How did it compare to the Clio overall? I have looked at these, seem rediculously cheap for the amount of car you get?
Different type of car, but a hell of a lot better in every way TBH. It goes and corners faster, looks better, is RWD, mine is convertible, and it makes a nice noise. Even more toys too.
I hope your joking?
Considering a 172 can be had for £1000, I doubt you had £5/6k worth of stuff needing doing and also losing 10/15 mpg!
If you did you must of bought a right dog of one! I've never had any problems with ones I've had for a runaround and I've had 8/9 in total!
Not joking. Yes the one I bought was not the best but even the 182 I had before it, luckily, was under warranty, suffered none stop niggles.
Obviously quite lucky not to have had problems, as they are badly made cars, FACT. Both of mine felt like they were going to fall apart compared to the cars I had after (a 10 year old DC2 feels more solid than a 1 year old 182, for example).
The one I had before just seemed to have one problem after another.
Fun when they work, but not much fun any other time.
Oh and I don't lose 15 MPG. I only got 30 out of the Clio if for no other reason that it was just boring unless you were thrashing the tits off it. I get 25 out of the Z on the same journey. Yes on a run you might get 40 out of the Clio, its possible to get over 30 out of the Z on a run.
I'm not saying a Z is cheaper to run overall, but its clearly better made, and will likely be more reliable. Swings and roundabouts, as it costs more to tax and put petrol but it feels like a more special car so you don't begrudge it so much.
