1.2 1.4 1.6

[Tubster]

Has someone driven all of the above? Is there a big step up to the 1.6 from 1.4 from 1.2?

Could I handle the power increase?

 

[Dink]

there is not a lot a between the 1.6 and the 1.2.

 

[Bayliss]

the car no matter what engine size only goes as fast as u want it to

 

[Tubster]

Quote: Originally posted by Dink on 10 February 2005

there is not a lot a between the 1.6 and the 1.2.

LMFAO....thats it ...Im going back to bikes. Thanks for confirmation.

 

[Tubster]

Quote: Originally posted by Bayliss on 10 February 2005

the car no matter what engine size only goes as fast as u want it to

nah..you are kidding!

 

[Dink]

glad to be of assistance

 

[Bryan]

although there is 35bhp, it desnt actually equate to much differenceon the road

 

[Tubster]

Quote: Originally posted by Bryan on 10 February 2005

although there is 35bhp, it desnt actually equate to much differenceon the road

mmm... Ive got the 1.4 and 1.6 is only an extra 10 bhp ? Correct ? That would mean the 1.2 is 25 bhp down!

 

[1.6 16v]

ive driven both-the step up wont blow you away

 

[clio__chris]

yeah ive driven 1.4 + 1.6 - 1.6 slightly more torque but not really any faster

i drive like a pussy anyway so i cant really say how fast the 1.6 is lol

 

[Tubster]

Quote: Originally posted by 1.6 16v on 10 February 2005

ive driven both-the step up wont blow you away

So would you go for a 1.4 or 1.6 next time (assuming you havent bought a V6).

 

[Tubster]

Quote: Originally posted by clio__chris on 10 February 2005


yeah ive driven 1.4 + 1.6 - 1.6 slightly more torque but not really any faster

i drive like a pussy anyway so i cant really say how fast the 1.6 is lol

Sounds like anyone (ok 2 of you) who has a 1.6 dont think its worth going up from 1.4 unless its to a 182.

Cheers. Ill buy some new alloys instead ;-)

[Edited by Tubster on 10 February 2005 at 11:14pm]

 

[the1]

I always take my 1.6 clio to around 5k and in first gear you get a kick towards the topend.

 

[Dink]

i take mine 6k all the time doesnt abject from the fact i couldnt shake off that bloody 1.2 16v billabong

 

[clio__chris]

imo its a waste of money to upgrade from a 1.4 to a 1.6

saying that - im happy with my 1.6 giving me good fuel eco & not had any problems with it

 

[Bryan]

the 1.2 16v is 75bhp old engine and 80bhp new engine

changed this year IIRC

 

[edde]

The 1.6 is no real better engine a bit more torque and 10hp but it acounts to very little unless your doing a fair speed.

172 is the better way to go.

 

[_Kenny_]

i thought 1.2 16V is still 75 bhp, my dad got a 54 plate extreme3 and im sure its that - same as my 1.4 8V

 

[Bryan]

im sure it was posted on here that they now use the 80bhp lump from the micra

not sure how true this is, but i do remember it being posted

 

[_Kenny_]

you could be right mate - it would make sense doing that now with the tie up with nissan


[Edited by POW_Clio on 10 February 2005 at 11:33pm]

 

[Dazz]

Well ive got the 1.6 and my dads got the 1.4 and we both reckon theres a noticeable difference between them. The main difference is when u get into 3rd gear although its also noticeable in the lower rev range.

Numerous times ive timed my motor 0 - 80 in about 13.5 seconds, which allowing for inaccuracies is more like 14.5 so not bad at all. 0-60 is around 9 if not a fraction under.

All in all both are good cars and the insurance divide probably isnt worth it in most peoples eyes, but it was in mine

 

[Tubster]

0-60 in 9 Renault BOAST 10.3 dont they?? Is yours modded?

 

[Bryan]

my 0-60 was 11 seconds in the 1.2 16v with a passenger, so as we say, not too much difference between the models

 

[Dazz]

Quote: Originally posted by Tubster on 10 February 2005

0-60 in 9 Renault BOAST 10.3 dont they?? Is yours modded?

Nah the official figures are 9.3, i think most of the 1.6 drivers on here tend to agree theres do it in 9 though.

Mines bog standard.

 

[andy905]

thought it was 9.6

i wouldnt no the difference between doing a 0-60 in 9 or 10 secs on feel alone and ive never timed it

 

[Dazz]

suppose its similar to the old 172 vs cup, although i think the 1.6 has a bigger performance gain over the 1.4 than the cup does over the 172.

 

[mcoppen]

I had a 1.2 16v for a year and just got my 1.6 16v. Is a big step up. Had a 1.1 R5 before that and loving the speed of the 1.6 16v. Wouldnt Bother changing from a 1.4 to a 1.6. Not really worth it as the new 1.4 is good for a 1.4, more bhp than a vtr. But the 1.6 has got more torque, sec quicker 0-60 and 5mph quicker. So not much, but sure it would pull on the 1.4. But then the 1.6 gets slated on here. From personal experience i think the 1.6 is underestimated has a good kick to it and is great fun to drive.

 

[Fred@BTM]

all im gonna say is my 1.2 16V has outrun a few 172/182s on track (video evidence also, before anyone blurts up!!)

its how you drive that matters

if you cant drive and have a 172/182, and youre up againsts a 1.2 that has track orientated modifications with a driver that knows how to drive = move

 

[JayR]

1.6, well deffo the mk2 phase1 1.6 Rsi seems to be able to look after itself on the road so id expect there to be a biggish difference between that and a 1.2 16v!!!

 

[182 sport]

Quote: Originally posted by mcoppen on 11 February 2005

I had a 1.2 16v for a year and just got my 1.6 16v. Is a big step up. Had a 1.1 R5 before that and loving the speed of the 1.6 16v. Wouldnt Bother changing from a 1.4 to a 1.6. Not really worth it as the new 1.4 is good for a 1.4, more bhp than a vtr. But the 1.6 has got more torque, sec quicker 0-60 and 5mph quicker. So not much, but sure it would pull on the 1.4. But then the 1.6 gets slated on here. From personal experience i think the 1.6 is underestimated has a good kick to it and is great fun to drive.

the 1.6 is not underestimated it just a normal 1.6 car. I could feel no kick at all but thats after driving 172/182 with real kick

 

[the1]

I suppose its what you go from. As I learnt to drive in a Clio 1.5 dci (65bhp), so once I passed my test I bought a brand new 1.6 16v Clio and its fast enough for me.

 

[Ali]

Quote: Originally posted by Fred2001Dynamic on 11 February 2005


all im gonna say is my 1.2 16V has outrun a few 172/182s on track (video evidence also, before anyone blurts up!!)

its how you drive that matters

if you cant drive and have a 172/182, and youre up againsts a 1.2 that has track orientated modifications with a driver that knows how to drive = move

Amen to that brother!!!!!!

 

[weewebbo]

Quote: Originally posted by 182 sport on 11 February 2005

Quote: Originally posted by mcoppen on 11 February 2005

I had a 1.2 16v for a year and just got my 1.6 16v. Is a big step up. Had a 1.1 R5 before that and loving the speed of the 1.6 16v. Wouldnt Bother changing from a 1.4 to a 1.6. Not really worth it as the new 1.4 is good for a 1.4, more bhp than a vtr. But the 1.6 has got more torque, sec quicker 0-60 and 5mph quicker. So not much, but sure it would pull on the 1.4. But then the 1.6 gets slated on here. From personal experience i think the 1.6 is underestimated has a good kick to it and is great fun to drive.

the 1.6 is not underestimated it just a normal 1.6 car. I could feel no kick at all but thats after driving 172/182 with real kick

I agree with what was said above but you cant compare the 1.6 to a 172/182, there is a major difference!!! I went from a 1.4 8v to a 1.6 16v and you can feel the difference easily albeit due to the extra 8 valves and torque.

 

[GeeUK]

Quote: Originally posted by Fred2001Dynamic on 11 February 2005


all im gonna say is my 1.2 16V has outrun a few 172/182s on track (video evidence also, before anyone blurts up!!)

its how you drive that matters

if you cant drive and have a 172/182, and youre up againsts a 1.2 that has track orientated modifications with a driver that knows how to drive = move

You always forget to mention that you have coilovers and was driving with slicks! IIRC!

[Edited by GeeUK on 12 February 2005 at 11:41am]

By the way, where can I get this vid, as I have never actually seen it?

 

[mr sheep]

my mum has a 1.2 dynamique and ive got a 1.6 dynamique, believe me u can feel the difference. still think the 1.2 is nippy tho

 

[GeeUK]

Wish I had a 1.6

 

[Ben H]

I tried S2PTHs 1.4 16v Dynamique about this time last year, just when my mum was looking for a new car. It was quite quick - definitely more so than the 1.2 16v Dynamique my parents bought instead (much better deal at the time from Renault).

My other half picked up a 1.2 8v Authentique last autumn. Theres actually very little between it and the 16v version in my mums Dynamique - if anything, Id say the 8v is more driveable (I drive both these cars for maxiumum economy, so the 8vs torque is more noticeable).

Ive not tried the 1.6, but Id not say theres much point moving from one of the lesser models - unless youre given the opportunity of a mint car or definitely cant get insured on one of the Renaultsport Clios.

 

[Andyvalver]

Quote: Originally posted by GeeUK on 12 February 2005

Wish I had a 1.6



No, You would like a 1.6 but wish you had a 2.0 sport.

 

[Clio1400]

I tried the 1.2 8v, 1.2 16v, 1.4 16v and 1.6 16V before I bought my car.

The 1.2 8v is VERY underpowered, almost dangerous.

The 1.2 16v is nippy, but runs out of steam quickly!

The 1.4 16v is noticeably better than the 1.2, still not *fast* though.

The 1.6 16v is not a lot difference from the 1.4 at all.

 

[Toypop]

For whats its worth I reckon a dci 80 feels a sh1t load quicker than a 1.2 16v. Perhaps rather than going to a 1.6 it would better looking at dcis? The dci does have that run out of steam feeling but if you drive normally you dont notice it and it feels really quick pulling out junctions.