![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members
matt_mr2t wrote:The mark 2 clio did the same.
Based on the renault sport clio's: phase 1 was 172
(with the horrid round head lights) phase 2 was still a 172 but moved to the much better head lights.
![]()
matt_mr2t wrote:No they're not really quick on paper.![]()
0-60 is late 5s 1/4 miles is late 14s early 15's and in terms of lap times isnt much, if at all quicker than a 172.
But it's not about that.It's a drama car.
The noise and the occasion and the attention set it so far apart.
I owned a mk1 16v and have been in 172's
& a 182 and they left me feeling dull tbh.
The V6 was just so much more.
mark239 wrote:best production use of a peugeot/citroen v6 engine ever!