26th Oct 2007, 11:48
Well to be exact they are 189 bhp, were originally gonna be 200, a few bolt on modds would see to that though.
21st Dec 2007, 13:55
Yes, the Civic Type R is fast, and extremely reliable too. I own a 182cup ATM and used to own a 172 which used to race my best mate's Type R, and then very slowly start pulling past. My 182 walks all over his Type R, in fact. Let's be realistic; it looks a lot better than the Civic.
22nd Dec 2007, 05:32
I sometimes think Type R owners are a bit over the top with their claims, but a clio 172/182 will not walk all over a type R; it'll be lucky to keep up.
21st Jan 2008, 09:35
If the Civic had the right driver behind the wheel, no standard 172 or 182 would beat it. They can just about keep up, but after 60 they just get left behind, no point comparing a stripped out modified Clio to a CTR.
1st Jun 2008, 07:44
I have 205 horses packed under my 172 Cup, weighing under a ton. Power to weight ratio 208bhp. 0-62 timed at 5.6 seconds. This is my 4th Renaultsport and after owning a 172 FF, 182 Cup, 197 Cup and now my high spec 172 Cup, I think I am qualified to comment on some of the crap that is going on here!
Some of the figures quoted here for modifications, 0-60 times (172 and ctr alike) are complete twange! In reality, without heavy modification, the 172 vs CTR there is very little in it until after 100mph!
The 182 vs CTR is more of a fair comparison; pretty even keel, and the 172 Cup is faster than both the standard guise 172 and 182 due to the weight shed, therefore higher power to weight ratio. But again on a road you will not notice any difference.
My 197 Cup wouldn't pull from a 172/182cup either. There's no point in arguing over this as they are proven figures (read proper tests like EVO perform)' and as for 60bhp from a new ECU and induction kit, absurd to say the least (10bhp if you're lucky). It took £4000 to get 40bhp out of my car, and a very very good suspension set-up (H+R's professionally set-up)! With the power and my suspension set-up it is a true Honda/Subaru/VXR eater.
But as I said, to manage these performance figures you need to spend a lot of money on your car, and this type of money needs to be spent to notice a real difference between two equally matched cars!
Throttle bodies on the way, 240bhp in a shopping trolley anyone?
1st Jun 2008, 13:19
With the 0-60 time you posted for your car it isn't going to be a Subaru eater, just a bit quicker than a WRX, but not too close to one with a PPP pack.
I appreciate the more level headed comment and £4000 is a lot of money to invest in one of these cars. I don't think I could bring myself to do it, you still end up with a 'shopping trolley' as you put it and the extra cash could have been used to get something a bit better built.
Im sorry to have to come back to it, but a Honda Type R doesn't cost anymore to turbo or supercharge than you paid for your 40bhp and you would have gained 100 (ish) bhp instead. I realise you can't get a type R as cheap as you can get a clio sport, but the depreciation is not a good thing unless you plan on keeping it until it dies... which I guess is what it comes down to and as you are tuning yours I guess you won't be getting rid anytime soon, so good luck with it.
1st Jun 2008, 18:17
Not even the cup weighs under a ton, they are still a lot heavier than what hot hatches used to be.
12th Jul 2008, 20:52
Just a pointer, I keep reading a 0-60 quote of 7.1 for the 172 Sport. Yes true, but the 172 Cup is 6.5 seconds. I've timed my Stock 2002 172 Cup and can vouch for that time!
Also, £4000 for a 40bhp gain!!??, you have been ripped off big time mate! K-Tec Racing do a Turbo conversion kit for the 172/182 for £6104 inc vat (only an extra 2k) which they claim produces 260-300bhp (an extra 128bhp) depending on the boost setup and they say brings the car down to the 4-5 second bracket for 0-60.
13th Jul 2008, 12:48
Lol the 172/182 is the new civic vti of this website, with over exaggerated comments left all over the place.
26th Aug 2008, 03:33
I test drove a Civic Type-R and a Clio 182. In my opinion you have to be under thirty to drive either of them, they're both over hyped cos young people without a hope of insuring anything quicker make up a large percentage of drivers, and exaggerate their performance (this debate being a prime example!).
I bought an Elise 111S in the end; the Civic and Clio are forgettable by comparison. I don't have a clue about the figures, but it's faster than both, plus its rear wheel drive. Having heard all the hype, both hatches were a bit of a let down.
26th Jan 2009, 17:32
Will all of you please read Evo magazine, or at least go on their website and find a test of the Clio and the Civic. They basically are a dead heat it; just depends on the choice of the person.
I drive my mate's Clio 182 Cup sometimes, I bet once some of the Civic Type R boys had driven one fast round corners, they would like it as well.
18th Aug 2009, 09:18
I used to have a Civic Type R and currently have a Impreza, but due to it being a pain to park at work and getting unwanted attention everywhere I go, I'm thinking of getting a small cheaper hot hatch and very possibly going to take a look at a 172 Cup.
As for the debate of Clios killing Civics and vice versa, it won t happen with standard cars on the road as the cars perform so similarly there is little between them, and even on Top Gear/5th Gear etc they were within 10ths of a second apart, so it's just down to what you prefer and what you've got to spend really!
20th Aug 2009, 09:23
The 172 sport is quoted by Renault at 7.1sec to 0-62mph. Not 0-60mph in 7.1sec.
0-60 in the standard 172 is 6.8sec.
1st Sep 2009, 04:23
Why go for a 182 when it's basically identical to the phase 2 172 apart from the twin exit exhausts. I currently own a 182 and had a 172 before, performance wise there is nothing in it.
3rd Sep 2009, 09:37
To the person that commented on "18th Aug 2009, 09:18"
100% Totally agree with you. Could not have put it better myself!
26th Oct 2007, 09:06
I thought the Corsa VXR was more like 160bhp?