You are the king of sweeping statements that is for sure! I'll remember that when i drive around in my car with a clean licence and no accident history that i'm the worlds worst driver and i'm going to crash and hurt someone at any minute. I have no control over myself because i'm in a clio it has so much power over me.... I can't fight it.....
Renault made no effort either to improve the handling with all the mods they did to the suspension on the 182. I mean using the setup from the 172 cup and improving it further would make no difference and is clearly a waste of money. What were renault thinking they should have just carried on selling the 172 as it was and not bother investing any money at all. All those road tests and track events the 172 owners were just holding back they should have just put their foot down harder.
And i know from watching people that had more money than sense buy 172's when they came out and put in times at events and then go out and buy 182's and put in better times. It couldn't be anymore cut and dry for the purpose that i'm using the car. These peope now have 200's and they're even faster but i can't afford a 200. I have no interest a cars newness!? A low mileage 172 is cheap and pretty easy to find. A properly modified 172 could have been had but they were all in such a sorry state.
You bought a 182 and paid more because they are newer than 172's. If you bought it for the 'extra' performance then you're a fool. I know this from my experience and that of others. As for the crash comment then you are just talking nonsense.
@nikebauer1993 What a ridiculous sweeping statement. Thats why i get 41 mpg on my 40 mile round trip to work out of my 182. I use mine properly at motorsport events.
@warwickstingray There was a fatal crash 2 days ago at the Nurburgring Nordschliefe. It was a RenaultSport Clio 197. 3 people were killed. This merely reinforces my statement that people that buy any RenaultSport Clio are idiots.
If i'm in a 172 and i weigh 75kgs power to weight is now 145. If i race someone in a 182 that weighs 100kgs thats now 152 per tonne. The gap gets closer. If one is carrying more fuel, has stuff in the boot etc etc. The performance is close between all the clios and it doesn't take much to change the outcome but in a controlled test the 182 is quicker than the 172. The 182 cup is 15-20kgs lighter than the 182 so in a controlled test is quicker than a 182 with or without cup packs. Rant over.
@warwickstingray Technicalities aside, there is no real-world performance difference between them. Each car is different so it depends what luck you get as to what power and torque you end up with. People think the 182 has to be quicker because of it's name. Still a cracking car.
@gaz0044@gaz0044 Totally disagree. If there wasn't a difference i would have saved my money and not bothered with the extra premium of getting a 182. I based my purchase on what i saw and the times that were recorded at motorsport events i took part in and watched over the last few years and not once did a 172 out perform a 182 in any area. The 182's had a distinct advantage. The only thing i noticed is that lightly modified cars were always slower (air filter, induction kit, de-cat etc).
And although the clio sports don't make their standard power due to the figure being DIN and recorded without accessories. In all the graphs i've seen the 182's make more power and better torque. Its not massive but in a small car it all counts. Using renaults rigures. 172 = 155bhp per tonne and 182 = 167bhp per tonne. As for the video above its useless unless the two cars are in a controlled test and the only variable is the car model.
The idea was to get 172 cup performance but with all the nice bits you got in a standard 172. The 182 has most of the suspension setup from the cup plus a few improvements and the cup pack on the 182 takes it further. It worked well. A 182 with a cup pack posts virtually the same times a 172 cup. 182 and 172 cup are 0.5 second quicker to 60 than a standard 172 for starters.
Its not just about power. The change from a 4-1 manifold to 4-2-1 manifold allowed the engine to be retuned to lower the torque peak by 150rpm and change the torque curve giving the car more grunt. The sports cat and twin exit design helped with the top end power increase. Clio 172 0-100 18.9 clio 182 0-100 17.5. Both times are two up with a full tank of fuel. The 182 is also 20kgs lighter. It has no spare wheel or wheel well for a start.
@thugbuffalo el de 172 no se pasa por la piedra al de 182, mas que nada, porque el que acaba delante es el de 182, con el doble escape que lo distingue
@nikebauer1993 u say that, but they only ever do 180kph in fast and the furious, when they show u the speedo anyway, so tbh 110mph isnt that fast a 1993 peugeot 306 can do that...
@bokinbg1 Ive posted so many comments I dont know which one you decided to be so sad as to reply to, so I'm just going to ignore the fact that you did...
With all due respect, that is a common noobs' misunderstanding. This is mainly down to the Clio sports not making their stated power and the fact that 182's don't make an extra 10hp through a different manifold. It's 5hp if you are lucky. Therefore, there is no difference in performance between these cars unless one is knackered.
@gaz0044 Oh for christs sake it's not just a different manifold. It's a damn good manifold, a 200 cell sports cat, an improved rear section (not hard) and then a proper map adjustment to take advantage of the improved flow. I'm suprised all they got was 10hp. The 172 exhaust can't be as average as it looks. I would have given my right arm for a manifold like that on any of my previous cars!! Reputable companies are claiming an extra 7bhp on a 172 with just an aftermarket sports cat.
@warwickstingray Exactly, the engine is so highly tuned it doesn't respond well to mods such as air filters or exhausts. My remap and filter mod claimed an extra 17 bhp (generous). RR'd showed an increase of 7 bhp. Some of these reputable companies don't even add the remapped power on their websites on the 182's because they don't make the extra '10 bhp' anyway and the customer will think it was a waste of money.
@steveyakamajor Compare the performance specs - there is nothing between them and you'd never notice it on the roads. And they don't have 182bhp and 172bhp, they have 182ps and 172ps. The Clio's rarely make their stated power outputs, in fact I've never heard of a standard one that has, so it's a lottery as to what you get. The bottom line is, all the versions of the 172 and 182 are of almost identical performance. I owned a 172 for 5 years. I suggest you read up on them.
@steveyakamajor LOL, brilliant reply. Go cry to your Moms. I take it you have a 182 and are now having to dry your eyes because it's not as fast as a 172. Difference on paper... love it!
@gaz0044 Nice! Yeah the Clio was more fun, could whip it round a lot more! The focus is too heavy but I needed a bigger car so got the power and space, so far it's been very worthwhile and had no problems, apart from the outrageous costs of running the damn thing!
Hi all, I had a '05 Clio 1.6, I loved it with all my heart, had to sell it because I moved, and now I'm looking to buy a Clio again.
Would it be wise to buy the Clio II 182 cup or should I rather look for the Clio 3 2.0L?
I am a big fan of both, but the new modle doesn't have such a nice interior, or I'm not used to it aleast... Any advice?
Thomas22may 3 months ago
i disagree buddy. 172 cup is quicker
kceeal 3 months ago
You are the king of sweeping statements that is for sure! I'll remember that when i drive around in my car with a clean licence and no accident history that i'm the worlds worst driver and i'm going to crash and hurt someone at any minute. I have no control over myself because i'm in a clio it has so much power over me.... I can't fight it.....
warwickstingray 6 months ago
Renault made no effort either to improve the handling with all the mods they did to the suspension on the 182. I mean using the setup from the 172 cup and improving it further would make no difference and is clearly a waste of money. What were renault thinking they should have just carried on selling the 172 as it was and not bother investing any money at all. All those road tests and track events the 172 owners were just holding back they should have just put their foot down harder.
warwickstingray 6 months ago
And i know from watching people that had more money than sense buy 172's when they came out and put in times at events and then go out and buy 182's and put in better times. It couldn't be anymore cut and dry for the purpose that i'm using the car. These peope now have 200's and they're even faster but i can't afford a 200. I have no interest a cars newness!? A low mileage 172 is cheap and pretty easy to find. A properly modified 172 could have been had but they were all in such a sorry state.
warwickstingray 6 months ago
You bought a 182 and paid more because they are newer than 172's. If you bought it for the 'extra' performance then you're a fool. I know this from my experience and that of others. As for the crash comment then you are just talking nonsense.
gaz0044 6 months ago
Typical Clio drivers. Speeding on the public road.
nikebauer1993 6 months ago
@nikebauer1993 What a ridiculous sweeping statement. Thats why i get 41 mpg on my 40 mile round trip to work out of my 182. I use mine properly at motorsport events.
warwickstingray 6 months ago
@warwickstingray There was a fatal crash 2 days ago at the Nurburgring Nordschliefe. It was a RenaultSport Clio 197. 3 people were killed. This merely reinforces my statement that people that buy any RenaultSport Clio are idiots.
nikebauer1993 6 months ago
Da wheel is on da wrong side
TkMToM1993 6 months ago
If i'm in a 172 and i weigh 75kgs power to weight is now 145. If i race someone in a 182 that weighs 100kgs thats now 152 per tonne. The gap gets closer. If one is carrying more fuel, has stuff in the boot etc etc. The performance is close between all the clios and it doesn't take much to change the outcome but in a controlled test the 182 is quicker than the 172. The 182 cup is 15-20kgs lighter than the 182 so in a controlled test is quicker than a 182 with or without cup packs. Rant over.
warwickstingray 7 months ago
@warwickstingray Technicalities aside, there is no real-world performance difference between them. Each car is different so it depends what luck you get as to what power and torque you end up with. People think the 182 has to be quicker because of it's name. Still a cracking car.
gaz0044 6 months ago
@gaz0044 @gaz0044 Totally disagree. If there wasn't a difference i would have saved my money and not bothered with the extra premium of getting a 182. I based my purchase on what i saw and the times that were recorded at motorsport events i took part in and watched over the last few years and not once did a 172 out perform a 182 in any area. The 182's had a distinct advantage. The only thing i noticed is that lightly modified cars were always slower (air filter, induction kit, de-cat etc).
warwickstingray 6 months ago
@warwickstingray Modded 182's i mean. Why de-cat a car thats already running a high flow sports cat!?
warwickstingray 6 months ago
And although the clio sports don't make their standard power due to the figure being DIN and recorded without accessories. In all the graphs i've seen the 182's make more power and better torque. Its not massive but in a small car it all counts. Using renaults rigures. 172 = 155bhp per tonne and 182 = 167bhp per tonne. As for the video above its useless unless the two cars are in a controlled test and the only variable is the car model.
warwickstingray 7 months ago
The idea was to get 172 cup performance but with all the nice bits you got in a standard 172. The 182 has most of the suspension setup from the cup plus a few improvements and the cup pack on the 182 takes it further. It worked well. A 182 with a cup pack posts virtually the same times a 172 cup. 182 and 172 cup are 0.5 second quicker to 60 than a standard 172 for starters.
warwickstingray 7 months ago
Its not just about power. The change from a 4-1 manifold to 4-2-1 manifold allowed the engine to be retuned to lower the torque peak by 150rpm and change the torque curve giving the car more grunt. The sports cat and twin exit design helped with the top end power increase. Clio 172 0-100 18.9 clio 182 0-100 17.5. Both times are two up with a full tank of fuel. The 182 is also 20kgs lighter. It has no spare wheel or wheel well for a start.
warwickstingray 7 months ago
@thugbuffalo el de 172 no se pasa por la piedra al de 182, mas que nada, porque el que acaba delante es el de 182, con el doble escape que lo distingue
lamemigranano 7 months ago
Its like the fast and the furious. Only without the fast cars.
nikebauer1993 9 months ago 18
@nikebauer1993 Just out of interest what do you drive???
TheScoobydooandy 6 months ago
@TheScoobydooandy Ford Focus RS. Problem? I've spent 10 days this summer at the Nurburgring. Problem?
nikebauer1993 6 months ago
@nikebauer1993 u say that, but they only ever do 180kph in fast and the furious, when they show u the speedo anyway, so tbh 110mph isnt that fast a 1993 peugeot 306 can do that...
robkita2010 6 months ago
@nikebauer1993 & fast women ;)
zero1strike 5 months ago
@nikebauer1993
Says kido that uploads videos of him playing videogames.
bokinbg1 4 months ago
@bokinbg1 Ive posted so many comments I dont know which one you decided to be so sad as to reply to, so I'm just going to ignore the fact that you did...
nikebauer1993 4 months ago
With all due respect, that is a common noobs' misunderstanding. This is mainly down to the Clio sports not making their stated power and the fact that 182's don't make an extra 10hp through a different manifold. It's 5hp if you are lucky. Therefore, there is no difference in performance between these cars unless one is knackered.
gaz0044 1 year ago 7
@gaz0044 Oh for christs sake it's not just a different manifold. It's a damn good manifold, a 200 cell sports cat, an improved rear section (not hard) and then a proper map adjustment to take advantage of the improved flow. I'm suprised all they got was 10hp. The 172 exhaust can't be as average as it looks. I would have given my right arm for a manifold like that on any of my previous cars!! Reputable companies are claiming an extra 7bhp on a 172 with just an aftermarket sports cat.
warwickstingray 6 months ago
@warwickstingray Exactly, the engine is so highly tuned it doesn't respond well to mods such as air filters or exhausts. My remap and filter mod claimed an extra 17 bhp (generous). RR'd showed an increase of 7 bhp. Some of these reputable companies don't even add the remapped power on their websites on the 182's because they don't make the extra '10 bhp' anyway and the customer will think it was a waste of money.
gaz0044 4 months ago
There is no performance difference between these cars.
gaz0044 1 year ago
@gaz0044 the 172 has 172 bhp and the 182 has 182 bhp, i think there is a performance difference.
steveyakamajor 1 year ago
@steveyakamajor You think wrong. Show me the difference.
gaz0044 7 months ago
@gaz0044 Compare the engine specs. 182 bhp and 172 bhp. 182-172 =10. 10 bhp difference. Clear enough for you? BELL END
steveyakamajor 7 months ago
@steveyakamajor Compare the performance specs - there is nothing between them and you'd never notice it on the roads. And they don't have 182bhp and 172bhp, they have 182ps and 172ps. The Clio's rarely make their stated power outputs, in fact I've never heard of a standard one that has, so it's a lottery as to what you get. The bottom line is, all the versions of the 172 and 182 are of almost identical performance. I owned a 172 for 5 years. I suggest you read up on them.
gaz0044 7 months ago
@gaz0044 There is a difference on paper. A 10 bhp difference. Go and wank over your cars bye.
steveyakamajor 7 months ago
@steveyakamajor LOL, brilliant reply. Go cry to your Moms. I take it you have a 182 and are now having to dry your eyes because it's not as fast as a 172. Difference on paper... love it!
gaz0044 7 months ago
@gaz0044 *Mum. I had a 182. Now have a focus st-2. Yourself?
steveyakamajor 7 months ago
@steveyakamajor Should have kept the Clio - much more fun. I have a diesel Seat.
gaz0044 7 months ago
@gaz0044 Nice! Yeah the Clio was more fun, could whip it round a lot more! The focus is too heavy but I needed a bigger car so got the power and space, so far it's been very worthwhile and had no problems, apart from the outrageous costs of running the damn thing!
steveyakamajor 7 months ago
Did the 172 last long after this video? It doesnt sound very healthy..
kersehcoca 1 year ago
The one driving the Clio 182 is a total douchebag.
ftpaddict 1 year ago
which is which?
Memphis35 1 year ago
@Memphis35 the other clio has the duel exhaust system, that's the 182
markerboy2002 1 year ago
pues el de 172 se pasa por la piedra al de 182
hay ke apretarle mas amigo
thugbuffalo 1 year ago
yeah, es frente al TEC, atras de villas, suena bonito el motor!
anomaesewey 1 year ago
se hacen ver los 10hp extra del clio team
rubasito 2 years ago
any mods on the respective vehicles and are either of them the cup model out of interest?
johnjackson12 2 years ago