Search results

Hell, I thought this would be a modern-thinking forum, where people can rave about the cars their hard-earned has bought them, but since talking about the best Clio (255) is a crime and since there are so many idiots like The Jesus here, I thank 182 Sport and a few others for the interesting...

The Jesus. Lets have a thread about how the Williams is the best car ever, in that case and how you get off on them. :) You are a total clown, pure and simple and the word you are looking for is...JEALOUSY. Come back when you have some real experience of a few fast cars.

There are ten times the amount of threads about the 4-pot Clios. :confused: You must be suicidal about them in, that case. :sick:

Simon Bailey, in Used Car Buyer, puts it perfectly, in his sum-up of this amazing car. "I absolutley love my Mk2 V6 and at the moment theres nothing below about £50K that Id change it for. I did have a 172 when they first came out, but when you have a V6 you realise its in a completely...

Exactly.

The Jesus, you can be as silly as you like, but experience has told me that every modern car I have owned has shown itself to me to be better than older versions. Attempt to belittle that all you may, it changes nothing. It is simply what I have learned by owning and driving. Manufacturers...

OLD against NEW in general. Forget the Williams for a while. It does get close to a 182, but misses out mainly on power, performance and equipment.

I didnt want to soak up what the Williams is about though! I wanted to know how fast it is and how well it handled and braked! The thread was not just about these two cars, either. Read the title again. NEW VERSUS OLD. New cars, say 2002 onwards, versus old cars, 1982-1994, say. Not...

Yes I have. I get my opinions from lots of experience, which is the best way. I have driven the Williams, by the way, since this debate began and it is good. Better than I thought it would be. But it is not as good as a 182 and indeed the owner could not keep up with my step-sons 182 when...

The 182 is the better car. Fact. But where other makers are concerned there is a gulf in ability, not just a measurable amount, as in Williams versus 182. How many Williams were made anyway? How mass production was it, in fact?

Not as good as the 182 but it puts up a good effort. My thing is new versus old in general. New is way better.

Nurse, up the dosage for The Jesus.:) He really is sounding quite ill. PS New beats old 99 times out of 100. Even if a Williams is a very good car and close to the 182. It is the exception to the rule. 1982 or 1992 cars dont hold a candle to the latest stuff.

Very true.

Definitely, the top one is a pig-ugly dinosaur, the bottom one awesomely attractive. Progress, once more, you see. Cars are much better looking these days, too. Not JUST better.

It would, but concentrating on the 182 and Williams gives a distorted angle on the whole new versus old subject, because it is so close to its modern equivalent. The Williams is dated but good, like I keep saying. Look at other cars though and it is much clearer how they have developed and got...

OKAY, just for you I will make it every ten minutes. ;)

The same reason they say steam trains have more character than diesel and diesel than electric. Old and decrepid, somehow means more character, I am told. Like a Vincent motorcycle has more character than my Triumph 2300cc motorcycle. XOLLOB. (Re-arrange.) Give me technology and...

The Clio Williams is an isolated case. Not as good as the 182, but closer to it, than most cars are, to those made ten years later. NEW VERSUS OLD, in general, was the thread I began. In almost every case, new IS better. EVO magazine rate the Clio 182 the best hot hatch ever, by the way...

ANNOUNCEMENT ! CAR BUYERS ! "(Whichever) Motor Company Limited" are pleased to announce their new range for 2005. Our sports hatchback, is to be given less power, via a less efficient intake system, and weightier internal engine components, which will knock about 15% off the power output...

Where some people miss the point, I think, about how fast or otherwise the V6 is, revolves around how it puts the power out. Whereas with the 172 or 182, you have to rev them very hard to get the performances that keep getting quoted, (a Civic Type R needs even more abuse, as it is gutless...

The point in extending the gap in years, when comparing cars, is to get the thing across better. Obviously, cars dont that often improve overnight, by massive amounts, be sensible. Everything from televisons to mobile phones, computers to cars and motorcycles, have got better as time has gone...

The 182 is a better handling, more powerful, more torquey car, than the admittedly very good Williams. BUT... The Clio Williams was very good indeed and relatively low-volume, so the new versus old argument shoud centre on other comparisons more, anyway. Cortina versus Focus. I wonder which...

The Mini of 1993 was still a much better car, all round, than the first ever 63 one, head to head. Faster, better brakes, you name it. Like the 2003 Mini is much, much better than the 1993 version. Get over it. We are not interested though, here, in how they did way back when. New versus old...

I am pleased that the Clio V6 is now sorted as the Mark 2, yet raw enough still, but with niceties like climate control. I got this instead of a Scooby or Evo, because they are too common and boring-looking, like a Cavalier with spoilers, whilst the V6 Clio is totally unique, nothing like it...

Agreed, yes 182 Clio. Newer IS better in MOST ways, MOST of the time. People get carried away where the basic 16v is concerned, as do some people with their XR3i Fords, believing that they still rule the roost.:p Escort XR3i 1987 versus Escort RS2000 1997. Two cars I have personally owned...