172 to rs200

[Chip-mk1]

more interested in performance difference between the 172 and 200!

there isn't one.

Looking at the comments above everyone seems to think its a good upgrade! So think it is going to happen soon tbh

look again. People are sayin they are more modern and feel better made. But no one is sayin there is a big performance difference.
​

On the topic of the m3 tho we have a few customers in the garage that own then and the running costs (not talking mpg) but general repairs and maintenance are just silly! So I would much rather have a small hot hatch than an m3 everyday of the week! Personal opinion tho of course!

generally they are pretty good and parts are quite readily available.

 

[plymcl172]

Agree with the comment about air con. Its 2013 and I could not live with a car no without air con and hence why I didn't buy a cup.

As said time and time again in other threads 200 v 1*2's

200- mpg is balls if you can live with rubbish fuel on not a very fast car then by all means buy one. I will never make the step if I was getting 25mpg I would want the power to match it!

 

[Munson]

Drove a 200 in anger today. Amazing car.

However, suspension is too firm for really bumpy roads, and the gearshift is utterly awful.

 

[Matt W]

Drove a 200 in anger today. Amazing car.

However, suspension is too firm for really bumpy roads, and the gearshift is utterly awful.

I agree with the suspension bit, I avoid bumpy 'drivers roads' near me.
Gearchange is acceptable imo, and that's coming from a MX-5 with an excellent feel.

 

[gez 172]

Agree with the comment about air con. Its 2013 and I could not live with a car no without air con and hence why I didn't buy a cup.

As said time and time again in other threads 200 v 1*2's

200- mpg is balls if you can live with rubbish fuel on not a very fast car then by all means buy one. I will never make the step if I was getting 25mpg I would want the power to match it!

​Making mpg assumptions without owning one...

 

[Knuckles]

Drove a 200 in anger today. Amazing car.

However, suspension is too firm for really bumpy roads, and the gearshift is utterly awful.

is that not to do with the RS having an epic ( from what I've read with that mod people do) gear shift?

 

[Munson]

I don't really wanna get into slating the car. The handling is incredible, and made my RS feel cumbersome in comparison. But the gearbox is terrible. It really is awful.

 

[Chip-mk1]

​Making mpg assumptions without owning one...

But he probably has good friends who do so still I owe what they are like for fuel from talking to them?

 

[gez 172]

I'm just saying, mines in my experience, and I've done many many miles in mine already.

the only other explanation is the cars mpg completely differs from one to another?

 

[Chip-mk1]

I bet the drivers vary more than the cars.

 

[Gaz_]

The are shite with stop start short trips.

My x2 197's (first was an early 06 plate, current is a 08 plate cup) average around 28/30 mpg. Thats living in the sticks on average 20 mile round trip on a/b roads.

The MPG is no worse than a EP3. Similar performance/size.

 

[gez 172]

But some can't get over 26'ish mpg? I can see 34-35 sat at 70 on the motorway, and the same sort of mpg on B roads at 60'ish.

edit: reply to chips this is

 

[gez 172]

I'll agree that they are crap on stop start, and people who are doing those sort of commutes shouldn't expect good mpg on any car?

​theyre good cars on a run. Fact

 

[Chip-mk1]

I think the cams are a big part of the reason. We have lost approx 10 percent off our mpg with 197 cams in our 172.
Thats based on rs2 before and after and mapped by me both times. So the cams are the only thing to account for the difference.

 

[Gaz_]

Imo they are either beaten to death, or the trip is never reset.

Empty the tank to fumes, then brim it, reset the trip. Most will AVERAGE a good 27 + imo

 

[gez 172]

So cams, weight?

 

[Chip-mk1]

So cams, weight?

Thats my belief for the two main reasons compared to the much more frugal 172 for the difference yes.

 

[gez 172]

I'll be doing a test and report back after the weekend. 500 miles trip to Oulton Park

but I already know it'll be good, I commute 70 miles one way, B roads. I'm always on 33+ and I'm always 60'ish +'

 

[gez 172]

Thats my belief for the two main reasons compared to the much more frugal 172 for the difference yes.

I can agree with that I know the 172 is better on fuel. But what I'm saying is, the 197/200 isn't bad either.

 

[Ed.200]

People complain about the mpg, but the roads and how you drive it varies massively.
Fast A roads 50-60 should manage 33+ easily, well I do, and thats even with cruise on which is not the most efficient way
Motorways at fastish speeds - around 29-30 - again with cruise, drop it to 65 or so and it will be higher
Stop start traffic through town, yeh pretty dreadful, my 4 mile college trip gets 28 or so - that includes the odd quick dart etc


But all in all people say they would get a better car m3 etc etc. But if you match the age (less that 4 years), mileage, hot hatch sized car and what it costs, and running costs. What cars could you get that tick all those boxes? The 200 in that respect has the market.

If you are going to drive the car like it should, ie enjoy b roads, or tracks, then you cant go far wrong.
They are epic little cars!

 

[Chip-mk1]

Yes an m3 or similar would certainly be older for the same money.
Not something that bothers me personally though.

 

[gez 172]

M3's are overrated. They have huge repair bills. Everything seems to cost a £1000 on my friends every time it goes into BMW for a service, brakes, tyres etc.

​and they have a common fault of the rear Chasis legs cracking on the early ones iirc?

 

[Chip-mk1]

I disagree. I don't think they are over rated at all. But yes the dealerships charge fortunes but then so do renault main dealers.

 

[cliokid182]

172 cup is a silly choice for a daily IMHO, its just a downgrade on the normal 172 from that point of view, cup only makes sense if its main focus is track, who wants to be driving around daily in 2013 in a car with no aircon for example?

200 is a nicer car than a 172, but the economy is more different than it really should be IMHO, so it depends how much of an issue that is to the individual, personally if I am getting M3 economy out of a clio, I want M3 performance, and the 200 doesnt deliver that.

Me. I never ever use aircon. i expect most people dont.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Me. I never ever use aircon. i expect most people dont.

You are deluded I think mate, if you believe MOST people dont want aircon, its one of the biggest things people look for when buying a car according to studys ive seen.

 

[marshall878]

They really are awesome. Ok ive had issues, and yes its at the garage AGAIN.

BUT

Nothing compares. When you're feeling on the ball and playful its epic. Yes its tiresome on long journeys, i find mine especially annoying when its my week to drive the lift share, but i love it the rest of the time.

Fuel wise. People expect too much. I was however a little shocked when i drove from Cambridge to Cardiff. Cruise set at 70 pretty much all the way there without touching the pedals, averaged 27. Short drives too and from my lift share, average 26. Drive to work for a week. Average 35. Drive 2500 mile around Europe, PLUS 2 laps of the ring, averaged 34.

Come on, thats not bad is it. And thats according to the computer, which i know under reads.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Ring trip sounds good, but 27mpg at 70mph sounds absolutely rubbish.

 

[plymcl172]

​Making mpg assumptions without owning one...

A friend of mine has one, been in 1 but why does that matter? The mpg is rubbish- fact

 

[Matt W]

Is it really though?

If it did 18mpg all the time, then yeah it would be rubbish.
But a hot-hatch that does around 28mpg is hardly the end of the world.

 

[Advikaz]

Is it really though?

If it did 18mpg all the time, then yeah it would be rubbish.
But a hot-hatch that does around 28mpg is hardly the end of the world.

I was always under the impression that my 200 was rubbish on fuel, but having thought about it, I get good range out of it so I have to say I think the MPG under reads.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Is it really though?

If it did 18mpg all the time, then yeah it would be rubbish.
But a hot-hatch that does around 28mpg is hardly the end of the world.

Depends how many miles you do.

If you do 30K miles a year, then at 40mpg in a 172 its 750 gallons of fuel, at 28mpg its 1070.

320 gallons of fuel extra = 2 grand a year more, thats an epic ring/spa trip or half a dozen trackdays extra every year.

 

[N0ddie]

Is it really though?

If it did 18mpg all the time, then yeah it would be rubbish.
But a hot-hatch that does around 28mpg is hardly the end of the world.

End of the world? Most definitely not.

400 miles from a tank is easily achievable which would give you just over 33 mpg (Which funilly enough is what we get in our 200) driving normally.

Obviously when "pushing on" it is quick to reduce somewhat.

9mpg is easily achievable on track.

 

[gez 172]

This thread is going around in a pointless circle

 

[gez 172]

As said by Noodie. I can also get 400 miles out of a tank.

​

 

[gez 172]

My best is actually 412 miles, using the red too. Before getting worried and stopping at a station.

surely a hot hatch that can do that mileage to a tank is good.

 

[Chip-mk1]

My best is actually 412 miles, using the red too

surely a hot hatch that can do that mileage to a tank is good.

Providing it can do it on a 45 litre tank till the red like a 172 can then yes its excellent.

If it takes a 55 litres of the tank though then less so as its 15 quid more every tank full to do the same miles. Although that is only an issue if you are doing a couple of tanks a week of course, not if you are doing 1 tank a month, so again it depends how many miles you do.

 

[plymcl172]

They really are awesome. Ok ive had issues, and yes its at the garage AGAIN.

BUT

Nothing compares. When you're feeling on the ball and playful its epic. Yes its tiresome on long journeys, i find mine especially annoying when its my week to drive the lift share, but i love it the rest of the time.

Fuel wise. People expect too much. I was however a little shocked when i drove from Cambridge to Cardiff. Cruise set at 70 pretty much all the way there without touching the pedals, averaged 27. Short drives too and from my lift share, average 26. Drive to work for a week. Average 35. Drive 2500 mile around Europe, PLUS 2 laps of the ring, averaged 34.

Come on, thats not bad is it. And thats according to the computer, which i know under reads.[/QUOTE

27 is not good!

 

[Chip-mk1]

His drive to work average 35 mpg yet motorway is 27 mpg ? What do u do push the car to work?

Probably sits on an A road at 50mph in light traffic the whole way, isnt that where most people get best economy?

 

[gez 172]

I've missed where that post was posted, who's that with regards to?

 

[Chip-mk1]

I've missed where that post was posted, who's that with regards to?

http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?701394-172-to-rs200&p=9605867&viewfull=1#post9605867