Clio 172 phase 2 not as quick as phase 1?
Discussion
Its what is called a "Turbocharger", it provides torque to engines with otherwise low torque outputs, I decided I wanted a 182 for my short commute after a series of Turbo's, Fiat Coupe, T5 Volvo, Saabs etc and it felt flat as a fart in comparison, very dissapointing.
They are quick little cars, they are fast round a track due to the handling, but they only feel really quick if you are coming from say a Saxo VTR or other tepid hatch, even if on paper the Clio is as quick it wont feel as quick and you have to give them death to go anywhere, they dont suit a lazy driving style that a turbo allows.
They are quick little cars, they are fast round a track due to the handling, but they only feel really quick if you are coming from say a Saxo VTR or other tepid hatch, even if on paper the Clio is as quick it wont feel as quick and you have to give them death to go anywhere, they dont suit a lazy driving style that a turbo allows.
Mk1 172 is lighter but has longer gear ratios. Mk2 172 is heavier but has shorter gear ratios (designed to give same 0-60 as Mk1).
TBH every real world 'comparison' I've had with all the different 172/182 variants has shown there is f
k all in it. I suppose the Mk1 might have simply felt quicker as it is less refined - this is a big part of the RS Clio experience IMO, you really feel like you're moving compared to other cars. Or as said perhaps one was a good one and the other wasn't.
TBH every real world 'comparison' I've had with all the different 172/182 variants has shown there is f
k all in it. I suppose the Mk1 might have simply felt quicker as it is less refined - this is a big part of the RS Clio experience IMO, you really feel like you're moving compared to other cars. Or as said perhaps one was a good one and the other wasn't.gareth172 said:
Obviously a decent induction kit and set of tyres would make a diffrence is there any best suited to a 172 or any fuel treatments ect?
Not really. Best on the market is the ITG Maxogen induction kit. But its silly expensive for the minimal gain it gives. Cheaper items do pretty much fk all.Decent tyres are important (as they are on any performance car). I favoured Michelin PE2 (these were OE on the 182).
As for fuel treatments
Many owners run them on 95 and swear it makes no difference to super.doogz said:
J4CKO said:
Its what is called a "Turbocharger", it provides torque to engines with otherwise low torque outputs, I decided I wanted a 182 for my short commute after a series of Turbo's, Fiat Coupe, T5 Volvo, Saabs etc and it felt flat as a fart in comparison, very dissapointing.
They are quick little cars, they are fast round a track due to the handling, but they only feel really quick if you are coming from say a Saxo VTR or other tepid hatch, even if on paper the Clio is as quick it wont feel as quick and you have to give them death to go anywhere, they dont suit a lazy driving style that a turbo allows.
i dont think you read the OP right.They are quick little cars, they are fast round a track due to the handling, but they only feel really quick if you are coming from say a Saxo VTR or other tepid hatch, even if on paper the Clio is as quick it wont feel as quick and you have to give them death to go anywhere, they dont suit a lazy driving style that a turbo allows.
The Crack Fox said:
gareth172 said:
Obviously a decent induction kit and set of tyres would make a diffrence is there any best suited to a 172 or any fuel treatments ect?
Sorry Gareth, but 
, induction kits and fuel treatments will make no tangible difference on a Clio, you may as well treat yourself to an electric supercharger and magnetic fuel saver for the difference you'll feel. Decent tyres are a sensible option, but they won't make you go any faster in a straight line. I suspect having tasted a quick(er) car, your perception of 'quick' has changed...
Electric supercharger FTW!
joe_90 said:
I had a ph1, then got a ph2 cup.. The ph1 was defiantly quicker, and was much much happier spinning up and smashing into the limiter. I think it was just a 'better' engine.
its the same engine !! but the later cars have fly by wire throttle!!!!! makes them feel more lethargic compared to the instant throttle response of a cable operated throttle which the mk1 172 really makes for a less frantic throttle on the phase 2 i have driven all the variants of clio's even the sallon. been a few 197 that have gone over to cable throttles let alone late 182 and 172's
+1
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff