Nippy white cup
Yeah but isnt it still like 20k for the std spec?
Chris
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.
Yeah but isnt it still like 20k for the std spec?
Chris
Shhh
I did the test drive when i bought mine, i thought it was great as the initial pull was superb, then when i hit 5k it was amazing, but i had to consider i was in the car with the sales rep.
Once the car was mine, i thought the acceleration was not as good as i thought, but the grip was amazing. I then figured out it may not be as fast as the bike, but its far far far handles alot better than anything ive driven before.
I just drive the clio for the sake of it as i like the way it handles down the lanes..and its shiny
Personally I thinkt he 172 is lovely -and the 182 wasnt really needed except to pip the Coopr S by a bit more and make itslightly faster mid range withthe torque difference.
Get the 172, spend the extra 5k modding it and I will be a faster, better all round performance car than the civic (unless you have kids). I bought the 172 for being a fast-for-money, fun, good handling car... leather was good - plastic dash - does it really matter..... reasonable service intervals.
I love my 172 and wouldnt swap it for a 182 or bread van.... a TVR may just get a vote of confidence tho
fat 182
my uncles just took delivery of a gti nice car but he has 2 kid and a prefect suberben life
cutting grass on a sunday and washing the car if you want too be the same as the rest of the masses get a golf
if you want some fun you buy a clio
and ive driven both and they are very evenly matched cars
but my 182 kicks his gtis ass though a set of bends
if your a born again boy racer like me you should have a 182
Quote: Originally posted by big hp on 21 January 2005
Just managed it. LOLQuote: Originally posted by James on 21 January 2005
Did you manage to get the door of the 182 open
The clio i test drove had 2k miles and the lad with me was egging me on, he then had to ask me to slow down. Seemed quick but not as fast as I expected, not for 182 bhp anyway. Was just disappointed all round really.
The mk1 172 seemed a lot rawer if you know what I mean.
11k 16k 20k what does it matter, i can afford a speced up golf so price doesnt bother me. And GTIs have always held there price. Plus the golf has got plenty of power in there to be extracted and quite easily.
Another thing that puts me off is all the problems people are having with them. There also very soon to be replaced with a new model so the prices will drop. Plus around Aylesbury 172/182s are all over the place.
i think because the 182 is a more solid/modern car perhaps you wasnt aware of the speed/power you had at hand, or the 182 you drove was a lemon
Astra 1.9cdti XP
Since your talking Golf GTI...hows about
Alfa 147 GTA (hmmmm)
Audi S3 (albeit used)
it doesnt work like that you buy a 182 for 12k spend 5 k on it in 3 years time its worth 6 kQuote: Originally posted by 172_4_life on 21 January 2005
Personally I thinkt he 172 is lovely -and the 182 wasnt really needed except to pip the Coopr S by a bit more and make itslightly faster mid range withthe torque difference.
Get the 172, spend the extra 5k modding it and I will be a faster, better all round performance car than the civic (unless you have kids). I bought the 172 for being a fast-for-money, fun, good handling car... leather was good - plastic dash - does it really matter..... reasonable service intervals.
I love my 172 and wouldnt swap it for a 182 or bread van.... a TVR may just get a vote of confidence tho
golf you spend 19k in 3 years its at about 12-13
Fair enough if you dont think options are worth it but bear in mind G the second hand market will see at least the Xenons as valuable items. I imagine if you only kept the Golf for a year it wouldnt matter but once the Golf has been around a little while people will get fussy...Quote: Originally posted by Scudetto on 21 January 2005
Indeed, the Golf is pricey. But it is well specced and kit-wise it has all that I need. Id like the leather, but Im not paying £1,600 notes for it. The Xenon lights (£700) are just not worth it IMHO, based on experience with the renos lights, the sat nav i dont need (i never go anywhere), the bigger wheels will trash the ride, the six stack CD Ive never used in the reno and that came for free so Im not paying more for it as an option. Id like to try the DSG gear box, but would like to see it prove itself over time first. The other options are neither here nor there for me.
Red GTi, standard, 3dr, out of the box. Thatll do me.
g
I recently read that the DSG is slower opposed to the VW figures saying it is faster. The DSG got slightly better MPG though.
Given up on getting an old Alfa again? Im at the ring later this year in an old GTV with a tuned 3.0 V6 in. Its reported to be a beast, i cant wait!
-Rob
hiya Rob, hope all is well.
agree with your point re: the Xenons, but there will be some people who desperately want a used Golf Gti but cant stretch to one with Xenons, just to be on the Golf ladder. They will buy my car when Im done with it ;-)
Alfa - as ever, always in my heart and mind, if not on my drive. Once they have service sorted out, then maybe, but now is not the right time for one, as much as miss having one.
GTV at the ring? Can i be your friend? ;-)
g
Driven Type R on deveral occassions, chassis isnt that inspiring but Id buy it for the engine alone. A wicked piece of autmotive engineering!
A whole new world at 6,000rpm far more noticeable than 182, but rather have my clio - think its a bit cooler, has a bit more cred oh and it goes round corners better.
[Edited by tombourne182 on 1/21/2005 12:22:23 PM]
Embarrassed to say
Probably fork out more and get an imported evo 9 gt, if clios werent available.
if i was gonna buy a car around specced gti territory - lotus elise
Astra 1.9cdti XP
http://www.italiancar.com.au/images/Alfa147GTA_12_lg.jpg
But with the optional 18" wheels which look soooooo much better!
[Edited by geordiepaul on 21 January 2005 at 12:45pm]
If you do a search you will see that I was disappointed with my 182 when I got it in October. Since then it has run in a bit, filled with the correct fuel and more importantly I have got used to driving it - learned how to get the best out of it and got a comfortable seating position.
Now my opinion is completely changed and I love it to bits. Id definitely buy another despite the flaws.
mmmmmm nuvola white
that would be my choice if i was spending circa 20k on a car
no golf,leon (imo vag cars are characterless, maybe quick but dont get your pulses racing)
not focus rs(personal opinion), id say a mk2 v6 255 if you looked real hard you could get one for 20k or a alfa gta,
probably the v6 just cos it looks amazing, although the alfa cabin is one of the best one sale in a hatch at the moment looks like a 50k car, plus its quicker to a ton than mk2 v6 255 according to autocars 0-100-0 tests two years on the trot posted low 14s to a ton.... impressive for fwd
I was the same - 172 Cup was a different beast once it had 10k on it.
Still think the Williams offers a better "all-round" driving experience though.
As for the Hondas, wouldnt touch a CTR, the Integra is the way to go. Girlfriends brother has just picked up a lovely x-plate, 40k on the clock for little over £8k - and "out-of-the-box" its fantastic on a track.
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
Each to their own, I suppose. Its not bighps fault that he likes the GTi - obviously his prescription is wearing off. The CTR I agree with and hey, Ive got a 182 and its not to everyones taste. It doesnt feel quick on the uptake (something I felt in exactly the same way with the CTR I drove) and like everyone on here vouches for - the seating position is just awful.
I just think for GTi money - there are many, many other options to consider that would be far superior....
D.
We cant all like it I suppose, but to say its slow is wrong. The CTR is a different animal altogether and it delivers its power in a flash at the right revs. The clio doesnt hit you with its power, it just gives it until the green light comes on and you realise "oh sh:t, im doing 60 already, and you are right beside the ctr driving next to you. The experience is a different one and it takes all sorts to like all things. If we all liked the same things we wouldnt have the wonderful and varied world of vehicles that we currently have at our disposal in this world.......................
Each to their own, some love the 182 and some hate it; but its certainly not fcking slow.
However, when I test drove the 182 i must admit i thought it felt that it was a little sluggish low down in the rev range and that my older Zetec-S picked up better in low revs.
Now, to be totally truthful i also thought it because I couldnt admit that a french hot hatch was spankingly quicker than my own car, so i sense a little bit of sour grapes here
. Once I got the 182 (and got a good 1000 miles on it), learned how to drive it and get it out on open roads i realised just how fast it is and amazing it handles with the cup chassis. I got back in my Zetec-S after a week and it felt completely rubbish in both driving position, performance and handling. You cant just evaluate it on one test drive.True, the 182 needs to be blasted to 7200 rpm to get the best from it which i love, makes it feel like youre really racing it.
Youll also find the Type-R just as sluggish in the lower rev range as it has less torque than the 182 and its heavier. If you want power delivery lower down, get a diesel or get a turbod motor (leon cupra r / golf gti) but personally I love the option of sensible daily driving and then the ability to let the revs climb to 5000 and let hell break loose.
clio 182
hmmm i heared the golf is very big and heavy and sluggish wouldnt bother with one of those i think they are so over rated only golf id have is the mk1
evo fq 300 or a 350z
there is no way the 182 is slow, as people said its slow to pick up, my 172 is faster low down, but at 5k it gets going big time,
i have a bit of road which i race cars on its not long as its between 2 round a bouts but its good to test on,
you can beat TT and CTR on it, my 182 get to 100 easy the 172 only got to 95, my mate had a CTR and he got by me at 85 mph but i dont think he would in the 182.
Imo there is not much to touch a 182 and i have driven just about every thing, you can pick up a mint one for 10k, I had 20k to spend but out of my short list no 20k car was twice as good as the 182.
If you drive fast and want a car that handles its a 182 all the way, after which you need to look at proper sports cars to go round corners any quicker.
MY track spec elise is for sale and it can pull over 1G corner speed without breaking loose
http://www.s2elise.co.uk/eliseweb/frontside.jpg
Black 182 + Recaros
"Obviously most 172s have done 20 or 30k now at least and people are comparing them with brand new 182s."
Yep, my 172 has done nearly 20000 and it gets better everyday. I was gonna buy a 182 but mine seems to get quicker all the time, so decided not to.
Loving it. Its deffo quicker now than from new. At all rev ranges.
Elise/VX220/R26
my 172 has 20k on, theres a bit of difference in the free revving of the engine but TBH its not changed amazingly since new. Thing with the 17/182 that especially might catch you out on a test drive is that they are a different car below 4k for good reason, thats why you get 35mpg, you have to keep the revs high to get the best out of the engine. If you had done that on the test drive you would have placed an order.
Renault Clio 172 Ph2
im fairly happy with mine, is very good on corners, takes alot to get any understeer
quite nervous in the wet
the speed front, imo 167bhp/tonne isnt bad
Astra VXR 17/05/07
I respect opinions but facts are a different matter.
Say what you like about the 182 but sluggish they aint
Guys, them arguements keep on coming.
Cant compare so many of the cars mentioned. e.g. a CTR has no air con as standard: so all comparisons with a standard RS Clio are wasted. After all the biggest single weight saving on the 172 cup was lack of AC. Who would buy a CTR without it. 90% of sales are surely with it so why compare. The whole arguement is meaningless.
Someone has driven a car for a few miles and expected EVERYTHING yet thinks a valver is a more raw car. So what. Someone does not understand the characteristics of an individual model. ITRs were fairly beaten by a 172 if anyone can be bothered to read reports. Other reports also place them above the CTR as you have to drive on the rev range, we are not driving gods and therefore can not hold the car at the point where it matters. NOT easy unless you want your speedo to hover around the 6000 rpm mark just driving down the road.
What a waste of time for uneducated and thrill seekers. If you want a shove in the back have a turbo or Honda VTEC. Trouble is for that shove it means a compromise elsewhere.
Love the thought of a flame suit
Mark
