Clio 172 v Clio 1.4

[Scudetto]

Pups is currently at the dealer having some mechanical work done, so they have loaned me a 250-mile old Clio 1.4 16v Dynamique for the next four days. Although Ive only done about 20 miles in it so far, its opened my eyes a bit. I keep thinking it puts into context how overdone the 172 is. The 1.4 isnt fast, but it bombs along with the flow of the traffic easily enough, holds 80mph on the motorway without getting restless, has a smooth and quiet engine and has the same inherent balance of the 172 in the bends. All it lacks is the scorching ooomph of the 172 (which I cant use much anyway) and its higher levels of grip. But, its what the 1.4 hasnt got that appeals to me - it doesnt have the 172 clumsy low speed steering and turn in, it doesnt have the 172s bump -bump-bump ride, and none of its noise levels. It has a supple ride, a quiet engine, is much more nimble in town and has a crisper turn in, maybe because it has less weight at the front. Driven with verve, its great - grippy, balanced and peppy, all without the price you pay with the 172s noise, ride and steering issues. Sure, it doesnt have the speed of the 172, but it has the spirit...and I think that day to day, it might actually be a better car.

g

 

[Day]

Ive gone the other way and its a different kettle of fish.

Would never go back... the thought of planning an overtaking manouver 1 mile before execution doesnt excite me.

 

[badinvincible]

Pipe and slippers?

Just kidding, I see your point. But when I get into another "base" model car I just think wheres the grunt and why is the suspension so soggy...?

Maybe thats just me.

 

[Guilbert]

Nicely put that man.

So you will be swapping the 172 for a 1.4 then will you? lol

 

[_Kenny_]

Quote: Originally posted by Scudetto on 08 April 2005


Pups is currently at the dealer having some mechanical work done, so they have loaned me a 250-mile old Clio 1.4 16v Dynamique for the next four days. Although Ive only done about 20 miles in it so far, its opened my eyes a bit. I keep thinking it puts into context how overdone the 172 is. The 1.4 isnt fast, but it bombs along with the flow of the traffic easily enough, holds 80mph on the motorway without getting restless, has a smooth and quiet engine and has the same inherent balance of the 172 in the bends. All it lacks is the scorching ooomph of the 172 (which I cant use much anyway) and its higher levels of grip. But, its what the 1.4 hasnt got that appeals to me - it doesnt have the 172 clumsy low speed steering and turn in, it doesnt have the 172s bump -bump-bump ride, and none of its noise levels. It has a supple ride, a quiet engine, is much more nimble in town and has a crisper turn in, maybe because it has less weight at the front. Driven with verve, its great - grippy, balanced and peppy, all without the price you pay with the 172s noise, ride and steering issues. Sure, it doesnt have the speed of the 172, but it has the spirit...and I think that day to day, it might actually be a better car.

g

I wish my 1.4 had this!!! Ive had a shot of my mates old 172 and the grip in his was far far far better than mine ever has been IMO

 

[_Kenny_]

Quote: Originally posted by badinvincible on 08 April 2005

Pipe and slippers?

Just kidding, I see your point. But when I get into another "base" model car I just think wheres the grunt and why is the suspension so soggy...?

Maybe thats just me.

Its hardly a base model mate! Its not a 1.2 8 valve authentique (no offence to authentique drivers!)

I remember the day when your first car was a 1.2

 

[badinvincible]

Its true, my secrets out!

Ive not against 1.2s or 1.4s but I think Ill keep my 172 for the timebeing thanks very much!

 

[_Kenny_]

So would I mate, so would I!

 

[_Kenny_]

BTW, Scudetto if you ever wanna do a swap then pm me mate!

 

[Scudetto]

pipe and slippers...yep maybe! other day caught myself in traffic going: "mmmm, nice Volvo wagon"

being 33 is terrifying at times. )

g

 

[Alex_225]

Before my 172 i drove my mums 1.4 Clio a fair (before she sold it) and i dont reckon the handling was close to the 172. A lot more roll into the corners and I wouldnt trust it like I do my car.

They are pretty nippy and are made to be easy to drive. That seems to be how they are designed to be a fool proof drive.

I personally think it an average car and driving and styling wise its a step backwards. Still not bad but I wouldnt swap lol

 

[Gareth]

i totally agree, at the moment whilst i am working in Manchester I am using the GFs 1.5dci 65bhp, and only using my 172 as a weekend car, i find the dci a nicer car to drive, and the only thing it lacks, is the looks & toys & oooommppphhh that the 172 has.

 

[Chris n nic]

I think a lot of the niceness will mostly be because its very new....probably just as bad after a while.....

Chris

 

[y0z2a]

my 1.2 hire cars have been great - 1.2 extremes mainly, and I love em.

/y0z

 

[Lagerlout]

Spot on Scud. They always say that what the lower clios lack in build quality and space, theres very little that can touch them in terms of driver enjoyment and fun. When you drive one, you realise how rough the 172 is. No jarring over potholes or dancing about on the brakes, no nasty torque steer.... but we know that performance comes at a price. Yozs cup is testament to that!!

 

[Alex_225]

I still reckon that that the Clios are one of the nicest hatches around whether they are 1.2s or 182s!!

They are marketed toward different drivers so will be slightly different. I use my 172 as my only car and at times I do find it a bit tense drive at times though.

 

[viceroy]

I owned a 1.4 16v RXE Alize before I bought the mk1 172 and in town the 1.4 was a much easier car to drive, mainly because of the clutch feel.

On the motorway, the 1.4 was fine for tootling along at the speed limit but crap for overtaking.

Overall I prefer the 172, but yes, it could be improved in the bumpety areas and the clutch could have been made much much easier to use.

Either way I loved the 1.4 and I love the 172...will miss her when shes gone


[Edited by viceroy on 08 April 2005 at 11:58am]

 

[Alex_225]

The 172/182s are basically harsh cars. They are bumpier, heavier steering, stiffer clutch, torque steer etc buuuuut.....

I wouldnt go back to another model of Clio. Theyve got the looks, handling and features that out weighs any of above. Its a car where you have to drive it rather than sit there on auto pilot.

Lets face it when you drop it down a gear and put your foot down its worth it.

 

[davebem]

Quote: Originally posted by Scudetto on 08 April 2005


Pups is currently at the dealer having some mechanical work done, so they have loaned me a 250-mile old Clio 1.4 16v Dynamique for the next four days. Although Ive only done about 20 miles in it so far, its opened my eyes a bit. I keep thinking it puts into context how overdone the 172 is. The 1.4 isnt fast, but it bombs along with the flow of the traffic easily enough, holds 80mph on the motorway without getting restless, has a smooth and quiet engine and has the same inherent balance of the 172 in the bends. All it lacks is the scorching ooomph of the 172 (which I cant use much anyway) and its higher levels of grip. But, its what the 1.4 hasnt got that appeals to me - it doesnt have the 172 clumsy low speed steering and turn in, it doesnt have the 172s bump -bump-bump ride, and none of its noise levels. It has a supple ride, a quiet engine, is much more nimble in town and has a crisper turn in, maybe because it has less weight at the front. Driven with verve, its great - grippy, balanced and peppy, all without the price you pay with the 172s noise, ride and steering issues. Sure, it doesnt have the speed of the 172, but it has the spirit...and I think that day to day, it might actually be a better car.

g

So are the 1.2s.

Until you go up a hill that is

[Edited by davebem on 08 April 2005 at 12:44pm]

 

[Chris n nic]

I had a 1.2 extreme a bit back....Mike C was following in a tdci Focus and the little clio did very well! Although the lean was a little too much hehe (and the handbrake worked well too!)

Chris

 

[MATT BLACK]

must admit the 1.6 16v isnt as quick but its damn nippy. Drive seems to be a lot smoother as well

 

[eves]

had a basic 1.2 extreme as a courtesey car and just felt embarresed to drive it, maybe thats just me being snobby for driving a sport?

 

[KDF]

Also had a couple 1.2s as courtesy cars, I was rather impressed with the thing, I had low expectations to begin with though.

They are actually very chuckable, and if you boot it everywhere it is rather nippy.. as said before it just doesnt have that ooomph that you expect from the 172.. and there is the overtaking issue with 1.2s

 

[Alex_225]

Overtaking in a 1.2 does require -

1 - a run up

2 - a run way

3 - military precision.

You cant rely on the power of the engine at all.

 

[d4ve86]

Iv got a new 1.4 Dynamique, i think there sporty and there fine for us 18 to 21 year olds that cant afford the insurance on a renault sport model. there just 1 step down from the renault sports. mines got everything appart from the 2.0 16v engine and obviosuly the bumpers.

 

[KDF]

Not to be picky but they did a bit more than drop a 2 litre in and put some different bumpers on..

Still, your right they are still great cars..

 

[d4ve86]

and some leather seats, bigger brakes, suspension, steering, alloys!

iv got the xenons and the climate contol, so some dynamiques arnt far off!

 

[182 sport]

they are crap

 

[Scudetto]

^^^^ erm, care to elaborate?

g

 

[Alex_225]

Quote: Originally posted by 182 sport on 08 April 2005

they are crap

Sound a bit of an unjustified comment. They arent up there with the 172s but they are nippy enjoyable cars. Also dont have the same insurance cost, running cost and dont cost as much to buy!!

 

[Ben H]

My other half has a 1.2 8v Authentique and I drive that a fair bit. I even drove it on a 200-mile A road trip and was pretty impressed with the comfort, brakes and damping.

The Dynamique models in particular are much closer to a 172/182 than the MK1 non-sporting models ever were to the 16V or Williams.

My mums box fresh 1.2 Dynamique is one of the reasons I decided to down-size to a Clio hot hatch again. The handling and balance is great - acceleration and overtaking in a straight line is not what its about.

 

[ChrisM]

Quote: Originally posted by Scudetto on 08 April 2005





^^^^ erm, care to elaborate?

g

he doesnt have to. Its just his opinion.

 

[entjm]

Likeing the support for the lower powered clios!

When i was looking for my car the Clio was a far better option than any of the other manufacturers offerings. (Apart from perhaps a VW polo but they were more expensive)

I have a 1.4 8v and i find on the motorway itll easily get up to 90mph without realising your doing it gets a bit ropey though over a ton as obviously the car isnt designed for it. it isnt very powerful but if you keep it at the top of the revs it buzzes along quite nicely on local B-roads. i wish i had the 16v engine i am sure that 23bhp difference is very noticable.

still for young people who cant afford a 172, but want a newish car its a good comprimise i think. Ive got air-con and electric windows and the standard speakers are not too bad.

personally im going to get a motorbike to get my kicks and keep the clio for lugging my stuff about and commuting so i think ill have the clio for a while yet!!

 

[Little Newms]

Of course..... the 172/82 is never gonna be a smooth easy ride otherwise it wouldnt be as good as it is

 

[eo52vug]

are you on medication? swap your 2.0ltr s for a 1.4 school run wagon then, but im sure when your balls grow back youll regret it.

 

[jongsr4]

Quote: Originally posted by Scudetto on 08 April 2005


Pups is currently at the dealer having some mechanical work done, so they have loaned me a 250-mile old Clio 1.4 16v Dynamique for the next four days. Although Ive only done about 20 miles in it so far, its opened my eyes a bit. I keep thinking it puts into context how overdone the 172 is. The 1.4 isnt fast, but it bombs along with the flow of the traffic easily enough, holds 80mph on the motorway without getting restless, has a smooth and quiet engine and has the same inherent balance of the 172 in the bends. All it lacks is the scorching ooomph of the 172 (which I cant use much anyway) and its higher levels of grip. But, its what the 1.4 hasnt got that appeals to me - it doesnt have the 172 clumsy low speed steering and turn in, it doesnt have the 172s bump -bump-bump ride, and none of its noise levels. It has a supple ride, a quiet engine, is much more nimble in town and has a crisper turn in, maybe because it has less weight at the front. Driven with verve, its great - grippy, balanced and peppy, all without the price you pay with the 172s noise, ride and steering issues. Sure, it doesnt have the speed of the 172, but it has the spirit...and I think that day to day, it might actually be a better car.

g

I totally 100% agree with this, Ive got a 172 Cup and 75% of the time i drive my mums 1.4 16v Clio, which as has been said is a better proposition for town/everyday driving IMO

 

[Scudetto]

Quote: Originally posted by ChrisM on 08 April 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Scudetto on 08 April 2005






^^^^ erm, care to elaborate?

g

he doesnt have to. Its just his opinion.

I dont doubt that his opinion, nor am I challenging it. But it would have been a touch more interesting had it been supported by comments as to why he thinks theyre crap. "Theyre crap." Ah, ok; thanks for that.

I have found two things about the 1.4 I dont like. It gets blown around a bit on the motorways, and the sunroof generates quite a bit of wind howl at speed (one of the reasons I dont like sunroofs)

That said, Im still liking it

g