The 1.6 isn't that popular because it's still slow but comes with more expensive running costs than a 1.2.
The 1.6 isn't that popular because it's still slow but comes with more expensive running costs than a 1.2.
pity they get the same mpg as a 172 or they would be a good choice for younger drivers!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Surely insurance wouldnt have anything to do with it then.
ive no idea what you mean by this?
i dont know why people say its a crap engine, its a good engine, its reliable, torquey just pish on fuel!
i really dont get the point in them at all.
are they alot cheaper to insure than a 172?? the jump from my 1.2 to my 172 at 18 wasnt by that much so wouldnt see the point going half way and getting the 1.6.
How long ago was that? If I recall correctly it was you that said you used to front your insurance.
Most 18 year olds would find that the step from a 1.2 to a 172 is a huge cost.
1.6 16v's are a perfect step, only I'd far rather a Zetec S (looks better and drives nicer) or a 106 GTI/ Saxo VTS (lots faster and better handling) than a 1.6 Clio, which looks exactly like my 1.2 did.
easy 38mpg out of my heavier megane coupe k4m powered, so not terrible ...
not sure if urs is a VVT engine or not? possibly the problem with the newer ones?
i really dont get the point in them at all.
are they alot cheaper to insure than a 172?? the jump from my 1.2 to my 172 at 18 wasnt by that much so wouldnt see the point going half way and getting the 1.6.
turbo power will be awesome!
5 years ago, originally was on my own policy until 19 iirc
im not digging a '1.6' just i dont see the point in changing from a 1.2 clio to a 1.6, are they much quicker??
id rather a DCI if i must
Lol i would even go as far as saying if i had to have a 1.6 id go for the vts/gti
I have a 1.4... It looks like a 1.6 and if you open the bonnet it still looks like a 1.6 because it doesn't have the cover that says 1.4 16v