Opinions going from 172 -> R27 197?

[MarkCup]

Yup, below 2-3krpm it's like the pedal's connected to the throttle body with a very slack bungee cord.

Above 5k it's better, but still not twitch-your-ankle-razor-sharp.

I'm learning to drive around it, have to give it a more considered stab when rev matching, but beyond that it's no issue at all really. Certainly nothing that makes me want to get it mapped.

 

[Scott™]

Can it be mapped out?

 

[Martin_172]

i think its probably to make it easier to drive around town at slow speeds, as it is as mark says a bit better higher up the rev range.

its more like driving a cable throttle car when using heel and toe you have to give it a proper stab, my GT with the same pedal setup had razor sharp throttle response on it and it just needed a little rock on to the accelerator to rev match perfectly.

 

[Chris_786]

So would you guys Pick R26>R27?

Same MPG according to parkers... (i know not to be trusted)

 

[plymcl172]

on the mpg note, why is the 197/200 so different on mpg to the 1*2 ?? Sure as time goes on the mpg of cars should be going up not down

 

[MarkCup]

Same engine, higher state of tune, 100bhp/litre is never going to be economic.

Bigger car, bigger hole needs to be punched through the air, more mass, requires more fuel to get it moving.

Simple.

 

[davo172]

Thanks everyone!

Think my minds made up on looks alone, I'm going to start selling my stuff off my 172 and save towards a LY R27.
I'll be looking to buy come April/March time...

Other cars that crossed my mind where...
-BMW Z4 2.2
-Megane 230 R26
-Porsche Boxter 2.7
-Golf GTi Mk5

I would get a mk5 !!!

 

[The Fatty]

newer clios seem to big to me. IMO the new twingo is about the size I would expect a clio to be and the new clios are not far from the old megane size.

 

[Martin_172]

things move on, cars get bigger, safer, heavier. doesnt need to make them more boring, the 200 is much better than the 172/182 was