mmuuzzzzyy

Been looking on fasthatchbacks.com and fastsaloons.com

Comparing a 172 cup to a subaru wrx

It says the 172 is only .1 seconds slower to the qtr mile than the wrx...........

this cant be true......can it???

davedipster

Indeed yes it can, the clio is a small hatchback with 172hp and the WRX is a family saloon.
Totally different cars and buyers.

Dipster

mmuuzzzzyy

What about overtaking.........would the 172 be as quick as the wrx bugeye

jjones

yes

mmuuzzzzyy

ehhh?

Ive driven a 172 cup and it didnt seem half as quick as a wrx bug eye i had been in.

I thought turbo motors gave you that edge over N/A cars for overtaking???
Or is it the the initial umph of the turbo that gives you the perception that you are overtaking alot quicker ??

ByByR1

Had a little tangle with a 172 in my 02STi prodrive f'ing quick, although I did pull away it really impressed me.

mmuuzzzzyy

hows about a ppp'd bug eye wrx then ???

BrynO

Wasn't the WRX vs 172 debate done to death last month? anyway, for what its worth I have a WRX Bug, wife has a 172, I have driven both over many miles inc. taking the 172 on the drag strip and I can honestly not say which is quicker. Both a blast to drive, 172 feels better at high revs where WRX runs out of puff, WRX feels better on mid range when the turbo cuts in - in a straight run, be a hard call.

Superloop

Renault Clio 182 (New model)

182 PS and 200NM torque Weight 1110kg
7 sec to 62

04 WRX
225PS and 300NM torque weight 1410kg
5.9 Sec to 62

Something don't add up here

Bodgery

Don't be drawn in by headline figures, superloop et al. Power to weight is only a fraction of the story. It's the spread of torque that's key and where the power is delivered. Think of it as a graph, with the AREA under the power/torque lines as the important thing, not necessarily the lines themselves.

The Subaru model you quote does not have huge low down torque, although it's peak power/torque figures are reasonable. The 5.9s to 62 is more a reflection of traction. Not sure what the 30-70 thru-the-gears times are, but this measure is far more accurate when comparing cars. I'm guessing from people's experience posted here that they'll be closer than the 0-62 times.

Don't have the torque curves handy, but just to as a final measure....The Scooby is a little on the portly side (1395KG for the saloon):

Clio pwr/wgt: 164 PS/tonne
WRX pwr/wgt: 161 PS/tonne

Looks like a better match now eh? Also, gear ratios need to be taken into account. These make a HUGE difference. The Scoob will no doubt be easier and more relaxing to drive at 8/10th when overtaking, whereas the Clio owner will probably be keen to rev it that little bit harder to keep in the power band. (Had a drive in a Clio 172 and that's how it felt to me anyway!)

mmuuzzzzyy

Only just joined..........should have searched

BrynO

One of the longest threasds Ive seen on Scooby net, lightly modded clio running low 13's and thrashing - WRX's made for some very entertaining reading!!

BrynO

Oh yeah, just to add that my best 1/4 in the 172 has been 15.1, Clio Cups generally run around 14.9 from what I've witnessed on my outings at Santa Pod.

Chins

Ive had 9 Scoobies and a 182, would always take the Scooby for performance, especially on day to day driving. Clio needs its neck wringing to get any performance.

Jonathan

Superloop

Doesn't matter if its traction or farts that makes the 0-62 quicker the Clio would do very well to catch up a second over the next seven if its power to weight ratio is so close to the WRX and its torque is only 2/3 that of the WRX

Anyway as said someone else has done this to death - mind you i love these dick swinging sessions (my dads bigger than your dad and all that )

bignick

my mates got a 172 cup and hes always going on about how its quicker than a standard wrx but i thought he was talking rubish sounds like i was wrong!!!

marklemac

I've got a 172 Cup too (the missis uses it), and its certainly no slow car. I agree, you do need to encourage the revs to get it moving, but its a very quick car.

Handling is superb too.

Couldn't use it everyday though. Too small, pedals too close together, seats give you neck ache.......etc etc

Still a cheap fantastic car

DBY

What about when it's wet and raining ! Who would win off the line then ?

Regards

John

bogie

There was a thread some time back which had a graph or 2 on it with several different cars for comparison for power to weight etc, can't for the life of me remember what it was called or even a rough date.

Cheers

Bogie

Dracoro

Here we go with the what-ifs, the twisties(tm), the how many people can you take etc. All 'questions' posed to deliberately favour the scoob, why not ask which will be the most nimble, chuckable, cheap to run, fun etc? the post was about how fast (which you have to assume is in 'normal' conditions - 90% of the time the roads are dry in this country) and it appears there's just about nothing in it.

Diablo

LOL the lack of understanding never ceases to amaze me.

Take the bugeye for example.

Zero to 60 in 5.9s but another 10 and a bit to get from 60 to 100.

Or nearly twice as long to increase 40 mph to 100 as to gain 60mph from rest.

Air resistance will of course play a part but don't under estimate the artificial advantage of 4wd traction from rest.

What is also being forgotten is that the Clio will have much lower transmission losses than the WRX.

I wouldn't be surprised if the power at wheels/weight of the clio was much better than the WRX.

D

davyboy

Bet you can't do this in an Impreza! Due to short wheel base, I got no crash damage!

Job done!

http://www.dave.malings.btinternet.c...F_spin_low.wmv

billythekid

My girlfriend used to drive a clio, thats good enough reason not to have one IMHO

billythekid

Not quite sure I am with you? You lost it due to taking too much kerb on the way in?

davyboy

As the rear span it must have been mightly close to the barrier, the Impreza has more overhang and would have made contact as it span.

I span because I was a ****!

billythekid

Ahh, I see what you are getting at now.

MJW

Not a UK resident then I take it ?

sKunk

I had a tangle with a 172 in a my97 uk turbo. It kept up with mw with little problems.

Mosquito

How would the UK spec Sti do then?

davyboy

25 to 30 secs quicker around the Nordschleife.