182 = Rubbish

[Ads_172]

I am a relative virgin to the whole fast car fanatic style, but I have well and truly fallen in love with the 182, having only ever seen one in the flesh once, and never having driven it.

Now, obviously I am going to test drive before I decide to buy one, but the reason I have fallen in love with it so badly is more down to the image and looks than anything else. The CTR and Golf have been flogged to death and are very common cars - ie, you see them everywhere, whereas a RenaultSport, let alone a 182, is still head turning IMO, despite being cheaper. For 12,000 you get a fast, very well equipped modern car. For £20k+ I wouldnt compare the Golf to the 182, but to the V6....

I have to admit that Im not liking the sound of this so called bad driving position and not as quick acceleration as expected, but I have already fallen for this car big time and I honestly think my rose tinted glasses are well and truly lodged in place, before even having driven one.

So stick yer GTi up yer pipe!

 

[Turkish]

go drive one preferably well run in for an extended period and youll love it

 

[RobHardyUK]

i wouldnt mind a golf, but my heart says get a second hand elise

 

[Nath]

i miss my reno 4. I loved that car. ive driven a porsche 911 turbo, yeah it was nice but it wasnt comfy. Ive driven a rolls royce in may lasy job that was nice. But to be honest id just as much like a chloe. Shes cool.

 

[jonnyboy]

I would disagree that a car needs to be run in before you get a feel for weather its quick or not

 

[RobHardyUK]

agreed with jonnyboy, my 182 has got quicker and quicker up to now (nearly 5 thousand miles)

 

[Ads_172]

So, I think youre actually disagreeing with jonnyboy (?). Or have I just misread the two above posts?

 

[kotafey]

Boooo...bad thread...

I dunno...I guess its a matter of opinion, but I would definitely not call the 182 slow. Ive been in "proper sports cars" (as alleged by their owners) that are half as fast as this.

The GTi and 182 are both hatchbacks, yes, but I wouldnt necessarily compare them directly. The GTi is more of a small family car with a big engine stuck in it, whereas the 182 was always meant to be a go-kart.

Dont write the 182 off just yet...It deserves more than that IMO.



Kot

 

[Jim Jams]

The Clio 182- the most fun you can have in a hatchback.



THATS IT, END OF THREAD.

 

[jonnyboy]

to be fair its very hard to get a feel for a car on a test drive, when I test drove the 172 I had the salesman at the side of me and he sh*t himself when I planted the throttle, I was still finding more power a week after Id owned the car

 

[Chili Red]

Well even though Ive got a 172, Id still love a 182. I just think its the best spec and speed youll get for the price.

I looked at a lot of cars before going for the 172 - Id previously wanted a Cooper S, but they were far too pricey and the 172 won the day. If I ever can afford it Im getting my inferno 182!

 

[leeds_182]

182=rubbish=load of twoddle

 

[Munson]

I love the smell of spam in the morning

Sluggish? LOL learn to drive.

 

[Decto]

Let me just say.....

GTi drivers view of the 182

http://erc.qmuc.ac.uk/cliosport/gallery/full/1106423123__Renault_Clio_182_151.jpg

 

[u33db]

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 22 January 2005

Sluggish? LOL learn to drive.

As ive said before, to get the car to shift you need to be high up the rev range to extract a decent amount of torque > therby sluggish below that point > therby nowt to do with driving ability. As ive also said, this isnt what id expect from a modern 2ltr...

 

[big hp]

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 22 January 2005

I love the smell of spam in the morning

Sluggish? LOL learn to drive.

Can drive mate, im 26 not 17. Ive got a valver and Golf v6 4motion so know a slow car when I drive one. 182s are crap IMHO of course.

 

[Munson]

And youre welcome to it

 

[Decto]

I wouldnt say its a problem with the engine or torque at low revs. More a case of the new Clio weighs in around 1.1 tonnes so without a turbo or a capacity increase you need the revs to make it move. Same problem affects all the current fat N/A hatches

D

 

[182_blue]

Quote: Originally posted by big hp on 22 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 22 January 2005

I love the smell of spam in the morning

Sluggish? LOL learn to drive.

Can drive mate, im 26 not 17. Ive got a valver and Golf v6 4motion so know a slow car when I drive one. 182s are crap IMHO of course.




i killed a golf v6 no motion the other night, on a racetrack of course, in my slow 182

 

[Turkish]

hhhmmm every valver owner i took out in my 172 admitted (allbeit begrudgingly in a couple of cases) that the 172 was quicker, and i know for a fact my 182 is quicker than my 172 was already. Maybe you test drove a "slow one"

 

[u33db]

Erm, i dont think any (standard) valver owner here said that a 17/82 was slower, i think were just commenting on the awkward driving position and poor power delivery - drive an 2ltr F7 and youll know what we mean.

 

[182_blue]

i really dont have a problem with the driving position ??, and the power delivery is brilliant (on mine)

 

[u33db]

As i said, drive an 2ltr F7 and youll realise what real power delivery is. The F4R/172/182 lump doesnt come close IMO.

 

[Munson]

Fact is - the 182 is widely viewed as the best hot hatch ever. Whilst conflicting opinions are expected, duly noted and respected, it would seem that generally they are in the minority.

Anyway - the whole topic...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pip_taylor/images/funny/w_for_whatever.jpg

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by u33db on 22 January 2005
Erm, i dont think any (standard) valver owner here said that a 17/82 was slower, i think were just commenting on the awkward driving position and poor power delivery - drive an 2ltr F7 and youll know what we mean.


ill agree the seating position could be better (my buckets are going to rectify that) as for the power delivery i found the supersprint race system freed mine up nicely, the cat seems to suffocate it low down. the 182 is alot better than the 172 was as std though IMO.

 

[182_blue]

i have driven one, and im not that impressed

 

[u33db]

Im not going to turn this into another mk1 vs mk2 arguement but suffice to say that a 2ltr F7 makes about 85% of its total torque from about 2500rpm which is pretty damn hardcore IMO...the 172/182 lump doesnt and no exhaust will dramatically change that as its design inherant.

182Blue, fair enough youre not impressed (thats a slightly better way of putting it that the reply you previously edited) but im sure you can appeciate why a valver owner would not like the 172/182 for the above reason - if youre changing a car itd need to be for the better, not buy yourself the same power issues that your current car has...

 

[Smokey]

This is what i posted on page 2 of this thread http://forum.cliosport.net/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=135803&ReturnPage=&PagePosition=4&ThreadPage=2http://forum.cliosport.net/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=135803&ReturnPage=&PagePosition=4&ThreadPage=2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Glad your happy with it fella, mine is now 10.5k miles old and touch wood it has never been back to the stealers for anything (i must be one of the lucky ones i spose) theres no rattles, no suspension probs, no 4k rattle.

But its very boring now the novelty has worn off imo, handles like a boat, bodyroll is sh*te, mid range is poor and it no longer feels quick"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still no change in my opinion since i wrote that, and its gotta go. Watch this space

My hybrid feels quicker, got better power delivery and im sure would woop its arse!

The 182 is not slower then the 172 below 5k rpm, if anything the 182 is in its prime lower down the rev range, midrange is shocking (a mondeo kept up with me between 70-100)

I know where your coming from Big hp, i would never buy one again.

We test drove the GTI Turbo Anniversary and i was not impressed by that in all honesty, certainly not for the £16k they were asking for a 52 plate when we only paid £10.5k for a 4 month old 182.

Only saving grace is we will only lose a few hundread £s if we sell the 182, so glad we didnt sign on the dotted line for a spanking new one at £13k

Smokey

 

[Smokey]

Quote: Originally posted by u33db on 22 January 2005


Im not going to turn this into another mk1 vs mk2 arguement but suffice to say that a 2ltr F7 makes about 85% of its total torque from about 2500rpm which is pretty damn hardcore IMO...the 172/182 lump doesnt and no exhaust will dramatically change that as its design inherant.

182Blue, fair enough youre not impressed (thats a slightly better way of putting it that the reply you previously edited) but im sure you can appeciate why a valver owner would not like the 172/182 for the above reason - if youre changing a car itd need to be for the better, not buy yourself the same power issues that your current car has...








See my post fella

Coming from someone who owns all 3 2.0ltr variants

[Edited by Smokey on 22 January 2005 at 8:35pm]

[Edited by Smokey on 22 January 2005 at 8:37pm]

 

[u33db]

Out of interest, what would you say is the best out of the mk2s youve had access to (172 mk1, 172 mk2, CUP, 182)?

 

[007]

I think maybe the title of the thread should be "182=didnt like it"

Is there such a thing as a properly rubbish car? To an extent they could all be called rubbish for various reasons.



All cars are pretty much different and suit different peoples different tastes that doesnt make them better or worse just different.

It is correct to say dissing the 182 on here is sacralige but if you dont like it that doesnt make you a bad driver or even person as some on here make out LOL - but saying you dont like it is different from saying its rubbish!!!

BTW I keep on reading posts about it generally being accepted to be the best hot hatch - the same goes for the 205 forum and the Gti - or the 306 forums and the GTI-6.

Different cars for different people.

 

[182_blue]

yup ^^^ agreed, and im sure if someone dissed his car he would be doing the same, i got my 182 because i dont want an old car that isnt covered by a warranty, and for the money the 182 takes some beating

 

[Smokey]

Quote: Originally posted by u33db on 22 January 2005




Out of interest, what would you say is the best out of the mk2s youve had access to (172 mk1, 172 mk2, CUP, 182)?






182 round town and twisty B roads and Mk1 172 for other motorway A road driving.

[Edited by Smokey on 22 January 2005 at 9:25pm]

 

[182_blue]

 

[Lee]

Quote: Originally posted by 182blue on 22 January 2005
yup ^^^ agreed, and im sure if someone dissed his car he would be doing the same, i got my 182 because i dont want an old car that isnt covered by a warranty, and for the money the 182 takes some beating


Same reason here. I couldnt get any other car brand new which gives me the amount of fun and practicality the 182 does.

 

[stevoversteer]

Saying the 182 is crap because it has poor low and mid range power is just rediculous. Civic Type R anyone? The whole character of a good hot hatch is the kick in the back when the cams change profile. Ive driven a Seat Ibiza Cupra (both standard and in 200bhp remapped form) and whilst being quick, the power delivery is so boring. Whereas in a 182, ctr, etc... the excitement of the on cam kick is brilliant. It enables the car to be hugely economical when off cam as well. Therefore what you describe as "REAL" power delivery, I describe as soulless, boring, characterless power delivery. These cars are designed to be revved and thats what gives them so much character, as a hot hatch should have. Go buy a forced induction cruiser if you want maximum torque @ 2000rpm

 

[Lagerlout]

Quote: Originally posted by u33db on 22 January 2005


Im not going to turn this into another mk1 vs mk2 arguement but suffice to say that a 2ltr F7 makes about 85% of its total torque from about 2500rpm which is pretty damn hardcore IMO...the 172/182 lump doesnt and no exhaust will dramatically change that as its design inherant.

Wrong. The F4R also produces 85% of its torque @ 2500 rpm.

 

[Smokey]

Quote: Originally posted by lagerlout1 on 23 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by u33db on 22 January 2005


Im not going to turn this into another mk1 vs mk2 arguement but suffice to say that a 2ltr F7 makes about 85% of its total torque from about 2500rpm which is pretty damn hardcore IMO...the 172/182 lump doesnt and no exhaust will dramatically change that as its design inherant.

Wrong. The F4R also produces 85% of its torque @ 2500 rpm.



Exactly,

Which is why the Williams & 182 are so much alike as most power is at 2.5k rpm and the 1.8 16v and 172 are the same with almost all power at 5k rpm

thats the best way i can describe the power delivery to those that have not driven a 182 but have driven valvers and willys

But it still makes the 182 boring some how, maybe it just dosent have the raw ness of the others i dont know, but what i do know is i wont have it for much longer.

Smokey

 

[Lagerlout]

Interesting views Smokey, but the 172 variant of the F4R also makes 85% of its torque @ 2500 rpm. The 172 and 182 variants make exactly the same amount of torque, but with peak in the 182 coming slightly lower. ( 5400 rpm vs 5250rpm).

The 182 I test drove was considerably flat below 5k, but only had a few hundred miles on the clock, whereas my 172 has over 12k, so not a real fair comparison.

It seems that these cars differ greatly from car to car in not only peak power but also power delivery!!

Ive never driven a valver, but I have driven a 205 Gti which is from the same era and I have to say my 172 felt very sedate after driving that. Whether its because of the power delivery, or the noise I dont know. My 172 felt much more solid and secure as well as being quieter. Despite being faster it felt ultimately boring compared to the 205.

 

[Turkish]

i have to say my 182 feels like it pulls better lower down than my 172 did and bearing in mind i went straight from the 172 (which i had from new) with 27000 miles on it to the 182 with 7 on it. i think the issue is perception here. i get to drive loads of different cars through work and the 3 litre BMWS dont feel as fun or exciting as the 182 does, i know they are similar in terms of performance but the weight size and how civil and quiet it is inside the car detract from and lessen the feeling of pace. its like i said in the post earlier about my jump from the 5 turbo to my 172, the turbo felt quicker becasue of its low seating position, biscuit tin construction and all the noise when you were hammering it hard but i know for a fact the 172 was the quicker car, it just is more refined better built and therefore you dont notice as much. go karts at most places top out at about 30mph unless the twin or motorbike engined variants yet with nothing around you and your ass an inch from the tarmac it feels like you are doing 90, its the same principal.