172 to MY2000 Uk Impreza?

I went to look at a scooby simiar to that
The car was good but the interior let it down a hell of a lot i know they are basic but the seats were just a basic fabric and felg like an old nissan bluebird style seat very itchy (if you know what i mean)
And if i have any doubts then i would'nt bother if i was going to get another one i would have to at least have a wrx one

But thats just my opinion
 
Iceman said:
I went to look at a scooby simiar to that
The car was good but the interior let it down a hell of a lot i know they are basic but the seats were just a basic fabric and felg like an old nissan bluebird style seat very itchy (if you know what i mean)
And if i have any doubts then i would'nt bother if i was going to get another one i would have to at least have a wrx one

But thats just my opinion
Click to expand...



Only the very early uk scoobs have the 'special edition' tweed seats that are so desired by farmers ;)

Seriously though - they are dire! I changed mine after 3 days of ownership as the Mrs wouldn't even sit in the car til I got decent ones!! To be fair that V plate he is looking at will have proper buckets so that won't be an issue. :)
 
Ahh right yeh think it was about a P reg the one i went to look at and to be honest it really let the car down
Glad you knew what i was on about :p
 
If you go after a classic then you want MY99 on as this was the phase 2 car which had the uprated engine, brakes, nose and interior. My old car (RIP :() hit 270+bhp 270+lbft with just over £1000 of mods safely, add another £200 for Eibach spring kit and it handles even better. Loved the classic much more than any car I've owned since including a full spec'd STI with PPP.
 
J1nxy said:
If you go after a classic then you want MY99 on as this was the phase 2 car which had the uprated engine, brakes, nose and interior. My old car (RIP :() hit 270+bhp 270+lbft with just over £1000 of mods safely, add another £200 for Eibach spring kit and it handles even better. Loved the classic much more than any car I've owned since including a full spec'd STI with PPP.
Click to expand...

Yup I've only been looking at MY2000 models for those reasons. And £20 a day in fuel seems a little high, a friend has an RB5 WR sport edition (so has ppp) and on a motorway/dual carrageway he gets 28-30mpg, my old 19 never went above 30!
 
I'd used to hit 33-35 on a descent run at motorway speeds...round town and backroads was a different matte ;) It did like a diet of Optimax thou.
 
Just to be completely anal about which model to get you want an MY99. For the all the reasons above PLUS the ECU in the 99s is a little more generous with the power. Don't know by how much or if you'd actually notice a difference but by all accounts the 99ECU (801 or summat) is better than the 802.

However, once mapped I don't think it matters but not sure - mines a mapped 802.

Still think your travelling is too much. Better off getting a VAG diesel turbo - gentle fettling should see you give a scoob a run for its money.

EDIT - just watched the vid posted by Cryfreeman - to be fair they really only point out what most people already know. ;) I really like EVOs but IMHO they don't have the character of Imprezas. I've driven as flat out as possible round a "offroad" ;) roundabout and an EVO5 overtook me and drove around me on the same roundabout - it was all I could do to stop the scoob understeering into him. I'm not in any doubt that EVOs generally out perform Imprezas but I'm finding it hard to choose an EVO5 over say an STI6 Type R.
 
Last edited:
Ev0 said:
As title really, worth doing? I've always wanted one and they are coming down in price a lot now, but are the extra costs worth it? Supposedly the 172 isn't far off the pace of a standard model, although I'm sceptical.

Problem is the 172 is pretty cheap to run, servicing isn't too horrendous and economy is good, especially as I do a 50+ mile roudn trip everyday for work :/
Click to expand...

Clio will be loads cheaper to run. Also arguably a better image than the scooby. Best off saving for the house really, the scooby won't be faster than the clio unless it's wet
 
Simon said:
Clio will be loads cheaper to run. Also arguably a better image than the scooby. Best off saving for the house really, the scooby won't be faster than the clio unless it's wet
Click to expand...

The Clio (IMO) will also feel a lot more fun when the grip actually runs out...

Scoobies are all high grip levels with very little handling to actually back it up when that grip does go.

I've driven quite a few scoobies over the last few years and remain wholely unimpressed with the whole experience. They are quick, but there are other cars as quick, especially when rolling, and they grip well, but when really pushed they don't handle that well.

Give me an Evo any day of the week....
 
EddScott said:
EDIT - just watched the vid posted by Cryfreeman - to be fair they really only point out what most people already know. ;) I really like EVOs but IMHO they don't have the character of Imprezas. I've driven as flat out as possible round a "offroad" ;) roundabout and an EVO5 overtook me and drove around me on the same roundabout - it was all I could do to stop the scoob understeering into him. I'm not in any doubt that EVOs generally out perform Imprezas but I'm finding it hard to choose an EVO5 over say an STI6 Type R.
Click to expand...



to be fair early evo's understeer nearly as much as early scoobs

posted video to try and show lack of power in the base scoob, on anything but the worst conditions(read snow :p ) you wouldnt shake off a 172 in one with equal drivers.

But then driving a scoob is more about the experiance.

Friend owns a sti5 type r and is an impressive machine, 365bhp from memory @ scoobyclinic :cool:

Evo 5rs all the way though :D
 
EddScott said:
Although a 172 is probably a nice little hot hatch it won't bother a UK turbo with the most mild of modifications. Personally think Cryfreeman is being a little harsh to the humble UK turbo :)
Click to expand...
I think you're being harsh to the 172. Qtr mile times aren't all that different, and thats just straightline speed, not really one of the Clio's strong points.

I wouldn't be able to lose one on private backroads, but I doubt they'd be able to shake me off either.
 
I've played with quite a few standard newish WRX's on the back road of Kent and they can't shake me at all, one bloke thought his car was broken :D

172 will still be cheaper to run than a normal Scoob and the moment you tune the Scoob you will be looking at much more.

For me the 172 was a price/ performance/ size compromise but I don't regret it one bit. I still can't think of another car which can perform like it and cost as little in standard (showroom) form. 45mpg on the motorway to Wales and not too thirsty even when you cain it, plus cheap to fix and surprisingly reliable :)

MB
 
Matblack said:
I've played with quite a few standard newish WRX's on the back road of Kent and they can't shake me at all, one bloke thought his car was broken :D
Click to expand...

But we're not talking the significantly heavier WRX we're talking the Turbo 2000 which is quite a different kettle of fish. I found the 172 totally gutless and not a massive amount of fun, at least compared to my old Scooby...horses for courses thou.
 
I would say its more about power delivery that would make a 172 feel "gutless" compared to a scoob - all down to the turbo of course. Where the 172 will have progressive acceleration the scoob will have a obvious "lunge" forward once the turbo comes into play.

You could point out that a 172 is lighter than a scoob and in the vid some early UKs are quoted as 208HP. Now 30HP is a noticeable difference but once you factor in weight and 4WD transmission loss you've soaked up that 30HP if not more.

Sadly its become trendy to **** off Imprezas and 4WD has fallen out of favour as the prefered tranmission option. I personally am quite frustrated with FWD cars. Having to switch back and for is pain and I quite often find myself sat half in half out a junction with the front wheels lit up becuase I'd forgotten which car I'm in. As for RWD I've never driven one with enough power to loose traction and although going sideways does sound like fun I feel more secure knowing that the car is more sure footed with 4WD.
 
If you drive a 172 properly, they are a very quick car. you just need to keep it in the power band. The gearing helps as you can squeeze ~40mph in 1st and ~67mph in second. They are also very econmical (38mpg combined). I miss mine like mad. hate my new car but can't do a thing about it.

When I was going to change my 172 at the end of last year, I tried all the hot hatches and fast cars sub 25k I could. The only one that felt significantly faster was a Subaru WRX with Prodrive Pack. On that, I decided not to get another proper fast car. Short of a car which would be more expensive to run in comparison, imo the 172/182 is unbeatable.

So for now, to have a car that is safe for my wife to drive, I am stuck with a corsa /hangsheadinshame. Still cheap as chips and I am enjoying living without the bhp related bills
 
simple sums for people that doubt.

classic scoob

215bhp 174bhp/ton


mk1 Clio 172

170bhp 160bhp/ton

then factor at the wheels bhp/ton and hell the clio probally comes out on top where it matters, on the road. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom