197 test drive
- Thread starter Ev0
- Start date
Biohazard said:
What the guy is getting out is that 0-60 performance stats is something that real drivers rarely do on the road. Any car can achieve a good 0-60mph without having to have huge amounts of horsepower, short gearing, lightness and tyres will all give good 0-60's and of course mainly the driver.
The first Subaru Imprezas had amazing sub 5s 0-60 times down to 4WD but some of them were pretty damn slow once past 60mph due to gearing and transmission losses. For example a Honda Integra will loose miserable to a Subaru WRX of the mark but will no doubt reach 100mph sooner. What this translates into that acceleration from rolling start which happens mostly on roads would see the Integra pulling away quite easily.
Obviously now the latest Imprezas are very fast cars all round but the early WRX's were to be frank slow at high speeds.
0-100mph and 1/4 mile figures are far more indicative of true performance of a vehicle along with in-gear acceleration.
Now I know the Renault 19 is a quick/nippy car in the first two gears as I've driven one and they really do have plenty of go in them. I also do believe Biohazard in the fact his will hit 140mph, though it takes some time and maybe a slight downhill they will get there though the engine will be screaming its nads off wheras most STD Renault 19's 16v will top our around 135ish.
I think the new CLIO 197 does 0-100mph in something like 16s and completes the 1/4 mile in 15s. Fair enough its 0-60mph maybe 6.9s which is not much faster than say a Renault 19s absolute best of 7.1s but I'd imagine some car testers will get the 0-60 down on the new 197 to approx 6.5s with better drivers.
Also a STD Renault 19 takes approx 20s to hit 100mph now thats quite a bit slower and even the 1/4 mile stretch from a STD car is close to 16s.
So if say your a Renault 19 16v was moving along at 50mph and you had a Clio 172/182/197 next to you and you both gave it beans by the time you hit 100mph expect the new Clio to be off down the road somewhere as that extra grunt really kicks in at higher speeds.
Ev0 said:
Exactly. a lot of people (read: Fox
) comment on the 6 speed 'box int he GTi6 as a gimmick when in reality it's fantastic. 1st and 2nd are still quite long but above that they're nice and close meaning 50mph-100mph is nice and easy. Think 4k in 6th is 85mph from memory.Not really a fan of the new clios looks but I'm guessing it'll grow on me. Tempted to go for a test drive but I have no intention of getting a car smaller than mine (unless it's a 2 seater).
The regular 197 doesn't look anything special either. Have pictures of a cup version been realsed?
R19 16V P1, the most over-rated 0-60 times I've ever experienced, there was a time when a few mates all went down the R19 16V route (All P1's as well), and my (and others) GTE 16V ashtrays whooped 'em convincingly (I'm just getting the flame proof suit on now..) and they where only 137MPH top end alledgedly...
I never believe manufacturers figures anyway.. some are easy to improve on, others are seemingly impossible.. see how they perform side by side on the road, the only way you'll ever really know..
I never believe manufacturers figures anyway.. some are easy to improve on, others are seemingly impossible.. see how they perform side by side on the road, the only way you'll ever really know..
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,078
Ev0 said:Not yet, the guy in the stealership said the cup was a eyar off.
I wasn't overly struck on the looks of the red/blue ones in the press pictures but then I saw the black on in the flesh and omg it looked nice
The problem is the cup won't offer any real weight savings due to legislation on what safety features the vehicle has to have.
The 172 cup was the greatest of all as they shaved a whole fat person in kg off the weight but removed all driver aids. The 182 cup was basically a poverty spec 182 with a 20kg weight saving and not worth it as they could no longer remove all the safety systems etc.
What bothers me (disapoints me) more than anything on the 197 is that the gearing on the 172/182 ment it was a comfortable motorway cruiser in 5th (80-85) but the 197s shorter gearing will mean higher revs and lower fuel economy on the motorway. This was where I found my 172 was a capeable commuter car without costing £££ when doing 20k per year.
Now the argument about 0-60 is interesting. My saxo vts would do a quick 0-60 as long as you managed the 1st and 2nd gear sprint. After that it was poor up to 100 compared to the 172. Not much in the 0-60 but after that it was a different story. This is where the higher horse power really helps. 0-60 times are only really useful if you can do the 1st/2nd and if necessary 3rd off the line but these cars often loose out if they are in the wrong gear when driving along as I used to find I my clio. I could whack it in 3rd at 40/50 and see off pleanty of cars scrambling through the gears inc R19s, Clio 16vs, Saxo/106 gtis
Demon said:
The GTE was a faster car, it had more power and around the same weight. Renaults biggest mistake not making it a 2 litre. Although everyone always slates the GTEs handling as standard.
The 19 does hit 60 in low 7s (couldn't tell you exactly what but it's definitely low 7s) but I'd guess the qtr mile time on the GTE is a lot better.
mrk1@1 said:
Yup I don't quite do that much milage but 60 miles a day still is enough to worry about it. 6th in the 197 felt the same revs/mph as 5th in mine.