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.
I'd rather wear your we bum as a hat sexy mouf x
Poopensharten
ClioSport Club Member
Golf R
I wouldnt say much more tbf, just look at the Mk1 and previous gen RS/Cosworth fords
Poopensharten
ClioSport Club Member
Golf R
You sir, are a bit of a pervert!
200
Clio 1970000000
Plus thats a 197, we all know the 200 is muccccch better
Lol awaits abuse
Even more reason to keep your 200!!!!
220 Trophy
My wife used to have an ‘old’ Supercharged JCW and it was a great little car, quick, loads of grip (had the LSD), looked good etc etc. It had to go back to the garage for a week once and on loan we had the new Turbo JCW – they were like chalk and cheese!! – The new turbocharged version torque-steered everywhere and as a whole it just didn’t feel special, whereas the ‘old’ supercharged version felt very special indeed.
Which in truth it was, because the old version had proper JCW tuning parts on it, whereas the new ‘JCWs’ were just BMW’s in-house attempt.
The 200 is a very different car to both, forgetting the horrible turbo-JCW, I would liken the 200 and the supercharged-JCW to say the 911 GT3 and the Turbo, both on paper similar power/performance etc but the GT3/200 is the more track focused car. The supercharged –JCW/Turbo are perhaps the softer more luxurious cars with softer/higher-torque engines.
I guess you could say the 200 Cup or the FF 200 is like the GT3 RS.
My advice having owned the supercharged-JCW and obviously now the FF 200 and driven the turbo-JCW would be definitely to keep the 200!!!
Which in truth it was, because the old version had proper JCW tuning parts on it, whereas the new ‘JCWs’ were just BMW’s in-house attempt.
The 200 is a very different car to both, forgetting the horrible turbo-JCW, I would liken the 200 and the supercharged-JCW to say the 911 GT3 and the Turbo, both on paper similar power/performance etc but the GT3/200 is the more track focused car. The supercharged –JCW/Turbo are perhaps the softer more luxurious cars with softer/higher-torque engines.
I guess you could say the 200 Cup or the FF 200 is like the GT3 RS.
My advice having owned the supercharged-JCW and obviously now the FF 200 and driven the turbo-JCW would be definitely to keep the 200!!!
I owned an Original JCW 210 (supercharged version).
For sure there were good points and bad. Let's start with good:
The steering was quick, even faster than the Clio 200, yet not frisky or twitchy like the Clio can be at high speeds. The front end had a beautiful pointiness about it on turn-in.
The throttle response on the supercharged version was immense; instant torque as soon as you even think about touching the throttle pedal.
The Mini had lovely mid-corner adjustability as well; trully felt as though the car was rotating around the gearstick.
However, there were some misses too.
First of all, the obvious - there's absolutely no room in the back for actual human beings, and the boot is less than half the size of the 200's.
People bang on about the build quality of the minis, but actually I'd say the rest of the small car segment has caught up now and I wouldn't put it any higher than the Clio.
Drivingwise it was great at 80% - plenty of low and midrange grunt, pointy front end, snatchy gearchange and enough adjustability mid-corner for a bit of lift-off oversteer.
However, under real pressure - either on track or when really going for it on a deserted, well sighted road, it all got a bit messy. The front end tended to get a bit scrabbly, inside wheel lighting up, stability aids flashing up on the dash and the car inevitably slipping into understeer. The lack of top-end fizz robbed you of the satifsfaction of holding onto each gear like you do in the Clio. Althought there was more torque in the Mini and a greater powerband, it wasn't a patch on the rev-hungry nature of the Clio engines.00
Basically, up to 80% the Mini is great, but above that it all goes a bit pear shaped, while the Clio just gets better and better the harder you push.
For sure there were good points and bad. Let's start with good:
The steering was quick, even faster than the Clio 200, yet not frisky or twitchy like the Clio can be at high speeds. The front end had a beautiful pointiness about it on turn-in.
The throttle response on the supercharged version was immense; instant torque as soon as you even think about touching the throttle pedal.
The Mini had lovely mid-corner adjustability as well; trully felt as though the car was rotating around the gearstick.
However, there were some misses too.
First of all, the obvious - there's absolutely no room in the back for actual human beings, and the boot is less than half the size of the 200's.
People bang on about the build quality of the minis, but actually I'd say the rest of the small car segment has caught up now and I wouldn't put it any higher than the Clio.
Drivingwise it was great at 80% - plenty of low and midrange grunt, pointy front end, snatchy gearchange and enough adjustability mid-corner for a bit of lift-off oversteer.
However, under real pressure - either on track or when really going for it on a deserted, well sighted road, it all got a bit messy. The front end tended to get a bit scrabbly, inside wheel lighting up, stability aids flashing up on the dash and the car inevitably slipping into understeer. The lack of top-end fizz robbed you of the satifsfaction of holding onto each gear like you do in the Clio. Althought there was more torque in the Mini and a greater powerband, it wasn't a patch on the rev-hungry nature of the Clio engines.00
Basically, up to 80% the Mini is great, but above that it all goes a bit pear shaped, while the Clio just gets better and better the harder you push.
Mini Cooper S sport
To be fair, that looks the absolute nuts.
White Evo V
My mate had one and sold it after 6 months, he was very dissapointed in the performance, he put a forge intercooler on it and apart from that it was stock, he couldnt get better than a 15.5 sec quarter mile. I had a go and managed a 15.10 but my stock 172 still did a 15.01! :rasp:
Id much rather have the 200! Mini looks too much like a hair dressers car to me, buts thats my opinion ofcourse!
Id much rather have the 200! Mini looks too much like a hair dressers car to me, buts thats my opinion ofcourse!
200
I found you didnt need to rev it so much and you didnt have to work the gears as much however it didnt have as much power through out the gears as i thought. I found the gti felt like it had better power delivery. It averaged 34 mpg as opposed to 22 mpg which is what im currently doing, i dont always drive like a prick. It isnt worth 8k more than a 200.
sounds like your prefer the 200 keep it
the mini cracking as the hype has you belive they sound like they lack a personality
Clio 1970000000
Amazing how your opinion can change once you have driven the car. So are you going to keep the 200?
Clio 182
I think you are making a mistake there. The biggest problem with the mini is the run flat tyres. Get rid of those and the handling is completely different. Im the same age as you and have had a string of mini's and Clio's. The clios are much much better value for money in terms of the kit you get on them as standard. But the minis are built so much better and the quicker steering rack makes day to day driving and making quick junction manoeuvres so much easier.
Also i'm not to sure about the dealers by you but mini by me are more than happy to look at any issues and fix them if they arise, where as renault don't seem to care at all.
I have driven both these cars alot and on the bases of money being no issue it is the MINI JCW all day long. Plus the frameless front doors on the mini are the way forward.
Also i'm not to sure about the dealers by you but mini by me are more than happy to look at any issues and fix them if they arise, where as renault don't seem to care at all.
I have driven both these cars alot and on the bases of money being no issue it is the MINI JCW all day long. Plus the frameless front doors on the mini are the way forward.
They say on the fifth gear that the new turbo JCW works is 190 bhp......I know the old supercharge JCW was 210bhp........so surely the old JCW is quicker.....10bhp more than the 200 cup..... New doesn't always mean better it seems!! A real test would be a JCW supercharge against a 200 cup.....anyone done that yet????
Clio 182
yeah 4 pots on the JCW rather than just 1 pot sliders
Thought they might be slightly better! GF needs new discs on her Cooper S and was thinking about JCW's as she has the JCW kit. Didn't think they were required but maybe some after market brakes instead.
Turbos.
You can't judge a car on a test drive though, especially when you compare it to a car you drive every day.
All the foibles a Clio may have soon becomes normal, and anything different seems strange, even if it is actually better once you drive the new car more.
I really don't how Louis can say the Mini doesn't handle as well and has 'lighter handling' - whatever the fcuk that means - just on a test drive.
However, the new JCW is certainly a more rounded car compared to the old one. It is basically like a Golf GTI but smaller, so it's going to lack a certain edge compared to a Clio 200 with the Cup pack on.
I could be wrong, but I think they're actually just single pots made to look like Brembo-style 4 pots.
Am I right?
I had an R53 before the clios and it was better built than the 182, but not as well put together as the 200 in my opinion.
