Clio 182 - beware around Rugby/Coventy
07 February 2004, 01:28 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as front wheel drives go I reckon the Clio is about the best. Did have a bit of a play with one the other day in the P1 but I dont really think it was a fair race. Road was slightly damp and by the time Id bottomed out second I couldnt see him.
Like mentioned earlier, its difficult to compare the Impreza and the Clio, I think they are too different a car!
Like mentioned earlier, its difficult to compare the Impreza and the Clio, I think they are too different a car!
08 February 2004, 10:35 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bucks/Essex
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To quickly reply to "Tim-Grove" first:
I am in the enviable position of having a company fuel card, so fuel costs are not much of a concern. However, I have just had a quick look at some of my old card returns and the Clio was averaging about 14p a mile, whereas the Scooby is currently averaging about 17p a mile (11p whilst running in!)... so the difference based on 12,000miles a year is about £360 (or £30 a month) ...... so not as much as you might think. (Probably due to the fact that to go fast in the Clio you have to keep it above 5000rpm, which isn't really necessary with the Scooby.
My 172 was actually running 185bhp, and it was quick.... but the two cars feel quick in completely different ways. For me, Turbo cars always feel quicker because relatively speaking they tend to have more torque, and always give you that little shove when the turbo gets going. The Clio needed to be strangled round to the redline to go anywhere, and if you were in the wrong gear, you were not going to go anywhere fast!!
Also, the size difference is a major factor. I could throw the Clio about in the tight twisties, which I do not have the confidence to do in the Scooby. However, the Scooby feels so much more planted on any high speed stuff.
Further to that, The Clio would never go above an indicated 135mph (and seemed to hit a brick wall above 125mph), whereas the Scooby will hit 135mph without a problem, and has already shown over 150mph on the clock on 3 occasions.
Both fast, both very different. If you are on a country road averaging 50 to 90mph, I really do not think there is much difference, but anything outside of that and the Scooby is the winner.
(Someone shut him up!!) .........I could continue for hours!!
I am in the enviable position of having a company fuel card, so fuel costs are not much of a concern. However, I have just had a quick look at some of my old card returns and the Clio was averaging about 14p a mile, whereas the Scooby is currently averaging about 17p a mile (11p whilst running in!)... so the difference based on 12,000miles a year is about £360 (or £30 a month) ...... so not as much as you might think. (Probably due to the fact that to go fast in the Clio you have to keep it above 5000rpm, which isn't really necessary with the Scooby.
My 172 was actually running 185bhp, and it was quick.... but the two cars feel quick in completely different ways. For me, Turbo cars always feel quicker because relatively speaking they tend to have more torque, and always give you that little shove when the turbo gets going. The Clio needed to be strangled round to the redline to go anywhere, and if you were in the wrong gear, you were not going to go anywhere fast!!
Also, the size difference is a major factor. I could throw the Clio about in the tight twisties, which I do not have the confidence to do in the Scooby. However, the Scooby feels so much more planted on any high speed stuff.
Further to that, The Clio would never go above an indicated 135mph (and seemed to hit a brick wall above 125mph), whereas the Scooby will hit 135mph without a problem, and has already shown over 150mph on the clock on 3 occasions.
Both fast, both very different. If you are on a country road averaging 50 to 90mph, I really do not think there is much difference, but anything outside of that and the Scooby is the winner.
(Someone shut him up!!) .........I could continue for hours!!
09 February 2004, 05:51 PM
#33
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stone, Staffordshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172 is a pocket rocket, but only if you can drive. The Cup is a hooligan if you can drive...
I have played regularly with scoobies but in all honesty, there are few occasions when i have "lost" them its a matter of one gains where the other struggles (and Vice Versa)
The 182 had been put on a pedestal without having been run in etc... i think its a brave statement from evo.
/y0z
I have played regularly with scoobies but in all honesty, there are few occasions when i have "lost" them its a matter of one gains where the other struggles (and Vice Versa)
The 182 had been put on a pedestal without having been run in etc... i think its a brave statement from evo.
/y0z
10 February 2004, 11:53 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bath
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by R1916v
Er it beats a standard WRX 60-100, just look at the figures form an Evo test.
Blob eye WRX - 18.3 secs
Clio Cup - 17.7 secs
But they also say the scooby does the 1/4 in 14.9 (91mph), the clio in 15.2 (94mph) so guess they are pretty even.
And this is as tested, not just figures they got from a book. the clio starts bettering the scooby after 80 (have a list of all the 0-x0 timings, the focus hits 100 in 14.9).
also got figures for in gear accel 3rd/4th/5th, but thats just too geeky
Having said that, out of the two i'd probably take the scooby (if the price difference didnt matter, remember the cups could be had fo runder 11k new, thats a hell of a price difference).
Blob eye WRX - 18.3 secs
Clio Cup - 17.7 secs
But they also say the scooby does the 1/4 in 14.9 (91mph), the clio in 15.2 (94mph) so guess they are pretty even.
And this is as tested, not just figures they got from a book. the clio starts bettering the scooby after 80 (have a list of all the 0-x0 timings, the focus hits 100 in 14.9).
also got figures for in gear accel 3rd/4th/5th, but thats just too geeky
Having said that, out of the two i'd probably take the scooby (if the price difference didnt matter, remember the cups could be had fo runder 11k new, thats a hell of a price difference).
10 February 2004, 12:05 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Lancs, UK
Posts: 1,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BLACK V5
60-100 in 18.3. Bloody hell whats the 0-100 2 hours?
It's actually 0-100 in 18.3secs and that was for an MY02 bug eye WRX, as tested in Evo in the Oct '02 issue.
10 February 2004, 12:50 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bucks/Essex
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prodrive have all the development times listed on their website. See link below:
http://www.prodrive.com/uploads/03MY%20WRX%20PPP.pdf
They have a Standard MY03 WRX 0-100 of 15.9, and the PPP doing it in 14.1. Just goes to show that a lot depends on who is driving the car.
http://www.prodrive.com/uploads/03MY%20WRX%20PPP.pdf
They have a Standard MY03 WRX 0-100 of 15.9, and the PPP doing it in 14.1. Just goes to show that a lot depends on who is driving the car.
Last edited by Jolley; 10 February 2004 at 12:52 PM.
10 February 2004, 04:25 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bucks/Essex
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ChrisB
And who pays for the new clutch or drivetrain after repeated full bore launches...
I had a Clio, and I bought a Scooby because it was faster.... IT IS!! I am not even slightly concearned that a clio could beat me, unless it has a better driver.
I for one hope that the Clio is quick enough to challenge me.... at least a clio driver is likely to try (too many people are afraid to have a friendly race these days).
10 February 2004, 07:01 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a play yesterday with a new Clio V6 (Mk2) on the motorway from about 70 to 140 and I was having to back of constantly, he even had the momentum, in the end the guy flashed his brakes cos he was that p*ssed off I had been 3 inches from his bumper all the way! He wouldnt get left though!
Id much rather have a Clio cup than one of those V6 things! What are the prerformance stats like on the new V6? The Clio cups seem faster TBH!
Id much rather have a Clio cup than one of those V6 things! What are the prerformance stats like on the new V6? The Clio cups seem faster TBH!
10 February 2004, 08:47 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had a play with my mates in their MY2003 WRX & MY2000 UK TURBO & they were both surprised how my standard 172 mk1 stuck to their *****.
They have been in my Clio & although they say it feels very fast, it doesn't feel as fast as their scoobies.
They are just used to the torquey turbo delivery rather than the Clio's linear power spread.
Obviously if the roads get damp then the front wheels start to spin & struggle to get the power down though.
Darren
They have been in my Clio & although they say it feels very fast, it doesn't feel as fast as their scoobies.
They are just used to the torquey turbo delivery rather than the Clio's linear power spread.
Obviously if the roads get damp then the front wheels start to spin & struggle to get the power down though.
Darren
10 February 2004, 10:19 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Spec C - 12.5 @ 110(340/350)
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stu,
What car do you have. Remember that the V6's are still brand new, and not run in yet, the p/w/r is 182 BHP/tonne and will see well over 150mph. 0-60 is 5.5s and 0-100 is <15's. So hardly slow is it! But then again straight line speed isn't everything is it? If it was I wouldn't be buying one, it would have been a STi8 PPP!
What car do you have. Remember that the V6's are still brand new, and not run in yet, the p/w/r is 182 BHP/tonne and will see well over 150mph. 0-60 is 5.5s and 0-100 is <15's. So hardly slow is it! But then again straight line speed isn't everything is it? If it was I wouldn't be buying one, it would have been a STi8 PPP!
10 February 2004, 11:12 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bluenose172
Stu,
What car do you have. Remember that the V6's are still brand new, and not run in yet, the p/w/r is 182 BHP/tonne and will see well over 150mph. 0-60 is 5.5s and 0-100 is <15's. So hardly slow is it! But then again straight line speed isn't everything is it? If it was I wouldn't be buying one, it would have been a STi8 PPP!
What car do you have. Remember that the V6's are still brand new, and not run in yet, the p/w/r is 182 BHP/tonne and will see well over 150mph. 0-60 is 5.5s and 0-100 is <15's. So hardly slow is it! But then again straight line speed isn't everything is it? If it was I wouldn't be buying one, it would have been a STi8 PPP!
So the V6 mark 2 is a quicker point to point car then a STI 8 PPP?
Good luck with the new purchase matey!
I drive a 2001, P1 BTW.
Stu
10 February 2004, 11:38 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Spec C - 12.5 @ 110(340/350)
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the V6 mark 2 is a quicker point to point car then a STI 8 PPP?
I'm buying it to be a bit different, because I've always wanted one and for the sound of that V6 engine behind me!
Last edited by bluenose172; 10 February 2004 at 11:39 PM.
10 February 2004, 11:42 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Lancs, UK
Posts: 1,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bluenose172
I'm not saying it's any better than the STi8 PPP point to point, but it beat the PPP car round Bedford West circuit by a full second.(stats from EVO)
Because the mk1 V6 is 2.05secs a lap slower than a Cup around Bedford!
10 February 2004, 11:50 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Spec C - 12.5 @ 110(340/350)
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rich D
I assume that's a mk2 V6 255 then?!
Because the mk1 V6 is 2.05secs a lap slower than a Cup around Bedford!
Because the mk1 V6 is 2.05secs a lap slower than a Cup around Bedford!
11 February 2004, 12:03 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
Just had a quick shifty on the net. Looks like the 182 is going to be around £12250 (http://www.clickcars.co.uk/) from the brokers etc.
11 February 2004, 12:11 AM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had them same thoughts when I bought the Nissan, a bit different, rear wheel drive fun! Thing is, its not fun, the car could only come out of the garage once very blue moon, when it was 30 degrees and dry and lets face it, its not very often in this country. Nothing worse than knowing youve got the power but you cant get it on the road!
Like I said - Good luck with your purchase!
Like I said - Good luck with your purchase!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
