Clean16v

[Neil82]

Jus thought id correct you in something you said, since the thread has been locked I cant reply in it.

I quote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

chip zorst and filter=14.404

zorst and filter=14.5

chip zorst and filter and cams=14.2

zorst and stripped out=14.3

a cup owner with a viper/Rsport ecu and full zorst adn stripped out ran a 14.8 @ crail a couple of weeks back lmao, seen alot of 172s struggle to get inot 15s! i rest my case

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My car did indeed do a 14.8 1/4 mile at Crail a couple of weeks ago but you seem to not include the fact it crossed the line at 98 mph (showing 100 on speedo same day the fastest standard 172 saw 90) and I also did a 2.6 60 ft. I also only did 2 runs as I had no intention of running but _KDF wanted a race and though it would be a good opportunity to see what difference the mods have made (and to try and kick his ass ) My car does not have a Viper it only has a green panel filter. My car with just the chip did a mailto:14.4@96">14.4@96 mph so I think with a few more runs I could possibly improve on that time.

I am not having a dig here or trying to talk my car up just correcting something you said.

 

[paddymph]

ffs neil!

was it worth posting all that!? he aint gonna reply mate!

 

[Dash]

The idea with locked threads is that its over and done with.

 

[paddymph]

5.9 BTW?!

u takin the piss laddo?!

 

[TheJesus]

somebody has a chip on their shoulder, or a Cup complex

 

[clean16v]

lmao @ you boy. REALLY hope i see your super fast flying machine cup at a 1/4 mile strip this season.......

 

[TheJesus]

Quote: Originally posted by clean16v on 17 April 2004

lmao @ you boy. REALLY hope i see your super fast flying machine cup at a 1/4 mile strip this season.......

reckon I know what the outcome will be

 

[clean16v]

lol

 

[Mitchy]

Neils a funny character, along with that twin brother of his!!

5.9 was probably done on a stop watch and the 186bhp claim was probably made up! Has anyone seen timing slips or RR graphs from Neil to back up his claims?

 

[TheJesus]

well Ive seen his oponents car and tbh I cant see a Cup keeping up... maybe if it was a Cup Cosworth or something... maybe

 

[Mitchy]

I have no doubt Neil has a quick cup. Good on him really!! Do you hear that Neil, Im giving you a compliment

5.9 does seem extremely and incredibly quick for a lightly modded cup though. I would certainly have believed the cup needing 200+ to break the 6sec barrier. But if Neils got evidence of his 5.9 other than stopwatch then a big thumbs up.

Onto power.....

Now my understanding of the Rsport Ecu is that it gave better torque throughout the rev range rather than increase peak power. Im sure ive read on here, that from the Rsport ECU you shouldnt expect to see an increase in peak bhp. That still leaves Neils car at or around the 170bhp mark, does it not?? Add the panel filter and exhaust and 175 seems to be the logical power output, some 10bhp short of neils claims!! If im wrong about the Rsport Ecu then fine i do believe he has around the 185bhp figure!

 

[paddymph]

RRs are all w**k, theyre ok if u wanna rough figure but theres just too many indescrepancies (sp?!).

1/4 mile is only way to be sure!

 

[Mitchy]

Paddy............A 1/4 mile is a crap test of a cars capabilities. If we were all equally matched drivers then i might agree with you!

It all depends on 1 thing............ the launch. Get an experienced 1/4 miler in a cup vs a 1st timer in another equally matched cup, and its obvious who is going to win. That doesnt say much about the car, only the skill of the other driver. It could be a second or more depending on launch capabilities of the driver, not really a fair comparison of the cars TBH.

RRs will give you an accurate wheel figure and then calculate the flywheel by a run down test i believe. These are not crap, ill tell you what is though the calibration of differing rolling road centres. I mean the differing results you may get from 1 RR centre to the next. They are certainly not a waste of time! They only seem to be a waste of time to the people who have never bothered there arse taking there car to one.

In my opinion anyway!!

 

[Martin]

Quote: Originally posted by TheJesus on 17 April 2004

well Ive seen his oponents car and tbh I cant see a Cup keeping up... maybe if it was a Cup Cosworth or something... maybe

So is this a large hint? Any link with the I got Smoked thread???

 

[paddymph]

ive been to 3, 2 at the same garage. always had different readings, talking about difference of + - 15/20 or so.

This was RE in bury, wll known to be dead accurate. the more i got to, the more i reckon theyre CRAP!

Also in my opinion of course

 

[clean16v]

Quote: Originally posted by MartinS on 17 April 2004

Quote: Originally posted by TheJesus on 17 April 2004

well Ive seen his oponents car and tbh I cant see a Cup keeping up... maybe if it was a Cup Cosworth or something... maybe

So is this a large hint? Any link with the I got Smoked thread???



dont know what your talking about.............ps my car was standard then! it has a few more tricks up its sleeve now

 

[Neil82]

Quote: Originally posted by TheJesus on 17 April 2004


somebody has a chip on their shoulder, or a Cup complex

Yeah his name is Clean16v.

 

[ravo]

Quote: Originally posted by TheJesus on 17 April 2004


somebody has a chip on their shoulder, or a Cup complex

that wouldnt do much good would it... prolly go quicker if you put it in the engine

 

[aaronc]

5.9 seconds to 60? you got a turbo on that clio or something cos thats a very fast time.

Wasnt timed by your stop watch was it?

 

[Martin]

Quote: Originally posted by clean16v on 17 April 2004

Quote: Originally posted by MartinS on 17 April 2004

Quote: Originally posted by TheJesus on 17 April 2004

well Ive seen his oponents car and tbh I cant see a Cup keeping up... maybe if it was a Cup Cosworth or something... maybe

So is this a large hint? Any link with the I got Smoked thread???




dont know what your talking about.............ps my car was standard then! it has a few more tricks up its sleeve now

How come you managed to spank a williams if yours is standard? Lets have some details then. How come 2.0 valvers seem to be quicker (in a straight line ) than the williams?

 

[clean16v]

Martin mate







<-------------------------------------not long left now i promise

 

[182_blue]

why is 5.9 so unbelievable,when everyone accepts that a 182 can supposedly do 6.3,its only got new full zorst with all the extra weight

 

[Martin]

Ohh the tension is killing me!

 

[182_blue]

im not saying this as a cuo owner,its just that nobody has questioned that a heavier 182 can do low 6s but who says a lightweight cup with slight mods cant knock 4 tenths of the 182 ??,ps i have it on very good authority that the 182 tested for the low 6s 0-60 was internally modified, ie engine mods, sneaky people those renault folks

 

[Big Iain]

I was at crail that day guys and with a passenger and only an exhaust my best was 15.8 in the wet, I do know that Neils car crossed the line at 98mph as I saw proof of that, not sure how to work the other times and speeds out from that but it appears to be bloody fast

 

[clean16v]

5.9 secs 0-60 in a cup? LMAO, here are a few examples folks, Adis cllio (one fo the fastest on the forum!) struggles to get into the 5s, fiat coupe 20v turbo, 225bhp, 0-100 in 14 secs, 0-60 in 6.2/3. power aint the issue here, putting the power down in a FWD car is! the lighter the car, the harder to put the power down, the more power, the harder to put it down. the fastest you can get on road tyres and without the aid of traction control.launch control/LSDs etc is low/flat 6s. there is NO WAY Neils cup is doing 0-60 in 5s, be it late 5s, never in a million years!

not saying it catn be done, hot slicks, LSD, and a very long first gear would go someway in making it possible, but not in our everyday clios, you need serious equipment to allow 5sec 0-60 sprints in a FWD car

 

[Dave Hester]

Quote: Originally posted by clean16v on 17 April 2004


5.9 secs 0-60 in a cup? LMAO, here are a few examples folks, Adis cllio (one fo the fastest on the forum!) struggles to get into the 5s, fiat coupe 20v turbo, 225bhp, 0-100 in 14 secs, 0-60 in 6.2/3. power aint the issue here, putting the power down in a FWD car is! the lighter the car, the harder to put the power down, the more power, the harder to put it down. the fastest you can get on road tyres and without the aid of traction control.launch control/LSDs etc is low/flat 6s. there is NO WAY Neils cup is doing 0-60 in 5s, be it late 5s, never in a million years!

not saying it catn be done, hot slicks, LSD, and a very long first gear would go someway in making it possible, but not in our everyday clios, you need serious equipment to allow 5sec 0-60 sprints in a FWD car

I totally agree with this, i seriously cant think of any standard FWD car that can do sub 6 seconds to 60. Unless what has been just said about using a combination of a good LSD and slicks i cant see how any front wheel drive car can get enough traction

this is why i have to have a good laugh at people who tell you stories about beating evos or scoobys at the lights with their "hot hatch"

Its just such crap

boys who drives 4WD beasts are in a totally different league to us and have the huge advantage of having "usable" power which can be layed straight down on the tarmac

lets face it however much you like your clio or whatever bhp your running your never gunna have a lightning fast 0-60 time

 

[TheJesus]

Quote: Originally posted by MartinS on 17 April 2004

Quote: Originally posted by clean16v on 17 April 2004

Quote: Originally posted by MartinS on 17 April 2004

Quote: Originally posted by TheJesus on 17 April 2004

well Ive seen his oponents car and tbh I cant see a Cup keeping up... maybe if it was a Cup Cosworth or something... maybe

So is this a large hint? Any link with the I got Smoked thread???




dont know what your talking about.............ps my car was standard then! it has a few more tricks up its sleeve now

How come you managed to spank a williams if yours is standard? Lets have some details then. How come 2.0 valvers seem to be quicker (in a straight line ) than the williams?

having replaced the cat that was prolly the main reason... shame you have had stuff done cos I think a retest would have certainly been a lot closer. the difference is the front track apparently being wider on the Williams, something to do with rolling resistance, there are some threads somewhere about it... your car wasnt quite standard

 

[clean16v]

yep yep, there will be plenty of time for comparison soon mate! as for the williams wider track theory.....i came up with it! the only difference i can see between a 2l valver and willy (if they have the same box) is the wider track on williams which must add to transmission loss im guessing? car was standard mate! bar the fuelling which doesnt make a difference on the car while its standard anyway! not gonna give much away but youll prob be the first person to see it once its done seeing as your local!

 

[Ben H]

The Willy and Valver dont run the same box. They do run the same ratios from 1st to 4th but are effectively shorter in the Willy due to the 6500rpm redline.

The Willy box may have greater transmission loss due to the fact that it has bigger bearings and a larger secondary shaft.

It is possible that the wider front track would create some loss (due to extended driveshafts), but I dont see it being a major issue. Remember that Adis Willy-powered 2.0 also has cams and head mods, whereas most Williams are kept relatively standard and still break well into the 14s.

 

[TheJesus]

well I was struggling to hit 120s that day, seen a little bit faster now. cant wait to see it when its done m8, u will have to take us out for a spin! when u get it sorted m8 ill still be up for a blast, then you can see how much faster it is than the standard Willy! lol

 

[clean16v]

Quote: Originally posted by Ben H on 18 April 2004


The Willy and Valver dont run the same box. They do run the same ratios from 1st to 4th but are effectively shorter in the Willy due to the 6500rpm redline.

The Willy box may have greater transmission loss due to the fact that it has bigger bearings and a larger secondary shaft.

It is possible that the wider front track would create some loss (due to extended driveshafts), but I dont see it being a major issue. Remember that Adis Willy-powered 2.0 also has cams and head mods, whereas most Williams are kept relatively standard and still break well into the 14s.





most wiliams i have seen run low 15s or some high 14s (standard) and my point about transmission loss is that the only difference between a 2l clio and a williams IF THEY ARE RUNNING THE SAME BOX(ie 2l conversion with willy box) is the wider track on williams. reckon that the greater transmission loss can make up for a fair amount at 100mph+?

 

[paddymph]

182 has wider tyres to help get that 0-60 time down, its not just a case of a new exhaust!

 

[KDF]

Quote: Originally posted by Big Iain on 17 April 2004I was at crail that day guys and with a passenger and only an exhaust my best was 15.8 in the wet, I do know that Neils car crossed the line at 98mph as I saw proof of that, not sure how to work the other times and speeds out from that but it appears to be bloody fast


Ye it is a fast Cup, as Neil said I actually beat him off the line of the 1/4 mile, with a TV of 91, Neil was at a 98mph TV, says it all really.

There is no doubt that the 172 engine responds well to certain mods, de-cat being one of them. My 172 wasnt stripped out though (had 3rd passenger to take to crail) and half tank of fuel so I reckon the 15.4 I got wasnt too bad for my first time up the strip. Should be able to practice my launches next time.

 

[Simon172]

Wasnt the EK9 Civic type R timed at sub 6 seconds?

 

[Martin]

^^Hes got a point^^

 

[clean16v]

Quote: Originally posted by Simon172 on 18 April 2004


Wasnt the EK9 Civic type R timed at sub 6 seconds?

mates got one of these, Adis raced it and beaten it! Cacnt really understand why they ahve been timed at sub 6 TBH, i didnt find the performance breathtaking!

 

[Swervin_Mervin]

The funny thing is this:

The peaks blast showed a lot of people just how meaningless 1/4mile times and 0-60 times can be.

I think several 172s were shown to be somewhat lacking through the twisties, only really gaining in anyway on the straight bits, above 80. (Chris n Nic only got past me in Macc with them in their Cup and me with my K&N equipped Valver once we got in to 4th!)

Id say that on the day the quickest clios were still the Willys that came along. The 182 that was there was, I assume, being run in.

 

[Chris n nic]

I think the old Civic type R had LSD tho. But 0-100 wasnt that good.

Chris

 

[Martin]

Quote: Originally posted by mike8579 on 18 April 2004


The funny thing is this:

The peaks blast showed a lot of people just how meaningless 1/4mile times and 0-60 times can be.

I think several 172s were shown to be somewhat lacking through the twisties, only really gaining in anyway on the straight bits, above 80. (Chris n Nic only got past me in Macc with them in their Cup and me with my K&N equipped Valver once we got in to 4th!)

Id say that on the day the quickest clios were still the Willys that came along. The 182 that was there was, I assume, being run in.

The old timers can still cut it!