182 Cup - 197, Comparison.

[J.W]

After thinking of modifying my 182 Cup to get more power and a bit better handling I've forced myself to look at newer models and have found a 2008 metallic Silver/Grey 197 with anthracite wheels with 32K on the clock.

I'm very tempted to go view it tomorrow as it's reasonably priced, what are they like in comparison, performance, running costs etc?

Cheers!

 

[adam1942]

slightly slower, handles better than 182, running costs are shocking but its better built than a 182

 

[gez 172]

how are running costs shocking on the 197? In what way?

 

[J.W]

slightly slower, handles better than 182, running costs are shocking but its better built than a 182

Thanks! Where do the additional running costs come from? Fuel, Servicing or insurance?

I appreciate some parts will be more expensive due to the nature of them ie brake pads but expected the majority of stuff to be pretty much the same...

 

[adam1942]

sorry Gez172 I should have explained a little more in regards with MPG

I get around a combined 25MPG drops to low 20s with town driving I heard that the 172s/182s get a good bit higher than this? They run like a bag of nails and jump like a kicked dog in cold unless run with 97> ron. Insurance can be cheaper for the 197s / 200s in some cases. Tyres are 17s as standard and usually come in at around £150 average in NI maybe more for the standard conti sport 3s. Servicing is every 12k and from what I know is the same as the older RS?

 

[Bluebeard]

More fuel, tyres and brakes are more expensive too.

BUT!

Built 100 times better, better gearbox, better seating (both position and comfort) better brakes, better steering, better suspension.... Just better all round.

 

[J.W]

Thanks guys!

I think I'll go and view the one I have in mind tomorrow, it's a little cheap though so will either be sold or a dog of a car, it'd be nice to get rid of the rawness of the 182 as I tend to make 100 mile trips over to the lakes quite often in summer...

 

[Stan.]

Ive had a 182 and now a 200 but running costs will be similar to a 197.

I was getting 36mpg from the 182, the 200 does more like 26-27mpg so fuel is a factor.

The 200 feels slower but is really as fast, just doesn't always feel it due to the size.

Build wise, the 200 seems better put together but then it is only 2 months old.

 

[Poopensharten]

If you put every Renault Sport clio in a straight line bar the V6 it would be difficult to base a decision on picking one on a performance based opinion going by a 0-100, they're is nothing in it.

Adam said a 197's better built than a 182, not sure how true that is, different owner to owner, only preference can differ.

Running costs, personally the 182 will be cheaper

 

[Pete.]

Having gone from a 182 to a 197 can vouch for the difference in fuel consumption. Shocking for town driving but does improve on longer runs. Is more planted in corners and is a match for most 182s running coilies. Brakes are much better than a 182 and as said the driving position is almost perfect. Have never felt as tired after a long run. Build quality is still Renault. Interior materials do appear to be better apart from the Recaro seats. Overall I did miss the 182 but having had the 197 for nearly a year now I know I made the right choice. It's certainly a more grown up car that has a nice hint of hooligan when you bury the throttle.

 

[Poopensharten]

Having gone from a 182 to a 197 can vouch for the difference in fuel consumption. Shocking for town driving but does improve on longer runs. Is more planted in corners and is a match for most 182s running coilies. Brakes are much better than a 182 and as said the driving position is almost perfect. Have never felt as tired after a long run. Build quality is still Renault. Interior materials do appear to be better apart from the Recaro seats. Overall I did miss the 182 but having had the 197 for nearly a year now I know I made the right choice. It's certainly a more grown up car that has a nice hint of hooligan when you bury the throttle.

Thats probably one of the most honest opinions ive read!

A credit sir!

 

[J.W]

Having gone from a 182 to a 197 can vouch for the difference in fuel consumption. Shocking for town driving but does improve on longer runs. Is more planted in corners and is a match for most 182s running coilies. Brakes are much better than a 182 and as said the driving position is almost perfect. Have never felt as tired after a long run. Build quality is still Renault. Interior materials do appear to be better apart from the Recaro seats. Overall I did miss the 182 but having had the 197 for nearly a year now I know I made the right choice. It's certainly a more grown up car that has a nice hint of hooligan when you bury the throttle.

Thanks, hit the nail on the head for me with that one!

What sort of cost is it to fill and how many miles do you see from a tank with mixed town/motorway driving?

 

[MikeLYR27]

^ its about £60-65 filling up with v-power, i get about 300-330 miles per tank. Sport contact 3 tyres from cams kill are £100. Brakes really are not that expensive. I got new disks/pads/dot 5 fluid for £150. I think the only difference running wise is fuel really, ive not noticed much else compared to my old 182. Insurance is cheaper for me for some reason.

 

[ForceIndia]

I've had several 182/172's, now in a 200. The 200 is better built, more refined (although it's still not what you'd call a refined car).

It's a better everyday car, but everytime I end up on a decent b road I miss the 1*2's.

Whoever said a 197 has better steering, frankly they're on crack. There's more feel from a ps3 wheel than the 197/200. It's accurate, but too light and utterly devoid of feel.

It doesn't handle better, it grips harder but is more inert (Ie less playful). The brakes are brilliant.

All things considered the 200 suits my needs better (mainly motorway driving). If my situation changed, I'd get rid of the 200 and buy a trophy as quickly as possible.

 

[ForceIndia]

Last tank I got 412 miles from the 200. That was keeping to 70 on the motorway, and driving normally elsewhere.

But they are more economical than the 197's.

 

[Gally]

The steering on the MK3/197/R27 is far too light and electronically assisted in my mind.

That combined with the fuel is just about enough to put me off it.

Shame as Nimbus and Albi Blue are 2 amazing colours.

 

[ronnie1]

Does a rs tuner map help with mpg on a 197?

 

[FinlayJ]

I upgraded from a 2003 172 to my LY R27 2 months ago and have never looked back. In my opinion its difficult to campare the 2 cars as they are so different! As said, they are thirsty but I didnt buy mine for economy! My advice is, if low MPG doesnt bother you, then take it for a test drive and see what you think....................

 

[Cliotoby]

The 197 is better buit, feels tighter and has more steady power delivery, feels more torquey than a 182 does. 182 seemed to have that high end rev the tits off it feel and the 5k kick was fun. Ive owned neither of the two so i cant comment on fuel economy but i hear the 197 is thirsty, look at the replies in this thread, and the 100's of others. 182 also felt chuckable, 197 feels more, on rails stable driving sort of approach.

I disagree with the gearbox being better. The 182's wasnt great but it felt as though it did the job, the 197's (IMO) felt slower although you did get the gay quick shift feel - click click and all that - clutch was s**t. I dont know why renault dont focus more on gear boxes now they have nailed the head on steering and handling. I think they make them out of recycled cardboard.

Id sooner have an FN2 CTR simply for the better running gear. Steering wasnt as good as the clio and the ride was a bit hard, but that engine and gearbox is something Id love every time i drove it.

 

[ForceIndia]

Don't agree with most of that. The 182 feels significantly more torquey, and the box is better on the 197.

 

[MikeLYR27]

I think the 197/200 feels more tourqey than my 182 ever did. I still drive my mates 182 a lot and when I get back in mine the 197 pulls better and feels more grunty beyond 5k. 182 feels better below tho.

 

[Cliotoby]

Well its renault, the box is s**t full stop.

 

[JayR]

Running costs are not shocking!!! lol

Its a 12 month service interval, the tax is the same iirc, insurance group a 15 instead of 16, the reliability is the same but fuel will be more if you're using it loads.

I loved my 182 for the four years i owned it but you will not be dissapointed on the change up mate if you're not expecting a trade up in speed (as thats the only thing its not although its not slower).

197 is a much more grown up car.

Well its renault, the box is s**t full stop.

Rubbish.

 

[Gaz_]

Well again ive had both, and ended up in a GW 197 Cup. I love it, perfect for me. Better built for sure, non of that constant buzzing/rattling that you get in a MK2. I don't agree however that a 197/200 is more torquey than a 182, simply not true imo. The Mk2 gets the big engined small car feel perfect, the Mk3 doesnt for me. However as mentioned, 99% of the time its a better place to be. Gearbox for a Renault is a peach, brakes perform well and look ace. They sound good too, perfect imo. I average around 30mpg, getting around 36 ish summer in a 172 Cup.

 

[Munson]

197 feels as though it has more grunt than a 182? New crack pipe for Christmas? Your 182 was fucked. Period.

 

[Cliotoby]

Rubbish.

The gear box is, yes. I dont see how anyone can argue that its not. I dont expect it to be BMW style, but they could atleast make an effort. ive used worose but its got big room for improvement.

 

[MikeLYR27]

197 feels as though it has more grunt than a 182? New crack pipe for Christmas? Your 182 was fucked. Period.

Im sorry my opinion after owning both is wrong. My 182 was mint. Maybe i have a freak of a 197?

 

[MikeLYR27]

197 feels as though it has more grunt than a 182? New crack pipe for Christmas? Your 182 was fucked. Period.

Im sorry my opinion after owning both is wrong. My 182 was mint. Maybe i have a freak of a 197?

 

[ForceIndia]

Any 182 that 'feels' slower than a 197 has issues. My 200 feels more grunty than any 197 I've used, and all my mk2's felt quicker still.

It is a more refined, grown up hot hatch. Can't have that without some of the fun. Or buying a mini.

 

[Munson]

I don't know anyone, or any publication, that has ever said a 197 feels gruntier than a 182. In fact quite the opposite. That includes me, and yes I've driven both.

You can hide behind opinions all you want, but either your 182 was fucked, or your 197 is supercharged. Or, there's the super secret bonus option - you're telling yourself something you want to hear.

 

[david hodson]

Even Renaultsport knew the 197 was slower thats why they changed the gearing

 

[Wests Renault]

My 172 and 182 both felt torquier than my 200. The 200 likes to be driven at 5000rpm+ to get the most from the engine, but does feel very flat around 3/4000rpm. I've read that a remap is supposed to be very good for this though (up to 20NM more torque).

Fuel is pretty shocking on the 200 but then I didn't buy it to be economical. I average 27/28 with a mixture of town, motorway and back road thrash driving. The old 182 used to comfortably sit at 36mpg with the same driving. My 182 could achieve 47mpg on a run, whereas the 200 will be lucky to see 36mpg on a motorway run.

I would personally say the 200 feels more planted during cornering - just seems to have more grip. I like the steering on the 200, but the 182 steering does offer more feedback. The gearbox is a 100 times better on the 200. The boxes in my 172/182 felt so loose and the gearlever had lots of play when you lifted off the accelerator. The 200 box is nice and tight and I love the close ratio box.

Insurance I have found to be slightly more than my old 182/172 but then the car is worth £16000 not £1600.

All in all (imo) the 200 is certainly a much nicer place to be, it feels much better put together than the old 1*2's.

 

[Wests Renault]

One thing I would add is make sure you get the cup chassis, when I test drove a 200 without one it nearly put me off buying it as it was so soft and wallowy (sp!)

 

[ForceIndia]

One thing I would add is make sure you get the cup chassis, when I test drove a 200 without one it nearly put me off buying it as it was so soft and wallowy (sp!)

Fair enough. Every single review, and my experience disagree's with you. Massively. When will begin stripping this one for trackdays.

 

[Wests Renault]

When will begin stripping this one for trackdays.

Think I've learnt my leason and had my fun with the 172 lol. Will be doing it the propper way this time - track days first then mod if needed!!

 

[J.W]

Some interesting views, thanks for all the replys!

I test drove a black 197 with 20k on the clock today, albeit in bad fog and traffic and never got chance to give it a kicking the car felt much nicer to drive than the 182, I noticed more so when I jumped into the 182 and it felt like I was getting in a go-kart!

Everything about the 182 is so much more responsive!

I'm going to get down to have a look at this one below when I get chance, the guy said I can reserve it for a small refundable deposit which will take the car off sale so I may opt for that, I believe it is the cup version too

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classif...-type/featured-listing/dealer/124536/usedcars

Any ideas on what I should be bartering down to on this? With depreciation as it is I don't want to be paying over the odds to start with!

Thanks again!

 

[Stan.]

Seems a good price.

 

[J.W]

I've reserved it, it's not a cup however the more comfortable ride will suit me more for long trips etc, the main reason for me wanting to upgrade.


Fingers crossed it's as described

Can anyone confirm that a remap would improve fuel economy? I've been tempted to try RS tuning out in Leeds as I've heard good reports.

 

[Cliotoby]

Thats dirt cheap lol. 08 with <30k.

 

[ForceIndia]

I'd be surprised if a map made a significant difference. Certainly not enough to recoup the cost of a custom map.