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.
Punto/Clio GTT
only reason i wouldnt go with a Japanese model is because parts cost 3x more than any others. Got a quote an a single foglight for a mazda 626.. 140 quid!!!!
as for 172 and 182... not much difference at all. ide go for a 172 myself as i dont like the silly exhausts on the 182
FM
Renault Clio 172 Ph2
not being funny but your gonna get a biased opinion on a clio forum as ppl who got 172/182s are gonna say them - as they obvisouly prefer em as they brought em. hondas are much more reliable tho, thats one advantage for their side.
Punto/Clio GTT
i got a mk1 1.4, so im pretty unbiased 8), just fact that japanese parts do cost 3x more
FM
parts are more expensive but hey it will be worth more when come to sell a lot of people have to sell there 172 for next to nothing and its due to the massive influx of imports selling em cheap
speed would be similar in both with ctr a bit faster but u have to work the engine hard but its literally got the best gearbox of any price bracket so it wont be a chore to do so
fuel consumption is ok in the clio i average about 28 mpg in it with a caining now and again. the honda should be good if u dont vtec like mad all the time otherwise it does drink a bit
handling both good but the clio has more feel, which aid cofidence but civic will go round corners fast asell
i would go ctr but other would differ out of the two
but if u wanted a more focused drving experience get a mk 172 or a integra type R but i would be biased towards this as i got a teg R
172 is my mums lol and i came from world of clios too, use to run a heavily tuned valver and recently got my R all opinions are my own ok he he
[Edited by wongy008 on 07 November 2004 at 6:42pm]
1 or 2 yr old 172 Id go for every time for ~£8k. Or a new import 182 which you could get with equivalent UK spec (none cupped but that can be fixed with aftermaket stuff for cheap) for £11k.
The CTR is a bigger more expensive car there ~£17k new arnt they which is £4k more than an equivalent 182. £4k is a lot of money the Civic is never going to be worth £4k extra (plus the cost of borrowing the money) over a 182.
Reliability well have a look at there forums (cnnot remember the adress) thy have forums for each area of problems but then agin there more popular cars.
Speed wise there wont be much in it it will be down to a driver. Autocar did a track test and they both got the same speeds round the track but the 182 was given more marks for fun etc.
Fuel economy on the CTR isnt excellent I didnt think if you use the power. Im sure there is an Ex CTR driver on here who has a 172 who said the CTR was a bit of a drinker.
LY 200
Umm dont agree with that rob, its a preference for most people to have the clio on here as its mine over a 106 gti or a fez RS turbo at the mo but i will still admit they have some pros over the Valver!!!
And there are some people on here who have changed from 172 to CTR so its a question for them really as they will know best!!!
Im just askin the pros and cons for both not which is overall better!!!
wat was so disappointing with it
please expand,
i dont own a CTR but weve had our 172 mk2 for 2 years now and ive had my integra R for 2 months, which is amazing
the clio is a nice car and all but i would not buy one. it does nothing for me
[Edited by wongy008 on 07 November 2004 at 7:39pm]
Astra 1.9cdti XP
Ive had both....a mk2 and a mk1 172 and a CTR. Both have there good points and bad points depends what your looking for in a car as they are both very different.
Overall I loved my MK2 and the CTR. I got rid of the CTR cos Im doing too many miles to justify such a car and its a little more thirsty than the 172.
I now love my MK1 its more fun than either of the others only cost £7k doesnt rattle and Ive had no problems whatsoever!!
The engines do fail - my sister has a CTR and the cylinder head blew. It was with Honda for five weeks for a rebuild.
The major decider for me on the CTR or 182 was the standard kit that came with the 182 - it has climate control and xenons as standard, where as the older CTR doesnt have xenons and air con is an optional (£900) extra. Additionally, the CTR is a bigger car and im a fan of the compact hot hatch.
For me, its the 182 having driven and experienced both cars - additionally, you can pickup a brand new 182 with cup packs for £12.5k where as the CTR is going to be a good £4k more than that. Id prefer to keep that £4k.
G
[Edited by Big G on 11/7/2004 9:12:07 PM]
Quote: Originally posted by wongy008 on 07 November 2004
we talking about th failures on the ctr engineguess these were not as well build as the B series engines built in japanbut big g the 182 is stonking value but u will suffer when u sell it
Ive never quite understood the "No failures as a result of VTEC" statement, does this imply that every engine failure is looked at in detail by technicians who then build up an accurate life history of the engine and what eventually caused its demise?
And what if the problem was with the VTEC, could they pass this off as something else, i.e the age of the engine caused the fault with the VTEC - but wasnt directly a fault in the VTEC?
Dunno, just kind of reminds me of clintons "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" statement, and we all know what happened there!
MINI JCW
Just a quick point on the depreciation according to what car:
CTR costs £16,250 and will be worth £10.452 in 3 years time thats a loss of £5798
The 182 costs vary but I bought mine for £13,500 and what car says it will be worth £7263 in 3 years time and thats a loss of £6237
so theres only about 500 between them hence if you get your 182 for £13,000 or less you lose less money than buying a CTR
Not so bad on depreciation after all
lol, yeah Id always pick the inferior older model just because of that too.Quote: Originally posted by Final_Maxim on 07 November 2004
only reason i wouldnt go with a Japanese model is because parts cost 3x more than any others. Got a quote an a single foglight for a mazda 626.. 140 quid!!!!
as for 172 and 182... not much difference at all. ide go for a 172 myself as i dont like the silly exhausts on the 182
FM
I cant be bothered to go into why, but Ive had a 172 and now have a 182. Before buying them both I test drove CTRs and on both occasions decided against one. Same thing happened a few years back, I chose the 306 GTi-6 of the Civic VTi. The Hondas just leave me cold.
As a few others have commented, CTR engines are supposed to be fault free. Thats rubbish, I have a friend who was on his 3rd engine when the car was stolen. I guess it didnt like track days!
id pick a ctr over a 182 or 172 anyday - only if money wasnt an issue. had many little pops against my mates ctr and from a stand still theres nothing in it. But when he reaches v-tec land it pulls ..... a lot.
It feels a lot better built, the seats are plush, the gear change is fantastic and it is just a superior car.
Then again the cup cost me £5k less, costs 1/2 as much to insure and does 100 miles+ per tank over the ctr.
I went the oposite way round to a Paul_P1, i had a CTR and then got a Clio. Things i found wrong with the CTR,
Heavy car but light on the front end, (Tear up tyres quick), Dont corner as well as the Clio. Basic as hell (apart from the nice seats). Drink Petrol if you constantly use the ITEC. and as far as the "Never had Problems with VTEC" The engines in a CTR are ITEC and not VTEC, theres a difference!.
But i went from a CTR to a Scooby to a Clio. And if your asking why i got rid of the Scooby is cause i bought a dog and the head gasket was on its way so i got well rid!!.
Quote: Originally posted by JayR on 07 November 2004
Bar the "CTR looks like a bread van" comments which is actually better???Pros and cons for both please!!!Speed, Handling, Fuel consumption, Reliability etc.............Cheers
Re-sale values - go for the civic, i was looking at 5 last week, all were within £2000 of the list price for a new one???
/y0z
Well having a CTR makes me slightly biased but I will chuck in my two penneth....
The 172/182 is pretty easy to drive quick, the Civic is much more tail happy (which I personally find a good thing) and is much more track orientated. It requires total commitment and real work from the gearbox to get every last ounce of performance out of it.
That said, it suits my driving style very well and I love the 8600rpm redline (Hondata KPro ECU upgrade). Service from the dealers is spot on perfect (note how everyone else here has neglected to say a word about Renault dealers!)
The Civic engine and the gearbox are fantastic, and the engine responds very well to tuning (to which you have a massive scene in Japan and the USA so therefore lots of parts and proven performance upgrades).
Mod-wise I have gone for a http://www.gruppemeurope.com/frc.htmlGruppeM carbon airbox, a http://www.hondata.comHondata KPro fully mapable (by end user) ECU and a Spoon Sports N1 catback exhaust (loud as a touring car).
Running a decent ECU map downloaded free via the internet I have approx 195 BHP at the wheels (ie 230 at the fly) as proven by several other members of the CTR forums with the same mods. When I have finished modding my car (new manifold and decat next, ITB kit or cams to follow dependant on cost) I will get my car setup properly and hope to release even more power.
For a vid clip of a very similar car to mine with my mods check out http://gallery.themspros.com/albums/album04/Spoon_N1_Gruppe_M.mpgTrungs Clip
For the insane, a supercharger conversion is also available which along with the 8 PSI boost upgrade has taken several cars past 310 BHP (12.9 seconds QTR mile). The basic supercharger conversion costs around 3-4k. See www.cplracing.co.uk">CPL Racing for more info.
And for all those who complain about lack of steering feel, a set of camber correcting bolts and a simple fast road setup by ABP or similar will sort that out for approx 90 quid. An excellent solution is a Quaife LSD.
Dont get me wrong, I really do like the Clio (having driven over 12k of the mileage on my other halfs car), but the CTR is in a different league IMHO and should really be compared to cars a class up from the 172/182 (ie Focus RS, Leon Cupra, Audi S3 etc).
In terms of kit you get, the only thing I miss from the 172 are auto-locking doors and Xenon headlamps.
[Edited by evilowl on 11/8/2004 2:53:36 PM]
EDIT - forgot to mention that around town I get approx 230 miles from a full tank so its approx low 20s (45 litre tank) but on the motorway and A roads (even with a hefty right foot and lots of iVTEC action) its easy to see 320 plus miles from a full tank. Most I have seen is 370, least is 180
Hi there,
Well I own both a 172 and a CTR both two years old.
I mostly drive the Clio, and enjot it. With the Clio you feel more ontop of it rather than with it with the CTR
The CTR is a fun car but you have to drive it hard very hard, as the clio is grunt for low revs.
To be Honest the Honda has a better quality feel and looks the nuts in black. But the clio I love as a toy.
Both great cars, good looks and performance. So buy both like I did
CTRs are great but with one on every street corner, not my cup of tea.
Evilowl you are correct about being in a different leauge but in size only, my cup has more than matched CTRs up to the ton and had to slow for them on roundabouts!
I appreciate after the ton the CTR will have the edge but what do you do more go round roundabouts/corners or hit 100mph+
But I will say Im sure the hondas are more reliable, much better interior, though they are atad basic for everyday needs i.e. no air con as std, very firm ride!
You know what Im going to say, buy my Mk1 172.
For the reason, she wanted the Honda, well i persueded her!!
And I like having the two best Hot hatches in the UK today.
And another thing, this is the point They are not the same thing, they are two seperate animals, so so so different, and I love them in different ways. Put it this way if i could have the Hondas gearbox, interior, seats with the Clios engine low rev performance and the Hondas VTEC and the Clios specification I would be very rich, beacuse you would all want one...
Cheers
Lee
The CTR is more up there with the Focus RS and Curpas etc. Just but a new one cost £19K loaded.
On another note the CTR my mate has a 51 plate M3 and from standing start the CTR can stay with it until about 90MPH.
Tried with the 172, great start but seconds later the M3 had gone..
Quote: Originally posted by leorjennings on 08 November 2004
For the reason, she wanted the Honda, well i persueded her!!And I like having the two best Hot hatches in the UK today.And another thing, this is the point They are not the same thing, they are two seperate animals, so so so different, and I love them in different ways. Put it this way if i could have the Hondas gearbox, interior, seats with the Clios engine low rev performance and the Hondas VTEC and the Clios specification I would be very rich, beacuse you would all want one...Cheers Lee
The low rev performance can be changed completely on the CTR with the simple addition of the KPro ECU. My VTEC point is now 4300rpm and lasts all the way to the 8600rpm rev limiter. Transforms the car and makes it very much more drivable (ie mid range) without ragging the nuts of it.
I paid £738 quid inc VAT and fitting for mine, its fully mapable and you also get datalogging via a USB connection and launch control which is a bonus for those that do TLGPs or have regular trips to the strip. My launch control is set to 4000, so as soon as I launch its in VTEC
A simple Hondata reflash costs less but comes without most of the best features..and the VTEC window is different at 5200rpm to 8600rpm.
And to those who complain about the engine reliabilty - Ill bet money that the poster whos sister had head gasket problems was due to a stone in the radiator (the front spoiler needs mesh from the factory IMHO).
The other thing is that CTR uses a ton of oil from new until 1st service. The handbook states you must check the oil every time you fill up with petrol although I do mine once every two weeks. Mine has used 1.5 ltrs since new so far and its got 5000 miles on the clock now.
IMOH?
their both good cars and theirs nothing in the performance of the 2. but clio does handle little better. the thing is these 2 cars cant really be compared. one you can get as little as £10500 if ya know the right people but most can still get the clio for £12500 and my mate got the ctr and his cost him £16500 and that was with no air con. in the end if ya want to pay an extra £4-7000 for a civic then thats ur choice but your on ya way to a nice 4wd forced induction engined car for that sort of money. in the end the clio even priced @ £12500 is a very good fun car to drive and i enjoy everytrip out in it. which i can not say about very meny cars.
in my opinion even if i had the choice of both cars for the same money i would have gone for the clio. the civic is a nice piece of engineering but it just dont do it for me.
