Audi A3 quattro vs ClioSport 172 vs Pulsar GtiR vs Passat TDI vs Jardo's old cars....

B

burgess18

Registered User
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
NULL
right ive got an a3 quattro only been mapped with a panel filter, my mate has a clio 172 with a exhaust system, off the line i beat him to about 80-90 but then he comes passed me an pulls?? an when we do a rolling start he pulls about 3 cars ahead, is this right?
does anyone no how heavy the quattros are ive been told differnt things
 
Heavyyyy car. But your car seems like its not as quick. Check for boost leaks!
 
Clio 172 is in S3 performance territory out the box. Weight has some bearing on performance of course, not to mention the power sapping 4wd transmission.

Sell the A3 and buy an S3, then remap it and wave goodbye! :laugh:
 
indeed as people say about the 4wd system is silly and hes lighter than you and uve only got 8 more horses :p
 
You really think Joe? I thought the 172 felt properly slow. certainly not even stock S3 fast.

If your TQ is mapped and the clio is faster than you from a rolling start something sounds wrong to me.

Top end, power should win regardless of weight
 
*** Prawn would you stop going on about "how slow" 172's are, any time they are mentioned anywhere you say they are slow. :p

When rolling a 172 is easily within stock S3 realms; if not quicker. Let alone a TQS.

Heres a pull in my totally standard full fat 172 -

[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLqaqnw5Pvc[/video]

Either way you look at it they are 170bh/ton, put an RST map on like I did and you have 185bh/ton. In no way is that slow.

When rolling in the real world the Clio will be pulling on a TQS, especially past a ton when the turbo is spooling its tits off and fuel dumping like ****.
 
Last edited:
16Klappe said:
*** Prawn would you stop going on about "how slow" 172's are, any time they are mentioned anywhere you say they are slow.
Click to expand...

That's my opinion mate. I've driven several, they don't feel fast to me. at all.

They're just over a ton, and 172bhp, so 170bhp/ton. Not fast. just nippy.
 
See my edit. What feels fast to you and what feels fast to everyone else is two different things; you've got 300bh/ton +, most of us have half that.

Its like your A3, they just feel slow because they have no torque ;)
 
172s feel flat, but when put up against other cars they do so well they weigh as much as a fag paper with 170ish bhp. I have owned 2 172s and loved them both, what made me get rid of mine was the cost of tuning vs power gains. You will need more than a mapped a3 for a clear win. Stick with it and keep tuning.

I met up with the guy i sold my last 172 to and we went for a blast, and i was supprised at how quick it was although, i did take a clear win in a straight line, cornering was not so clear.
 
Yeah it won by a car length when rolling, but 1/4 mike distance Audi won soon as they reach 90 tho Clio comes passed, will check for boost leaks etc, I will be keeping it gonna go ko3 hybrid I think only thing is been told they don't hold boost to well? I better start doing bits my mate with the clio gonna be fitting manifold Decat, uprate inlet mani cams an a remap in the next few weeks so hate to no what the gap will be like then!
 
You will get him in the end, just keep tuning.:yes:
 
Prawn said:
You really think Joe? I thought the 172 felt properly slow. certainly not even stock S3 fast.

If your TQ is mapped and the clio is faster than you from a rolling start something sounds wrong to me.

Top end, power should win regardless of weight
Click to expand...

Like for like driver, a standard S3 will win in a straight line at speeds of 3 figures +. Got to admit they don't feel fast, just a lot of noise, but they are quicker than it feels! It just doesn't have the push in your back power delivery of a turbo car!! Show it a few bends though, and the S3 will be left behind. Both cars being standard of course.
 
172's don't feel to quick I guess that's the 2.0l engine feeling, but my old 172 defiantly wasn't slow, it showed up a lot of cars tbh. I think they're a great car.
 
I'm looking forward to taking my S3 to R-tech, because either my car isn't standard or people make out too often that standard they're slow.

My friend has an 2003 A3, with a revo stage 1 with a decat and he didn't pull away from me at all.

Edit: mine is a 2000 S3, 210 bhp - Standard as far as I'm aware.
 
A3AH said:
I'm looking forward to taking my S3 to R-tech, because either my car isn't standard or people make out too often that standard they're slow.

My friend has an 2003 A3, with a revo stage 1 with a decat and he didn't pull away from me at all.

Edit: mine is a 2000 S3, 210 bhp - Standard as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...

Your car isn't standard, or his A3 is ****. Same power with a 200kg weight penalty, the S3 is never going to win in a straight line.
 
I have a question... Why care?
No matter what car you buy, unless your buying a venom gt or something, you'l never have the fastest car in the world, theres always something else.
You either like your a3 or you dont, if your gonna get ****** off because an rs clio overtakes at illegal speeds, sell it and buy an rs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Birdy
My remapped S3 is quicker than my mates Clio 182. He can't keep up as the S3 just keeps on pulling.
 
16Klappe said:
Your car isn't standard, or his A3 is ****. Same power with a 200kg weight penalty, the S3 is never going to win in a straight line.
Click to expand...

stage 1 a3 is about 185/190 bhp so not really the same power is it?
 
future said:
stage 1 a3 is about 185/190 bhp so not really the same power is it?
Click to expand...

The guy states it's a 2003 A3. AUM engine, st1 will be about 210bhp / 240lbft, and the car will be about 1240kg.

Stock 210 S3 is 210bhp and about 200lbft, and 1450ish Kg.

So it is the same power, but the A3 has more torque, and lots less weight. Should definitely be faster than a stock S3.
 
Got the s3 recaros in too which weigh a ton thought car weighed like 1400kg or more
 
do you mean the A3 or S3 mate? Stock fwd A3 is about 1240kg, TQ is closer to 1400kg, S3 is 1450-1500ish.
 
future said:
stage 1 a3 is about 185/190 bhp so not really the same power is it?
Click to expand...

Literall is. AUM's are 210bhp all day long with just a map; Prawns A3 made 224.5bhp on Badger 5's rollers on a stage 1.

Niki at R Tech has seen as much as 229bhp from a stage 1 remap, downpipe and decat, TIP and Jetex.

A 210 S3 is 142bh/ton there or there abouts. A stock A3 is roughly 120bh/ton so only 20bhp between them on a power to weight basis. A standard Clio 172 in good shape is 165bh/ton every day, without removing the spare wheel, having a cup pack etc.

The figures are solid and have been argued to death; on paper there is nothing arguable or sustainable when comparing modified to standard, or standard to standard. But that isn't the point of this thread.

The Clio is quicker than both as a standard car; even if you mapped the A3 to 210bhp as a reasonable estimate the Clio is still 15bh/ton better off without mapping the clio, or a Stone RS2 inlet which for £1200 gives you 195bhp and 190bh/ton.

The gearing won't be helping the TQS much either, Clios have nice long gears and will keep pulling whilst you are changing.
 
Last edited:
ive had a mk1 172 and if the s3 beat it in a strat line it wont around the twistes there a hell of a car but not very well built and to small but loads of fun and on a run id get 40+mpg
 
16Klappe said:
Literall is. AUM's are 210bhp all day long with just a map; Prawns A3 made 224.5bhp on Badger 5's rollers on a stage 1.

Niki at R Tech has seen as much as 229bhp from a stage 1 remap, downpipe and decat, TIP and Jetex.

A 210 S3 is 142bh/ton there or there abouts. A stock A3 is roughly 120bh/ton so only 20bhp between them on a power to weight basis. A standard Clio 172 in good shape is 165bh/ton every day, without removing the spare wheel, having a cup pack etc.

The figures are solid and have been argued to death; on paper there is nothing arguable or sustainable when comparing modified to standard, or standard to standard. But that isn't the point of this thread.

The Clio is quicker than both as a standard car; even if you mapped the A3 to 210bhp as a reasonable estimate the Clio is still 15bh/ton better off without mapping the clio, or a Stone RS2 inlet which for £1200 gives you 195bhp and 190bh/ton.

The gearing won't be helping the TQS much either, Clios have nice long gears and will keep pulling whilst you are changing.
Click to expand...

Your forgot the torque figures, of which the Clio has non! :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Westy
jojo said:
Your forgot the torque figures, of which the Clio has non! :laugh:
Click to expand...

Torque figures don't make cars go faster though, not unless you're in the wrong gear anyway. Torque's not good without movement, because it's when you add the movement that it becomes usable, hence why we measure power ;). It's why a 150bhp Golf GT-TDI is still slower than a 150bhp Golf GTI 1.8t, it doesn't matter that it's got more torque, because it's the power you can actually use.

I used to help out running an old Radical clubsport, that had well under 100lb/ft of torque (tuned zzr1100 engine) but it'd still absolutely **** all over basically everything on this forum ;) ok it only weighed 440kg, but that's still only 227lb/ft of torque per ton, less than a lot of guys on here, it was the 375bhp/ton (and tiny frontal area) that made it quick.

(Edit, that's not to say the torque curve isn't important, but peak torque isn't for acceleration, it's peak power and the shape of the torque curve during the area used driving flat out that effect how fast the car can actually accelerate.)
 
Last edited:
And thus the defence of vtec.. My EK4 had 160-170bhp and 114ft-lbs but yet would beat 172s across MK..Faster than EP3s which are quicker than S3s.
 
Haha, oi! I'm not that bad am I? ;) I know him outside the forum, but I'm more than happy to correct him when he's being a fanny!

The whole power/torque relationship thing's just something that bugs me, I think it's from sitting through diesel loving friends going on about how their car must be super-mega-epic fast because it's got loads of torque. I love a torquey car on the road, but it doesn't make them faster, just more pleasant to drive.


(Edit, just to prove I'm not related to Jardo: I've never logged my engines air-flow, and I'm more than happy to admit that my car's really not that fast, it's certainly slower than most S3's. :p)
 
Torque gives the illusion of speed. Big shove in the back but not actually going that fast.
 
Karl: robin and Jardo are not alike at all. Both are a bit special, but that's where the similarities end.

Robin is right though, torque makes cars FEEL fast, power makes them fast.

That said, I still stand by my original statement, regardless of how quick they may or may
not be, I still think 172's feel slow :laugh:
 
Anything Robin says is right, he's pretty ****ing clever for a vegetarian.

Robin and I are literal polar opposites, but we've got on alright for the last five or six years. When he's not pointing out the realities of my thoughts haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Leon Cupra R vs S3 vs 1.8T Quattro?!
Replies
31
Views
10K
-Ju-
-Ju-
S
Old vs New Technology
Replies
4
Views
4K
desertstorm
desertstorm
dan1973
A3 110 tdi vs A4 2.5tdi quattro
Replies
3
Views
806
adamss24
A
S
headlights new vs old
Replies
30
Views
1K
imported_pmcmaster
I
B
golf vs a3
Replies
26
Views
2K
blitzed
B
Top
Back