172 to MY2000 Uk Impreza?

J1nxy · 13 Mar 2006 at 16:41

I couldn't give a stuff what the numbers say I am going from what my bum in the car was telling me. Back to back the Scooby is to me a better quicker more enjoyable drive.

I have dyno charts that show over 170bhp at the wheel so ok I had the typical 4wd looses but that is still more BHP at the wheel than the clio...

The only way you will know what you think is better is by going to drive them back to back.

Cryfreeman · 13 Mar 2006 at 16:53

J1nxy said:
I couldn't give a stuff what the numbers say I am going from what my bum in the car was telling me. Back to back the Scooby is to me a better quicker more enjoyable drive.

I have dyno charts that show over 170bhp at the wheel so ok I had the typical 4wd looses but that is still more BHP at the wheel than the clio...

The only way you will know what you think is better is by going to drive them back to back.

you say 'scooby' but what model and mods did you have??

dont be fooled by the kick turbo cars give

170 atw gives around 136 atw per ton

not sure on clio atw but must be around 140 which on a 172 cup would mean about 138bhp/ton atw......

J1nxy · 13 Mar 2006 at 17:12

Ok I used to run a MY99 exhaust and Ecutek2 remap. Pre-remap I was getting 240bhp and 235lbft post remap 260+ 270+. I drove both cars, and I know what turbo boost is.

The torque figure as I said earlier is what really defined how the 2 cars drove. I like driving on a huge swell of torque which is what the Scooby gives. I don't want to have to rev the nuts off of a car to get it to move...which is how I found the 172 and Type R. The scooby on boost was happy to rev to the red line, but when I'm not in the mood I short shifted it and trundled along in higher gears.

Cryfreeman · 13 Mar 2006 at 17:27

yeah differant drive.

But having to rev something doesnt mean its slower when gunning it.

my friend has a few cars that I race now and then, 182 cup,clio v6 mk1,scooby STI PPP and evo 8 mr340.(scoob now sold)

We both agree the v6 is the slowest and the clio 182 cup aint far off the scoob, closer than most would give credit for.

If you went in his subaru you would honestly say its 100 times faster than his 182, but the fact is it aint.

have a look at clio.net with guys getting into 14's with stock cars, I beleive a low 14 is what slower scoobs do.Take away the advantage of grip at the start and you have 2 close cars.

Dolph · 13 Mar 2006 at 17:29

J1nxy said:
Wow...I wish I'd know that

I think its more down to 150lbft compared to 250+...

In that case you need to actually use the gearstick...

You admit yourself you like to drive on torque (aka lazily

) and then go to claim that another car is rubbish because you don't like to change gear or having to actually work with the car.

The fact remains that a 172 is pretty much as quick real world as the age scooby we are talking about, especially when speeds pick up and when both driven properly.

I've driven both (along with many, many other fast cars) and personally, lots of people here seriously over-rate the scoob. They get blasted by the torque and surprised by the mechanical grip and think it's amazing, when in actual fact they aren't consistantly fast (the off the line speed isn't representative of real world through gears driving) and (depending on the model) understeer more than a clio or a CTR when the grip runs out and are much less fun to drive at the limit due to this.

J1nxy · 13 Mar 2006 at 19:29

I drive to be how I feel at the time, call me lazy if you want but I don't fell like driving at 10/10 every where I go. If I want to rev the nuts off the thing I will (and do), if, as I stated, on the occasions when I don't then I use the torque.

The 172 might be as quick as a Scooby, what I have said is to me it didn't feel or perform that way. OK so the example I compared it against was a bit more potent than the average car, but for the money you were and still remain hard pushed to get some that is as usable day to day or a balastically quick when you want to use it. My other half loved driving the thing it didn't itimadate her at all.

andi · 13 Mar 2006 at 20:16

The 172 might keep up with the scooby, but throw a few quid here and there at the Impreza and it'll be well gone. Decent geo setup, droplinks, arb, exhaust remap and it'll leave the clio for dust. Need to spend a fair whack on the Clio to do the same.

Ev0 · 13 Mar 2006 at 20:19

andi said:
The 172 might keep up with the scooby, but throw a few quid here and there at the Impreza and it'll be well gone. Decent geo setup, droplinks, arb, exhaust remap and it'll leave the clio for dust. Need to spend a fair whack on the Clio to do the same.

How much would that set you back though?

Under 2k can get the Clio near enough 200bhp but with huge improvements mid range. Wouldn't mind driving a Clio with that setup to see how much of a difference, if any, it really makes. Not that I'd justify spending that cash on it, but still

Plus wouldn't really need the handling stuff on the Clio as it's great already, although the £1200 Leda suspension is supposed to be the dogs danglies.

Bear · 13 Mar 2006 at 20:27

J1nxy said:
OK so the example I compared it against was a bit more potent than the average car, but for the money you were and still remain hard pushed to get some that is as usable day to day or a balastically quick when you want to use it.

Thats the point some people are making though, they are not balistically quick, some may be quick but the WRX certainly isnt other than off the line.

J1nxy · 13 Mar 2006 at 22:24

We are not talking about the WRX we are talking about a MY99 or MY00 car which is a classic shape car. That car is over 200KG lighter than the WRX with the same power or for under 2K a hell of a lot more.

Dolph · 13 Mar 2006 at 23:15

J1nxy said:
We are not talking about the WRX we are talking about a MY99 or MY00 car which is a classic shape car. That car is over 200KG lighter than the WRX with the same power or for under 2K a hell of a lot more.

The classic car isn't ballistically quick either, sorry, but it really isn't.

It's quick off the line, but most other performance cars can reel it in as speeds pick up, and when rolling it's seriously not that fast at all.

A standard turbo from that age is about 214bhp, 6.1secs to 60 (parkers figures), and much of that 0-60 is down to the AWD...

In gear and rolling times are a lot more disappointing.

I know people like to rave about the scoobies, but they aren't some kind of magical car that can destroy anything else on the road. They are quick, but there are plenty of other performance cars as quick or quicker, most of the current hot hatches wouldn't be troubled by a classic scoob unless it was raining, especially on roads where fractional differences in speed and handling are impossible to exploit.

No-one here is slating the scoob, we're simply saying that it's probably not worth the upgrade from the 172, it's not going to be much quicker most of the time, it's going to be more expensive to run and so on.

Simon · 13 Mar 2006 at 23:26

Dolph said:
.....

Agreed, main thing he will notice is the worse economy and bigger boot

andi · 13 Mar 2006 at 23:59

Ev0 said:
How much would that set you back though?

Probably less than £2k, of course you could save some by doing some work and finding the bits on Snet/eBay, getting in on group buys etc. That'll get you a really nice handling, quick car.

Matblack · 14 Mar 2006 at 11:41

andi said:
Probably less than £2k, of course you could save some by doing some work and finding the bits on Snet/eBay, getting in on group buys etc. That'll get you a really nice handling, quick car.

I'm with Dolph here, I'm not slating Scoobs but the fact it the the upgrade the OP is considering just isn't going to give him a massive performance increase.

What you are citeing as an advantage regarding the upgradeability of the Scoob I actually see as a disadvantage. Yes there are about a billion bolt on bits for the Scoob to make it faster and consiquently drink more petrol, however as with most upgrades they will be money down the loo as you won't recover much of the investment on selling.

Cars lose enough in depreciation without throwing more money at them. For me the fact I would have to invest a HUGE amount in the clio to see a significant increase in BHP means a) I'll be put off wasting money which I could save and buy a better car with later and b) that the manufacturer rang the majority of performance out of the forecourt specimen which is a cheap pocket rocket . Yes its sightly different with turbos which are much easier to get performance out of with tweaks but whatever you do is going to push the insurance up whilst bringing reliability down.

I'm probably a bit different to the majority of people here with regard to tweaks and bolt ons, but I'd rather have a standard car, save the money I would spend on insurance and mods and buy a better one next time I come to trade up

MB

andi · 14 Mar 2006 at 19:02

I'm with you on the performance upgrade, it isn't huge, and probably not worth doing for that reason. There are other reasons that may sway the decision and upgradability (is that a word?

) should be considered.