Puma 1.7 v Clio 172

Cyrus said:
and the clio 172 is a clio :confused:whats the point?

here is a review of the racing puma (i know i know not the car suggested here) and it is quicker than the clio and integra R

http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/puma_vs_clio_vs_itr/puma_vs_clio_vs_itr.html
Click to expand...

An M5 is quicker than a Racing Puma.

Why doesn't everyone buy one?

Because they can't afford to buy one?

Because they can't afford to run one?

It's an expensive Fiesta. 0-60 in 7.9 seconds!? Would get a hammering off a 106 GTi never mind a Clio Sport.
 
That was a cracking read from topgear mag. Each car had its good and its bad points that they highlighted and showed no bias to any of the cars.
 
Why did they quote the integra as 7 secs to 60 its quite a bit quicker than that? wet maybe..

edit - in fact theres quite a bit of rubbish in there - integra softer than the puma and clio? give me a break, a guy at work has a racing puma and the integra feels much sharper and raw. Cant comment on the clio though as have not been in one before :)
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;11762023 said:
Guess thats just the best time they got out of it on the day.
Click to expand...

Ahh sorry didnt realise it was the actual figures they got not the book times. Yea and earlier in the article it mentions it not being dry.
 
Cyrus said:
and the clio 172 is a clio :confused:whats the point?
Click to expand...

Yeah, what is your point? Are you saying Clio Sports (the car in question) and Fiestas are in any way comparable in the handling stakes?

Cyrus said:
here is a review of the racing puma (i know i know not the car suggested here) and it is quicker than the clio and integra R
Click to expand...

If it isn't the car suggested what does it have to do with the thread?
 
Gilly said:
Yeah, what is your point? Are you saying Clio Sports (the car in question) and Fiestas are in any way comparable in the handling stakes?



If it isn't the car suggested what does it have to do with the thread?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:clio is to clio 'sport' as fiesta is to puma, saying a puma doesnt handle aswell as the clio just becuase its based on the fiesta is stupid, it handles very very well.

and its obviously based on the car tested and what a quick google threw up, and its not entirely irrelevant.
 
Cyrus said:
:rolleyes:clio is to clio 'sport' as fiesta is to puma, saying a puma doesnt handle aswell as the clio just becuase its based on the fiesta is stupid, it handles very very well.

and its obviously based on the car tested and what a quick google threw up, and its not entirely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

There's no need for the attitude, I didn't give you any.

Standard Fiesta handling is comparable to standard Clio handling. Clio Sport handling is comparable to Ford Racing Puma handling.

In no way could you compare standard Fiesta to Clio Sport, nor FRP to standard Clio. It is absolute nonsense. There is no relevancy to this thread at all whatsoever.
 
The puma is not a standard fiesta, so why are you saying it is?

Also the clio sport, in 172 guise at any rate, doesnt obviously compare to the FRP, if the FRP with 20 bhp less beats it in the test linked?

You are the only one comparing fiestas to anything here.
 
Cyrus said:
The puma is not a standard fiesta, so why are you saying it is?

Also the clio sport, in 172 guise at any rate, doesnt obviously compare to the FRP, if the FRP with 20 bhp less beats it in the test linked?

You are the only one comparing fiestas to anything here.
Click to expand...

The Clio won the test :confused:
 
Cyrus was refering to the lap time. Even with 20bhp less iirc it did the lap a 1.5secs or so quicker than the clio.

Think the Clio was the overall winner though.
 
It would be quite interesting to see if it could beat a 172 Cup, a 182 Cup or 182 FF with Cup packs by 1.5 seconds round the track.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom