Clio Sport 182
25-05-2010, 04:50 PM
#3
Not owned either but have driven both and I prefer the 172, its at least as quick if not quicker and just feels a lot more nimble.
Dont know the numbers off the top of my head but I suspect the extra weight is greater than the extra power on the later 182 car.
Dont know the numbers off the top of my head but I suspect the extra weight is greater than the extra power on the later 182 car.
25-05-2010, 04:50 PM
#4
PF's Guitar God!!!
Got one. Great cars.
Only snag i have with it is depending on your shoe size, you'll catch the dash when pressing the clutch.
And with a Induction Kit, they sound fucking great too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECfQ1FbC8o
Only snag i have with it is depending on your shoe size, you'll catch the dash when pressing the clutch.
And with a Induction Kit, they sound fucking great too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECfQ1FbC8o
25-05-2010, 05:01 PM
#7
182 is over 100KG heavier i think
Trending Topics
25-05-2010, 05:10 PM
#8
Regular Contributor
Join Date: May 2005
Location: yorkshire
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a mk1 172 and a mk2 182 cup as company cars. As said there isn't much difference in performance. Wasn't too bad on fuel either considering I was doing an hours commute to York every day and back. I preferred the mk2 but TBH there isn't much in it...loved both cars
25-05-2010, 05:11 PM
#9
20K+ Super Poster.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: In the boxing ring
Posts: 22,489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously I cant post up a thread without getting the piss taken out of me 
Steve - I knew someone was going to say 10
So the 182's heavier, that I didn't know!
So really I'd be better off buying a 172 which has around the same performance as the 182 but much cheaper!
Are they reliable as daily drivers though? I've seen a few ad's now where people have said the rear shocks and tyres have been changed, is this a common problem with them?
Steve - I knew someone was going to say 10
So the 182's heavier, that I didn't know!
So really I'd be better off buying a 172 which has around the same performance as the 182 but much cheaper!
Are they reliable as daily drivers though? I've seen a few ad's now where people have said the rear shocks and tyres have been changed, is this a common problem with them?
25-05-2010, 05:15 PM
#10
Obviously I cant post up a thread without getting the piss taken out of me
Steve - I knew someone was going to say 10
So the 182's heavier, that I didn't know!
So really I'd be better off buying a 172 which has around the same performance as the 182 but much cheaper!
Are they reliable as daily drivers though? I've seen a few ad's now where people have said the rear shocks and tyres have been changed, is this a common problem with them?
Steve - I knew someone was going to say 10
So the 182's heavier, that I didn't know!
So really I'd be better off buying a 172 which has around the same performance as the 182 but much cheaper!
Are they reliable as daily drivers though? I've seen a few ad's now where people have said the rear shocks and tyres have been changed, is this a common problem with them?
25-05-2010, 05:16 PM
#11
Obviously I cant post up a thread without getting the piss taken out of me
Steve - I knew someone was going to say 10
So the 182's heavier, that I didn't know!
So really I'd be better off buying a 172 which has around the same performance as the 182 but much cheaper!
Are they reliable as daily drivers though? I've seen a few ad's now where people have said the rear shocks and tyres have been changed, is this a common problem with them?
Steve - I knew someone was going to say 10
So the 182's heavier, that I didn't know!
So really I'd be better off buying a 172 which has around the same performance as the 182 but much cheaper!
Are they reliable as daily drivers though? I've seen a few ad's now where people have said the rear shocks and tyres have been changed, is this a common problem with them?
182cup = 168bhp per ton 0-100 km/h 7.2 seconds
172cup = 172bhp per ton 0-100 km/h 6.8 seconds
cheap as chips to now...
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1696825.htm
Last edited by danneth; 25-05-2010 at 05:17 PM.
25-05-2010, 05:43 PM
#12
20K+ Super Poster.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: In the boxing ring
Posts: 22,489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
182cup = 168bhp per ton 0-100 km/h 7.2 seconds
172cup = 172bhp per ton 0-100 km/h 6.8 seconds
cheap as chips to now...
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1696825.htm
172cup = 172bhp per ton 0-100 km/h 6.8 seconds
cheap as chips to now...
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1696825.htm
Is it lightweight or something?
25-05-2010, 05:44 PM
#13
PF's Guitar God!!!
25-05-2010, 06:06 PM
#14
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Notts
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From The Times paper...
By removing the air conditioning, spare wheel, side airbags, antilock brakes and sound-deadening material, this already light car has lost 196lb. Renault has also lowered its suspension and pushed its wheels out into their arches, giving more grip. The result is a car whose bald performance figures 0 to 60mph in 6.8sec, top speed 138mph may sound impressive but fail to convey an accurate sense of its true pace.
By removing the air conditioning, spare wheel, side airbags, antilock brakes and sound-deadening material, this already light car has lost 196lb. Renault has also lowered its suspension and pushed its wheels out into their arches, giving more grip. The result is a car whose bald performance figures 0 to 60mph in 6.8sec, top speed 138mph may sound impressive but fail to convey an accurate sense of its true pace.
25-05-2010, 06:30 PM
#18
............
Cup has remote reservoir shocks? ( edit, thats the 182 trophy, fucking immense VFM car IMO )
I've driven a 172 cup on track and they're awesome straight out of the box
I've driven a 172 cup on track and they're awesome straight out of the box
Last edited by It's Czech Mate; 25-05-2010 at 06:36 PM.
25-05-2010, 06:53 PM
#21
............
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Clio_Renault_Sport
The trophy is a special edition Cup with Recaros as atandard and sachs remote reservoir shock absorbers. ( Ł1295 each from renault!! )
The trophy is a special edition Cup with Recaros as atandard and sachs remote reservoir shock absorbers. ( Ł1295 each from renault!! )
Last edited by It's Czech Mate; 25-05-2010 at 06:58 PM.
Shite on long runs though!!
25-05-2010, 07:04 PM
#23
Generally though, I would say the clio 172 was comfier, and handles better, but worse on fuel and slightly slower accelerating at lower speeds than a "standard" valver nova (ie one with basic upgraded shocks and 256mm brakes), and about the same pace at higher speeds once the weight difference counts for less
25-05-2010, 07:17 PM
#25
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Staines, Middlesex
Posts: 1,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ive got a 182 fully fat with the cup packs,
I love it, Its loverly to drive for long distances and has all they toys (being a full fat) and its still a very good track car.
HOWEVER
My PH1 172 would spank its arsehole in, off the line and round the bends.
The PH1 Clio 172 is fast than the PH2 172 cup and the 182 cup
I love it, Its loverly to drive for long distances and has all they toys (being a full fat) and its still a very good track car.
HOWEVER
My PH1 172 would spank its arsehole in, off the line and round the bends.
The PH1 Clio 172 is fast than the PH2 172 cup and the 182 cup
25-05-2010, 07:34 PM
#28
Advanced PassionFord User
Depends what you call a redtop nova, no one does one on standard suspension and brakes generally, and how it will compare to a 172 is very dependant on what choices they make when they do build it.
Generally though, I would say the clio 172 was comfier, and handles better, but worse on fuel and slightly slower accelerating at lower speeds than a "standard" valver nova (ie one with basic upgraded shocks and 256mm brakes), and about the same pace at higher speeds once the weight difference counts for less
Generally though, I would say the clio 172 was comfier, and handles better, but worse on fuel and slightly slower accelerating at lower speeds than a "standard" valver nova (ie one with basic upgraded shocks and 256mm brakes), and about the same pace at higher speeds once the weight difference counts for less
Thanks Chip
I was kind of hoping for you to reply spot on mate
Cheers
25-05-2010, 09:23 PM
#31
Super Moderator
http://www.strikeengine.com/renault_...ing_guide.html
Exhausts are bad on them as well, I use mine as a daily drive and it dont seem that much difference on running costs, but like has been said insurance is quite high,
Exhausts are bad on them as well, I use mine as a daily drive and it dont seem that much difference on running costs, but like has been said insurance is quite high,
25-05-2010, 09:40 PM
#32
Its not the mount bit its the steady, and it did 8:34 with a passenger with that mount years ago and is still running it now IIRC. no problem with it at all, pikey though it sounds the reality is that its uprated compared to the standard rubber.
Last edited by Chip; 25-05-2010 at 09:42 PM.
25-05-2010, 10:00 PM
#33
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Norwich
Posts: 1,484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mate had a 172 and by the time he'd got it home I noticed a diesel like rattle, something to do with the VVT and it cost him 700 quid to repair... Don't know wether this is a common thing or what just something to be aware of.
25-05-2010, 10:26 PM
#36
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: kent
Posts: 935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A friend has a 182 road car and a 172 cup for the track. He's spent a small fortune on the cup, suspension, 888, LSD, cams, TB's and Chip's fave ECU, an Emerald. It made 220bhp on Dave Walkers rollers and is great fun round the track showing up many bigger cars.
Very good cars and bloody good value too.
Very good cars and bloody good value too.
25-05-2010, 10:27 PM
#37
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Staines, Middlesex
Posts: 1,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
