RE: Shed of the Week: Renaultsport Clio 182
Discussion
downhillmalins said:
Have a 172 Cup as a budget track car, doing a vid series on YT for anyone interested (link in profile).
Absolutely love the car, so much fun and so much potential. Anyone considering getting one, just do it. Bang for buck these are unbeatable
Here’s a mini test that Autocar did on the 172 Cup - pretty much as fast as the 182Absolutely love the car, so much fun and so much potential. Anyone considering getting one, just do it. Bang for buck these are unbeatable
s m said:
Here’s a mini test that Autocar did on the 172 Cup - pretty much as fast as the 182
That's interesting, thanks for posting.Although I thought the 172 Cup official weight was 1020Kgs.
I wondered why the Mini was so much slower on the 50-70 in top test, but then realised it's a 6 speed box.
adam. said:
s m said:
Here’s a mini test that Autocar did on the 172 Cup - pretty much as fast as the 182
That's interesting, thanks for posting.Although I thought the 172 Cup official weight was 1020Kgs.
I wondered why the Mini was so much slower on the 50-70 in top test, but then realised it's a 6 speed box.
That 979kg figure will be the result of the car being weighed at Millbrook
It is 1020kg AFIAK.
The above confirms what I once experienced in mine. I met a Cooper S on the A46, just before the Hobby Horse island near Leicester for anyone who knows it. He'd been spoiling for a race, so I gave him a traffic light Grand Prix turning right along the A46 (dual) towards the M1. Giving it my all we were front number-plate to front number plate to about 40. I was thinking 's
t, I'm not having him', then I started pulling away comfortably, making maybe 5 car lengths up to, erm, a bit past 70.
The above confirms what I once experienced in mine. I met a Cooper S on the A46, just before the Hobby Horse island near Leicester for anyone who knows it. He'd been spoiling for a race, so I gave him a traffic light Grand Prix turning right along the A46 (dual) towards the M1. Giving it my all we were front number-plate to front number plate to about 40. I was thinking 's
t, I'm not having him', then I started pulling away comfortably, making maybe 5 car lengths up to, erm, a bit past 70. Fermit and Sarah said:
It is 1020kg AFIAK.
.
I always take “official” weights with a pinch of salt.
They could have used Alfa 4C scales ....or on the other hand could be like the GT86 where it was 40kg lighter in reality than the “official” figure, as in this case
The best way to find the weight is to actually weigh the car, in its ready to drive format, with half a tank full.
And that’s how Autocar have got that 979kg figure - from the Millbrook weighbridge
s m said:
Fermit and Sarah said:
It is 1020kg AFIAK.
.
I always take “official” weights with a pinch of salt.
They could have used Alfa 4C scales ....or on the other hand could be like the GT86 where it was 40kg lighter in reality than the “official” figure, as in this case
The best way to find the weight is to actually weigh the car, in its ready to drive format, with half a tank full.
And that’s how Autocar have got that 979kg figure - from the Millbrook weighbridge
Fermit and Sarah said:
s m said:
Fermit and Sarah said:
It is 1020kg AFIAK.
.
I always take “official” weights with a pinch of salt.
They could have used Alfa 4C scales ....or on the other hand could be like the GT86 where it was 40kg lighter in reality than the “official” figure, as in this case
The best way to find the weight is to actually weigh the car, in its ready to drive format, with half a tank full.
And that’s how Autocar have got that 979kg figure - from the Millbrook weighbridge
Autocar figure is standard car in the article ready to drive with half a tank, no one on board
Sometimes manufacturers understate figures as well
s m said:
The best way to find the weight is to actually weigh the car, in its ready to drive format, with half a tank full.
And that’s how Autocar have got that 979kg figure - from the Millbrook weighbridge
For sure I'd assume Autocar to have the more accurate figure, just surprised there's 40 Kg of difference!And that’s how Autocar have got that 979kg figure - from the Millbrook weighbridge
My 172 Cup certainly felt very light on its feet.
Renault went to great lengths to make the 172 Cup as light as poss. They stripped it's sound deadening, it's AC, it had lighter seat materials, lighter alloys, thinner glass, it was even missing its middle rear belt to save weight!
Why would they then skimp on weigh in day, surely the car tested would have a thimble of fuel, no one on board, et all. It makes no sense to go to these lengths to save weight, then not do all you can to boast of the savings you've made? I'm not being argumentative, I'm just a little miffed.
The 172 Cup was a serious effort, the 182 Cup was a token gesture, at trim level - IIRC 110 kg saving v 30 something in the 182.
Why would they then skimp on weigh in day, surely the car tested would have a thimble of fuel, no one on board, et all. It makes no sense to go to these lengths to save weight, then not do all you can to boast of the savings you've made? I'm not being argumentative, I'm just a little miffed.
The 172 Cup was a serious effort, the 182 Cup was a token gesture, at trim level - IIRC 110 kg saving v 30 something in the 182.
adam. said:
s m said:
The best way to find the weight is to actually weigh the car, in its ready to drive format, with half a tank full.
And that’s how Autocar have got that 979kg figure - from the Millbrook weighbridge
For sure I'd assume Autocar to have the more accurate figure, just surprised there's 40 Kg of difference!And that’s how Autocar have got that 979kg figure - from the Millbrook weighbridge
My 172 Cup certainly felt very light on its feet.
Do they state anywhere what the official figure includes? Fuel load?
Autocar test car was a non air con car, half tank of fuel, no driver - 979kg
Find out what the Renault official weight included and you might find out what the 41kg difference was
Interesting stuff ! We have been looking for a 182 for a while now, almost pulled the trigger on a blue 172, but the horse traders excuse re why it had needed a new n / s front wing and head lamp, was just So funny 😂.
Re the Cooper S verses the 172 / 182, I was fortunate to own a red / black roof Cooper S in summer 04. It was one of the first built, a 52 plate, I bought it @ 18 months old, from its First Lady owner in Redruth, Cornwall. Loved it, didn't have if long enough to see how it compared to a 172 / 182, but it went well, handled beautifully. I was running a lovely 3.2 Careera at the time and the 911 was better on fuel than the Cooper S. Would love it back, Very fond memories o for this car. Hope it's survived, il try find its reg number !
Re the Cooper S verses the 172 / 182, I was fortunate to own a red / black roof Cooper S in summer 04. It was one of the first built, a 52 plate, I bought it @ 18 months old, from its First Lady owner in Redruth, Cornwall. Loved it, didn't have if long enough to see how it compared to a 172 / 182, but it went well, handled beautifully. I was running a lovely 3.2 Careera at the time and the 911 was better on fuel than the Cooper S. Would love it back, Very fond memories o for this car. Hope it's survived, il try find its reg number !
Yes my cup doesn't have air con. I just think the fact it is so light and has a meaty engine for a small car is the reason why it feels so good to drive. I've driven a lot of fast cars, much faster than the Clio, but whenever I use mine in anger I do find myself muttering 'this thing rips!"
It's a cracking machine, probably one of the last pure machines following the Williams. The 182 is great but not quite as perfect as the 172 Cup.
It's a cracking machine, probably one of the last pure machines following the Williams. The 182 is great but not quite as perfect as the 172 Cup.
The 172 Cup is certainly under valued; it is effectively the Group N car and - for me - in bare bones spec with no air con is pretty cool.
However, we shouldn't blow too much smoke up Renault's bums! All the 'lightweight' stuff was just taking poverty spec items from base Clios. The only real 'upgrade' was a re-think of the suspension and - controversially perhaps - no ABS.
- It didn't have xenons
- It didn't have air con, but you could laterly spec climate control
- The 'thinner glass' was the non-comfort windscreen
- The lighter wheels (Speedline Turinis) are not that light
- The seating was just poverty level equivalent to the Authentique model
The irony is many upgraded to the leather seats, some will have climate and I imagine by now many have had cracked windscreens replaced by heavier versions (especially if not a genuine OEM part).
Still, they look great in Mondial Blue, on the Turinis and with the little kicked-up rear spoiler. For me, an Iceberg Silver one would be like getting a black M3 CSL - WRONG!
However, we shouldn't blow too much smoke up Renault's bums! All the 'lightweight' stuff was just taking poverty spec items from base Clios. The only real 'upgrade' was a re-think of the suspension and - controversially perhaps - no ABS.
- It didn't have xenons
- It didn't have air con, but you could laterly spec climate control
- The 'thinner glass' was the non-comfort windscreen
- The lighter wheels (Speedline Turinis) are not that light
- The seating was just poverty level equivalent to the Authentique model
The irony is many upgraded to the leather seats, some will have climate and I imagine by now many have had cracked windscreens replaced by heavier versions (especially if not a genuine OEM part).
Still, they look great in Mondial Blue, on the Turinis and with the little kicked-up rear spoiler. For me, an Iceberg Silver one would be like getting a black M3 CSL - WRONG!
hondansx said:
The 172 Cup is certainly under valued; it is effectively the Group N car and - for me - in bare bones spec with no air con is pretty cool.
However, we shouldn't blow too much smoke up Renault's bums! All the 'lightweight' stuff was just taking poverty spec items from base Clios. The only real 'upgrade' was a re-think of the suspension and - controversially perhaps - no ABS.
The car that is so much more for having so much less!However, we shouldn't blow too much smoke up Renault's bums! All the 'lightweight' stuff was just taking poverty spec items from base Clios. The only real 'upgrade' was a re-think of the suspension and - controversially perhaps - no ABS.
Bumping an old thread, just because 
Bought my FF cupped Inferno 182 on 8k miles back in 2011, had it 4.5 years and 84k miles later it had NEVER let me down. Sold it to a friend, for what i now know to be a downgrade to a Mini GP1.
Always regretted selling the 182, its pund for pund the best car ive ever owned and the one car i wished id never sold.
My friend kept it tidy unmilested and its now on 111k miles...
Guess what i've just bought back, wants some odd jobs doing to get it back where id like it, but couldnt be happier
Bought my FF cupped Inferno 182 on 8k miles back in 2011, had it 4.5 years and 84k miles later it had NEVER let me down. Sold it to a friend, for what i now know to be a downgrade to a Mini GP1.
Always regretted selling the 182, its pund for pund the best car ive ever owned and the one car i wished id never sold.
My friend kept it tidy unmilested and its now on 111k miles...
Guess what i've just bought back, wants some odd jobs doing to get it back where id like it, but couldnt be happier
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff