Clio 182 how much better than 205 Mi16

[ellisg]

Been sent an offer to buy a new Clio 182 on contract hire at a fair price and am considering options.

Anybody know how they compare to a 205 Mi16 (165bhp/900kg, 0-60 6.5, 14.7 1/4)

Ive test driven a 182 a while ago and it was not brillant but pretty good, Mi is brillant at times, pain at others, so fairly equal.

Things I do know

Performance pretty similar
Handling 182 slightly better than my sprintlined 205
205 more fun to drive
205 probably better built, both rubbish
182 has bad driving position
182 has a ventilation system that works.
182 is 10x safer

Do you know anybody that has owned both or a 172/Cup, I keep hearing horror stories of the 182 being screwed together by monkeys, is it really true

They say Clio 172/182 is a modern 205 GTi, but how does it compare to a Mied 205

Any input.

 

[iceblue182]

how many mid 205 are out there? not many! i dont think your gona find an answer on here bud!

 

[telford_mike]

Main difference - you cant buy a 205 Mi16 new, 182 comes with warranty etc. Impossible to compare a stock car with heavily modded / transplant.

 

[Mondial172]

Remember the only car as old as the 205 on NCAP is the Metro and that gets 1/2 a star.

To be fair the Mi16 isnt really a real car that left a production line. Its like comparing a Turbo Clio 16v to a Williams.

To live with everyday Id say the 182. Plus Im sure a 182 is lighter on the pocket when it comes to fuel and insurance.

 

[Smokey]

ditto^^^^^^^^

 

[Brazo]

I would like to think that french build quality has improved even if only a tad in the last ten years.

But as others have said its not a fair comparison, a modified valver is your best bet if you want a direct comparison!

 

[Dave H]

I had a Skip Brown 205 gtiS in red until l bought a 172 Cup last march.

205 + classic looks,fantastic feel whilst driving,great performance(0-60 about 7.2 secs)

205 - Always needed a repair,ran rough for the first minute or so,everything rattled,older car (1991),insurance (group 14+ meant around £690 fully comp)

Cup + Pace,grip (miles more than the 205),better brakes,better handling,better fuel economy (can get over 40mpg if not driving like an idiot and thats around town etc.Pug around 30 mpg),better build quality (although been to Renault 3 times for PAS pipe,rattles in doors,new engine mount),3 years warranty etc,looks better than the 205 (more modern etc),better security,CD player,steams up less,lower insurance (group 17 means £630 fully comp),as rare as the 205 1.9 gti in good nick!

Cup - having to go back to Renault 3 times,hard to get use to PAS which give less feel than the pug,having to wash it more often (although Renault Manchester have washed it inside & out every time its been in)

Probably the nearest car to a 205 gti today.Havent driven a 182/182 cup would would expect them to be close

 

[ellisg]

Fair comments guys.

How does a 182 compare to a Williams or modified 16v then. Williams is a better 205, but similar so easier comparision.

Only interested in driving/enjoyment. A/B road blasts and overall usage.

I know all the obvious stuff, like crash protection, depreciation, warranty, new shiny car just interested in driving/fun factor really. Is the 182 an improvement over an old school hatch.

The 182 would cost a substantial amount more to run than 205, so apart from some toys and its a new shiny car, Im trying to justify buying one. Fuel is about the same, 182(35mpg), 205(34), Insurance is over double for 182 but a lot easier to get, servicing about the same so it just comes down to hire costs/depreciation.

Ive just bought a Renault for other half and door broke in first week, which makes me nervous of build quality. Peugeot have just a bad reputation, 205s been kind on that front, think Im lucky.





BTW, youre be surprised by how many 205 Mi there are, very popular nowadays.

 

[rory182]

I had a 205 gti, not an Mi16 though. Mi16 build quality is gonna be down to who built it and what they used surely?!

Mi16 wasnt a production car, its a 1.9 16v engine from a 405 dropped into a 205 with a bit of nifty loom work and a mix of 1.6 and 1.9gti parts. Id hope most people would use a 1.6 or 1.9 gti to build an Mi16 but theres a few 1.4 conversions around.

205 has fab handling and is such great fun to drive, I sold mine because I need reliability for travelling to and from where I work (away from home). I dont think you can compare the 2 cars really I mean my 205 is 13 years old now and still minted, a real classic but my 182 is like luxury in comparison.

Id agree 182 is safer (obviously), driving position sucks and well its gonna cost a lot more to buy than the mi16 but will be more reliable (well u got the warranty at least...)

Climb into the 205 with no power steering when youre used to the 182 and feck me its heavy work at first!

Let us know what you decide...

 

[rory182]

Quote: Originally posted by Adamf on 19 January 2005


Remember the only car as old as the 205 on NCAP is the Metro and that gets 1/2 a star.

To be fair the Mi16 isnt really a real car that left a production line. Its like comparing a Turbo Clio 16v to a Williams.

To live with everyday Id say the 182. Plus Im sure a 182 is lighter on the pocket when it comes to fuel and insurance.

Thats a great point, my 205gti cost me £40 a week more in fuel which helped me justify buying the 182. When you allow for wear and tear in a 205 (Heater matrix, radiators, wheel bearings, wishbones etc etc.) the new 182 is a far better choice, it costs me less than a 13 year old 205gti did previously.

 

[Mondial172]

I never liked the gearing in a GTi 1.9 - far too long imo.

The 182s gearbox is far more suited to small lanes.

Unless youre mi16 has a 1.6 box.

 

[rory182]

Yeah I think the 1.6 gti box is the one of choice in most mi16s

 

[badinvincible]

Mi16 205. Still one car for my top 10 garage.

 

[Tom]

I have a miami blue 205 mi-16 (the 1.9 is back in for the mo as we had some issues with the head on the mi)

Not really compareable, my 205 is faster and lighter.

The 205 is stripped and not used on the road now.

 

[rory182]

miami blue, ahh the memories. I love miami blue 205s spent a year searching for one when I was getting a 205 gti - and I got one

Arctic blue is nice too!

 

[rory182]

Quote: Originally posted by badinvincible on 19 January 2005


Mi16 205. Still one car for my top 10 garage.

what about a turbo 16? Muahaha group b rally car

 

[badinvincible]

Yes, a mid engined T16 would be nice too.

 

[Red16]

if people think the 205 mi16 is a rare car, try finding a T16 engine, rocking horse sh1t comes to mind!



2 of my mates had mi16s, one in a 205 and one in a 309, engines are absolute screamers, would deffo take the 205 over the 182 personally

 

[ellisg]

Thanks Rallypug, interesting, a GTi-S is fairly similar to Mi, did you have phase 1 or 2 suspension upgrades?

I think Im going to wait and see to Easter, the deals from Renault will get better, depreciation is horrific on new 182s and only going to get worse with a new model on the horizons

My 205 has been reliable, I had engine fully rebuilt and professionally installed so I expect so. It has a 1.6 like box and bilstein sprintlines so A/B down lanes its fun, I expect the 182 to be just as good.

But I keep seeing 182s ... , maybe I should have both, looks like some of you lot do.

 

[lou_m]

Hmmmm, had a 205 mi16 but must say my clio cup handles quite a bit better, and im sure there is very little difference between the performance of them. I had spax dampers and springs and the 205 front would bounce all over the place. Glad i sold it in the end.

 

[Mack]

Quote: Originally posted by Adamf on 19 January 2005


Remember the only car as old as the 205 on NCAP is the Metro and that gets 1/2 a star.






Not that it matters but the lowest is actually 1, the line through the star means definate risk of serious injury or death. If you look loads of the old rep cars have the strike through, such as the old 3 series and mondeo.

quite ouch:
http://www.euroncap.com/images/results/large_family_cars/bmw_3series_1997/bmw_3series_1997.jpg

Very Ouch:

http://www.euroncap.com/images/results/superminis/rover_100/rover_100.jpg

 

[Mondial172]

Quote: Originally posted by Mack on 19 January 2005
Quote: Originally posted by Adamf on 19 January 2005Remember the only car as old as the 205 on NCAP is the Metro and that gets 1/2 a star.Not that it matters but the lowest is actually 1, the line through the star means definate risk of serious injury or death. If you look loads of the old rep cars have the strike through, such as the old 3 series and mondeo. [/QUOTE]

One of the reason the Metro was taken off the market. Knowing Rover theyd still make it now if not. The E36 is shocking yes.

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by ellisg on 19 January 2005
<DIV class=postcolor>



205 probably better built, both rubbish


I keep hearing horror stories of the 182 being screwed together by monkeys, is it really true




pass me some of those drugs please, i have owned a renault 5 turbo and have many mates who have/still own 205s and lets be fair they are made out of biscuit tins. 205 better built????? on what planet, its donkeys years old and french, the game has moved on alot in the last 20 years and although still french the 182 is far better built than any hatch built in the 80s.

if it is true about the monkeys screwing them together its probably the same ones that were making 205s and renault 5s in the 80 just with a bit more skill and experience picked up over the years

 

[jongsr4]

Ive had a 205 1.9 (and 1.6 which was better!) and gone to a Clio Cup and for out and out thrills they are probably about equal most of the time, but for the remaining 99% of the time the clio is by far the better choice, its more comfortable, miles better built! just easier to get on with

still...i did have a nice looking one though...L-reg Miami blue

 

[Mondial172]

Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 20 January 2005

if it is true about the monkeys screwing them together its probably the same ones that were making 205s and renault 5s in the 80 just with a bit more skill and experience picked up over the years

Me thinks they use more machines (robots) now.

 

[Pete]

I had a 205 GTi (1.6 the better of the 2) Id have the 182 over it, much as I loved my 205 Id have to go for the newer car purely because of its age/comfort/safety.

 

[Mondial172]

Still look the part though

http://www.hiflowheads.co.uk/forsale/cars/Miami205-Mi160001.jpg

 

[Dave H]

Didnt have the suspension changed on mine.I would still say that the grip in the Cup is miles more than a 205 gti.The 205 was great in the dry but when wet,even with F1 Eagles fitted,you had to behave.

 

[JayR]

Quote: Originally posted by Adamf on 20 January 2005


Still look the part though

http://www.hiflowheads.co.uk/forsale/cars/Miami205-Mi160001.jpg

Do they!!!

 

[tombourne182]

bit old now...

Wouldve wanted one 6 years ago.


But I got a 5GTT instead - then I crashed it.

 

[JayR]

Never liked the look of the 205 myself!!!

 

[c__w]

Quote: Originally posted by JayR on 20 January 2005

Quote: Originally posted by Adamf on 20 January 2005


Still look the part though

http://www.hiflowheads.co.uk/forsale/cars/Miami205-Mi160001.jpg

Do they!!!

Lol, yea, thats hardly the best representation of a Miami 205, with 2-tone paintwork and an awkward ride height.

Ive owned a 205Mi16 for 5 years and in a straightline it usually has the edge on a 172, though I cant get better than 14.9 second quarter mile time in mine where some of the Cups etc are getting faster times. I think thats in part due to the fact that Ive not done that many 1/4mile days. 30-70 it seems very quick and a few Civic Type Rs have tried and failed, though it was close.

I agree with the Clio being better built in terms of quality of trim etc, and its obviously far more refined and safer.

The 205s handling isnt as easily accessible as a Clios which may lead a lot of people to believe the Clio handles better. Not saying the 205 handles better, they are probably similar, though the Clio is techincally better and more modern and easier to drive faster and I would agree that it has more mechanical grip. The 205s handling isnt as safe or foolproof as a Clio and can sometimes feel a bit leaden compared to a modern car with power steering etc.


[Edited by c__w on 20 January 2005 at 1:56pm]

[Edited by c__w on 20 January 2005 at 1:59pm]

 

[JayR]

^^^Ok well performance is big a yes but it doesnt matter how good or bad the above pic is they still look proper pants!!!

I cant say that back in the day when these were newer and if i was in the market for a car in this cat id have chose it over the Willy, Valver, Golf GTI or even 5!!!

Second car yes but id never have one as my day to dayer!!!

Imo of course!!!

 

[c__w]

Youre probably in a minority that thinks they dont look good despite their 20 years age; no car has aged less IMO.

The 16v is arguable less pleasing aesthetically mainly because of the flared arches with wheels set so far in the arches it just looks wrong. They need 3" spaces to fill them out properly.

 

[Red16]

Quote: Originally posted by c__w on 20 January 2005


Youre probably in a minority that thinks they dont look good despite their 20 years age; no car has aged less IMO.

agreed the car looks great today still, considering how old it actually is, interior is a bit cack tho!

 

[Martin]

I still think 205 gtis look good!

 

[JayR]

Quote: Originally posted by c__w on 20 January 2005


Youre probably in a minority that thinks they dont look good despite their 20 years age; no car has aged less IMO.

The 16v is arguable less pleasing aesthetically mainly because of the flared arches with wheels set so far in the arches it just looks wrong. They need 3" spaces to fill them out properly.









Umm my wheels sit nicely enough for me!!!

Each to there own opinion tho, i still have never and dont like them even if i am a minority!!!Lol