ClioSport.net
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
My gear stick moves about loads when im on and off the throttle. My car is one of the first MK2 shape clios (July 2001), ive had 120mph on the clock = about 105-110 in reality, 1/4 mile @ Santa Pod on 17s mailto:19.98@68mph standard">19.98@68mph standard engine) so 60 in about 19sec!!!! (i had SUCH a slow reaction time i think it was 1.3sec!!!) i would guess about high 11 low 12 0-60 (my car has done 23Kmiles)
Im on my second one. Changed the first one to get free insurance agian. Had no mechanical problems. Few repairs carried out all trim related. I would agree with Freds estimate of the 0-60. What do you mean by are the electric power steering modes faster??? The steering is wieghted on the dynamique/extreme i.e the faster the speed the heavier the steering. This is not the case on some of the other models i.e authentique. The fact I ahev bought a second one says it all. For £8300 with free insurance I dont think there is a better car to be had!!
Quick question. My misses wants a new car. I was thinking of the Clio 1.2 16v, she has driven the 206 LX 1.4 8V which she likes and I think is pretty quick for a 1.4. Has anyone actually compared power and overtaken ability of these two cars. BTW its got to be a five door for when she has a kid.
Sorry I have re-read what you have written. The electric power steering has nothong to do with the car going faster. The Mk2 172 has hydraulic power steering. The 1.2 16v engine in the MK2 facelift was new a design for the model range and it had a few teething problems so they reprogrammed the software as a recall in November 2001.
They do a Dynamique plus 1.4 16v which is just short of 100bhp. However Im not sure whether any of the Sports Collection (As renault call it) are available in 5 dr. Some of the other collections definatley do. The 206 really disappointed me when I test drove one (think it was 1.1) Didnt like the interior and it didnt handle like the clio. Dont really know why I test drove anything else as once I had driven the clio I knew I wanted one!!
Yeah same here I test drove numerous similar cars, yaris (GOD WHAT A SH1TE CAR!), 206, fiesta etc soon as I sat in the clio I was like yep this is the one!!! dont think you can get the dynamic models in 5 door.
Wouldnt touch 206s with a bargepole my cousin just spent 12k on one and they delivered it in the wrong colour (!) also my next door neighbour has one and its been to the dealer about 5 times for paint problems and trim problems (much to my amusement as the guy from the dealer turns up on a tiny moped which he puts in the boot and drives the car away
)Cant say I have noticed any gearbox problems i really like the shift. Only issue I have had is my drivers window is getting a bit stuck sometimes. Also I can vouch that the brakes & ABS work brilliantly as I found out the other morning not quite paying attention to some traffic lights
Ive had no real problems with my clio (Apart from being broke into!!!
)Sometimes have a problem getting it into 2nd when high up the revs. Ive done 0-60 in about 11.5 seconds so dont look at the book times (13sec my arse!!) also done about 120mph. I love it!I test drove a 306 1.6 and didnt like it as much as the clio!
Cool cheers Ben. I also had a 1.2 16v for a curtosy car while my 172 was having some warranty work on it and I can honestly say I loved it. OK it wasnt that quick but I loved the handling it was fun, plus I cained it and it was so forgiving.
I did have a 206 glx 1.6 16v before the clio but the bodywork was sh*t and that was brand new ! but saying that I think I was given a duff one.
yeah...and 98bhp!!
thats one of the best in its class!
i drove the 1.4 8v kangoo panel van one day as i had no car so took that.
It has no tacho.....interesting..lol
anyway, it was a monsoon and i was caning it, came out of the cross harbour tunnel and its a 800m or so long sweeping left hander...110kph
did a little flick to unsettle it, and jesus!! you could hold the slide forever! ace....never had so much fun! that thing was invincable.....2 foot deep water, logs the lot!! just went straight over it!
and you can get cheaper insurance! LOL
Does that mean all book times are wrong - surely 1.5secs of ur standard 1.2 is a heck of a lot - ud need a serious ammount of tuning just to do that? Thatll mean my new cup when it arrives should be capable of 60 in about - oh - 5secs??? Dont think so......... and 120mph, my 1.6 16vRSi only just manages 127 and it takes an age to reach that - were u going down a vertical drop?
Tom
ClioSport Club Member
i3
ok ok ive had 120 out of mine confirmed with gps
0-60 in 12 secs
the engine in mine is the same as the one in the face lift model but mine has a small powersteering pump on the front
my mate has a Dynamique 1.2 16v but his has the same engine but no pump its electrohydralic powersteering which should sap less power
ive had mine for a year and the gear stick moves loads on throttle and when i back off
Jilly B had trouble keeping up with me in her 172 through the roundabouts, although she probably had silly shoes on again!!!!
106quicksilvers are same 1st+2nd maybe slightly quicker (0-60 11.2 i think) but third in a dynamic bye bye!!!!
I can keep up with 1.4 8v saxos (same ening as quicksilver) and ive kept up with a few VTRs
1.2 16v Punto sporting is quicker by quite a lot 86bhp 0-60 10.5sec, accept on braking and handling, clios wins that!!!
Fiesta 1.25 zetecs are very easy to beat
Ok im gonna stop now i do actually sound like a saxo driver!!!! (i do sometimes drive a bit crazy)
before anyone starts, no im not saying a 1.2 can beat a 172!!! Its a slow car, and i have accepted that!!!! RTs are quicker than 1.2 16vs James (green rt on 15inch MAS italys dual exit powerflow exhaust that was at the last BIG southend meet) pulled an 18.1 sec 1/4 whereas mine did 19.98sec
My flatmate and I both have Valvers and a healthy interest in cars.
He had a 1.2 16v as a courtesy car while the "real" 16v was in for a new steering column. So what did we do with it?...we ragged it of course! I think my opinions therefore should be pretty bias free.
Off the mark its fine for a 1.2. I dont disbelieve for a moment that its less than 13secs, but even one second difference to 60 is still a car length or two. I do think that the smaller engined cars are geared for "nippy" driving around town. So if you only race cars to 40mph you wont do that badly, but dont think the acceleration will keep on coming! On a 172/16v/Willy, 1st takes you to nearly 40mph, whereas it was more like 27mph in this 1.2 16v. That also means that overtaking can be a bit hit-and-miss as well - doing the speed is no problem, the handling will cope, but overtaking on an A-road felt a bit of a problem. Not that thats a bad thing, and I guess for many people the 1.2 will be a fast car in their books. Just like a 16v/Willy/172 and so on will be slow for another driver.
The handling was fair too. Another mate has a 1.6 Golf Mk4 and that is truly sh*te - you can feel the high profile tyres really struggling for grip. But the little Clio was quite nice: safe really. Wasnt going to break away all of a sudden mid-corner and it didnt respond like say a 205 GTi to mid bend accelerator control (but then it wouldnt with 75bhp anyway!).
Overall a nice little motor - and a wicked off the peg semi-sporty car in Dynamique trim. I think Ill be getting a 1.5 Dci at some stage.
I wouldnt worry too much about 0-60 from a quarter mile time. Its the last bit thats always the hardest on the engine cos by then youre into a higher gear...eg I can quarter mile in 14.8 @ 91mph, but the 0-60 is probably in the low 6s.SO it takes another 8 seconds to get from 60 to 90mph. On slow non-nitrous runs Ive done 15.9 @ 76mph roughly, so there youre looking at again, around 8 seconds to get from 60-76mph.
In other words it takes as long to get to 60 as it does to get past 60 and to the end of the quarter mile! From that Id say your 0-60 is probably between 10 and 12 seconds.
Fred, got to agree with what you have said. I had 1.2 16v Punto Sporting and it was significantly quicker but no where near as much fun as the clio to drive. Good for a bit of fun at the traffic lights as it could keep up with Saxo VTRs. Have had a race with a few quicksilvers around our way, I thought they were slightlty quicker in a straightline but if there was any serious cornering you could easily go quicker than them.
CUPSIZE, it seems yet agian that you are somebody with the opinion that if you have a 1.2 16v then you shouldnt be able to have some fun. Why try call people liars??? I dont see the point.
hmmmm.. just a point re hydraulic v electric steering and power usage..
its the same... one uses the engine to turn the pump, the other uses the engine to turn the alternator to charge the battery to replace the power that the electric pump draws from the battery...
you may even argue that an electric pump may be more inneficient due to the double power conversion....
you dont get owt fer nowt !
Joe....
No one ever said it could do 60 in 10sec (i think, i cant be bothered to look back) my mums polo 1.4 16v (100bhp) does it in that and my clio isnt anywhere near as powerfull (25bhp less which is a fair old wack) but again my clio pisses all over the polo handling and braking (polo new cost £12300ish my car £8500ish nearly £4000 difference!!!!) high 11 low 12 to 60mph
Surely that means that the top speed of the 172/cup is not 138 - are else renault are lying? Or it means the clocks on a 172 will go to 150mph+ ???? I imagine when it says the 172 does 138mph top speed that it actually does so this little theory of 120 not being 120 is rubbish - Does that hold true for 10mph - what ur actually not moving - come on! 120mph is 120 - I got clocked speeding and the speed (96mph) I was caught doing was infact 96 or thereabouts! Dodgy dials in modern cars dont really go now do they!
If you look at Autocar tests, youll see that at say 60mph most speedos - even on Mercs and the like - still say about 63mph on average.
Most cars have their speedos dependent on a cable to the gearbox, and over time or with gbox wear etc, it can become less reliable - so they set them to over-read a little.
There have been people on here that say theyve had 140mph on the clock of their 16v - and thats fairly reasonable given that the book top speed is 130mph and the speedo will naturally over-read something like 10mph by that stage.
Still doesnt explain 120mph being 106mph - but if it was downhill then Id be inclined to believe that a 1.2 will get more than 106. Only up to say 110mph, but by that stage itll be down to mass and aerodynamics, which will be similar between the 172 and lesser models.
) what do ya think that would be??as confusious says...
power is in the mind of the beholder
oh, and Tim m8, probably about 138... lol
Joe...
lol
I collected my new 1.2 16v extreme today i now know what slow means! Ive not had a brand new car before and trying to keep below 3000/3500 revs to run the engine in is a nightmare, but you you can feel it has the potential to be really quick around town and at the lights. Love the handling it feels so sure footed and smooth on roundabouts and twisty bits, cant wait to get 625 miles under its belt and then have some proper fun!
CHEERS.
