1.2 to 1.6?

[leeds2592]

Hi,

Basically, I've had my car (51 plate 1.2 Dynamique) since I passed my test which was around 2 years ago. Its served me well but due to a number of issues, it's time to get rid.

I was 20 in Feb and the insurance on a Sport is still silly money but I've noticed that I'd be paying pretty much the same for insuring my 1.2 than I would a 1.6. I'd probably only have it until I'm 21 and insurance falls a bit but is about to give up the ghost.

Are they much nippier? I know its not going to be like a bullet but my 1.2 is like a snail unless you drive with your foot planted everywhere.

Cheers

 

[172Ben]

Being 21 won't make that much difference mate, 25 is the milestone.

 

[leeds2592]

From quotes, it seems to fall a couple of hundred quid which will inevitabley pursuade me into upgrading. Should also have a bit more £££ to play around with n'all.

For now though I'm stuck with non sports!

 

[Marky_]

I remember being tempted when I was in the exact situation. I stuck with the 1.2 in the end.

 

[Dan@M.A.D]

Iv'e had a 1.2, 1.6 & the 172 cup, 1.6 is a fantastic upgrade from a 1.2 and well worth a slight insurance hike in my opinion. Bags more torque and a very nice car to drive.

 

[Brett]

I'd go for a dci 80 or 100. Have the option of a remap then. They will do 55 mpg+ all day long, have as much torque as a 1*2 as standard and the resale is a piece of piss as they are so cheap to run. Seriously a dci 80 is worth as much as a similar mileage and condition 182, sometimes even more.

The 1.6 16v is an option I considered at 18, the general consensus is that its a decent engine however running costs aren't a whole lot less than a 1*2. The fuel consumption is pretty much identical, tax is similar. Obviously insurance is cheaper. Will be harder to sell on though as its kind of an engine that falls into a limited market as its not a hot hatch nor is it silly cheap to run like a 1.2 or dci. It is worth considering if your not keeping it long.

 

[Chrisjk]

Iv'e had a 1.2, 1.6 & the 172 cup, 1.6 is a fantastic upgrade from a 1.2 and well worth a slight insurance hike in my opinion. Bags more torque and a very nice car to drive.

I did the same, the k4m is quite a strong little engine, loved mine.

 

[172cupleeds]

I have only owned the 172 and 182s but my cousins got the 1.6 16v and its a pretty capable motor, nippy enough and you dont have to slog it everywhere (hes been very happy with it for 3yrs anyway)
i would have thought you would feel it was enough of an upgrade to last til the dreaded insurance comes down,although, if you planning to keep the next car a while longer id be very tempted to go with the dci and remap it like Brett suggested purely down to tax bracket and saleability when you have finished,the dci wont drop in value as quick..

 

[Martin_172]

they are good engines but nothing more than nippy, id go for dci100.

 

[GoldenMonkey]

I got a 1.4 and that shifts like the clappers! I think the 1.6 is about a second faster to 60 and another 10mph faster top end, but with much worse MPG.

 

[Stefan.]

i waited until 21 until i went up engine size had my 1.2 up until then....then went and bought a focus rs only cost me £650 to insure fully comp

 

[Struggler]

what could really go wrong on a 1.6 so bad that you'd need to get rid?!

tbh id just sit it out until you can afford what you want, whats the point in half measures!! lol,

changing cars always ends up costing money ime, there will always be a few things that need doing and before you know it you've spent more than you wanted to.

 

[CustomChris]

I upgraded from a 1.2 to a 16 and it was well worth it IMO

 

[Stig182]

why does it have to be a clio? you could buy some form of sleeper if you want to go fast. clio's are ridiculus to insure. my bmw e60 5 series costs me half what the clio does, its also 10X nicer car and worth 10X more!

lets face it, 1*2's arent quick. I've owned a 172 and a 182 RB Cup, they seem quick and make nice noises and are fun to drive but they defo arent quick. Most tdi's will stick to your ass or pull away from you due to the torque and if theyve been remapped, well, you've f0oked it!

 

[Stefan.]

why does it have to be a clio? you could buy some form of sleeper if you want to go fast. clio's are ridiculus to insure. my bmw e60 5 series costs me half what the clio does, its also 10X nicer car and worth 10X more!

lets face it, 1*2's arent quick. I've owned a 172 and a 182 RB Cup, they seem quick and make nice noises and are fun to drive but they defo arent quick. Most tdi's will stick to your ass or pull away from you due to the torque and if theyve been remapped, well, you've f0oked it!

that is true, 182 etc are a b road car, straight line they arnt that fast

 

[Revels]

I wouldn't bother mate.

Big shift in costs for very little gain in speed. The 1.6 Clio is pretty slow still.

 

[JamesWilson]

I went from a 1.2 to a 1.4 and i've modified my 1.4 and its a lot quick than a stock one. I get back into my mams 1.2 and it feels like its not moving.

P.s my 1.4 is for sale and I'm only in Teesside.

 

[Revels]

What have you done to make it a lot quicker?

 

[Goodj]

Has OP considered a DCi instead of the 1.6?

from what I understand a DCi is superior to any of the sub-2.0 clios (Mk.2 of course)

 

[JamesWilson]

a few bolts on's K&N 57i gen2, Raceland 4-1 manifold, de cat, ktec stealth, a proper service using the best parts.
and the thing thats made the most difference, stripped it out and gave it decent rubber (T1r's)

Instead of 0-60 in 10.5, it now does it in 8.

If i had to buy any of the non sports i'd have the 1.4 1.6 or dci100

 

[Goodj]

Instead of 0-60 in 10.5, it now does it in 8.

what's it's 1/4 mile average?

 

[Revels]

a few bolts on's K&N 57i gen2, Raceland 4-1 manifold, de cat, ktec stealth, a proper service using the best parts.
and the thing thats made the most difference, stripped it out and gave it decent rubber (T1r's)

Instead of 0-60 in 10.5, it now does it in 8.

LOL. No. No no no.

 

[Joe#]

Dis gon b gud.

 

[LEOGWC]

Dis gon b gud.

+1

 

[MWright]

decent rubber (T1r)

Decent rubber? Not a fan tbh.

 

[JamesWilson]

what's it's 1/4 mile average?

16.9 I ran on 4 runs

LOL. No. No no no.

Flame suit on

 

[Goodj]

LOL. No. No no no.

If I count slow enough, I can do 0-60 in 3.4 seconds.

In the old mans work van.

 

[.Adam.]

Lol. Oh dear.

 

[Brett]

why does it have to be a clio? you could buy some form of sleeper if you want to go fast. clio's are ridiculus to insure. my bmw e60 5 series costs me half what the clio does, its also 10X nicer car and worth 10X more!

lets face it, 1*2's arent quick. I've owned a 172 and a 182 RB Cup, they seem quick and make nice noises and are fun to drive but they defo arent quick. Most tdi's will stick to your ass or pull away from you due to the torque and if theyve been remapped, well, you've f0oked it!

Depends on your definition of quick. Compared to the majority of cars on the road they are. Your average car on the road won't do a <7 second 0-60 and 140 mph top speed.

However I do agree with you, for straight line speeds best to look away from Clio's. I still stand by my dci suggestion though.

 

[Martin_172]

wow not a bad increase for bolt on mods, so does that mean if i do the same mods to my 200 it will also knock off 2.5 seconds 0-60? 4.5 seconds would be sick!!!

 

[leeds2592]

Always pictured diesels as horrible, rough running cars? Can't seem to find many DCi 100's about though, mainly 65's!

It seems like i've looked at every other car possible, insurance still gets the better ):

 

[Beef-Mc]

I've done it twice, now on my second 1.6, I enjoy the increased performance over the 1.2, MPG isn't that bad, I've seen 40+ MPG over the last thousand miles. My advice would be go out and drive both petrol and diesel clio's and see what you think.

 

[TheEvilGiraffe]

Always pictured diesels as horrible, rough running cars?

Ever been in one manufactured since 1985 ?! Evidently not..

80s are better than 65s. 100s are rocking-horse-poop.

 

[Brett]

Ever been in one manufactured since 1985 ?! Evidently not..

80s are better than 65s. 100s are rocking-horse-poop.

From the passenger seat I didn't find the 100 much quicker. It just seemed more to have more appetite for revs (for a derv), probably down to the variable geometry turbo.

I'd be happy with either, always the option to map both too.

 

[Christopher]

a few bolts on's K&N 57i gen2, Raceland 4-1 manifold, de cat, ktec stealth, a proper service using the best parts.
and the thing thats made the most difference, stripped it out and gave it decent rubber (T1r's)

Instead of 0-60 in 10.5, it now does it in 8.

If i had to buy any of the non sports i'd have the 1.4 1.6 or dci100

LOL.

 

[leeds2592]

90% of my driving is town driving/short journeys. Make more sense to buy a petrol, no?

 

[LEOGWC]

dCi = Win win on costs + not too slow... they still fetch good MPG round town

 

[GeorgeH]

I went from 1.2 to 1.6, ok the 1.6 isnt quick but its plenty enough for town driving, and good getting up to motorway speeds. Its just not painfully slow like the 1.2. Do it, you wont regret it.

 

[Brett]

90% of my driving is town driving/short journeys. Make more sense to buy a petrol, no?

To be honest maybe you would just be better keeping the 1.2. They're designed for short journeys and around town. If you rarely venture out of town and onto motorways etc then the 1.2 should be more than adequate.

1.2's aren't even to bad on motorways, acceleration isn't great but they'll happily cruise at 70-90 all day with no fuss.

 

[Martin_172]

100's arn't much faster than 80's especially day to day as the 100 delivers its power higher up the rev range, 100 has much more potential though if you are into modding, 130hp/190lbft easily had, uprate the clutch and well over 200lb/ft is available.

they drive much better too with the hydraulic clutch, better more modern gearbox with the linkage on top so no gearstick movement.