9th Sep 2006, 19:17

I wouldn't believe the 106 stated 0-60 times. They are wrong!

Let's take the Pug 106 1.6 XS. Now parkers.co.uk state it to be 0-60 in 11.8 seconds. Now the car weighs 895kg and has the same engine as the 1997 Saxo VTR. A 1997 Saxo VTR is rated 0-60 in 9.9 seconds, which I believe is a correct time. The 97 VTR weighs 920kg, so how can the Pug 106 XS be slower?

It isn't slower, because my friend has owned one, and it's barely if at all slower than a 99 Saxo VTR! So the stated 11.8 seconds is not true. The same can be said for the 106 GTi. Parkers state it to be 0-60 in 8.4 seconds. Now I used to disbelieve GTi owners who stated their cars could do 0-60 in 7.6 seconds etc., but this 0-60 time is closer to the truth.

Let's take the 106 1.6 XS as a reference car. This car I know for sure does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. Now this car weighs 895kg, has 90bhp and 100lbs/ft of torque. This car has 100.56bhp/ton (1000/895 x 90) and 111.73lbs/ft (1000/895 x 100) of torque.

Now I have discovered from other mathematical calculations (which I won't get into), that approximately 8bhp/ton equates to 0.5 seconds, and 12lbs/ft of torque equates to 0.5 seconds. So if I take the 106 GTi's figures and subtract the 106 XS' figures from them, I will be left with a torque per ton and horsepower per ton difference. This difference can be used to solve the time difference between the 106 XS (9.5 seconds) and the 106 GTi (quoted 8.4 seconds) to see if the 0-60 time stated is true. So..

A 106 GTi weighs 950kg, and has 120bhp and 107lbs/ft of torque.

1000/950 x 120 = 126.31579 BHP/ton

1000/950 x 107 = 112.631579 lbs/ft torque per ton

So subtracting the 106 XS from the 106 GTi gives 126.32 - 100.56 = 25.76 BHP/ton difference

112.63 - 111.73 = 0.9 lbs/ft per ton difference

So these differences represent the GTi's superior performance, and to put them into time, we use the approximate figures I gave before (8 BHP/ton = 0.5 seconds, and 12 lbs/ft of torque/ton = 0.5 seconds) to convert them into time, and so subtract them from the 9.5 second true time of the 106 1.6 XS.

25.76/8 = 3.22, 3.22 x 0.5 seconds = 1.61 seconds quicker

0.9/12 = 0.0375, 0.0375 x 0.5 = 0.01875 seconds quicker

This give us a total of 1.62875 seconds quicker than the 9.5 second 106 XS, and so giving the GTi a 0-60 time of 9.5 - 1.63 = 7.87 seconds. That's a whole 0.5 seconds quicker than what Parkers state its performance to be!

This mathematical working seems true for many cars, and I've tried it on a lot of examples, and have discovered a pattern. This theory works for motor vehicles right up to around the 6.8 second mark, and anything quicker becomes basically off the map. Let's take the 182 Cup for example. I applied this method for it, and it turns out that the 182 Cup can potentially achieve 4.35 seconds.

Now a Clio 182 could never do 0-60 in 4.35 seconds, which is why as soon as I saw this result, I immediately thought - the Renault Clio 182 has more power than it can apply effectively. This is due to factors such as wind resistance, down force, mechanical friction etc. It has more power than it can use! In general hot hatches like the Clio 182 have not been designed to overcome these resistances to acceleration, and so the actual vehicle itself had the potential to achieve 0-60 in 4.35 seconds, but can only manage it in 6.9 seconds.

So let's say you had a set up that gave your 106 GTi an extra 10 BHP for a new BHP of 130.

Your new BHP/ton would be 1000/950 x 130 = 136.84

Subtract this from our reference car 136.84 - 100.56 = 36.28 BHP/ton

This is equal to 36.28/8 = 4.535, 4.535 x 0.5 seconds = 2.2676 seconds

9.5 seconds (106 XS) - 2.2676 seconds (130 BHP GTi) = 7.23 second 0-60 time!

So a modified 106 GTi can keep pace with a Clio 182 Cup!

That will do for now, but I have other ideas I've thought about like advantages of having more power than necessary, and the effects of having weight advantages, but I'll post these some other time.

My conclusion is the 106 GTi really is quite something, and the only thing that deters me from buying one is their reliability!

30th Sep 2006, 10:09

I own a T Reg 106 GTi, and it is well Rapid!!! My mate had a Rover Tomcat 1.6 16v and he thinks it would have beat me lol not much more to say except to laff in his face!

7th Apr 2007, 14:45

Its true about the 106 gti keeping up with clio 172's as I had witnessed at certain clio club meetings, on private roads of course.

23rd Apr 2007, 10:20

My gti does 0-60 in 6.9 with full scorpion exhaust system and k&n gen 2 induction kit, don't be fooled these cars are not toys for young kids, they are SERIOUSLY fast! love it tho.

25th Apr 2007, 02:16

I suppose the big question I would be asking is which one of these will have bits dropping off first the 106 or clio?

25th Mar 2008, 13:14

I own a 1998 reg 106 GTI. It is all bog standard.

I have just read about people saying a Clio 172 can beat GTI's. Every time I have raced a 172, I have beat them, and I have raced more than 10 of them, so it can't just be the driver.

But for Type R's, yes they do beat GTI's!!!

25th Mar 2008, 17:41

OOOO! The clio owners won't like that talk, I have to say I can't see how a 120 bhp GTI is gonna keep up, have you stripped it out?

27th Mar 2008, 12:43

All of this quoting power to weight ratios!

A Caparo T1 has twice the bhp per tonne as a Veyron, but it isn't faster.

28th Mar 2008, 03:15

Yeah I agree but they are a very good indication of a car's performance, and the clio is faster I have driven and raced both cars back to back.

Unless the 106 is tuned a bit then it won't be beating any sport clio's unless the driver is half asleep.

17th May 2008, 11:49

I have owned a Clio Williams, 106 GTi and a Clio 172, so here's my take on all this...

Subjectively, the Williams is the most fun and best handling, although I think the 172 would push it close in a race - it is quicker in a straight line and above 100mph. On track, versus a 172, the Williams hand the edge on the corners and could carry more speed though the bends, but the 172 could out-brake me.

The Peugeot is great for quick, tight corners but the 172 and Williams are better at high-speed bends. All in all, I think that both the 172 and Williams are quicker the the 106.

One thing I think some people have forgotten is what tyres are being used as, in my experience, it makes a massive difference. Even a few PSI down on the Williams would be detrimental to the handling.

Oh - and the Williams won't pull away from a 106 GTi @ 135mph. The short-ratio gearbox means the Renault would rev-out by then. The 106's rev-limiter is much higher and should pass 140mph on the clock.