View Full Version : Trophy 164
Apparently on the rolling road today the trophy got 164 bhp, and the other 18poos got even less.
Ballcrushers Williams wiht a prima chip came in at 160
Bring it on!
ive heard this too, KS told me. i have asked why on cs thread in meetings as a few ppl have posted there.... whose was it, what no, u know anymore info? tbh tho i still think the trophys are v nice cars. but WHY SO LOW
I was there, all of the cars were getting much lower than expected, I don't think anybody went home happy really.
maybe more to do with rr then? as if evry1 came out low? dont know much abt the machines they use to test but do the rr read-outs differ from place to place? some being more favourable etc.....but still 18bhp down is huge!
Sounds like it was the rollers that were off then, be interesting to compare previous results of the cars that ran
catch ur drift tho lunner, still good to point and laff at those results. id be GUTTED if i got those results
You'd realy need to compare ATW figures realy. So many companies claim such different losses that I'd just go by the ATW results.
17's are only 166 UK hp fly and 140 fly so 182's should be about 174hp fly and 148hp wheel.
It was my Trophy that got 164 at the fly. Results were down for most cars so doesn't concern me.
In comparison to the other 172's / 182's there it was where you'd expect which I was quite happy with considering its only done just over 2k miles.
Glad to see it amused some of you though :roll: Feel free to "Bring it on" :wink: :P
its proberly not even bedded in yet lol give it time!
To be fair i wasn't having a go, just reporting the facts, i was aware that your car prolly wasn't run in yet, but it made a better topic header with trophy in it, however it is strange that the other 182's were down, but yet ballcrusher's williams and a saxo were either same power as last run, or up on it.
Were they the only ones that got decent figures?
Yeah, I know mate i wasn't having a go, as you say it makes a good header. It's just funny how just because its a Trophy it seems more of a scandal, it's still a 182 after all.
Apart from the Saxo and Ballcrushers Williams, everyone got a lot less than expected. It seemed to me as the expected power of the car went up, the result was more down.
The equipment wasn't exactly cutting edge, but the guys running it were convinced it was accurate. Maybe Renualt have been selling us all duff engines, but i think i'll wait and get second result elsewhere before I ask for a new one :P
Always best imo to get bout 3 results and tae the everage, teh transmission calculations are usually so ****ing differnt too, one place will giv you one figure for transmission losses, and another will give you a figure about 5-10 bhp off
I'd take the graph to reno, and say, my 182 isn't producing 182 bhp, what are you gonna do about it, lol
RR's are a load of bollox, i never trust the results on them. how fast on the road matters more and the best way to find out it comparing against similar cars at meets etc. I'd imaging it's just not run in yet and the people operating the RR dont know what they are doing
Chris n`nic
08-08-2005, 11:09
Lol Welcome back m8 :wink:
Although couldn`t you have found a car further from standard than Martins?
Chris
Must admit ballcrushers figure seems consistant with other RR's he's attended.
Oh and welcome back Rob :D
FlamingMonkey
08-08-2005, 11:14
Although couldn`t you have found a car further from standard than Martins?
Chris
You could.... Northys :P
skipp123
08-08-2005, 11:18
go on the stromba!!!! nice to see u back. and i arse rapped a 182 cup down the A127 toward southend saturday pile of dog wank and being done by a saxo well say no more!
skipp123
08-08-2005, 15:34
whered strombas post go {delited?} :twisted:
The equipment wasn't exactly cutting edge, but the guys running it were convinced it was accurate. P
what companys rolling road was it?
ballcrusher
08-08-2005, 19:43
well i was happy. my last rrday was the same but the wheel speed was a lot lower so maybe there was something wrong with the rollers so who knows. well it goes in to bbt in a month so will see wat happens then :twisted:
ps it was 161 bhp
ballcrusher
08-08-2005, 20:06
ok ill let everbody no wat im doing to me engine--- renault gordini 1.3 three cylinder twin carbed turbo with direct port nitros on a v6 bottom end with a cadburys crank and lastly fisher price conrod and pistons :wink:
ok ill let everbody no wat im doing to me engine--- renault gordini 1.3 three cylinder twin carbed turbo with direct port nitros on a v6 bottom end with a cadburys crank and lastly fisher price conrod and pistons :wink:
Your swapping it for a 182 then :shock:
:wink:
KingStromba
09-08-2005, 00:08
I dont want to piss on your fire, but i would fully expect ballcrushers car to make around 160 BHP and a VTS to be 6 BHP up on standard so looks like the rollers were there or there abouts. They certainly werent 20 BHP down, as is suggested just because a few 182s dont generate the 190 bhp they are used to when 'dodgy dave' reduced the restsitance on the rollers to 'keep the punters happy'.
What we are really talking about here is the fact that the company clearly wasnt prepared to increase the bhp of the cars to allow everyone to bathe in the glory of knowing that their cars are uber wagons created by gods to destroy any 911 on any piece of tarmac not built with a set square and ruler. No egos stroked, so suddenly the rolling road is out?
Ive yet to see any reason to think that the new 'king of hatches' is anything but a bit of a damp squib, and this just goes to add fuel to my fire that the 182 is about as good as the 172, which since i have been driving one i have realised it is ok. Thats all. Its good, nothing better.
It seems that the 'problem' of the fast / slow examples has been propagated from the 172 to the 182 and we now have the fruits of those seeds in front of us. Cranks that differ in weight by 6lbs. Inlet and outlet manifolds that are manufactured in different factories, on different machines, that are different sizes and in reality different parts. Perhaps Renault used up all the 'good' manifolds and light cranks on the last few 172's and they are having to delve into the 'reserve' bin for the last few 'rejects' to sell the stupid englishe rosbeefs some more badly built cars. Kind of like the dumb kid at school who always got picked last for football and then had to go in goal, something that should be familiar to most Chavasport RS mark2 owners. Maybe at this rolling road the 182 owners should have got a note from their mum to allow the to sit on the side and watch the big boys playing?
One thing i will wager is that the car sent to EVO and the other 'brochures' errm i mean motoring magazines, was putting out considerably more than 180 bhp with a limited number of miles on the clock. Funny that.
I have nothing against the any of the mark 2 rs models. I think they do exactly what they are supposed to. Get you to sainsburys faster than the next man (or maybe spec savers). What i do have a problem with is the majority of IT working, living at home retards, who think that their 'new' car daddy bought them is the fastest thing on the road / track / world, when in reality most havnt ever driven a 'real' car to compare it with. The same people who think that because something is old is is rubbish. The same people who completely fail to realise that their car possesses the exact same 50+ year old technology as every other road going car in the world.
The same people who think the 172 cup is a homologation car. LOL. Ive driven one and i though it was nervous and comparitively featureless, yet we 'constantly' hear about how 'raw' it is. Ive seen overdone steaks that are more raw than a 172cup. And the good thing about a steak is that when it rains it doesnt transport itself to the nearest ditch backwards. Oh and you cant put coilovers on a steak, which has got to be an advantage.
The 172 lacks any kind of intense driver feedback Same as the 182 and megane 225 i drove, and feels like a normal car on hard springs with a big engine. The recent thread on cliosport regarding a V6 against a 182 highlights this blinkered belief, and underlines the complete ignorance that embibes that particular forum. The fact of the matter is that the V6 255 (and even a megane 225) would pull so far ahead of the 182 on any straight, that it would be able to **** up every corner and STILL hammer the poors mans substitute across the line. That of course assumes that the V6 isnt driven by a complete muppet. So that rules out most of the Cliosport 'never played any sport as a kid two left hands brigade' that appear in the endless stream of 'Oulton park in slow motion' videos.
So lets not think the Trophy is all that until in the real world it has proved itself. Will it be faster than a mark 1 in the quater mile, on track, or even in a road situation? The track day at Donnington will be a good test of this. However i fear that once again Martin et al will hammer past all the mark 2's and be fighting with the real opposition in the form of Caterhams and other real sport cars.
Oh and i checked with Renault france and the dampers will cost £350 + each to replace. So i assume in 3 years time there will be alot of Trophys 'upgrading' to standard dampers or coilovers. Caveat Emptor. :P
all the results are bollox, they are guess work, but 164 is pretty low, i've seen myself at another RR a shit load of 172/182's making above factory power... in fact most did. whether the RR is 100% accurate or not doesn't matter, as long as other cars are roughly similar then it really makes no difference if the figures are lower than expected. get them on the road, on track, down the strip and see. this theory of RR's etc is all well and good, but that's all it is... theory.
ive never heard of an RR with an axe to grind either, that just makes no sense.
you get the same variation you talk about in the Willy's too, some are dog slow, others are freakishly fast... that's to be expected when the cars come off a production line and casts are used and remade... :roll:
I agree, these cars are not all they are cracked up to be, but they are not shite by any stretch of the imagination, and I can fully believe that a quick one would have no problem staying with a V6 til silly speeds, V6's are heavy as hell and bhp/ton is fairly similar. 255bhp sounds good until you hear it's in a 1400kg car...
KingStromba
09-08-2005, 09:47
The simple fact is that some 182's do only push out 160 ish odd bhp. These results COULD be legitimate. If the rollers were 20 bhp down are you telling me the vts is actually running 20 bhp more than the 6 bhp they have already overestimated it to be? You saying Ballcrusher is running 180 bhp with a chip and some huge exhausts and an engine that is poorly?
I can guarantee that all those 182 owners would be quoting the 190 bhp they acheived if they had actually done it. Just because they hear something they dont want to they dismiss it. Live by the rolling road die by the rolling road.
i'm well aware that some make less power, hence me saying, but for every car to get low figures? all I would say is that they are about bang on std power and the RR is under reading and Ballcrushers is running around high 170-180bhp, or that the RR techy has no clue what he's doing and they are ALL well out. Like I say, it's all theory, none of it is factual, it's like argueing who's harder, Superman or Batman... you'll never get a conclusive answer, just like an RR can never be believed as being an accurate figure. Only thing that remains constant is that they were all similar power, the numbers are irrelevent
KingStromba
09-08-2005, 10:21
Ballcrusher is running about 160 - 165 bhp at most i would say. So rollers look ok to me. :D
it may well be right, but if that were the case those 1*2's would have the following performance figures... which as you can see are clearly not inline with every other test on gods green earth... even brand new tight engines are quicker to 60 and 100 than this... by a fair amount:
Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 164
Weight without Driver (KG) : 1080
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 154.29
0 - 60 (Secs) : 7.01
0 - 100 (Secs) : 18.80
60 - 100 (Secs) : 11.79
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 15.45
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 90.63
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 15.25
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 92.21
It proves nothing, but it's a good excuse to take the piss out the MK2 boys I agree :)
Swervin_Mervin
09-08-2005, 10:45
With regard to rolloing roads having an axe to grind I can think of a couple that have a reputation for getting very good figures for cars. If someone gets a good figure they're going to be happy, so are going to recommend the place to others as well as going back themselves.
I'd trust those that under read more TBH.
ballcrusher
09-08-2005, 11:11
my last three rrdays were all within 3 bhp of each other so i was quit happy as its dying a slow death. it might be that all the oil i lost gonig up there about a litre made it lighter so who knows. :lol:
I'm just happy my mk1 is quicker than the mark 2 172s! hahah in your face!
I'm just happy my mk2 phase1 is quicker than the mark 2 phase 2 172s! hahah in your face!
anal mode... lol :wink:
hey i'm just trying to be like you! :lol:
FlamingMonkey
09-08-2005, 11:32
I wanna be like yoou hoo hoo
http://www.reelmoviecritic.com/Movies20031Q/13ea5a5e0.png
KingStromba
09-08-2005, 11:47
Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 164
Weight without Driver (KG) : 1080
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 154.29
0 - 60 (Secs) : 7.01 Id say this is about right
0 - 100 (Secs) : 18.80 Id say this is about right
60 - 100 (Secs) : 11.79
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 15.45 Id say this is about right
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 90.63
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 15.25
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 92.21
KingStromba
09-08-2005, 11:52
To be honest id say 15.5 -16 secs is good for a quater mile. Remember its not drag strip quater mile, but road quarter mile. No road i know has an inch layer thick layer of rubber on it to help launch the car. If you think a Williams can do 14's for a quater mile on a normal road surface you are on glue.
KingStromba
09-08-2005, 11:55
Apparently in America, Totota take the worst 10 engines of a batch, average the figure and take a few BHP off to compile their road BHP figures. They do this apparently to prevent litigation from disgruntled buyers who have less bhp that Toyota may tell them.
I here Renault take the 10 best engines, average the figure, add 10, then send the engines to be fitted to the EVO test cars. :P
Swervin_Mervin
09-08-2005, 11:57
Apparently in America, Totota take the worst 10 engines of a batch, average the figure and take a few BHP off to compile their road BHP figures. They do this apparently to prevent litigation from disgruntled buyers who have less bhp that Toyota may tell them.
I here Renault take the 10 best engines, average the figure, add 10, then send the engines to be fitted to the EVO test cars. :P
FPMSL! :P
Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 164
Weight without Driver (KG) : 1080
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 154.29
0 - 60 (Secs) : 7.01 Id say this is about right
0 - 100 (Secs) : 18.80 Id say this is about right
60 - 100 (Secs) : 11.79
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 15.45 Id say this is about right
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 90.63
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 15.25
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 92.21
but it's not right is it, every man and his dog has got low-mid 6's to 60 on ROAD surfaces and around 16-17 to the ton... I know you think 1/4 miles are easy, as you proved at Santa Pod the other week, but that's down to driver, most 172's should be capable of getting a 15.0 or better, similar to the Willy.
KingStromba
09-08-2005, 12:18
They SHOULD, but fact is most DONT.
well quite where you get these facts from I dont know, but the cars I know of have run low-mid 6's and around and just over 15 secs for the 1/4 mile itself... i'm yet to see these 'facts' you speak of. anyway, bored of this thread now, obvious I missed all those 16 second best runs :roll: lol
KingStromba
09-08-2005, 12:33
well quite where you get these facts from I dont know, but the cars I know of have run low-mid 6's and around and just over 15 secs for the 1/4 mile itself... i'm yet to see these 'facts' you speak of. anyway, bored of this thread now, obvious I missed all those 16 second best runs :roll: lol
So thatll be the 15.4 you mentioned earlier then?
that would be a mid 15 :roll: BIG difference, try taking 0.4 secs of a personal best run...
KingStromba
09-08-2005, 12:39
that would be a mid 15 :roll: BIG difference, try taking 0.4 secs of a personal best run...
No thanks.
Did anyone read the Trophy Vs BMW M6 article in this months EVO? The little clio put up a decent fight.
KingStromba
10-08-2005, 11:08
If i had 15k for a new car i would get a Trophy.
and with the change you could sort out the overspray on 0002 :wink:
KingStromba
10-08-2005, 11:23
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah 0002 :wink:
:roll:
Swervin_Mervin
10-08-2005, 11:28
I could think of better ways of spending £15k on a car TBH.
KingStromba
10-08-2005, 11:30
Yeah i agree, but difficult to find a better performance car for the price. If you can stretch to 17-18k then you open a different kettle of fish though.
FlamingMonkey
10-08-2005, 11:32
I'd have a Trophy too, think they are smart and different like the 172 Cup.
If I hadn't started modding my Willy I would of had a Trophy by now I reckon, but I've spent too much on mods now to trade it in :)
Swervin_Mervin
10-08-2005, 11:32
I suppose that's true if you're buying new. Only mugs buy new though! Better spending £15k on a far superior car that's done all it's depreciating IMO.
I've seen dealers knocking Trophys out for 13.5k.
Rob see if you can get hold of Trophy 002!
KingStromba
10-08-2005, 13:01
If i wanted a trophy id be writing letters to all the reno heads in order to get first call on the press cars when they are sold off. I mean who wants number 007 or 182?
001, 002 and 003 and they ones id be after.
My 172 got 156 at the fly, 125 at the wheels, and I did the 1/4 mile in 15.147 @ 90mph.....
So surely using those figures I shouldn't be able to do the 1/4 mile in less than 15 and a half secs right...? :lol:
Hence why I think the rollers were out, I'm not really that fussed, as its just a RR day and you can't really get that bothered about what some graph reads unless you are sticking on performance mods and RR the car a few times before and after the mods, it was just a CS meet and it was a good one too at that.
Jabba the...
10-08-2005, 15:34
gotta disagree with the 172 stating, ive had r5gts, 16v's and the 172 handels as well if not better, mine was not esp (tc) which probably made it a lil rawer than most, it was a lil skittish when i first had it but i changed to 205 profile tyres and it gripped like mad could have prob put 215's on for even better handeling :!:
KingStromba
10-08-2005, 15:38
Grip and handling are not the same thing though. The grip you gain with wide tyre in the dry often causes lack of grip in the wet. Handling is how the car behaves, not just how much grip it has. If it was as easy as sticking wider tyres on a car to imrove handling, all the hatches would have truck tyres on them.
Swervin_Mervin
10-08-2005, 15:48
Yep. Handling is so much more and without feedback (a la 172) handling is poor.
Jabba the...
10-08-2005, 15:50
not the same but related to a point, i think 182s have 205 as standard so maybe renault realised the error of their ways! i was warned that it might aquaplane more but tbh i didnt experience any of it! wider tyres slow u a bit too but as mine was chipped and tooned so it prob gave it better traction off the line if ne thing.
I suppose that's true if you're buying new. Only mugs buy new though! Better spending £15k on a far superior car that's done all it's depreciating IMO.
The trouble is though, if you spend £15k on a car that was once worth, say, £40k, then you're going to have the running costs (or worse, as it's older) of a £40k car. Most people who buy a £40k car can afford those costs, but for someone who has scrapped together £15k, running it would be way too much.
So buying new isn't really that stupid.
.... Saying that, I'd still have an E39 M5 if I had just over 15 grand :P
have any of u haters actually driven a 172 round a track? handling is definately not poor :roll:
I'm not a Mk2 Clio hater by any stretch of the imagination, I think they're great cars, but I've driven a 172 P2 around a track, a 182 Cup for a 5 mile blast (not very telling, I'll admit!), and they're not as much fun as the Williams. Still a laugh and very capable, but they're not quite as adjustable, not as neutral, not as flowing, and not as playful. They're a bit one dimensional in that respect, they prefer to just understeer, instead of drift.
Couldn't tell you what was quicker, as I didn't have a stop watch, but I'd guess there's nothing in it.
KingStromba
10-08-2005, 16:48
We never said handling was poor. Except the mk1 172's. They are shit.
Swervin_Mervin
10-08-2005, 17:20
Aye. NEver said the 172 was poor handling per se, but IMO having driven a mk2 172 I don't like the lack of feedback compared to the valver.
I actually am still thinking about getting a mk1 172 as it happens as a daily tool.
lagerlout1
10-08-2005, 18:30
We never said handling was poor. Except the mk1 172's. They are shit.
lol. So true. I aired the same opinion on Cliosport and got well and truly flamed by the Mk1 172 owners. lol.
I'll admit the mk2 isn't perfect, but the ph1 172 is soft and wallowly by comparison.
I would'nt say the 172 gives you no feedback - far from it - but it's never going to be as pure an experience as a Mk1. It's not possible for a new car imho.
have any of u haters actually driven a 172 round a track? handling is definately not poor :roll:
not driven one round a track but i had one for 6 week or more lol but shhh dont tell the owner i thrashed it about!!
they do handle well but imo it was better to drive on motorway then the williams and worse on back roads, not that it dont handle just lacks feel compared to the williams imo
Aye. NEver said the 172 was poor handling per se, but IMO having driven a mk2 172 I don't like the lack of feedback compared to the valver.
I actually am still thinking about getting a mk1 172 as it happens as a daily tool.
thing is you wont be able to tell straight away as the valvers and willy's have so much you expect it... when I jump into the rents Celica it feels sooo vague, but are supposed to be very good cars with capable handling... although I wouldn't trust myself in one... lol
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.