Just wondering has anyone raced one of these?
I have a standard wrx, raced one for two lenghts of the motorway, in 2nd & 3rd. Wasnt much in it, was quite suprised.
Must make a few mods to my beast to ensure it wont happen again.

Pat.

 

i raced one on B roads in me beemer 325 and left it, for about 7 miles, it was great. :-)

 

I had 172 before MY 01 WRX and WRX defo quicker.

 

Maybe it was modded. Seemed very quick.

 

They can surprise, particularly if you're waiting for the boost to build. In the dry it'd be quite close standard vs standard. In the wet, I'd take the Impreza every day

 

my MY96 wagon is definately quicker than a 172'cos I had a little race with one from the peage toll both on the A1 last week and try as he might I left him for dead. I think they lose out in traction from standing starts cos their power to weight ratio isnt that much different than the scoob

 

I wonder what a Clio 172 Cup would do???

Scott

 

Was looking at one on Sunday - lad is mates with my cousin and has a modded version. Done chip, zorst, filter, skimmed ported heads, new cam etc - reckons it is pushing out 240bhp, but I think nearer 200 would be more realistic.

Looks standard from the outside, apart from the wheels.

 

Was looking at EVO mag times last night for Cup vs WRX (you know the RS Focus test issue).

Cup was quicker in all gears and at all speeds in the 20-110 increments than WRX bar about 2 in gear times.

Cup was 2 seconds faster 90-110 flat out than WRX!

THis accords with my own experience as a Cup owner with experience of driving the new WRX.

325i you were probably racing a 1.2 expression

[Edited by wilf - 1/14/2003 2:47:37 PM]

 

i`ve got a mk1 172(soon to be a STI MY03)

A few weeks ago I pitched it against my mates WRX MY02. The in gear acceleration between the two is nothing. If anything I could catch him a little.

Although the standing start proved a little different due to the 4wd, on the slippery roads.

 

Its a nice car, I wouldnt want one myself though, I like the presence and the grunt of the WRX, the 172 would be ideal if I could get the girlfriend one when she gets some exp.

Pat

 

your g/f would be better off in the WRX its much less of a handful to drive than the clio

 

had both and wrx deffo quicker...172 is a right laugh but get a wrx above 3.5k and it's quicker. wife preferred 172 though cos she hated the last scooby and won't drive this...suppose it's worth more cos it's untouched by female hands...(waiting for the wrath of all women on here now!)

 

Brave man....!!!!!!!!!!!!

What are the actually 0-60 times on both cars, does anyone know?

P.

 

BMW 325 I think your right Wilf.

 

Can't say I've ever came accross a WRX or even driven one. The power to weight ratio's of the two would suggest that they are evenly matched, that, and I've heard countless instances of 172 owners saying they have had success against WRX's. However I'm sure there are instances where WRX's have been successful against 172's.

I've always thought that turbo cars have a decpetive feeling of speed, maybe thats why previous owners 'feel' that the WRX is quicker.

Saint Patrick - The Clio, both MKI & II have been tested at 6.6 to 60, I think the WRX is 5.7(maybe wrong!), the 0-100 is even tighter!

 

Clio 2.0 16V 4/1998 172 138 7.9 34.9

BMW 325i 6/2494 192 140 7.6 29.2

Subaru Turbo 2000 4WD 4/1994 208 144 6.4 29.9

2.0 (WRX) 4/1994 215 143 5.9 27.7

copy this from Parkers online.

 

7.9? Never seen that test!

 

http://www.parkers.co.uk/choosing/car_reviews/

 

Those figures are so far off, top speed, 0-60, mpg they're all wrong!

 

http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/thread.asp?threadid=167445

 

Parkers - lol

They quote all Turbo 2000s as producing 208bhp when everyone and his muppet knows the 99 cars onwards officially produced 215bhp

This might be excusable if they could get their s'hand valuations right!

 

Those figures are for a CLio 16V - the J reg shape, not the new shape 172 - muppet

 

Renault 1.8 16v 4/1764 137 130 8 34.3 this is the J reg Muppet!
or did you not use the link to Parker I posted. lol.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/choosing/car_reviews/model_review.asp?manu_id=RN
Clio 2.0 16V 4/1998 172 138 7.9 34.9
Clio 3.0 V6 Renaultsport V6/2946 230 147 6.4 25.3

so ten years on it gain one tenth to 60 and 1mph top speed.
now that's engineering, well it is French! lol

can't beat a bit of banter between friends and Muppets..

 

si325i actualy if you read any other source the 0-60 of the clio is 7.2 but most have been tested and done about 6.7+

and what does 0-60 matter unless you always sit at traffic lights its the same for top speed why do you really need it how often would you actually be doing 140mph on the road

but hey if they are the only figures your interested in then fine

mike

 

dogmaul , you say the 172 has been getting quicker figures than the quoted factory times , this is also true for subaru's too .. being the UK or WRX , tested my mags such as evo and autocar (i think) getting 0-60 times in a UK subaru impreza of low to mid 5 second times. As always , depends on driver , conditions and countless other things etc..

But as you say , how many people are just sat there playing TL Grand prix ... i dont own either car.

brett

 

i am a 172 cup ownet and wii admit a wrx is quicker but what else would u expect from a car costing in the region of £20k when new compared to a £13k clio. is this a fair comparison?

 

LOL

Mag figures, Parkers figures, 0-60 this and that. They actually mean nothing.

Imagine the guy at Parkers who has to find out performance figures for cars - thousands of them. Now imagine how manyshortcuts they take. Manuf figures are always crap as well. Some use whole car with seats etc, some strip them out etc etc etc

Not worth the PC Screen they are written on

 

brett i know i love scoobs but i was just traying to point out that the figures do mean duck all. they are 2 totally different types of car so really there is little point in trying to compare them.

 

race race race race.....
its getting heated....

Pat.