2.0 clio gt

[daydotz]

been following a thread over here http://www.forum-clio.com/index.php/topic,18894.0.html

it would seem early demo clio gts had a 2.0 138 lump :boring:

 

[Martin_172]

ohh interesting that, imo it should have had a dci 130

 

[NORMY]

i still cant understand why youd opt for a 138bhp in a 2.0 when theres a better looking 197 bhp 2.0 one??!...and 200! apart from the extra wonga, but surely it wouldnt be that much?!?!?

 

[Christopher]

The French use a lot of f*cking emoticons, eh?

I can barely read that sh*t. Literally. I don't speak French.

 

[lbrench]

why would they make that, so its a dumbed down, shite 197 engine?

'no i wont take the 197/200 i will take the gt'

'but sir they are both 2.0'

'but im a moron so the gt it is please'

lol

 

[SC03OTT]

why would they make that, so its a dumbed down, s**te 197 engine?

'no i wont take the 197/200 i will take the gt'

'but sir they are both 2.0'

'but im a moron so the gt it is please'

lol

I love the irony of this post.

 

[JayR]

It's not really rocket science to see why they made it and who they catered for!

I take it its much like VTS/R scenario with Citroen and there Saxos or even abit further back with the mk1 16v Clios and the RSI's! One was made for the younger crowd (being a group 7) one was made for the older hot hatch lovers (being a group 14) who could afford the insurance costs etc.

 

[lbrench]

why have 2 clios both with 2.0l engines

makes sense to have a gt 1.6 and a sport 2.0 which is how they are now

 

[Christopher]

Think about it.

Insurance groupings go off more than engine size.

 

[JayR]

why have 2 clios both with 2.0l engines

makes sense to have a gt 1.6 and a sport 2.0 which is how they are now

Because they do - Deal with it!

Renault made a 1.8 8v RSI in the early 90's side by side with the 1.8 16v which ate the other alive yet come with bigger insurance premiums making it untouchable for most people under 21 - Citroen did the same with the Saxo with the VTS (a 1.6 16v lump) and VTR (1.6 8v lump)!

They are only catering for the younger market or people that only require a warm hatch rather than hot one but this is nothing new.

 

[lbrench]

but what im saying is if they now run with a 1.6 in the gt which puts out 128bhp (i think) then why put a 2.0 in that puts out 10 more bhp, why didnt they just put the 1.6 in in the first place, i totally agree with the 1.6 gt because its great for young driver who cant insure a 197/200 but i dont agree with putting a 2.0l in it when there is a 1.6 that puts out near enough the same power and is alot less on fuel prices/tax and insurance

 

[AK]

But it doesn't have a 2l in it.....

He said the early press demos had one

 

[Christopher]

Different power and torque delivery, for one.

The 1.6's are very peaky. Especially in the RS Twingo we have. The 2.0 in the 138 is a lot more grunty from low down than any Renault 1.6.

It's 138ps, BTW. They're a nice cruiser. Capable too.

 

[MikeLYR27]

They bought out the 2.0l 138 ages ago, this isnt a new thing. The 1.6 133 is a newer engine, so its not a pointless development because they did it before the GT. The 2.0l would pull much better i would imagine, dont forget not everybody wants a sport model so it does cater for other people. Obviously if you want the power, go for the sport, if you dont go for the 138, its not rocket science lol! As said with the vtr/s and older clios its been done before so there is reasoning behind it.

 

[Christopher]

The GT is 128ps. The Twingo is 133ps.

Different maps and mani's I think.

 

[daydotz]

The GT is 128ps. The Twingo is 133ps.

Different maps and mani's I think.

gearbox as well

 

[Jason_E]

Think about it.

Insurance groupings go off more than engine size.

This. A focus 2.0 with the same engine is only a group 8. This is a good move imo. The 1.6VVT engine should have stayed in the twingo.

 

[daydotz]

its the same engine that was in the 138 it was designed with nissan its chain driven irc its comepletly diffrent to the rs lump

CO2 Emissions 173 g/km an its insurence group 9 0-60 8.8 s cost quite a bit as well irc which killed it off so its quite rare not really suitable for the gts market

 

[Jason_E]

Aye Isn't this just the same engine as in the old Dynamique S 138?

 

[daydotz]

Aye Isn't this just the same engine as in the old Dynamique S 138?

yep M4R 2.0 16v 140

 

[SC03OTT]

Yes.

 

[Initiale]

They probably had DynS138 cars in build that they just put the new body parts on so they had some press cars - the new 1.6 probably wasn't ready at the time.

 

[Alastair.]

tis a very good engine though, would handle more power than an f4r without changing internals.

 

[JamesFrance]

The 2 litre engines for the GT are only available in countries where the politicians are not in the pockets of environmentalists. If you have the latest Google toolbar you can choose to translate French forums into English, but it doesn't all make sense. For example the French version of the linked topic didn't exactly say this:

Indeed it is equipped with GPS TOM TOM-normal for a GT, the car radio system with Plug & Music Bluetooth, the start card and finally a nice color effect to the magnificent blue-f**king Malta :sol: yeaaaaahhhh I love this color ... :lover: :rs:

 

[daydotz]

The 2 litre engines for the GT are only available in countries where the politicians are not in the pockets of environmentalists. If you have the latest Google toolbar you can choose to translate French forums into English, but it doesn't all make sense. For example the French version of the linked topic didn't exactly say this:

thats how i lurk some interesting mk3s over their

 

[Dave138]

Yeah I used to have a Dynamique S 138, was a great engine loads of low down torque and 6 speeds too.

Here's a vid of mine pulling mid range, excuse the K&N lol.

[youtube]sMxCWP3fWO8[/youtube]

 

[Brett]

Sounds very good with the K&N that Dave. Nippy too.

Whats it like day to day compared to your CTR? Presume the CTR's a fair bit quicker when going flat out.

 

[Dave138]

Sounds very good with the K&N that Dave. Nippy too.

Whats it like day to day compared to your CTR? Presume the CTR's a fair bit quicker when going flat out.

2 totally different cars mate. The Clio was a very nice car to drive day to day but underneath was just a basic Clio with a 2.0 liter engine in where as the CTR is a full on hot hatch.

 

[richard1]

2.0 138 I drove sounded epic with no air filter in

(obviously not driven very far)

 

[JB]

2 totally different cars mate. The Clio was a very nice car to drive day to day but underneath was just a basic Clio with a 2.0 liter engine in where as the CTR is a full on hot hatch.

Honda do a 2.0L civic also iirc? Along a similar line as the 2.0L GT etc...

 

[ben_r1]

Wonder if that engine cover would fit a 197 lol...

 

[mat-nos]

sounds nice with a filter.....
clio gt should have had the 138 engine but as said the 1.6 was proberbly cheaper to produce/lighter and burns cleaner hence why its in there now.
dont get me wrong the 1.6 is a good engine too and loves to get revved....

 

[Martin_172]

but what im saying is if they now run with a 1.6 in the gt which puts out 128bhp (i think) then why put a 2.0 in that puts out 10 more bhp, why didnt they just put the 1.6 in in the first place, i totally agree with the 1.6 gt because its great for young driver who cant insure a 197/200 but i dont agree with putting a 2.0l in it when there is a 1.6 that puts out near enough the same power and is alot less on fuel prices/tax and insurance

your a clown, their is a lot more to an engine than "only 10bhp more"

the 138 2.0 16v wasnt designed to be a high reving hot hatch engine, it was designed to be something resonably quick with a nice amount of torque while still being decent enough on fuel which it does extremely well.