clio 1.616v v 1.416v

[peggy]

i have a clio 1.4 16v and was going to get a 1.6 16v but is there much difference in performance.or should i just go for 2.0 cheers carl

 

[bradus]

go for the 2.0 :d

 

[kully]

welcome to CS..............go for the 2.0 if you want more power

 

[peggy]

cheers but is there a difference in performance with 1.4 and 1.6 cheers

 

[kully]

cheers but is there a difference in performance with 1.4 and 1.6 cheers

yes the 1.6 is quicker ......... a little bit

 

[Chris1.4RT]

I wouldn't have thought there was a significant difference to justify increased fuel consumption, insurance and tax. I'd stick with a 1.4 until you can properly afford a 172 unless you can afford one in which case go for it.

 

[peggy]

o ok just wunderd if it was worth it

 

[p3rcy1]

depends on the driver lol yeah there is quite alot of diferance at the bottom end nothing in it at the top if you decide to get a 1.6 get the early one around a x plate cos the newer ones are slow lol

 

[peggy]

cheers prob go for 2.0 then insurance is abit steep but its gota be worth it for the performance

 

[p3rcy1]

there is alot of differance between the 1.6 and 2.0 lol my mate leaves me for dead in his 172

 

[the1]

depends on the driver lol yeah there is quite alot of diferance at the bottom end nothing in it at the top if you decide to get a 1.6 get the early one around a x plate cos the newer ones are slow lol

Could you please show me some evidence, to back up your quote?:dapprove:. As far as I know the 1.6 16v engines give out the same bhp. So they are the same car, are they not??..

 

[edde]

Could you please show me some evidence, to back up your quote?:dapprove:. As far as I know the 1.6 16v engines give out the same bhp. So they are the same car, are they not??..

They do the more milage the Renault engine have the quicker they are though.
Later engine have VVT but it makes no different a bit more low end if anything but its only tiny.

 

[bradus]

spend ya money wise mate and go 4 the 2.0L

 

[al]

I wouldn't get a 2.0 for a while untill your insurance company doesn't take the piss.

Avoid the 1.2 8v and 16v like the plague, the engine, steering and suspension are shite compared to 1.4 and 1.6.

The 1.6 is an excellent engine and quite rare too.

Don't get the old 1.6 16v's they are group 10 insurance, get a post 2002 model, they're only group 8 insurance, have VVT (which means better MPG) and most have climate control!

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

The 1.6s are nice cars.

A mate of mine had one (think his name on here is cliokicker).

He raped it though lol. Specs were as follows.

100mm drop managed by chopping the springs on a sunday afternoon.
Loud and in-yer-face Rage backbox with 7and a half inch tail pipe.
Aluminium aerial...
Sun-visor screens that always used to drop into our faces if he went over a bump too fast (curtousy of the immense handling that chopping springs brings!)

Think that was about it. Funny car, I liked it lol.

 

[al]

Sounds interesting :S

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

Give me 5 minutes, I'll upload some pics and vids

 

[al]

Ok

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

Here it is

http://www.howarth1.co.uk/rev.3gp

http://www.howarth1.co.uk/burn.3gp

http://www.howarth1.co.uk/robfront.jpg

http://www.howarth1.co.uk/robback.jpg

 

[al]

Look ok, not sure about cutting the springs and the zorst tho

 

[edde]

Avoid the 1.2 8v and 16v like the plague, the engine, steering and suspension are sh*te compared to 1.4 and 1.6.

The 1.6 is an excellent engine and quite rare too.

Your right 1.6 were very rare they made less than they did of the 172 and 182's

Same suspension on the 1.2 as the 1.6 weighting is different due to setup but thats easy to adjust.

Suspenion is soft on the 1.2 but nothing a set of aftermarket setup won't make better than any stock 172 or 1.6 is. Same shells after all.