any difference between 1.2/1.4 dynamique??

[Ben.]

i am looking to sell my mk1 1.4 after christmas and upgrade to a dynamique!

i really want the 1.4 as i feel i would be downgrading (power wise) if i got the 1.2?
is there anyone that has driven both, and is there that much of a difference?? also does the 1.4 have a higher spec? the 1.4's just seem to be pretty rare, especially as im not looking to spend any more than £3500?

any help appreciated!

 

[edde]

1.4 is nice engine a bit more powerful but its nothing huge 172 is a much better jump and for the moey its what I'd do phase 1 172.

1.6 is a bit quicker again but not huge more noticable when you get moving more although you can notice the better power band at lower rpm.

The Mk1 1.4 was 70hp or so I think the 1.2 16V is 75hp though.

 

[Martin_172]

1.4 16v and 1.6 16v come with "sports" suspension but you wont noice a difference in my opinion, think they have thicker anti roll bars or at least 1.6 16v does, later 1.6 16v's 2003 53 plate (i think) onwords have rear disks same as 172/182

spec inside is the same as a 1.2 16v which is pretty good most dynamiques have the optional AC, especially the 1.4 and 1.6's but a lot dont.

optional extras worth looking on on any of the dynamiques what ever engine was full climate control, Xenon front lights and electric sunroof.

1.2 16v will be about same as your 1.4 8v mk1 performance wise but to be honest id go for a 1.6 16v, only has 12bhp more than the 1.4 16v (98 vs 110bhp) but has a bit more torque too, not much more to insure so worth a look

 

[al]

Climate is well worth it but stay away from the electric sunroofs IMO.

 

[Martin_172]

mates seems fine and doesnt rattle like mine, they common to problems?

 

[Ben.]

mmm... 1.6 is an option. I think i would regret buying the 1.2 over the 1.4, but like i said its near impossible to find a 1.4 dynamique under £3500 without real high milage. It has to be black and a 3 door though, maybe im just being to fussy...

 

[Martin_172]

millage isnt an issue really, mine is on 130k and sound (well appart from my little engine mount issue i had tonight but could have happened on any millage lol)

only thing been replaced on mine is clutch which is expected and coil pack along with the usuals like brakes, wheel bearings etc which are all wear and tear

standard suspension was fine at 115k when it was removed and standard exhaust has just started blowing at the cat at 125k

 

[al]

mates seems fine and doesnt rattle like mine, they common to problems?

Mine was in at Renault 3/4 times before they sorted it and as soon as warranty ran out it started again TBH tho it's not that bad.

 

[Martin_172]

what was up, rattles leak etc?

 

[JclioD]

Depends what age.....

i know for a fact, my car (1.4 extreme 4 05 plate (two years next march) with well mine has 14k miles, but the glasses guide says 17k) is worth £5,470 ish.

so im sure an older one, with slightly higer miles wont be too difficult to find for £3,500. But then again, £2k difference is quite a lot, so this post isnt much help im afraid :S

 

[al]

what was up, rattles leak etc?

No leaks, just lots or rattles, was really annoying lol.

 

[edde]

What about a diesel the fule saving put towards the purchase price?
dci 80 is about 1.4 pace.

 

[Cliokeef]

My 1.4 Dynamique isn`t at all bad, sure no great power compared with the 2 litre clios...but it definately shifts more than my mothers 1.2 clio...don`t get a electric sunroof..they rattle..and irritate...climate control is decent though and xenons are smart

 

[Martin_172]

maual sunroof is a c**t especially on a solid suspension set up lol rattles like fuk!

best thing is no sunroof but only on extreme 4/campus and 172/182's and extreme4/campus is nothing on a dynamique

 

[Harry_manback]

1.4 and 1.6 are fairly rare tbh. mines been a c**t but i have raped it every single day of its life. 96K still on original clutch, gearbox, cat, exhaust.

amazing really.

i wouldnt go for a 1.2 16v as youd always know you could of waited and had that little bit more power.

for me the 98 is good, it keeps up with alot of cars such as the 1.8 diesel audis and 1.8 16v vectras. which for me have the sort of avarage engine i see on teh motorways, so nothing really embareses you, even though you always wish you had that little extra to pass.

its about the same speed as a vtr if thats any help.

i tired to sell mine for £3K at 70,000 miles. there was no takers. sigh!

 

[Ben.]

^^ thanks for the advice, i think its going to have to be a 1.4. I dont want to get into a big debate but is it really about the same as vtr's?

 

[al]

mines been a c**t but i have raped it every single day of its life.

Indeed :star:

 

[MarkRS]

Defo get the 1.4 at least, the 1.2 is like walking especially a dynamique with the 15" wheels. My mums 1.4 16v alize was great, max torque right in the middle of the revs 3700 ish.
Driven two 1.2 dynamiques and they were painful, especially up hills. Mileage is nothing on the engine(saw a 1.4 on 138k once.)
Just service them more often than the 18k odd they recommend now - thats terrible. 6k at most for oil changes.

Re speed, i held off a 1.6 fiesta zetec-s (103 brake)in the 1.4 until higher speeds when he crept past slowly - prob due to being 1.6.

 

[doddy]

what a coinkidink!
i think i will be sellin my 1.4 16v soon after christmas, its 03 plate on 27k at the moment. they are 100bhp (ish) and is quite nippy, id be askin more than 3500 for it though

 

[bmh.01]

1.4 16v and 1.6 16v come with "sports" suspension but you wont noice a difference in my opinion, think they have thicker anti roll bars or at least 1.6 16v does, later 1.6 16v's 2003 53 plate (i think) onwords have rear disks same as 172/182

I'd say there quite a difference between the so called sports suspension and the normal stuff on the 1.2 16v. My dynamique was a damn sight less firmer than the 1.6 is, and the 1.2 expression I had as a courtesy car was rather boatlike in comparison. Still shouldn't be a touch on the Apex kit i've got to fit.

Yep the Ph3s came with rear discs, b******s why didn't the Ph2 :dapprove:.

 

[Timmay]

wouldnt have minded rear discs but i think the brakes are good enough anyways.

oh and get a 1.6 16v rather than a 1.2 - honestly they are brilliant

 

[al]

oh and get a 1.6 16v rather than a 1.2 - honestly they are brilliant

*high five* :approve:

 

[Bushiee46]

ones got a bigger capacity engine

 

[AlexS]

Defo get the 1.4 at least, the 1.2 is like walking especially a dynamique with the 15" wheels.
Driven two 1.2 dynamiques and they were painful, especially up hills. -s

Your prob just a s**t driver
1.2's are by no means quick but there are much slower cars on the road, there is a noticeable difference between the 1.2 8v in the authentique and the 1.2 16v unit. Around town mine is quite nippy you just need to let it rev abit, if you try and go up a hill in 5th at 40 yes it is painful, drop down a few gears.

1.4 16v: 98bhp, 10.2 0-60, 115MPH
Saxo VTR Phase 1: 9.1 0-60 120MPH
Phase 2 VTR's are slower but still quicker than a 1.4 Clio.

 

[Bushiee46]

I had 2 1.2s and i loved them, didn.t find them painfully slow at all, in fact it was a laugh revving the arse off them and never felt left behind by the traffic at all. awesome engines

 

[MarkRS]

Defo get the 1.4 at least, the 1.2 is like walking especially a dynamique with the 15" wheels.
Driven two 1.2 dynamiques and they were painful, especially up hills. -s

Your prob just a s**t driver
1.2's are by no means quick but there are much slower cars on the road, there is a noticeable difference between the 1.2 8v in the authentique and the 1.2 16v unit. Around town mine is quite nippy you just need to let it rev abit, if you try and go up a hill in 5th at 40 yes it is painful, drop down a few gears.

1.4 16v: 98bhp, 10.2 0-60, 115MPH
Saxo VTR Phase 1: 9.1 0-60 120MPH
Phase 2 VTR's are slower but still quicker than a 1.4 Clio.

Na i just don't like going slow everywhere
I like to be able to drive about and not worry about revving the nuts off em all the time, the 1.4 would do hills easy and the 1.2 didnt, loads of steep hills round here so it pissed me off alot. 5th, 4th, 3rd, and still being overtaken by grannys in 1.6 escorts.... the 1.4 isnt 'fast' but it was much much better and for not much more money.

 

[Timmay]

*high five* :approve:

oh yeah!!! lol

 

[Martin_172]

5th, 4th, 3rd, and still being overtaken by grannys in 1.6 escorts.... the 1.4 isnt 'fast' but it was much much better and for not much more money.

seriously doubt it, ive got 2 mates with 1.6 escorts (well sorry 1.6 injection escorts, for some reason they always add the injection bit when talking about their cars lol) and my 1.2 16v starts to pull on both of them, and thats before we touch the corners.

im not saying a 1.4 16v clio is crap and not saying dont buy one, because yes id rather have one than the 1.2 16v but im just sticking up for the 1.2 16v engine, which is a brilliant little engine (not so keen on the later 2004> engine tho) maby its just because mine has plenty miles on it because i dont like any of the other 1.2 16v's i drive they feel gutless before 3k but mine pulls like f**k for what it is all thru the rev range

 

[MarkRS]

5th, 4th, 3rd, and still being overtaken by grannys in 1.6 escorts.... the 1.4 isnt 'fast' but it was much much better and for not much more money.

seriously doubt it, ive got 2 mates with 1.6 escorts (well sorry 1.6 injection escorts, for some reason they always add the injection bit when talking about their cars lol) and my 1.2 16v starts to pull on both of them, and thats before we touch the corners.

i was talking about later 1.6 zetec escorts, about 11 secs to 60 if we're getting all geeky, the clio is something like 13.5 (and i rememeber renault put in small type in the brochure with 15" wheels they are even slower) so being generous thats the difference between a 1.6 clio and the 172, don't think they are the same speed

 

[Ben.]

ones got a bigger capacity engine

lol, thanks for that!!

 

[edde]

1.4 16v and 1.6 16v come with "sports" suspension but you wont noice a difference in my opinion, think they have thicker anti roll bars or at least 1.6 16v does, later 1.6 16v's 2003 53 plate (i think) onwords have rear disks same as 172/182

Yep the Ph3s came with rear discs, b******s why didn't the Ph2 :dapprove:.

Later phase 2 1.6 16V came with rear disks.

1.6 has stiffer ARB on all spec levels same as the dci 1.4 has a thicker one in most applicatiosn from memory.

 

[Giles]

Later phase 2 1.6 16V came with rear disks.

1.6 has stiffer ARB on all spec levels same as the dci 1.4 has a thicker one in most applicatiosn from memory.

I didn't know standard clio came with rear disc brake??:S

 

[edde]

Later phase 2 1.6 16V came with rear disks.

1.6 has stiffer ARB on all spec levels same as the dci 1.4 has a thicker one in most applicatiosn from memory.

I didn't know standard clio came with rear disc brake??:S

Yep they did.

But the 1.6 was only made in reasonably high spec anyway.

The phase 1 1.6 16V came with rear disk at some age.

I still prefere drums though much better.

 

[Giles]

I think I need some disc brake cos the rear wheels/tyres too close the metal

what should I do??

 

[edde]

I think I need some disc brake cos the rear wheels/tyres too close the metal

what should I do??

So long as they don't touch there no problem.

 

[Giles]

^^ you go have a looks my car this Sat

 

[edde]

^^ you go have a looks my car this Sat

Yep sure no problem.

Saturdays the Demon Tweeks isn't it?

 

[VWSaxon]

do you lot go to demon tweaks alot? i only live down the road.

 

[AlexS]

seriously doubt it, ive got 2 mates with 1.6 escorts (well sorry 1.6 injection escorts, for some reason they always add the injection bit when talking about their cars lol) and my 1.2 16v starts to pull on both of them, and thats before we touch the corners.

i was talking about later 1.6 zetec escorts, about 11 secs to 60 if we're getting all geeky, the clio is something like 13.5 (and i rememeber renault put in small type in the brochure with 15" wheels they are even slower) so being generous thats the difference between a 1.6 clio and the 172, don't think they are the same speed

12.6 secs to 60 for a 1.2 16v, but your right about the wheel clause in small print. My alloys are only 15" but have low profiles so they are exactly the same rolling radius as the standard 14's. They don't seem to make much difference to the performance and improve the handling no end. The reason for the slowish 0-60 time is that you can't quite get 60mph in 2nd.

 

[Giles]

Yep sure no problem.

Saturdays the Demon Tweeks isn't it?

yep