Just had a run against a 182

[jonathon555]

Just had a side by side run against my mates new 182, it was pretty impressive but my 172 managed to pull a gap on it easily.

So we swapped cars & i found out why, the 182 got a big boost of power at 5000 rpm like my car used to, my 172 now gets the same boost at 4000 rpm & pulls really hard from 3000 rpm.

I was still really impressed how light the controls were on the 182, it would deffo be a car i would consider. I would probably do the same mods to it as i have done to the 172, this would hopefully give it a big heap of low end torque & make the powerband from 4000 to 7500 rpm.

182 is definatley a good step forward.


[Edited by jonathon555 on 19 December 2004 at 9:50pm]

 

[CocoPops]

What mods have you done?

And was the 182 standard?

 

[jonathon555]

Quote: Originally posted by CocoPops on 19 December 2004

What mods have you done?

And was the 182 standard?

ECU, custom built exhaust, de-cat, custom intake manifold.

Std Air box & paper filter.



182 was bog standard running on optimax


[Edited by jonathon555 on 19 December 2004 at 9:55pm]

 

[Longy]

How many miles on the 182?

 

[jonathon555]

Quote: Originally posted by Longy on 19 December 2004

How many miles on the 182?

6300 miles

 

[Big G]

Interesting, would like to see what happens with a 182 running similar mods.

 

[Pete]

Well the 182 has the inlet mods already and the different exhaust.

 

[jonathon555]

I think the main difference is th de-cat & the ecu. Those were the mods which changed the power delivery.

Has nobody done these to a 182 yet ?

I would certainly be very interested to see the result, if they work then i would deffo be getting a 182.

 

[dazraffan]

had a blast against my mates standed 172 in my standed 182 on a runway pretty even till about 60ish after that he was in my rear view mirror

and gave some bloke in a merc SL55 on the A11 roundabouts last night a of a shock too (he tryed to go round the inside of me then over take me on the carrigeway he was real desprate to get past me in his 60grand car i think he was a bit pissed he just been done by a clio i let him get go past once i got to 70 )

 

[Spammy]

Quote: Originally posted by jonathon555 on 20 December 2004


I think the main difference is th de-cat & the ecu. Those were the mods which changed the power delivery.

Has nobody done these to a 182 yet ?

I would certainly be very interested to see the result, if they work then i would deffo be getting a 182.









GDId Clio 182 here! Ecu, exhaust, silenced decat, induction, cams and manifolds.

 

[SimonV6]

Some of that maybe down to the mileage I reckon? I remember a Top Gear shoot out years ago with two Golf GTis, both std, one with 55,000 miles and one with only 5,000 and it was amazing how much more quicker the "Run in" 50k one was.

Most Multi valve cars get better with age



Simon

 

[PJVTS]

But the performance figures are the same and most 172s will have been better run in lol - i love these vague comments!





Quote: Originally posted by dazraffan on 20 December 2004





had a blast against my mates standed 172 in my standed 182 on a runway pretty even till about 60ish after that he was in my rear view mirror

and gave some bloke in a merc SL55 on the A11 roundabouts last night a of a shock too (he tryed to go round the inside of me then over take me on the carrigeway he was real desprate to get past me in his 60grand car i think he was a bit pissed he just been done by a clio i let him get go past once i got to 70 )

 

[Smokey]

FYI the 182 pulls with most (85%) of its power from 2.5k rpm and the remaining 15% power come in at 4.5-5k rpm. where the 172 gets almost 100% of its power at 5k rpm

My 182 will pull big gaps on the 172 below 5k rpm

Smokey

 

[PJVTS]

lol

what are the 0-60s?? the same yep! so it matters little where the power is coz they get there at the same time.

i like the 182 and am so happy with my 172 - one day i may get a 182. but i dont expect and diffrence performance wise.

 

[geordieclio]

ive had both 172 and 182 currently 172 i find the 172 faster all round, granted the 182 did not have as many miles as the 172 but still my current 172 only has10k

 

[cliotuRS]

yea isnt the 182 heavier by 20kgs or somthing like that ? surley 0-60 may be faster gearing or earlier power delivery. but by the tonne they would be even ?

 

[182 sport]

Guys,guys guys. It always makes me laugh reading posts like these. I can honestly say what difference there is between the 172 & 182 is not noticeable on the road.You will not see a 182 pull away from a 172 at any speed etc. There is that little difference in terms of performance it really is all down to the driver etc.

 

[MikeC]

mk1 172 is still quicker!

 

[CHRIS172CUP]

broken record=mikeC

 

[FiXX]

Quote: Originally posted by cliotuRS on 20 December 2004
yea isnt the 182 heavier by 20kgs or somthing like that ? surley 0-60 may be faster gearing or earlier power delivery. but by the tonne they would be even ?


the 182 is lighter than the 172 and has a far better power to weight ratio. Though having owned both i cant notice much of a difference in straight line speed

 

[MikeC]

surely the 182 isnt lighter??

 

[cliotuRS]

what about handling. my standard 172MKII rolled like a bus through corners when i fisrt got it although the grip was still exellent. then put eibachs on and the roll is gone.

standard 172MKII vs 182 Cup spoiler + suspension ? which is better handling.

also is the steering any better as mine seems way to heavy as does the clutch.

 

[Smokey]

My Mk1 172 was worse handling then my 182 with CUP packs. but i chucked coilovers on my 172 and it makes the 182 feel like a barge.

182 Back end is very twitchy and it rolls like a b**ch.

Roll on coilovers

What im saying is between 1 set of lights and another the 182 would win, the 182 would of long gone before the 172 even comes on cam/VVT.

You have to drive the 172 hard to try to keep it in the power where as the 182 is effortless.

 

[FiXX]

Quote: Originally posted by PJVTS on 20 December 2004
lolwhat are the 0-60s?? the same yep! so it matters little where the power is coz they get there at the same time.

not entirely true, Evo timed the 182 @ 6.6 and couldnt get the 172 below 7.1 and also the 172 was over a second slower 0-100 so while maybe not instantly noticeable on the road, there is a difference.

 

[PJVTS]

yer ive seen those evo quotes - i have the very issue - and the fact the car had done bugger all miles and was a left hooker / they even said in the test they doubted the car was running like it should have.

By the by a 172 would be dead on a 182 0-60 - 0-100 - whatever you like.

reno figures say there the same, and im sure if there was a difference Renault would have marketed the fact!! without doubt! as brining out a newer supposedly more powerfull sister, as im sure the majority would have hoped of a slight performance increase??

Did Renault do this i think not.

 

[FiXX]

all car manufacturers do the same, they wouldnt have changed the stated times so as not to attract a higher insurance group.
Just look at the bhp/tonne figures between the two.

 

[PJVTS]

Civic type R - new one?

Leon CUPRA R?

New golf gti?

Of course they would brag about performance increases on a newer model!!

There was nout to brag about.

 

[182 sport]

When youve raced 172 vs 182 0-60mph and 0-100mph and 50-120+ and there aint no difference, it dont matter what anyone says or any magazine,you proved it to yourself.just like I did.

 

[gazcaddy]

given everything identical you would expect the 182 to be slightly faster than the 172, but hardly noticeable. The problem is though because they are so close alot of other factors come into it such as miles on the car, weight of driver, how many passengers, whether you have a good one or a bad car.

In general though the magazines do agree the 182 is faster according to their road test. Ive never seen a 6.3 0-60 run for a 172

 

[cliotuRS]

yes i know im lazy but il just paste this..

the 182 is heavier 1090kgs v 1070kgs for 172mkII and 1035kgs for the 172cup. 10bhp extra 10kgs heavier hence no real difference upto 100 only maybe lower down because renault have moved its power lower down.

still i agree the best ive had the 172 + eibachs and green air filter (also mines a fast one according to my m8 witha monaco blue 172) is 6.94 so 0.4 faster than stated by renault. however going by that logic a 182 is quoted @ 7.0 to 60 so take 0.4 from that and you have 6.6 which is probably consistently acheivable (6.3 is perfect + low fuel start).

the 182 cup with its awful cloth seats and 20kgs weigh saving could probably must consistent 6.4

upto 100 there would be a more slightly noticble difference. but its the improved handling which would temp me away from 172 to 182.

 

[davep24]

wasnt the 182 a marketing ploy because peugeot had launched the gti 180?, at the end of the day 10hp is going to make bugger all difference. the main reason why the figures differ is down to driver ability and the current conditions. run your car on a hot day and the performance will suffer, again run it on a cold day and it performs better

 

[cliotuRS]

Quote: Originally posted by davep24 on 20 December 2004

wasnt the 182 a marketing ploy because peugeot had launched the gti 180?, at the end of the day 10hp is going to make bugger all difference. the main reason why the figures differ is down to driver ability and the current conditions. run your car on a hot day and the performance will suffer, again run it on a cold day and it performs better




^^ i agree to a point although in standard trim the 182 has a audible exhuast note quite nice, IS a bit faster to 60 and looks newer cos it is.. the only reason id consider swaiping was if i wanted a fresh new car like the 172 but in a colour i couldnt get the 172 in.. everytime i see a 182 im "dammit a 182, ive only got a 172" hehe sad but its nice to have the latest and i prefer the slightly darker dash and seats + seatbelts + cup spoiler + new alloys.

 

[gazcaddy]

yeah but all the road test i have seen for the 182 have been 0-60 in under 7 secs, some of the 172 road test were over 7 not all but some.

The main reason i would have a 182 becuase IMO the twin exhaust looks better, also like the wheels

IMO though anyone who owns a 172/182 is fortunate to have such a good car, as alot of people would love to own one.

 

[jonathon555]

Guys Guys Guys,

I did not mean to start a full on battle over what is better, I was just stating what happened.

My modded mk1 172 can pull a gap on my mates 182 and thats it. It can also pull a gap on a 2.7 boxter up to 120. I dont reckon it could do the same if it was standard, because it was no where near as fast as it is now.

His 182 has std suspension, but my 172 feel more sure footed on the handling stakes. But the roads were extra slippy so it could purely be down to tyres or which car you are most used to.

The 182 is a great car & i would be interested in buying one next if I can do the same mods.

The 172 i own is an angry little motor car which can embaress many so called performance cars, thats why i have it, its fun.

I also have three other cars to choose from depending on the application, but the 172 is deffo in the top 2 for fun.

 

[cliotuRS]

yea even though i hate everthing about renaults £ for £ there damn good cars the 172 and 182. spend £800 on mods and get a 0-60 in 6 flat + 34mpg.

 

[TheJesus]

Quote: Originally posted by Smokey on 20 December 2004

What im saying is between 1 set of lights and another the 182 would win, the 182 would of long gone before the 172 even comes on cam/VVT.
You have to drive the 172 hard to try to keep it in the power where as the 182 is effortless.

fail to see how the 182 would just win because it generates more torque. im assuming that a TLGP you would both be still, and taking off in 1st gear you wont get to use that extra torque power or whatever, grips the key. every change after that you would be on cam anyway... hence 0-60 being pretty much identical.

i bet if you were to compare all the mag/road test results and gave them an average overall figure they would be exactly the same. its a marketing scam, bit like the Williams, only not as special and with less appeal

 

[miketheman2k]

Quote: Originally posted by cliotuRS on 20 December 2004


the 182 is heavier 1090kgs v 1070kgs for 172mkII and 1035kgs for the 172cup. 10bhp extra 10kgs heavier hence no real difference upto 100 only maybe lower down because renault have moved its power lower down.

You sure? I thought the mk2 172 was heavier than the 182? I read that the 182 has 13bhp / ton more than the 172mk2, thats quite a lot!

 

[cliotuRS]

Quote: Originally posted by miketheman2k on 20 December 2004

Quote: Originally posted by cliotuRS on 20 December 2004


the 182 is heavier 1090kgs v 1070kgs for 172mkII and 1035kgs for the 172cup. 10bhp extra 10kgs heavier hence no real difference upto 100 only maybe lower down because renault have moved its power lower down.

You sure? I thought the mk2 172 was heavier than the 182? I read that the 182 has 13bhp / ton more than the 172mk2, thats quite a lot!

cool if it did ? i guess those figures could be wrong as im getting a 182 lol !