16th Nov 2003, 19:14
My friend and I own 106 GTI's and just less than a year ago he opted for the LAD 160 BHP conversion for the 106 GTI. Although this conversion didn't cost him shed loads, he now visits the petrol station more often than I do and more often than not, items in his engine have needed replacing because of the extra work that it carries out.
His advice? For the amount he constantly spends, he recommends a faster car (like a Renaultsport Cup). but seeing as you guys already one, you might want to sell up opt for something a bit faster in the first place.
I've raced a handful of clio sports (no cups!!) and I've either managed to keep up or they've kicked my ass.. my advice to you is this... in relation to price of petrol / warranty exclusions etc etc.. just leave the bloody thing standard. It looks and sounds powerful! Blah.
9th Apr 2005, 15:11
Hi what it is I bought a the sport 172 about two weeks ago and don't know if its me, but I don't see the same power has I did? and also could you tell me whats the way two get 200bhp thanks for your help.
25th Jan 2006, 17:37
To all the people who own 172s saying that can beat calibra turbo's, impreza's, M3's... You can all wake up now... You were dreaming!
31st Oct 2006, 19:35
I love the 172 Cup so much I murdered one for its engine. I dropped it into my R19 16v Chamade and just had the stage 2 turbo conversion fitted. My R19 puts out a little over 305bhp and sprints the 0-60 in a touch under 4 seconds. It's great to see Skylines in my rear mirror again, and to sit side by side with the RS6.
Only problem is bits keep dropping off, and it's not long before there's nothing left. Watch out for those missing parts laying all over the UK's finest.
Check out www.K-tecracing.com for all your Clio tuning needs. You'll find 200bhp easy.
10th Apr 2007, 01:19
Going back a few pages on this thread, and I think a few people are getting carried away a little bit to say the least. All this talk about the 172 doing 0-60 in 6.2 is ridiculous and offensive to anyone that doesn't own one. According to www.whatcar.com, the 172 (not Cup version) does it in 7.3 (which by the way is 0.1 of a second slower than a Saxo VTS), and the 182 does it in 7.1, and the 182 Cup 6.9.
I have the new Astra VXR, which is 6.2 and I have beat many Clio Sports. There is no way that in standard form any of them would do 0-60 in 6.2, except the V6, which is a legend in its own right.
27th Apr 2008, 07:11
To the person posting from the 10th April:
The Saxo vts is not quicker to 60 than the 172 Clio. The Saxo is about 20/30bhp per ton less than the Clio. I do agree with the posted times though, all about the 7 seconds. You are probably reading too much into 0-60 times though TBH, as there probably wouldn't be an awful lot in it between a 182 (or 172cup) especially around a track, despite your VXR's obvious advantage on paper.
28th Apr 2008, 11:34
There is a Clio owner that uses this website that is completely obsessed with power to weight ratio. You've left comments banging on about the Clios power to weight on about 5 different threads. Get real and stop talking about power to weight as if its God's word, it isn't. They are an indication of performance, that's all.
You say Clio 182 is as good round a track as a VXR; well what about the VXR being the fastest ever FWD round the Nurburgring; quicker than the Clio V6. How about that?
29th Jun 2008, 18:03
The VXR is a fast car, but its got handling problems. It's put too much power through the front wheels. They should have made that car a rear wheel drive in stead of front wheel drive. What do you think?
30th Jun 2008, 10:28
I think people look at the specs of things on paper and think to themselves, "WOW the astra has 240bhp in a fwd! it can beat any other hot hatch made!" (that seems to be the opinion of many, not all)
TBH, on paper it will be quick up against say the Clio Sports, but around a track it would be a different story, the Clio's far superior handling would easily outclass the lardy Astra, sure it has a lot of power, but definitely not the chassis to match, and really when you work out bhp per tonne, its approx. 7bhp more than the Clio?!
The extra weight just doesn't help, The Astra's main advantage is it's torque figure, this gives it good acceleration and mid range punch, but around a track the weight works against it and lighter cars, such as the Clio with a good driver would wave goodbye to any heavy hatchback, despite there power and torque advantage.
Just look at Caterhams, similar power and torque to the Clio in the r300 models but so so fast thanks to light weight, this is where power to weight ratio matters a lot!
Ferrari performance to 100mph.
Look at any car it's simple physics, the lighter something is the faster it will go with less power, power to weight ratio counts for a hell of a lot in racing. (real racing on a track, not some immature drag race from the lights).
Don't assume I hate the Astra because I don't it's a nice looking car and I respect it's performance, but it's not as invincible as people would have you believe.
Just my two pennies.
1st Jul 2008, 11:24
Well? Why is the VXR the fastest ever FWD car around Nurburgring? It wouldn't do that if it didn't handle properly. It's a fact; the lap is on youtube.
And with this power to weight thing, more power with weight will always be better than less power with no weight. Caparo T1 and Veyron are a good place to start. The T1 has twice as much bhp per tonne. It's the same up to about 130, then the Veyron is faster. And remember, the T1 has TWICE as much, not the same.
Another example is Lotus Elise compared to a VXR; similar power to weight, but the Lotus is faster to 60 because of better traction, but the VXR beats it to 100, making it much faster from 60~100.
3rd Jul 2008, 10:46
You are right, talking about the cars performance, race storys, statistics ect IS interesting to most.
3rd Jul 2008, 12:51
How can you keep saying a 182 would be better round a track than a VXR. How many times do I need to say it's much faster round the Nurb than Civic Type R, Focus RS, Focus ST, Clio V6 and many more. That is a fact, it's real, it's what's happened one day while you were dreaming of the almighty 182.
4th Jul 2008, 02:28
Well how can you keep defending the Astra all the time? Is it because you can't stand the fact that hatches costing 1/3rd of your car are quicker through the bends?
It may have a good time for the Nurb. but please also post a link to the exact location of the site which shows Clio and VXR times as well as other hot hatches.
Sorry mate, the VXR isn't invincible as you seem to think. Like I said, I don't dislike the Astra, but I think you need to stop thinking it can't be beaten.
4th Jul 2008, 06:34
I'm not siding with anyone here, but would just like to point out that the Nurburgring has a few really really long straights where the extra power of the VXR will pay dividends. I'm not doubting that what you say is true, however the result might differ on a more everyday size track where quick changes of direction and the lightweight body of the Clio might suit it better. Something similar to more everyday use on a B road rather than a runway.
4th Aug 2008, 03:31
I have a 2000 Clio 172, I have just had a cat-back stainless exhaust and new engine mounts and poly bushes fitted.
The problem is it now vibrates like hell when accelerating, and knocks a fair bit if you tap the accelerator at low revs. I thought they would make it better, but its giving me a headache!
I understand Caterhams and such suffer 'driveline' shunt due to there ultra stiff rubber less setup; could I be having the same issues?
Does anyone have any ideas?
4th May 2010, 06:29
The VXR is not the quickest FWD around the Nurburgring; the ek9 Type R kills it.