Clio 172 -v- 205 1.9
Discussion
Picked myself up a 172 01/Y on Saturday and had the chance to give it a good run very early yesterday morning when rain of biblical proportions came down.
Other than aqua planning round a Laguna I enjoyed the drive but I've got say I reckon I could have had much more fun in my 205.
Whilst the 172 is far more comfortable, refined and build quality is miles better it does feel a bit remote compare the the old timer.
Another thing which is a bit annoying is the power band being miles higher up the rev range, most probably due to it being a 16v.
Would a Cup be a better drive compared to the full fat version?
Other than aqua planning round a Laguna I enjoyed the drive but I've got say I reckon I could have had much more fun in my 205.
Whilst the 172 is far more comfortable, refined and build quality is miles better it does feel a bit remote compare the the old timer.
Another thing which is a bit annoying is the power band being miles higher up the rev range, most probably due to it being a 16v.
Would a Cup be a better drive compared to the full fat version?
In answer to the OP's question.
A 172 Cup would be a better drive I expect (I've never driven a non-cup 172, so I can't say for sure). But theres not a massive difference. You can probably push harder in the wet in a standard 172 than a Cup as you have more safety features to keep you out of trouble (unless your Walter Rohl
)
The Cup is supposed to have keener turn-in (wider track, stiffer springs, lighter wheels), and is slightly more tail happy due to there being less weight over the rear axle (no spare wheel).
If you want to make your 172 more involving you could just strip some weight out and upgrade the suspension.
BTW I'd love to drive a 205 Gti some day, just to find out if it lives up to the hype. I know others are of the opinion that it is better than many modern hot hatches for feel and driver involvement
A 172 Cup would be a better drive I expect (I've never driven a non-cup 172, so I can't say for sure). But theres not a massive difference. You can probably push harder in the wet in a standard 172 than a Cup as you have more safety features to keep you out of trouble (unless your Walter Rohl
) The Cup is supposed to have keener turn-in (wider track, stiffer springs, lighter wheels), and is slightly more tail happy due to there being less weight over the rear axle (no spare wheel).
If you want to make your 172 more involving you could just strip some weight out and upgrade the suspension.
BTW I'd love to drive a 205 Gti some day, just to find out if it lives up to the hype. I know others are of the opinion that it is better than many modern hot hatches for feel and driver involvement
Edited by Baldylocks on Thursday 15th February 13:30
Edited by Baldylocks on Thursday 15th February 13:30
As the 172 is a stop gap I'm not going to strip it.
Depending on what happens with my 205 I may test drive a Cup.
The 205 is without down the best handling FWDer I've ever driven, there maybe others but I've yet to drive them. Just a shame that it feels like it's going to break every time I drive it.
Depending on what happens with my 205 I may test drive a Cup.
The 205 is without down the best handling FWDer I've ever driven, there maybe others but I've yet to drive them. Just a shame that it feels like it's going to break every time I drive it.
Agree with you.
My 172 Cup was, in my view, a bit crap. Got rid of it within 3 months. But still got my 1.9 205 which eclipses the 172 in every respect. And, whilst the Cup was more solid than the 205
it still fell apart. I'm not sure what to do with my 205, kind of thought of tracking it but its so nice I'd feel bad...
My 172 Cup was, in my view, a bit crap. Got rid of it within 3 months. But still got my 1.9 205 which eclipses the 172 in every respect. And, whilst the Cup was more solid than the 205
it still fell apart. I'm not sure what to do with my 205, kind of thought of tracking it but its so nice I'd feel bad...sleep envy said:
As the 172 is a stop gap I'm not going to strip it.
Sounds like you have the same plans as me with the 172. Bought it purely as a stop gap car but I must admit that I absolutely adore it!
I agree that it may not be as pure as the 205 but it's pretty darned close in it's feel, it can regularly be seen dangling it's rear wheel in the air through my local twisties and yet served well for the 60 mile commute the last few days too.
I was going to strip it, uprate it etc butI don't think I will after all, I like the idea of turning up to a trackday in a totally standard 172 and being pretty quick on track!
I was hounding the Lotus boys in my old E30 325i recently so the Clio should do even better I reckon
I'm at Brands Indy in the Clio on 26th Feb so we shall see!!
Baldylocks said:
BTW I'd love to drive a 205 Gti some day, just to find out if it lives up to the hype. I know others are of the opinion that it is better than many modern hot hatches for feel and driver involvement
make sure its a standard, un-fettled one! They are more fun by a big margin imo, certainly if my own is anything to go by.
When i bought it, it was very chuckable, loads of lift off oversteer, the whole package was very fun. Once i changed my shocks and springs, got a refurbished rear beam and fitted group a/n mounts wherever i could it lost a lot of the character i loved so much before hand. The Mi16 engine suits the new handling a lot better, the car on a whole demands you drive it a lot faster to get the same thrills as before. Whilst this can be an enjoyable experience, i imagine its closer to something like a crx vtec where youve got focused handling and a really revvy motor to charge everywhere. The old original car was a lot more useable for a driver of my capability!
sorrento205 said:
Baldylocks said:
BTW I'd love to drive a 205 Gti some day, just to find out if it lives up to the hype. I know others are of the opinion that it is better than many modern hot hatches for feel and driver involvement
make sure its a standard, un-fettled one! They are more fun by a big margin imo, certainly if my own is anything to go by.
agreed, I put spax adjustables on my 1st 1.9 and whilst I could attack the corners without lifting it ruined the wet weather ability as it was too stiff (so much so the fuses would pop out of the fuse box over bumps)
my current one is totally standard and whilst ultimately slower in the twisties is far more of a challenge to keep it shiney side up
I'd be surpised if it's still got it's full complement of ponies in the stable but it seems to like scalping S3's round my area
cheers dude
was a bit of a forced purchase seeing as the 205 is off the road for the time being - grabber lorry rubbed its side and bent it a bit last week
I'm hoping to love the 172 but it's no where near as flickable as the Pug. Agreed with the build quality but then it's the paper thin panels that keep it nice and agile.
Sure the RS is on a different diminesion altogether but that's asleep in the gargage until the spring.
In an ideal world I'd keep all three but that's just being greedy
was a bit of a forced purchase seeing as the 205 is off the road for the time being - grabber lorry rubbed its side and bent it a bit last week
I'm hoping to love the 172 but it's no where near as flickable as the Pug. Agreed with the build quality but then it's the paper thin panels that keep it nice and agile.
Sure the RS is on a different diminesion altogether but that's asleep in the gargage until the spring.
In an ideal world I'd keep all three but that's just being greedy
Baldylocks said:
In answer to the OP's question.
A 172 Cup would be a better drive I expect (I've never driven a non-cup 172, so I can't say for sure). But theres not a massive difference. You can probably push harder in the wet in a standard 172 than a Cup as you have more safety features to keep you out of trouble (unless your Walter Rohl)
The Cup is supposed to have keener turn-in (wider track, stiffer springs, lighter wheels), and is slightly more tail happy due to there being less weight over the rear axle (no spare wheel).
If you want to make your 172 more involving you could just strip some weight out and upgrade the suspension.
BTW I'd love to drive a 205 Gti some day, just to find out if it lives up to the hype. I know others are of the opinion that it is better than many modern hot hatches for feel and driver involvement
A 172 Cup would be a better drive I expect (I've never driven a non-cup 172, so I can't say for sure). But theres not a massive difference. You can probably push harder in the wet in a standard 172 than a Cup as you have more safety features to keep you out of trouble (unless your Walter Rohl
) The Cup is supposed to have keener turn-in (wider track, stiffer springs, lighter wheels), and is slightly more tail happy due to there being less weight over the rear axle (no spare wheel).
If you want to make your 172 more involving you could just strip some weight out and upgrade the suspension.
BTW I'd love to drive a 205 Gti some day, just to find out if it lives up to the hype. I know others are of the opinion that it is better than many modern hot hatches for feel and driver involvement
Edited by Baldylocks on Thursday 15th February 13:30
Edited by Baldylocks on Thursday 15th February 13:30
Come down to a 205GtiDrivers meet at some point, they are organised on an ad hoc basis on the forum and are held just North of Guildford. Turn out is variable but in summer you can se 20 to 30 cars turning up in all sorts of states of tune and condition.
Rob
P.S. My current driver is stock apart from a (rare) tuned 8v engine and I love it. Bit less drivable than stock (due to hole in power below ~1800rpm) but what a blast
L100NYY said:
sleep envy said:
surely a N/A 8v would have more torque than a F/I 8v simply because it needs exhaust gasses to spool up?That's what I was thinking???
Eh? Have you ever looked at the torque figures for blown engines?? By increasing the air going into the engine you are effectively increasing the capacity of the engine. My little 1.9 8v turns into a 2.9 8v when on boost. A Clio 182 is about 179bhp and 148lbs/ft, CTR 197bhp and 145lbs/ft with both max figures near to 8k. My blown 205 is around 178bhp and 169lbs/ft at only 5.5k. Admittedly there maybe slightly less torque before the turbo starts to spin - but we're talking sub 2.5k revs
You can’t beat a powerful French hatch for fun but there are definitely different ways to go about it and the kind of engine used will change the kind of driving experience that you get from them.
TECHNOPUG said:
L100NYY said:
sleep envy said:
surely a N/A 8v would have more torque than a F/I 8v simply because it needs exhaust gasses to spool up?That's what I was thinking???
Eh? Have you ever looked at the torque figures for blown engines?? By increasing the air going into the engine you are effectively increasing the capacity of the engine. My little 1.9 8v turns into a 2.9 8v when on boost. A Clio 182 is about 179bhp and 148lbs/ft, CTR 197bhp and 145lbs/ft with both max figures near to 8k. My blown 205 is around 178bhp and 169lbs/ft at only 5.5k. Admittedly there maybe slightly less torque before the turbo starts to spin - but we're talking sub 2.5k revs
You can’t beat a powerful French hatch for fun but there are definitely different ways to go about it and the kind of engine used will change the kind of driving experience that you get from them.
which isn't far off from when I'd be changing up, therefore a T/C daily for me is not practical and my std 1.9 is
Drove the 172 a bit more this weekend - I'm not convinced it's for me...
Gassing Station | French Bred | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff