BIT OF A TOOL...?!?!
08 April 2012, 12:53 PM
#1
BIT OF A TOOL...?!?!
supercharged clio 182 335BHP!!! impreza evo vxr power
If the power output is to be believed, then this has to be one serious point'n'squirt A-B car! Especially given the NA-type power delivery a S/C delivers.
Thing is, would 300+ overwhelm the 182's fab chassis set-up? Will it simply spin away the power through the front wheels...?
If the power output is to be believed, then this has to be one serious point'n'squirt A-B car! Especially given the NA-type power delivery a S/C delivers.
Thing is, would 300+ overwhelm the 182's fab chassis set-up? Will it simply spin away the power through the front wheels...?
08 April 2012, 12:57 PM
#2
I think that is what these make, would need to hold onto the wheel but not sure I would want to spend 9 grand on a Clio, looks like the internals have been dealt with but I suspect this could be a money pit, not sure the drivetrain was ever designed to cope with that much power and torque, they werent the most solidly built car, after all its a shopping runabout.
08 April 2012, 01:09 PM
#4
As std the 182 is an awesome machine to throw about with impunity. So long as there aren't many long straights lol, then it can 'embarrass' many a car.
But I guess an extra 155bhp, or 85% more power, would be a step too far for its chassis?
But I guess an extra 155bhp, or 85% more power, would be a step too far for its chassis?
08 April 2012, 02:00 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
For that sort of power the suspension and brakes would need serious work. Would not fancy being in it with an inexperienced driver, that's for sure. Was in a 400bhp focus RS the other week and you're quickly up to silly speeds. Over a jump the car did not feel good at all... and that's a 2010 focus with money spent on suspension. A clio would be frightening!
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 08 April 2012 at 02:21 PM.
08 April 2012, 02:07 PM
#7
Trending Topics
08 April 2012, 05:10 PM
#9
When you think the Clio V6 put on 300kg in weight compared with a 172, mostly as a result of the extra structural strengthening added so it could cope with the power and speed, 335bhp is going to be way too much power for a 182. That's assuming the claimed figures are actually true, obviously.
Looking around you can pick up a phase 2 V6 for not much more than this is selling for.
Looking around you can pick up a phase 2 V6 for not much more than this is selling for.
09 April 2012, 12:18 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Bear in mind though Mark, more of that structural stiffening will probably have been because the V6 engine was installed in a totally non-standard location 
09 April 2012, 12:24 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North of South, but South of North!
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That thing would be undriveable. Never see the point in cars like that esp in the wet (which is often in the UK!). V6 is a different beast altogether...Its rear wheel drive to start with!
Last edited by icbm; 09 April 2012 at 12:27 AM.
09 April 2012, 09:37 AM
#13
09 April 2012, 09:43 AM
#14
Depends on the intercooler and compression, it can run a bigger charger if its been modified to suit....there are rotrex kits for VW VR6 3.2 and these go to around 450bhp on a well built engine. Which is a good 200bhp above stock bhp.
The small rotrex kits are intended to be used on cars running original pistons and compression (i.e Vauxhall Monaros). But this has aftermarket pistons, so the compression has been dropped alllowing for more boost pressure. How long it would last along with gearbox is another question.
TBH 200bhp on any FWD is too much IMO, I don't care what FWD fanatics say, the traction is not enough for me. Great in the dry and once moving but it'd annoy the **** off me when trying to make progress on a damp road or trying to pull away quickly from a busy junction.
09 April 2012, 09:49 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Good cars the 182,a distant mate of mine had one when they first came out and the ******** was showing off and trashed it on the 2nd day of owning it,took a bend on a B road and ran out of skill 
He was a prat for doing it with two other passengers in the car but all was ok.
I did test drive it before he wrecked it and would of had one myself but i'm not that keen on small cars...
He was a prat for doing it with two other passengers in the car but all was ok.
I did test drive it before he wrecked it and would of had one myself but i'm not that keen on small cars...
09 April 2012, 10:29 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1 with that claimed power undriveable! Too light to put the power down FWD only and in the wet keep it on the Driveway money well spent
09 April 2012, 10:33 AM
#17
If anything, more strengthening would have been added to the front for chassis rigidity and to meet frontal impact crash regulations.
10 April 2012, 09:54 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Depends on the intercooler and compression, it can run a bigger charger if its been modified to suit....there are rotrex kits for VW VR6 3.2 and these go to around 450bhp on a well built engine. Which is a good 200bhp above stock bhp.
The small rotrex kits are intended to be used on cars running original pistons and compression (i.e Vauxhall Monaros). But this has aftermarket pistons, so the compression has been dropped alllowing for more boost pressure. How long it would last along with gearbox is another question.
TBH 200bhp on any FWD is too much IMO, I don't care what FWD fanatics say, the traction is not enough for me. Great in the dry and once moving but it'd annoy the **** off me when trying to make progress on a damp road or trying to pull away quickly from a busy junction.
The small rotrex kits are intended to be used on cars running original pistons and compression (i.e Vauxhall Monaros). But this has aftermarket pistons, so the compression has been dropped alllowing for more boost pressure. How long it would last along with gearbox is another question.
TBH 200bhp on any FWD is too much IMO, I don't care what FWD fanatics say, the traction is not enough for me. Great in the dry and once moving but it'd annoy the **** off me when trying to make progress on a damp road or trying to pull away quickly from a busy junction.
10 April 2012, 01:33 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
My DC2 was faster a to b in the wet then my MY99 T2000. Best "off the shelf" front driver I've ever driven on the road or the track, and no fancy revo nuckle (or equivalent) front end required - just ideal basic design. A proper mechanical lsd and exceptionally low roll centre too.
Maybe you weren't trying hard enough
The DC5 is over 200 (220?)
DC2 was 187
Maybe you weren't trying hard enough
Anyhoo its NOT 200bhp
DC2 was 187
10 April 2012, 02:41 PM
#22
My DC2 was faster a to b in the wet then my MY99 T2000. Best "off the shelf" front driver I've ever driven on the road or the track, and no fancy revo nuckle (or equivalent) front end required - just ideal basic design. A proper mechanical lsd and exceptionally low roll centre too.
Maybe you weren't trying hard enough
The DC5 is over 200 (220?)
DC2 was 187
Maybe you weren't trying hard enough
The DC5 is over 200 (220?)
DC2 was 187
10 April 2012, 05:04 PM
#23
My DC2 was faster a to b in the wet then my MY99 T2000. Best "off the shelf" front driver I've ever driven on the road or the track, and no fancy revo nuckle (or equivalent) front end required - just ideal basic design. A proper mechanical lsd and exceptionally low roll centre too.
Maybe you weren't trying hard enough
The DC5 is over 200 (220?)
DC2 was 187
Maybe you weren't trying hard enough
The DC5 is over 200 (220?)
DC2 was 187
Small point; classic imprezas don't handle. Never have, especially as stock.
Even my old XR3 on Pirelli p600s (rubbish tyres) had better turn in and less understeer.
(I'll return to the reason why in a minute) 
Other than that, DC2 great FWD car. But its still FWD. OK for track days and pratting about and stuff, as the front LSD helps massively, but for what I would need it for it would annoy the **** off me, so not my cup of tea. Plus I do prefer somthing with more low-end grunt (although more low rpm torque would just be spun away anyway).
A beam axle rear supension on some front wheel drive cars is actually quite good, as it invokes oversteer to balance out the handling caused by the often inferior Mcpherson front suspension (which is most mass production cars...even revoknuckle as it still has no upper control arm).
Its all down to how good the front-end is setup....if its humdrum floppy-supported mcphersons up front, then a well braced twist beam axle on the rear makes it more neutral and fun on something that would otherwise steer as well as the Titanic (although dicey under hard braking into a bend
). Basically thats anything French like the 182 above (also old Fiesta/RS1800, MKV RS2000, 205gti etc). This is why I mentioned Classic Imprezas are typically crap handling - good(ish) rear double wishbone with trailing arms giving passive rear steer, but the front is just plain old mcpherson struts with floppy mounted lower arms. That's why they don't handle as well as a ITR DC2. So what do people do to make them 'better'? They fit uprated rear ARBs and drop links. Which effectively makes the rear suspension behave more like a twist beam....like that on the Clio.
The French were onto something, simple, cheap, lightweight and it can work. Well, sort of (nothings perfect).
Last edited by ALi-B; 10 April 2012 at 05:09 PM.
10 April 2012, 05:21 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is possible to get to this figure if (and it is a big if) all of the components he mentions are fitted, I understand the limitations with this conversion aside from the lack of air conditioning are the bottom end. It does include a rolling road print out so it is better than most jokers you see on ebay.
10 April 2012, 06:09 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Thats not what I meant mate - I meant the base design was good, not that it was basic
10 April 2012, 06:16 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Small point; classic imprezas don't handle. Never have, especially as stock.
Even my old XR3 on Pirelli p600s (rubbish tyres) had better turn in and less understeer. (I'll return to the reason why in a minute)
Other than that, DC2 great FWD car. But its still FWD. OK for track days and pratting about and stuff, as the front LSD helps massively, but for what I would need it for it would annoy the **** off me, so not my cup of tea. Plus I do prefer somthing with more low-end grunt (although more low rpm torque would just be spun away anyway).
Which brings up a valid point; its all about the front suspension.
A beam axle rear supension on some front wheel drive cars is actually quite good, as it invokes oversteer to balance out the handling caused by the often inferior Mcpherson front suspension (which is most mass production cars...even revoknuckle as it still has no upper control arm).
Its all down to how good the front-end is setup....if its humdrum floppy-supported mcphersons up front, then a well braced twist beam axle on the rear makes it more neutral and fun on something that would otherwise steer as well as the Titanic (although dicey under hard braking into a bend ). Basically thats anything French like the 182 above (also old Fiesta/RS1800, MKV RS2000, 205gti etc).
This is why I mentioned Classic Imprezas are typically crap handling - good(ish) rear double wishbone with trailing arms giving passive rear steer, but the front is just plain old mcpherson struts with floppy mounted lower arms. That's why they don't handle as well as a ITR DC2. So what do people do to make them 'better'? They fit uprated rear ARBs and drop links. Which effectively makes the rear suspension behave more like a twist beam....like that on the Clio.
The French were onto something, simple, cheap, lightweight and it can work. Well, sort of (nothings perfect).
Even my old XR3 on Pirelli p600s (rubbish tyres) had better turn in and less understeer.
(I'll return to the reason why in a minute) Other than that, DC2 great FWD car. But its still FWD. OK for track days and pratting about and stuff, as the front LSD helps massively, but for what I would need it for it would annoy the **** off me, so not my cup of tea. Plus I do prefer somthing with more low-end grunt (although more low rpm torque would just be spun away anyway).
Which brings up a valid point; its all about the front suspension.
A beam axle rear supension on some front wheel drive cars is actually quite good, as it invokes oversteer to balance out the handling caused by the often inferior Mcpherson front suspension (which is most mass production cars...even revoknuckle as it still has no upper control arm).
Its all down to how good the front-end is setup....if its humdrum floppy-supported mcphersons up front, then a well braced twist beam axle on the rear makes it more neutral and fun on something that would otherwise steer as well as the Titanic (although dicey under hard braking into a bend
). Basically thats anything French like the 182 above (also old Fiesta/RS1800, MKV RS2000, 205gti etc). This is why I mentioned Classic Imprezas are typically crap handling - good(ish) rear double wishbone with trailing arms giving passive rear steer, but the front is just plain old mcpherson struts with floppy mounted lower arms. That's why they don't handle as well as a ITR DC2. So what do people do to make them 'better'? They fit uprated rear ARBs and drop links. Which effectively makes the rear suspension behave more like a twist beam....like that on the Clio.
The French were onto something, simple, cheap, lightweight and it can work. Well, sort of (nothings perfect).
I was more surprised that apart from straight line traction, the Integra on relatively skinny standard fit rubber was so much better that the traction advantage of 4wd in the wet wasn't enough "in the twisties" to cover ground faster than the 'Teg, which had quite astounding traction on the exit of anything other than a hairpin bend, even in the wet.
10 April 2012, 07:27 PM
#27
going back a few years ago i had a 106gti running 268bhp compleatly stripped out the thing was absoultly insane never been in anything that felt so quick. imbarassed many of cars best was an rs4.. went past him with a big smile on my face. he couldnt belive what was happening so he tried to overtake again planted my foot and waved goodbye. came up to a set of lights guy wound down his window and asked wtf i had in it to which i replied" just a 1.6 mate" it was hurrendous in the corners trying to put the power down and it used to brake almost on a daily basis . 335 is easily doable out of a supercharged/turbocharged 172/182 with cash and time but the relability factor im not sure of, lot of custom parts involved.
