Diferences : mk1 V6 vs mk2 V6

[Munchkin]

Apart from the obvious interior and exterior styling what are the main differences between the mk2 ph1 V6 and the mk2?

I have done a search but it brought nothing back

Thanks

 

[cat171]

www.v6clio.net

 

[Munchkin]

Cheers cat

 

[lee_cup]

mk1 230bhp - mk2 255bhp

 

[cat171]

Sorry Munchkin, I was going to start listing, but tbh there are quite a few.

 

[Munchkin]

Is it in a specific section on that site? - about to register

 

[cat171]

I'm not too sure really, sorry - the info is there though (i just don't remember where)

 

[Jamie]

mk1 = ugly and slow, mk2 = quicker and better looking. (sorry but i hate those lights)

Think that just about sums it up.

 

[Fletcher]

IIRC the MK2 V6 handles alot better then the MK1 V6.

 

[Christopher]

inlet
exhaust
ecu
gearbox
interior
exterior
wheels
different suspension setup

etc etc

Mk2 all the way imo!

 

[Peperami]

The mk2 has a longer wheel base so handles better iirc

 

[cat171]

mk1 = ugly and slow, mk2 = quicker and better looking. (sorry but i hate those lights)

Think that just about sums it up.

IIRC the MK2 V6 handles alot better then the MK1 V6.

lmfao - have either of you driven a mk1 ?? Or do you both go on the negative comments some post up on here ?? What about the postive comments ?? I guess they are just disregarded

Yeah a mk1 vee is really slow - lmfao !

 

[Jamie]

Sorry mate, imo it is ugly, i really dislike the 'bug eye' look and as a piece of engineering its pretty shoddy, 230bhp from a 3.0 v6 with a 0-100 time in what 18/19 seconds, thats the same as my car. This is of course all my opinion, and just becuause i dont get blown away at the concept of owning a v6 doesnt make what i say wrong. You really need to accept other peoples opinions. I dont preach about the williams and I accept its many critisicms, i also understand what you are saying as i havent driven a clio v6 and this is why i didnt mention handaling as i personally have no input on this matter, i merely stated how i think it looks and made a reference to its performance. In short my post merely condensed my knowledge and opinions on the 2 clio v6's into a short conclusion as per thread title.

 

[cat171]

Fair play. I just hate peoples un founded comments that's all.
I actually prefer the front end of the mk1 to the mk2 (I could have had a mk2 but decided against it, one day though, one day )

 

[Jamie]

I know where you are coming from as i hate ppl slating the running costs of mk1's when they have had no personal experience but happily wade in saying their money pits. Like you say this is particuarly frustrating me as mine has never really cost me anything major (i can also think of many other owners too), mainly been a few wear and tear items go, nothing i wouldnt forgive for a 10 year old car though.

 

[scw02102]

Lego car

just crappy body kit bolted on imo

sorry probably get slated but is imo

255bhp nd 1000kg maybe but its soo fat and over weight doesnt actually make it a quick car and £30k new or whatever they cost must be mad

 

[len_beach]

The speed.

In comparison to your 182, a mk1 would be no different. I had a dabble with a mk2 last week which was quicker but not by a country mile, with 25bhp less, I would expect this gap to disappear.

 

[cat171]

I know where you are coming from as i hate ppl slating the running costs of mk1's when they have had no personal experience but happily wade in saying their money pits. Like you say this is particuarly frustrating me as mine has never really cost me anything major (i can also think of many other owners too), mainly been a few wear and tear items go, nothing i wouldnt forgive for a 10 year old car though.

I know what you mean about those comments too - I had a mint valver for three years a few years ago that wasn't a money pit.

 

[Dash]

Is it in a specific section on that site? - about to register

In the wiki

 

[SimonV6]

Mk1 v Mk2 Clio V6
3.0ltr 24v

More or less the same car except Mk2 has:
33mm more front track
24mm more wheelbase
stiffer springs
different geometry
Different cams
new sub frames
new plenum (better air flow)
new gearbox (different ratio's)
255bhp against 230bhp for Mk1
18" wheels with 245mm wide rears (Mk1 has 17" with 235mm rears)
255 has 182bhp per tonne
230 has 172bhp per tonne
182 has 164bhp per tonne
Not that 10bhp per tonne makes that much difference I guess, but with the better gearing it gets to 60mph 0.6s faster (5.8s) and 2.5s faster (14.6) to 100mph and will break 150mph+....
MK2 has cruise control
both have same 300nm torque

Some Mk2 stuff…
the new car’s 2946cc V6 gets an improved throttle assembly, air filter and intake plenum to channel air into a cylinder head with revised camshafts and new valves. New, higher flowing injector’s supply the fuel, and the ECU has a bigger brain. New catalysts make the motor Euro4 compliant, although carbon dioxide emissions rise from 267 to 285g/km. The result: 255bhp at 7150rpm and 300nm at 4650rpm.
It’s not just the engine that has been tweaked; Renault’s chassis boffins have been far from idle. The wheelbase has grown 23mm in a bid to increase stability and there’s a new rear sub frame, too. There are stronger mounting points for the suspension links and stiffened, repositioned damper mounts to keep the wheels more upright under load. Trailing arms lengthened by 10mm, wheels that are moved 15mm backwards and increased spring rates complete the changes at the rear. At the front, the anti-roll bar is thicker, there’s increased castor angle, stiffer springs, and a 33mm wider track. Wheels are now 18in, shod with Michelin Pilot 2 Sports.

Simon



just to name a few things...lol

 

[lee_cup]

^^^ that explains it lol

 

[steveV6]

I've onwed both - Mk1 & Mk2 and both are great cars.

If ultimately you just want out and out speed for the same kind of price, turn to the land of the rising son my friend, coz thats not what vees are all about.

All IMHO of course:approve: