Clio 172 v Type R v WRX
Discussion
I seem to be sinking all my money into an ultima build, but from september i will be stuck for transport as the car will be used daily by Mrs Stevieb.
This will mean i have no transport to/from work other than a urine infested bus to woking. As the buses have got that bad i am now cycling to work 3 days a week, 2 days in the car when Mrs stevieb does not need it.
So i am looking for a used car which can be used for a hoon.
Short list so far is a
2003 Impreze WRX
2003/04 Clio 172
2002/03 Civic Type R
I have around £3k to spend. Will cover no more than 4000 miles per year. Impreza I know like the back of my hand and now what to expect running one. The Clio I dont have a clue how reliable they can be but general parts looks cheap (Tyres/Discs Pads). The Type R dont have a clue about. But have driven my fathers one when new back in 2003 but it was new and nothing went wrong at the time!
This will mean i have no transport to/from work other than a urine infested bus to woking. As the buses have got that bad i am now cycling to work 3 days a week, 2 days in the car when Mrs stevieb does not need it.
So i am looking for a used car which can be used for a hoon.
Short list so far is a
2003 Impreze WRX
2003/04 Clio 172
2002/03 Civic Type R
I have around £3k to spend. Will cover no more than 4000 miles per year. Impreza I know like the back of my hand and now what to expect running one. The Clio I dont have a clue how reliable they can be but general parts looks cheap (Tyres/Discs Pads). The Type R dont have a clue about. But have driven my fathers one when new back in 2003 but it was new and nothing went wrong at the time!
A friend got his Civic a year after I got my Clio. His is much, much better built, is a little more thirsty and has had nowt done to it over the last few years, is still looking good and holding together well. But, I don't like the way it drives and wouldn't trust it like I trust the Clio on a hoon - you just don't seem to know what the front wheels are doing like you do in the Clio so end up being a bit more cautious. WRX vs Clio, the understeer (oh and maybe fuel consumption) is the only thing that would annoy me but apparently it's sorted with after market ARBs.
stevieb said:
rb5230 said:
Surely its a no brainer, the impreza is much better than the others.
I consider all cars listed to be similar in terms of performanceA wrx: 60mph in 5.5 seconds and 100mph in 14 seconds
A type-r: 60mph in 6.8 seconds and 100mph in 17 seconds
A 172 cup: 60mph in 6.5 seconds and 100mph in 17.7 seconds
The wrx also has almost twice as much torque.
Seems quite a gulf in difference to me.
rb5230 said:
Really?
A wrx: 60mph in 5.5 seconds and 100mph in 14 seconds
A type-r: 60mph in 6.8 seconds and 100mph in 17 seconds
A 172 cup: 60mph in 6.5 seconds and 100mph in 17.7 seconds
The wrx also has almost twice as much torque.
Seems quite a gulf in difference to me.
I have driven all 3 cars and dont really consider to be that muc between them in a real word situation. The scooby is easier to drive on a b road blast but there is not much between them in my opinion. A wrx: 60mph in 5.5 seconds and 100mph in 14 seconds
A type-r: 60mph in 6.8 seconds and 100mph in 17 seconds
A 172 cup: 60mph in 6.5 seconds and 100mph in 17.7 seconds
The wrx also has almost twice as much torque.
Seems quite a gulf in difference to me.
It depends where you get your numbers from
According to EVO ..
0-60 0-100 60-100
Golf R32 6.4 16.3 9.9
Focus ST 5.9 14.9 9.0
WRX 6.0 18.3 12.3
Civic TR 6.8 16.9 10.1
Clio 172 7.1 20.0 12.9
330i 5.9 17.0 11.1
Edited by stevieb on Friday 10th June 20:07
stevieb said:
I have driven all 3 cars and dont really consider to be that muc between them in a real word situation. The scooby is easier to drive on a b road blast but there is not much between them in my opinion.
Fair enough but the figures speak for themselves, I have also driven all 3 and the difference is certainly noticable, perhaps the impreza you drove was broken or not at peak health, you really should feel the difference.The difference ypou should feel between the impreza and the other 2 is similar to the difference in performance you should feel between a 996 turbo and a wrx, ie a second to 60mph and 3 or 4seconds to 100mph.
rb5230 said:
Fair enough but the figures speak for themselves, I have also driven all 3 and the difference is certainly noticable, perhaps the impreza you drove was broken or not at peak health, you really should feel the difference.
The difference ypou should feel between the impreza and the other 2 is similar to the difference in performance you should feel between a 996 turbo and a wrx, ie a second to 60mph and 3 or 4seconds to 100mph.
It was my scooby when i first owned it. Was also went on many hoons with some of them on here. Was a different storey when modded though. The difference ypou should feel between the impreza and the other 2 is similar to the difference in performance you should feel between a 996 turbo and a wrx, ie a second to 60mph and 3 or 4seconds to 100mph.
The difference is not all that big to be honest. and is no way 4 seconds to 100for a 2004 WRX in standard Trim
Also the figures from evo suggest that the Type R is quicker to 100 than a WRX.
Edited by stevieb on Friday 10th June 20:17
stevieb said:
The difference is not all that big to be honest. and is no way 4 seconds to 100for a 2004 WRX in standard Trim
Also the figures from evo suggest that the Type R is quicker to 100 than a WRX.
I was getting figures from evo for a standard 2000 turbo with only 212bhp it is the slowest impreza they list at 14.6 to 100mph, surely a later and more powerful wrx is not slower? The 2003 wrx is not listed in evo mag.Also the figures from evo suggest that the Type R is quicker to 100 than a WRX.
rb5230 said:
I was getting figures from evo for a standard 2000 turbo with only 212bhp it is the slowest impreza they list at 14.6 to 100mph, surely a later and more powerful wrx is not slower? The 2003 wrx is not listed in evo mag.
The 2003Blobeye is a bit slower than the classic due to the increased weight.Stevie,
The WRX would top the list but then I would say that.
The 172 build puts me off as when my wife had hers things broke on it weekly . It felt sluggish and slow for a 2.0ltr in a small car too. Too heavy.
The type R are nice cars. Quick and rev like hell. Only drove one once for a mate after he had a few but not for a long drive or on twisty roads.
Steve
The WRX would top the list but then I would say that.
The 172 build puts me off as when my wife had hers things broke on it weekly . It felt sluggish and slow for a 2.0ltr in a small car too. Too heavy.
The type R are nice cars. Quick and rev like hell. Only drove one once for a mate after he had a few but not for a long drive or on twisty roads.
Steve
rb5230 said:
The difference ypou should feel between the impreza and the other 2 is similar to the difference in performance you should feel between a 996 turbo and a wrx, ie a second to 60mph and 3 or 4seconds to 100mph.
As you get to quicker times, each second counts for a lot more. shaving a second off from 10 seconds takes a small increase in power, getting from 6 to 5 takes a LOT more
I am The Gimp said:
Stevie,
The WRX would top the list but then I would say that.
The 172 build puts me off as when my wife had hers things broke on it weekly . It felt sluggish and slow for a 2.0ltr in a small car too. Too heavy.
The type R are nice cars. Quick and rev like hell. Only drove one once for a mate after he had a few but not for a long drive or on twisty roads.
Steve
Theres barely anything in it between a CTR and 172. On paper or real world. They are both quick and rev like hell! The WRX would top the list but then I would say that.
The 172 build puts me off as when my wife had hers things broke on it weekly . It felt sluggish and slow for a 2.0ltr in a small car too. Too heavy.
The type R are nice cars. Quick and rev like hell. Only drove one once for a mate after he had a few but not for a long drive or on twisty roads.
Steve
I don't buy there is the gulf in performance to the WRX in the real world either as some suggest.
John D. said:
Theres barely anything in it between a CTR and 172. On paper or real world. They are both quick and rev like hell!
I don't buy there is the gulf in performance to the WRX in the real world either as some suggest.
John, i had a wrx for nearly 3 years and it is not that quick but an equal match for the ctr and 172 thats why the 3 are on my radar. I don't buy there is the gulf in performance to the WRX in the real world either as some suggest.
I just want to know the pitfalls of running a older 172 or type r
stevieb said:
John D. said:
Theres barely anything in it between a CTR and 172. On paper or real world. They are both quick and rev like hell!
I don't buy there is the gulf in performance to the WRX in the real world either as some suggest.
John, i had a wrx for nearly 3 years and it is not that quick but an equal match for the ctr and 172 thats why the 3 are on my radar. I don't buy there is the gulf in performance to the WRX in the real world either as some suggest.
I just want to know the pitfalls of running a older 172 or type r
Theres a fair bit of info on 172/182 in the French Bred forum if you have a dig. Theres even a wiki of known faults/problems that I contributed to at some point!
As far as known pitfalls go. Well both Hewlett and I have had to put a new gearbox into one. Mine suffered an oil leak which lead to a bearing getting damaged = new 'box required. What caused the leak I do not know (it happened on the way home from 750 miles of hooning in Scotland
). Not certain Steve had the same issue but I believe it was.Other than that mine was very reliable in over 40k I covered.
The exhausts are made of tin foil. They all fall off eventually. Rare to last to 40k (mine did approx 30k).
Steering wheel rubber thumb grips fall apart (literally melt in sun!). I don't regard that as a big issue personally.
Only other mechanical issue I had was an oil pressure switch broke. Engine was fine but flagged up a warning light on dash. New switch and it was sorted.
I'd certainly buy another given the chance.
From previous runs I can confirm that Hewlett's Clio is surprisingly fast.
I am contemplating changing from an impreza STi to something more thrashable and fuel efficient so would love to be taken out or take a drive in the 172, in return your welcome to drive the impreza insurance allowing -whet your appetite before your classic is finished. Let me know I'm about all tomorrow
Cheers
I am contemplating changing from an impreza STi to something more thrashable and fuel efficient so would love to be taken out or take a drive in the 172, in return your welcome to drive the impreza insurance allowing -whet your appetite before your classic is finished. Let me know I'm about all tomorrow
Cheers
Gassing Station | Thames Valley & Surrey | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff