ClioSport.net
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.
Black Clio 172
get a 1.4 - 6 groups lower insurance and only 0.7 secs slower to 60!!
Black Clio 172
the 1.6 isnt worth the extra insurance and cost - mpg is lower for a little gain in power. why oh why didnt renault do a 140-150 bhp 1.8 16v ??????? in this mark!!!
Mazda MX5 1.8
oh the usual 1.6 vs 1.4 chatter
with regards to fuel consumption mine is very good (50 can be achived without too much bother) but as said above it does depend A LOT on how its driven
only thing i find that i dont like with mine (apart from rattles that come with having a clio) is there is no real feeling to the steering becuase of renault using their crappy power steering that adjusts the sensitivity or something! what a load of sh1t
Mazda MX5 1.8
i hate to say it but have you considered a diesel?
I was in the same situation as you. I was thinking about getting a 1.6 16v as I thought a 172 would be expensive to run. I still went for 172 for some reason but I can honestly say it was the best move.
They arent that expensive to run, ok I pay a little extra on insurance than my old 1.4 corsa but only an extra £250 its well worth it
Fuel consumption I get an average of 32-34 mpg which is very good, its about the same as my corsa
The 172 cost more to buy but if you can afford to buy it I would go for one of them
Polo + Micra
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.thomas4/pics/1091280051__DS.jpg
^
maybe you could test drive them both (there aint much between the two)
Mazda MX5 1.8
Ok so pros and cons imo:
Pros - corners quite well (std but esp now with coilovers), reasonably quick (looks like a 1.2 just with a slightly bigger engine), nice enough seats, aircon (not on all afaik), reasonable fuel consumption (atho everyone else seems to get rubbish mpg) and cheaper to buy/insure than 172/182 (i picked up a brand new 1.6 16v for £8856.53)
cons - gearbox needs a 6th gear (no suprise), comfort could be better, steering as mentioned above, driving position (as with all clio mk2s afaik)
Veilsided MR2 Rev3 Turbo
Got no complaints with my 1.6. had it for 5 months now. Is plenty quick enough. Unfortunatly on here it always gets marked as slow due to the 182/172 snobbery
. But i certainly have no complaints. Powerful enough for the motorway, pulls past traffic easily and quick enough to scare you every now and again if you get it wrong. lol. Handles fine, but as with every standard car it would benefit from a bit of a drop to stop body role when going around roundabouts at a fair speed. Think it was dink on here that put a sports de-cat and cat back system on his and got 130mph out of it. so sure it would benefit from a few breathing mods. However is a bit hard to find mods for it, as appears to be for the 1.4 as well, as most mods about are for the 1.2 and the 172/182. But id definatly get one again if i had the chance.
clio chris im selling my 1.4 16v dynamique if your interested, 52plate, registered 14th jan 2003, 26k, full service history, black, pretty much all the options, xenons, air con, climate control, heat and sound reflecting windcreen, auto lights, auto wipers etc etc
17inch OZ titan wheels
K-TEC front bumper lip and sideskirts
K+N induction kit
Sebring backbox
Eibach -35mm lowering springs
Fully colour coded
Toad Cat1 alarm and prox
looking for offers around £6,500, mint example PM me for pics
david.o2@ntlworld.com
dont bothwer with a 1.4 i own one and its w**k
1.6 all the way.... i convinced a 1.4 16v would piss on my 1.4 8v by a fair amount and having driven my mates 1.6 16v focus i think that a 1.6 is the way forward. if you want cheap performance. in a clio as well which must weigh less than a focus.
though focus will handle better than a bog standard renault shopping trolly a 1.6 engine will be good. not a near a 172 but i gueess your only asking because youre not in tyhe market for a 172 and no matter what people say on messageboards not everone can afford to run a 2.0 car.
Itd be interesting to know how many of the 1.6 knockers above actually own one????
Ive had mine for just over a year and id highly recommend it. Mines a 99 1.6 and my dad has a 2003 1.4. We both agree that there is a noticeable power difference, especially when you get to 40+.
Also, most of the earlier 1.6s, not sure about the newer models - have a better handling setup than the 1.4s.
You get people saying its not worth the extra insurance for another 10+BHP. Yet i bet most of them have spent hundreds on an exhaust and filter to try and squeeze a few more BHP out of their current car.
Mine has air con, PAS, fully adjustable seats, 6 cd changer, leccy sunroof, leccy mirrors, leccy windows etc.
And finally, the earlier models stand out from the other clios. Heres a pic of mine - totally standard (exc. side repeaters).
http://www.wellbored.com/car/new/clean/clean1.jpgClicky
Polo + Micra
Quote: Originally posted by mcoppen on 20 May 2005
Got no complaints with my 1.6. had it for 5 months now. Is plenty quick enough. Unfortunatly on here it always gets marked as slow due to the 182/172 snobbery
. But i certainly have no complaints. Powerful enough for the motorway, pulls past traffic easily and quick enough to scare you every now and again if you get it wrong. lol. Handles fine, but as with every standard car it would benefit from a bit of a drop to stop body role when going around roundabouts at a fair speed. Think it was dink on here that put a sports de-cat and cat back system on his and got 130mph out of it. so sure it would benefit from a few breathing mods. However is a bit hard to find mods for it, as appears to be for the 1.4 as well, as most mods about are for the 1.2 and the 172/182. But id definatly get one again if i had the chance. LOL that was before the sports cat and cat back
(pic can be found in a previous post)
