Jump to content

Clio 197 V 200 Race Car


Azmansyd
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi folks, greetings from Sydney,

 

I am evaluating building a Clio Production race car. I have noticed that the 197 is almost 60kg lighter (tare weight) than the 200.

I wanted your esteemed opinion on whether the 200 is '60kg better' given they are almost the same engine power. 

Now here are a few things to give you a frame of reference when providing your thoughts.

1. Dedicated circuit race car so it will have all new shocks and dampers etc.
2. Will have an LSD
3. Most of the time it will be above 4750 rpm (so not about any improvments in the 200 for low end pull)
4. Exhaust will be changed from first flange back and cats will be removed
5. New ECU.

The reason the choice is between either of these NA cars is that the class (within the category) that I want to run has these cars running against the 86, Integra Type R's etc. I know the 197 that Richard Gartner raced was competitive in the endurance races but I will be keen to see how quick we can be in sprints.

Looking forward to feedback.

 

Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know much racing wise but I know a bit about the JDM Honda's and '86's perhaps.

 

It's worth doing yes and you'll get plenty of support here as there are a few others trying things in various classes.

 

There's also a few mechanics and tuners here that would are readily able to give tuning and race support so you are definitely on the right forum and interacting with the right group of people.

 

It's possible that there are already Clio-IV race cars here ready to buy already done and so with more inquiries it's likely that you could get up and running pretty quickly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be asking 'why is it 60kgs heavier?' Is it because they added some electronics (as an example) that you could strip for racing or has the weight gone into making it a more stiff car (like seam welding can do)? This is a significant consideration when determining your best option.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shorter gear ratios in the first few gears and faster steering rack for 200. Can't remember where the extra few hp came from.

 

Assuming you're going coilovers too so suspension differences mean little.

 

Weight the 200 is nicer inside but nothing dramatic and I can't see where 60kgs has gone.

 

Makes no sense really. Recaro seat bases maybe?

 

Cheers,

- Sent via TapaTalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am evaluating building a Clio Production race car. I have noticed that the 197 is almost 60kg lighter (tare weight) than the 200.

 

I'm not sure where you got this number from, but I don't reckon it's right. They are practically identical. Nothing that would add up to 60 kg.

Some 200's have 18 inch wheels. A bit of weight there. Some have Recaros, but that's about 6 kg I think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the 'published' weight is the problem.  The minimum weight is determined from the DOTARS documents for the car so from my experience once the interior has been stripped and the cage and stuff put back in you STILL would have a car that is 60kg heavier than the other.  

 

The only real advantage is that if I were to achieve an 'underweight' car then I can put the weight back in exactly where I want it (in this car it would be to the left and as far back as possible given it is around a 64% front weight distribution).

 

I am really interested to see anyone else's actual track experience with a 200 X85.   I know Richard Gartner was running a 197 in the AMC but I have not been able to get hold of him to ask.

 

If it was just me I would bite the bullet and do it however when you are spending a sponsors money to develop something you have to be a little bit more accountable! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where you got this number from, but I don't reckon it's right. They are practically identical. Nothing that would add up to 60 kg.

Some 200's have 18 inch wheels. A bit of weight there. Some have Recaros, but that's about 6 kg I think.

 

I have attached the file from the DOTARS document.  The regs for all 3E (Production and Improved Production) cars are based of this government document.  There are no exceptions so if the car wasn't sold in Aus or was some 'hot rod' homologation special it's not allowed either.

 

So there was something between the two models that made up this extra weight 'on paper'   I can't see the actual facelift changes making up all the weight.  Maybe there was more sound deadening and thicker carpets.   

 

Bit of a voyage of discovery here.    Bottom line is that I am under 70kg in full race gear so an extra 60kg is like lugging a passenger!

 

Cheers

post-22514-0-92989100-1488620232_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe there is a 60 kg weight difference. No doubt those DOTARS figures have been provided by someone (probably Renault).

There just aren't the differences between the cars to do that. The only explanation I can think of would be a thicker metal in the body or floorpan.

Even carsales list the 197 at 1221 kg and the 200 at 1281! Maybe we need a weigh off at a local weigh bridge to confirm....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe there is a 60 kg weight difference. No doubt those DOTARS figures have been provided by someone (probably Renault).

There just aren't the differences between the cars to do that. The only explanation I can think of would be a thicker metal in the body or floorpan.

Even carsales list the 197 at 1221 kg and the 200 at 1281! Maybe we need a weigh off at a local weigh bridge to confirm....

I know it is very weird.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clio II is the same engine (give or take) but about 200kg lighter. Just sayin'.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Well.  I saw a YouTube of Jason Plato comparing both cars and the 200 was quicker over a circuit but he did put that down to chassis development.  But both were road cars with their respective stock suspensions.  I have seen an exhaust system by Pure Motorsport that reduces the weight by 14.5kg AND increased the power by about 5kw at the wheels and an extra 8nm at 4950 rpm (which makes it 208nm V the 200s 215nm

 

More importantly I can pick up a good one (actually walk past it every morning!) for less than $10k

 

Quaife make an LSD and there actually is a race series sponsored by K-Tec in the UK for 182s so suspension bits would be easily available.   Also don't forget the 182 was UK EVO magazines' People Choice for COTY and finished in the top 3 I think.

 

 

Do you have any idea how much it would annoy the guys in their $40k+ 86s and the Integra's if I took the fight to them in the 182?  Even better the thing would be absolutely ballistic around Mt Panorama in the 6hr.

 

You have really peaked my interest now.  The whole point of this project is to get attention for the sponsors and create a lot of content around the build and racing.   

 

I reckon there would be a lot of people in this community that would get behind me with info and assistance if required.

 

Thanks so much for making the suggestion!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likely hearsay but I remember hearing from somewhere that the 200 had stronger/thicker chassis bracing and or components, providing a more rigid chassis...

 

May be something to ask someone in the UK that prepped the 197 and 200 cup cars...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP, the discrepancy between 197 and 200's weight is a tricky one to explain.

 

I believe the confusion lies in the differences between normal chassis and Cup chassis. Cup chassis are more rigid with extra bracing and welding in known weak points. This would certainly account for some difference.

 

I wonder how much an R27 weighs over a 197?

 

OP, the different suspension geometry, better gear ratios and quicker rack should be considered a big plus for the 200

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken doesnt the 200 already have LSD compared to the 197 and 182?

Nope, open diffs all-round!

 

My 2 cents is that a 172 or 182 makes a better car to start with. You can improve on most of the suspension geometry shortcomings of the 172/182 fairly easily, and the relative wobbliness of the chassis would be largely rectified with a cage, but you can't chop 200kg out of the 197/200...

 

Depending on which class you go for, you can also eek a decent bit of power from the 172/182. The IPRA rules are essentially open for the engine if you keep the block and head the same - so you can go bananas with the bottom end, flowing the head, cams, ITB's etc if you've got the $$$. Also no minimum weight in that class if you retain the original engine... The production class is obviously much more constrained, so I suspect the cars on track performance would be similar in there.

 

Mine is only lightly modified (http://www.ozrenaultsport.com/index.php?/topic/23285-mikes-2002-172-project/) and my times are pretty close to what I'd need to be competitive in the <2000cc Improved Production Class in QLD. Around lakeside I'm down to mid 62's. The fastest 2.0L class cars in IPRA are just under 60, most around low 61's and the tail enders up in the 63's. By the time I improve my brakes, sort out the front suspension geo (terrible atm), put some higher quality dampers in, get round to installing my cams and one day get an LSD in there, I can very easily see myself cracking 60 seconds with this car...

Edited by MikeC90
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, open diffs all-round!

 

My 2 cents is that a 172 or 182 makes a better car to start with. You can improve on most of the suspension geometry shortcomings of the 172/182 fairly easily, and the relative wobbliness of the chassis would be largely rectified with a cage, but you can't chop 200kg out of the 197/200...

 

Depending on which class you go for, you can also eek a decent bit of power from the 172/182. The IPRA rules are essentially open for the engine if you keep the block and head the same - so you can go bananas with the bottom end, flowing the head, cams, ITB's etc if you've got the $$$. Also no minimum weight in that class if you retain the original engine... The production class is obviously much more constrained, so I suspect the cars on track performance would be similar in there.

 

Mine is only lightly modified (http://www.ozrenaultsport.com/index.php?/topic/23285-mikes-2002-172-project/) and my times are pretty close to what I'd need to be competitive in the <2000cc Improved Production Class in QLD. Around lakeside I'm down to mid 62's. The fastest 2.0L class cars in IPRA are just under 60, most around low 61's and the tail enders up in the 63's. By the time I improve my brakes, sort out the front suspension geo (terrible atm), put some higher quality dampers in, get round to installing my cams and one day get an LSD in there, I can very easily see myself cracking 60 seconds with this car...

 

Mike knows what he is talking about, and also probably falls into the sub-70kg in full race gear bracket, so comparable from the "driver mass" perspective too,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also wondered by the Clio 197 was quoted as 60kgs lighter. Having done a lot of ICE work on cars to reduce road noise, 60kgs is a massive difference, and the Clio 200 isn't noticeably quiter than a 197. Thicker floor plan a D metals perhaps, but that's still a huge difference. Weigh bridge it is I reckon.

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember seeing somewhere that the 182 Cup was better than a 197 and the 200 was much improved on the 197.

The 182Cup might suit you better as its price compared to a 197/200 will allow for more upgrades if on some sort of budget and would really piss off the others in that class.

As good as aussiefrogs is, it's not the forum for this age of Renault. I'm not sure about Feugo's but didn't they have a turbo in a 2ltr that you could run in this class? That may be better answered on AF, and would really upset a few on track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, open diffs all-round!

 

My 2 cents is that a 172 or 182 makes a better car to start with. You can improve on most of the suspension geometry shortcomings of the 172/182 fairly easily, and the relative wobbliness of the chassis would be largely rectified with a cage, but you can't chop 200kg out of the 197/200...

 

Depending on which class you go for, you can also eek a decent bit of power from the 172/182. The IPRA rules are essentially open for the engine if you keep the block and head the same - so you can go bananas with the bottom end, flowing the head, cams, ITB's etc if you've got the $$$. Also no minimum weight in that class if you retain the original engine... The production class is obviously much more constrained, so I suspect the cars on track performance would be similar in there.

 

Mine is only lightly modified (http://www.ozrenaultsport.com/index.php?/topic/23285-mikes-2002-172-project/) and my times are pretty close to what I'd need to be competitive in the <2000cc Improved Production Class in QLD. Around lakeside I'm down to mid 62's. The fastest 2.0L class cars in IPRA are just under 60, most around low 61's and the tail enders up in the 63's. By the time I improve my brakes, sort out the front suspension geo (terrible atm), put some higher quality dampers in, get round to installing my cams and one day get an LSD in there, I can very easily see myself cracking 60 seconds with this car...

That's great info cheers.   Yes IPRA can be a bottomless pit but it is a great class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

You have really peaked my interest now. The whole point of this project is to get attention for the sponsors and create a lot of content around the build and racing.

 

...

Interest you say... have you seen Cam's track car? [emoji1]

 

Might even be quicker than a Clio III

 

3c99c4e11ab617fca3c91f93b71fe16f.jpg

Edited by R182
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, perhaps the scrutineers might pick on one or two tweaks. [emoji1]

Non factory stripes, and badge and wing mirrors aren't factory colour. They'll probably let it slide first round as long as it's fixed for the second. :)

 

Cheers,

- Sent via TapaTalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the key to this is what the rules allow, or rather what they prohibit. Can you advise what scope of changes are/aren't allowed?  For example, the earlier X85 chassis had larger suspension turret apertures so if you want to run adjustable top mounts, you have to cut the "shell" of the later 200, what braking upgrades are allowed, what can you do with engine, ITB, E85 etc? 

 

I have had a 172 with track mods (half cage, seat, roll centre corrected hubs, Quaife etc) and have a 200 which has been on track a couple of times, though it is very nearly stock - my impressions are that the 200 is a nicer chassis and brakes better but the extra weight  hurts its acceleration (though to be fair the 200 track days were both very warm but the 172 had been tracked on hotter days) ; I also the i think that the 200 designation is quite optimistic whereas the 172 is pretty close to true so the power deficit is exacerbated.

 

I would check out the Clio race car build thread here and also check out the  197 clio cup info available on the web and the 197 cup car build threads on clio200.

Edited by SimonH
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that 200s have the larger strut top holes until about mid 2010 build, ie. First six months they were available here.

 

Good point Simon I always forget about that one.

 

Cheers,

- Sent via TapaTalk

Edited by Treza360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're now thinking about a 182, get a 172. They're cheaper and (measurably) lighter. Here's some inspo:

 

http://www.ozrenaultsport.com/index.php?/topic/25226-clio-43-race-car/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had a 172 with track mods (half cage, seat, roll centre corrected hubs, Quaife etc) and have a 200 which has been on track a couple of times, though it is very nearly stock - my impressions are that the 200 is a nicer chassis and brakes better but the extra weight  hurts its acceleration (though to be fair the 200 track days were both very warm but the 172 had been tracked on hotter days) ; I also the i think that the 200 designation is quite optimistic whereas the 172 is pretty close to true so the power deficit is exacerbated.

Interesting thoughts... What suspension setup did you have on the 172? I'm yet to do anything with the geo on mine, it even has the low caster wishbones, and it ain't half bad. No doubt on an equivalent tyre the 200 has a sharper front end as the two cars sit now, but I'd hope the difference between the two will be somewhat reduced once I've got more caster and better roll geometry on 172. The brakes is an interesting one too. No doubt the larger footprint of the 200 gives it some added stability under brakes, but I don't find the 200's brakes even close to my 172 in terms of power - feels every one of the 250-300kg heavier! I should have the Brembos installed on the 172 shortly, which I'm hoping will increase outright power but also aid progression/feel, which is an area the 200 is superior (all of my Brembo equipped RS' have had really nice modulation).

 

I reckon the closer to stock the car will be, the more I'd favour a 197/200. The further from stock (i.e. fixing geo issues, adding power) you go, the more I'd favour a 172/182.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thoughts... What suspension setup did you have on the 172? I'm yet to do anything with the geo on mine, it even has the low caster wishbones, and it ain't half bad. No doubt on an equivalent tyre the 200 has a sharper front end as the two cars sit now, but I'd hope the difference between the two will be somewhat reduced once I've got more caster and better roll geometry on 172. The brakes is an interesting one too. No doubt the larger footprint of the 200 gives it some added stability under brakes, but I don't find the 200's brakes even close to my 172 in terms of power - feels every one of the 250-300kg heavier! I should have the Brembos installed on the 172 shortly, which I'm hoping will increase outright power but also aid progression/feel, which is an area the 200 is superior (all of my Brembo equipped RS' have had really nice modulation).

 

I reckon the closer to stock the car will be, the more I'd favour a 197/200. The further from stock (i.e. fixing geo issues, adding power) you go, the more I'd favour a 172/182.

 

Few areas to cover there !  The 172 had ktec coilovers when i got it, then koni yellow/eibach (revalved stiffer fronts) then bilsteins, combination of compbrake and ast top mounts and roll centre hubs, various tyres inc semis. The 200 has rs3 tyres and that's it, with everything done, i think the 172 corners faster but the 200 just feels more stable under brakes - the 200 has braided lines, good fluid and DS2500s, I had brembos on my 172 as well as stock calipers, for mine, there is no difference in stopping between the two, though the Brembos give a little more feel. 172 stock calipers and Pagids blue/yellow are all it needs IMHO.

I think the selection would be dictated by the rules and mods allowed - i think with some weight out of it and even a small boost in power the 197/200 would be a truly impressive track car, maybe even more so than the 172.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thoughts... What suspension setup did you have on the 172? I'm yet to do anything with the geo on mine, it even has the low caster wishbones, and it ain't half bad. No doubt on an equivalent tyre the 200 has a sharper front end as the two cars sit now, but I'd hope the difference between the two will be somewhat reduced once I've got more caster and better roll geometry on 172. The brakes is an interesting one too. No doubt the larger footprint of the 200 gives it some added stability under brakes, but I don't find the 200's brakes even close to my 172 in terms of power - feels every one of the 250-300kg heavier! I should have the Brembos installed on the 172 shortly, which I'm hoping will increase outright power but also aid progression/feel, which is an area the 200 is superior (all of my Brembo equipped RS' have had really nice modulation).

 

I reckon the closer to stock the car will be, the more I'd favour a 197/200. The further from stock (i.e. fixing geo issues, adding power) you go, the more I'd favour a 172/182.

Yes I think you are probably right about stock Vs non stock on paper.   I generally evaluate a car on the basis of the competition.  The car of 'choice' in this class is the 86 but to be really honest the guys with the DC2 Integra's are not yet up to speed (I know because the guy who bought my old car is .9 slower around WP on the same tyres - but he will get there).  The DC5 Integras aren't up to speed either but they have been build with more of an endurance mind set.

 

So the 86 has around 205 NM (plus whatever they get from tuning) torque so it is pretty much on par with the 171 / 182 (with better exhaust and tuning) BUT now you are pulling 100kg less out of the corners AND stopping less weight.   Even more of an advantage (in the sprint races) is that you are FWD vs RWD (86) so off the line you have a great advantage.   Once you are in front of someone and have advantages under brakes and out of corners you can create the 'fattest' Renault in existence!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you thinking Improved Production or straight Production?

 

My gut feeling is that a well driven 172/182 with smart modification can definitely be competitive in the IPRA category. Sounds lime you are coming from a FWD background already? In my experience the FWD Clio is genuinely quick in fast corners compared to 'better' cars. I think this is at least in part because you can drive it like a loon with almost no fear of it biting back (snap oversteer). I'm often held up by fully track prepared cars (MX5, RX3/7, Escorts etc in T1 and T2 at Queensland Raceway. Both are quite bumpy, and when following those guys you can see them working really hard to managed oversteer all the way through (loosing time in the process). By contrast, once you get the nose of the Clio pointing at the apex, your work is pretty much done, just get on the power and loosen off steering angle as you bounce your way through.

 

The flip side is that the inherent stability also equates to a 'slow' front end in the tight stuff. As I've said earlier, my cars setup is a log way short of what it could be, so I'm sure I can improve this aspect... but it's definitely not up to scratch in tight/slow corners. Coming into the tighter corners at QR or Lakeside the Clio does well under brakes and is usually quite close to anything doing a similar lap time. Sadly it is then painful to watch them skip away by a car length or so while I'm battling understeer and a lack of traction. Correct geo, better damping and an LSD would do wonders for the car, but as it sits, slow corners are a definite weakness...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the roll centre hubs and lsd make a massive difference to the slow corners - at the 2014 Nats, a quicker driver than me took my car out as i was just getting driven away from - he did a 1:45.1 IIRC correctly, however i found out after it was running on 3 cylinders. this was before the resurfacing and on AD08R not a full semi, so i think a well prepped 172 is a great choice IF allowed to make those changes.

Acidwestern has a 172 with roll centre hubs/diff/half cage/seat but he also has ITBs and AST suspension and is running in the 1:54 range at Philip Island which is a seriously quick time for 115kW at the wheels.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you thinking Improved Production or straight Production?

 

My gut feeling is that a well driven 172/182 with smart modification can definitely be competitive in the IPRA category. Sounds lime you are coming from a FWD background already? In my experience the FWD Clio is genuinely quick in fast corners compared to 'better' cars. I think this is at least in part because you can drive it like a loon with almost no fear of it biting back (snap oversteer). I'm often held up by fully track prepared cars (MX5, RX3/7, Escorts etc in T1 and T2 at Queensland Raceway. Both are quite bumpy, and when following those guys you can see them working really hard to managed oversteer all the way through (loosing time in the process). By contrast, once you get the nose of the Clio pointing at the apex, your work is pretty much done, just get on the power and loosen off steering angle as you bounce your way through.

 

The flip side is that the inherent stability also equates to a 'slow' front end in the tight stuff. As I've said earlier, my cars setup is a log way short of what it could be, so I'm sure I can improve this aspect... but it's definitely not up to scratch in tight/slow corners. Coming into the tighter corners at QR or Lakeside the Clio does well under brakes and is usually quite close to anything doing a similar lap time. Sadly it is then painful to watch them skip away by a car length or so while I'm battling understeer and a lack of traction. Correct geo, better damping and an LSD would do wonders for the car, but as it sits, slow corners are a definite weakness...

The things you have mentioned at the bottom are all fixable within the rules for Production Touring.  GEO maybe a little bit more of a challenge under the guise of 'within the scope of original adjust-ability' however I have seen cars over the years that seem to have uniformly 'bent' factory suspension arms! (just saying).

 

There no question in the IPRA category Mark took out a podium in one of the U2L races here at SMSP last weekend and was in the top 10 for the other 3 races

 

http://racing.natsoft.com.au/638858585/object_803850.85C/View?15

 

I want to run the car in Production Touring (3E) which keeps the budget down but also has more restrictions.  At the end of the day it is what the sponsors want to do in terms of promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the roll centre hubs and lsd make a massive difference to the slow corners - at the 2014 Nats, a quicker driver than me took my car out as i was just getting driven away from - he did a 1:45.1 IIRC correctly, however i found out after it was running on 3 cylinders. this was before the resurfacing and on AD08R not a full semi, so i think a well prepped 172 is a great choice IF allowed to make those changes.

Acidwestern has a 172 with roll centre hubs/diff/half cage/seat but he also has ITBs and AST suspension and is running in the 1:54 range at Philip Island which is a seriously quick time for 115kW at the wheels.

So excuse my lack of research.  Is the 172 a better base for a race car than a 182?  If so why so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 172 and 182 are fundamentally the same car, Walkie referred to the weight differences but i am not sure what the difference is or what makes up the change. The 182 often has the Cup chassis which means different spacing on the front struts and there was a smaller range of options but i think the offerings are largely the same now. 

Things like the roll centre hubs sound like they would be disallowed from what you said above - i think those that have them would say they are amongst the very best suspension/geo changes you can make to the 1x2 so that is something worth investigating.

Just to confuse things a little more, there is a Phase 1 172 and a Phase 2 172 as well, fundamentally the same car though there are quite a few differences (cable vs electronic throttle, different interior, lights etc.) so it is worth understanding the changes. Having said that, 172s are the bargain buy at the moment. If you are allowed ITBs, there is a 172 for sale on the ACT which would save a decent amount of cash to setup - that particular car also has my old Brembos and a 182 header which could be thrown in so would be a good starting point for a track car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the extra weight is the dual exhaust at the back. Not much else changed. Maybe the 16 inch wheels?

 

Regarding the 182 Cup suspension, afaik the hubs and struts are different but can easily be switched as a unit between any 172/182. I think Sam has 182 Cup struts and hubs in his phase 1.

Edited by vaughan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the extra weight is the dual exhaust at the back. Not much else changed. Maybe the 16 inch wheels?

 

Regarding the 182 Cup suspension, afaik the hubs and struts are different but can easily be switched as a unit between any 172/182. I think kaesh has 182 Cup struts and hubs in his phase 1.

 

Fixed it for you. There are many "Sams" on this forum...

 

And the 182 Cup has different front hubs with larger bearings than the others hence the different bolt spacing on the front struts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixed it for you. There are many "Sams" on this forum...

 

 

Two with silver 172 Phase 1s. :nod:  Both for sale...

 

 

And the 182 Cup has different front hubs with larger bearings than the others hence the different bolt spacing on the front struts.

 

 

Yes indeed, but as a set (hub and strut) they fit any 172/182.

Edited by vaughan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...