Looking for my first car, narrowed it down to these two, been looking at 02/03 plates. The 1.5 dci would be the 65hp model and the petrol is the 75hp model. I dont want somthing painfully slow, but the diesel is tax bracket B £35 a year and the mpg will be more, and theres more tourque than the 1.2. 50nm more than a but 10hp less. What do you lot reckon? Im possibly going to view a dci tonight. Are they fairly nippy with the 65bhp?
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.
forgot to mention they've got lots of potential too, I have the dci65 but now after a remap, fitting an intercooler, upping the boost pressure, panel filter it has about 105bhp and 220nm, and it ain't finished, so...
and If you aren't planning on modding, I would still say take the DCI
and If you aren't planning on modding, I would still say take the DCI
185lb/ft dCi
and WHEN you do get one, go to:
www.dcioffice.net
awesome website about all the dci's, great community
you do get one, go to:www.dcioffice.net
awesome website about all the dci's, great community
Pep
ClioSport Club Member
M2,XJS,S1000RR
i learnt in a 65bhp dci, and now i've got the 1.2 16v, my 1.2 is so much better i think, prefer the way it drives, and tonking about slowly i can get 50+mpg, buit then again i suppose the dci will get that even when hammering it...
i'd go for the petrol to be honest, just not a fan of derv's.
i'd go for the petrol to be honest, just not a fan of derv's.
BMW M4; S1000 RR
They're both slower than slow.
At least the dci can be made a bit spicier with a remap. The 1.2 is that slow forever.
At least the dci can be made a bit spicier with a remap. The 1.2 is that slow forever.
Turbo'd MX-5 MK4
I don't agree with the slow comments, I've had a 172 and currently have a 225, I still wouldn't call the dci 65 slow. It is more than adequate for someone who is too young/doesn't have the money/isn't a performance car enthusiast. The DCI has got to be worth the extra money for the cheap tax alone, its a bargain. The torque of the diesel engine makes it a much more driveable car over the 1.2 IMHO, granted at high speed it loses its grunt, but its not a 172 at the end of the day and there are speed limits (believe it or not).
CB600FS
Thats from a 225 driver aswell
Yeah this is whats swaying me, plus the fuel consumption and tax would be awsome, i'd have more money to put into my other hobby then!
Turbo'd MX-5 MK4
although the 172 I had for 4 years was my main car, for the last 2 years of ownership I actually drove our dci 65bhp on a daily basis and didn't find it a problem in comparison to the 172, sure it lacked the sheer raw power and grunt of the 172, but it wasn't short of power, it was a very driveable car and you could easily make good and smooth progress in it (a damn sight cheaper as well).
Shed.
first car ? as in - im yound and need a first car ?
Go get insurance quotes for both,
same company wants £950 for my 1.2 75bhp and £1800 for the 65dci. thats the same age, ncd etc etc
I have my dCi - its my first car, yes I do feel a bit s**t on the speeds and that - compared to my mates who are in 2.0l Astras/Pumas/VTRs - but at the end of the day, its a great little car and I went with it for looks not speed. I dont want t end up with losing my lisence with speeding anyway (only have to wait till Ocotober now and my 2 years is done )
)
Most of the lads ill be with all hav 1.4/1.6 corsas and one or two with VTR's no clios in sight, i wanted to be differentI have my dCi - its my first car, yes I do feel a bit s**t on the speeds and that - compared to my mates who are in 2.0l Astras/Pumas/VTRs - but at the end of the day, its a great little car and I went with it for looks not speed. I dont want t end up with losing my lisence with speeding anyway (only have to wait till Ocotober now and my 2 years is done
I did 2 years ago - now everyones getting Clos round here, I like to think its because I made mine look half decent lol
Turbo'd MX-5 MK4
what you mean to say is, if you like having to rev the f**k out of the engine to get anywhere, get the 1.2. If you don't, get the dci.
Shed.
Yeah you have to propper rag the engine to even get it moving .f**king hate the 1.2. Allthough it is capable of producing some fun.
go for the dci mate and get the thing remapped.
clio 197 cup
from another 225 driver
any dci clio is a good buy.sweet engines,decent handling and they can be tweaked for not a lot of money. good reliability record as well. a cracking little car.:star:
any dci clio is a good buy.sweet engines,decent handling and they can be tweaked for not a lot of money. good reliability record as well. a cracking little car.:star:
Dont get a diesel, your friends will laugh at you!:quiet:
I would personally pick the 1.2 16v, after driving both i feel my 1.2 was a much better, smoother drive! Like you say, your young so you are not going to be able to get a fast car, and yes neither of them are fast imo!!
i would definately test drive both as everyone has different opinions, the 1.2 is a very fun car, and i would say get the petrol...that why i bought one!!
I would personally pick the 1.2 16v, after driving both i feel my 1.2 was a much better, smoother drive! Like you say, your young so you are not going to be able to get a fast car, and yes neither of them are fast imo!!
i would definately test drive both as everyone has different opinions, the 1.2 is a very fun car, and i would say get the petrol...that why i bought one!!
the dCi 65 is faster and cheaper then the 1.2
Turbo'd MX-5 MK4
agreed, was about to say the same.
What planet are you on?
Performance theres not alot in it I believe the 1.2 16v is 12.5 secs 0-60 and the dci 65 is 15secs, top end is about the same although I reckon the dci would be much better mid range.
Are your on about new or used? I think you will find used the dci's retain their residuals alot better than the 1.2s so therefore are alot more expensive used.
Find me a hpi clear dci 65 Dynam and a 1.2 16v dynam of the same age and miles you will find the petrol is substantially cheaper. Diesel cars are renown for having higher list prices than their petrol counterparts.
BMW M4; S1000 RR
lol.
Don't trust ANYONE that says,
"I would go for the 1.2"
1.2's are pointless, they're pathetically slow and don't make up for it in any other area. If you made a thread saying "1.4 vs DCI65" or "1.6 vs DCI80" then there would be more to talk about.
This is the order of things Clio-wise in my book.
1.2
1.4 and DCI65
1.6
DCI80
172
182
Trophy
Cup
......
lolAnyway, my point is that 1.2's are rubbish.
BMW M4; S1000 RR
Those times are book. Diesels will never have a great 0-60 time due to needing 3 gears to hit 60 (although I think the 1.2 does aswell).
edde's 65 apparently is on par with 1.4s from standing starts, not sure how much of that was due to RT, but if you do a rolling start at 20mph (not much point doing it at 50 as there's not much further you can go with the said cars) the dci will be ahead.
Then we can talk about lower running costs, sure a 1.2 can get 50mpg, but if you drive the dci as slow as that you'll get 70mpg. Cheaper tax too, although some people seem to find insurance is more.. Shop around is all I can suggest.
Finally sale value, diesels cost more, but they also sell for more. Simple logic really.
Plus the fact you don't have to change down just to keep up with traffic.
yep i learnt in a 1.5 dci, nice cars to drive, much more torque and feels smoother somehow, although it always sounded like a tractor pulling up when my drivivng instructor came around, he claims to get 75mpg which is amazing. however, 1.2 16v has more power, the diesel you could have remapped and put a turbo on it but there you go
Similar threads
