get s the same reaction !
tears all round me thinks , why dont they give it a rest and bring something to the table worth posting about ?
instead of the usual **** ,clio s and 306 s which are nothing but parcels of ****
that you wouldnt be seen dead in !!!!
Last edited by sgcooby; 13 December 2005 at 07:38 AM. Reason: I cant read or write.
13 December 2005, 09:37 AM
#329
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj748r
Facts and figures please!
Q. What factors dictate a vehicles ability to accelerate??
A. Power, transmission, weight. (we won't go into aerodynamics at this stage)
The Clio has a higher power-to-weight ratio than the WRX, AND it is only a 2WD as opposed to 4WD, so there is even less power lost in the transmission.
Bugeye bhp/ton = 153
172 bhp/ton = 162
Blobeye bhp/ton = 157
182 bhp/ton = 171
It doesn't really (surely) take a brain surgeon to work out the rest.
Does it?!??
13 December 2005, 10:25 AM
#330
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm not a brain surgeon, but have assisted with brain surgery...
0-30 (and therefore usually 0-60) will go in favour of the AWD vehicle.
60-100 needs a bit more than power to weight to be considered as the aero drag is significant, especially as a proportion of the available power the lighter, lower powered car has. At 90 mph (and you'll spend a lot of your 60-100 time accelerating from 90-100) you're probably using about 60 BHP of the Clio's 180 BHP to overcome drag. 120 BHP left to accelerate 1110kg plus driver & fuel about 1230kg 98 BHP/ton left to accelerate it. The Subaru at 90 mph probably needs say 65 BHP because of its larger frontal area and transmission losses, so it has about 103 BHP/ton left to accelerate it.
The Subaru also has 49% more torque, but only weighs 23% more with driver and fuel by the estimates above. Whilst the Clio makes it power higher up the rev range so the gearbox can multiply the torque, I reckon the Subaru's power band will be flatter, so you'll have more average power.
0-30 (and therefore usually 0-60) will go in favour of the AWD vehicle.
60-100 needs a bit more than power to weight to be considered as the aero drag is significant, especially as a proportion of the available power the lighter, lower powered car has. At 90 mph (and you'll spend a lot of your 60-100 time accelerating from 90-100) you're probably using about 60 BHP of the Clio's 180 BHP to overcome drag. 120 BHP left to accelerate 1110kg plus driver & fuel about 1230kg 98 BHP/ton left to accelerate it. The Subaru at 90 mph probably needs say 65 BHP because of its larger frontal area and transmission losses, so it has about 103 BHP/ton left to accelerate it.
The Subaru also has 49% more torque, but only weighs 23% more with driver and fuel by the estimates above. Whilst the Clio makes it power higher up the rev range so the gearbox can multiply the torque, I reckon the Subaru's power band will be flatter, so you'll have more average power.