ClioSport.net

Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.

Clio 200 on Top Gear



  e60 M5 -172- dciheid
My observations:-

1. its 0.2 or part of seconds, repeat the test on both cars over 100 times and i bet the 200 wins round the track
2. 200, the build quality is better
3. 200, is a bit ugly so possible it will suffer the same fate as the bug eye scoobs - ie not be very desirable
4. All cars seem to be getting heavier and more into emissions, tax, pedestrian accident ratings, blah blah, so i cant see this changing. Older cars therefore will be less 'fat' and perhaps more raw.

Does all the above make the 200 a 'bad' car, no. Is a 182 'better' probably not.
 
  Golf GTD Mk7
that was my origional point really. their isn't much evolution really. maybe build quality, brakes and chassis on the 200, but not noticably different.
 
  Black Gold Trophy
Where does this myth about better build quality come from? It's still a Renault!

They didnt make the 200 to produce a better car, they made it because they want to continue selling cars! They couldnt just keep selling the 197 because naturally people want something new, as MG rover found out.
 
  GW RS200
Where does this myth about better build quality come from? It's still a Renault!

Pistonheads this week, "First up is the quality of materials and rock-solid fit of our car’s interior. The dashboard, steering column cowl assemblies, door panels… everything, in fact, seems screwed together with the sort of bomb-proof solidity that is mostly associated with the Germans."

Does that still make it a myth?!
 

Jamie

ClioSport Club Member
I am very dissapointed that it did not post a quicker time. Bit wierd as didn't Evo say the 200 was alot quicker that the 182?
 

Tav

  Clio 197
The Golf's got slower past the MKII's. The MK1 Focus RS isn't as quick as an Escort Cosworth. I'd say it's pretty 50:50 on the performance side of things. I'm not going to argue a case for safety its a no brainer.

I'm pretty sure a Focus RS would give the old standard Escort more than a run for it's money on the road or track.

It'll be better to drive as well...stiffer shell, better chassis, better power delivery and no 4WD to lug around.

Better plastics don't make a car more reliable. Engine is still similar? Gear box might be better. What else goes wrong on 182's?
 
  GTD, Lupo
Cant believe this thread is still going :D

Makes a funny read this from start to finish. Seeing as a lot of people who dont actually own a 200 seem to be comenting on the proformance and build quality i think its a little bit stupid really. I have covered 3300 miles in mine so far and not one single rattle or leak. i did worry about a couple of stupid things but thats just me. :D

Im sure the 182 is an amazing car. I do really like them and as before would own a trophy if they still made them new.

Not everyone can drive like the stig, and the 200 to me who has driven a 182 aswell is the easier of the cars to get the most out off. So im sure you stick me in a 182 and a 200 round that track i will post a faster time in the 200 and im sure that would be the case with most people.

Paul
 


Top