Do the new MK3 clios feel better made than the Mk2's

[Cliotoby]

I have a MK3, the boot rattles, the brakes squeak, the passenger side A pillar is squeaking and the glove box is more pissed then George Best.


Still better then a MK2.

Oh so mines not the only one ? Mine are fucked and im almost on 5000 miles.

 

[dajones]

my mums feels better put together than mine, was a b!tch to take apart to install a parrot kit so thats gotta mean something good. only thing i dont like is the lack of visibility whilst reversing. (i use the back window not mirrors) she has a 1.2 tce btw


only problem i can think of now is that the rubber button for the boot has torn car is 58 plate

 

[jenic]

Better quality materials, still held together with nails.

Nails?? More like f**king pritt stick

From what i have seen though the mk3 clios are much better quality, although in my opinion feel empty inside due to the large amount of plastic that forms the dash, little of which is filled with knobs or buttons.

New megane feels a lot more solid than the old one too. But the twingo feels very cheap inside, but then again it is built to be cheap!

 

[Mike_182]

The Mk3 is much better 'feeling', but I don't think it's any better quality. It still starts rattling and has flaws - they're just different.

 

[Lagerlout]

Definitely better quality materials. Better screwed together? Yup.

All relative, of course.

 

[alex-avfc]

Then you get the folk who say "well now, the RS's are better built than the rest of the range" which is utter nonsense too.

Still, MK3 Clio build quality is much improved on the MK2. I was amazed at the bits I could just pull off in my interior.

 

[JayR]

^Have you owned a new RS or even a mk3?

 

[alex-avfc]

Why do you ask that??

I've been in a 197 plenty of times to know its better built than a MK2 Clio.

Happy?

 

[chowiekid]

renault sport is not built in the same place as the normal clio... so it would be different built qulity... i dont know if thats just the mk 3 or all the renault sports...

i know the v6 was built somewhere else too...

 

[Munson]

Nonsense. They are the same base car using the exact same parts and engineering. Everything clips/screws together in the exact same way. The most you could say is that they feel more solid due to firmer suspensions and very controlled damping.

 

[Turu]

After 100k miles driving a clio 3 I can say there's a definite improvement in the interior, even in the base model I first had.

No creaky noises, door shuts like the first time, even the passenger door, that's always beaten to hell because of c***s, so I'd say is better done than the previous ones.

 

[JayR]

Why do you ask that??

I've been in a 197 plenty of times to know its better built than a MK2 Clio.

Happy?

No not really!

I dont know how you can give a fair indication on how well its built if you've only been in one once or twice!

It was the first paragraph i was aiming my question at anyway hence asking about whether you have owned a new RS as to be frank they do feel a hell of alot better put together than the non RS.

 

[kenny172]

I find the 200 much better built than my 172, only rattle I had was when renault had put the passenger seatbelt on back to front so the buckle was hitting off the plastic. had it swapped round and its spot on

 

[Gally]

Nonsense. They are the same base car using the exact same parts and engineering. Everything clips/screws together in the exact same way. The most you could say is that they feel more solid due to firmer suspensions and very controlled damping.

That's a big of a throw away commet from you Roy.

They aren't bolted together the same way, the engine will quieter and from my experience the doors are slightly better built and with more sound proofing.

But again the clio 3 isn't as old as the 2 so time will tell if it holds it's own in the quality stakes.

 

[Munson]

I was comparing a MkIII to a MkIII RS. 95% the exact same car using the exact same parts. In terms of interior quality at least.

 

[Gally]

Lols.

I'm out.

*Tail, legs, between.

 

[JayR]

One thing i will say against them is paint doesnt seem to be as good as on the 182's!

After 6 years and 30k i think my LY had less chips on the front and door strips than the 15 month old 197 i have now on under 7k!

Everytime i look at the front after a run theres a new black spot arrived and the door strips seem very soft in comparison to those of the 182 too.

 

[Jasey]

I sat in A GT prior to ordering my 200 (to see if the Clio would take someone of my not inconsiderable girth) and from Memory the inside of the GT was a slightly better place to be than the 200 I ended up getting.

Having said that - they were both pretty pish .

But - just like I didn't buy it to admire it's ugly nose - I also didn't buy it for it's come to bed interior

 

[Munson]

Did the 182s use water based paint? AFAIK nearly all mass produced cars use water based now. Downsides tend to be more orange peel and being more susceptible to stone chips. (the latter is a guess)

 

[Jasey]

Did the 182s use water based paint? AFAIK nearly all mass produced cars use water based now. Downsides tend to be more orange peel and being more susceptible to stone chips. (the latter is a guess)

As far as I can tell it's more paint based water

 

[Gally]

All paints are watered based now Roy.

You only have to look at BMW to see what water based paint does for orange peel.

 

[Munson]

Ja but I was wondering if the 182 was. In response to Jay's comments.

 

[Marv-C]

One thing i will say against them is paint doesnt seem to be as good as on the 182's!

After 6 years and 30k i think my LY had less chips on the front and door strips than the 15 month old 197 i have now on under 7k!

Everytime i look at the front after a run theres a new black spot arrived and the door strips seem very soft in comparison to those of the 182 too.

Interesting comment. My 197 has 40k on the clock and I'm surprised how few stone chips there are (unless Seb drove it like an angel!!!!)

If you want crap paint, look at a Honda CTR.

On the quality side, both my doors rattle and that's it . My mum's ph3 doesn't even have door rattles (not a CS).

 

[JayR]

Didnt the LY's go off to get painted at a different factory hence the stupid option cost? Perhaps things were done differently where they were painted!

 

[Marv-C]

Didnt the LY's go off to get painted at a different factory hence the stupid option cost? Perhaps things were done differently where they were painted!

Just to add to the above, my car is Nimbus as well and that was an expensive option, I think.

 

[JayR]

I think Nimbus was a run of the mil colour mate!

I think in the 182's the 'ID' colours (the 1k options) were LY and Petrol and the 197/200's were LY, AG and possibly the Pearl White! I think GW also has a premium but it is nothing like the others!

 

[Marv-C]

I think Nimbus was a run of the mil colour mate!

I think in the 182's the 'ID' colours (the 1k options) were LY and Petrol and the 197/200's were LY, AG and possibly the Pearl White! I think GW also has a premium but it is nothing like the others!

Seb could confirm this, but Nimbus defo was not a standard colour. Renault have told me that as they can't supply me with a paint stick.

 

[Munson]

It's more likely that the ID colours had 'special time' in the paintshop. Maybe an offshoot track. Perhaps at weekends or something. Or they are hand painted. They won't have built a dedicated automated paint plant just for the ID. I guess they could be painted in a completely different factory but the shipping costs would be huge. I'm only guessing really, I'm sure someone like Lee/JT would know more about the ins & outs.

Nimbus was metallic AFAIK. Not ID.

 

[JayR]

It's not avaiable now as an option so that's perhaps the real reason as to why they couldn't supply you paint!

It's silver at the end of the day and IMO buyers wouldve been mad to pay a premium for it as nice as it may well be! It's usually the more fancy colours that they can command a higher price for! The ID ones as Roy pointed out above!

 

[Marv-C]

Fair enough.

 

[MrTrick]

Im sure the LY paint is much thicker/tougher than standard met paint. I haven't got one stone chip as yet.

In comparison, when I had my golf from new it had quite a few stonechips within the first 2 months. :S

Might driving style might have changed since then though.

 

[JayR]

^It may be that then as the paint on my 182 was much better than the 197! Might be time to chop Mr Nimbus in for an LY R27!!!

Swings and roundabouts though in all honesty! I know when i had my LY i was forever worried about it getting bashed or slashed for the fact it would be an effin nightmare to put right.

 

[alex-avfc]

No not really!

I dont know how you can give a fair indication on how well its built if you've only been in one once or twice!

It was the first paragraph i was aiming my question at anyway hence asking about whether you have owned a new RS as to be frank they do feel a hell of alot better put together than the non RS.

Because it's blatently obvious as soon as you sit in a 197 that it's better built than a MK2! Are you telling me it isn't?

Nonsense. They are the same base car using the exact same parts and engineering. Everything clips/screws together in the exact same way. The most you could say is that they feel more solid due to firmer suspensions and very controlled damping.

Exactly. People are kidding themselves thinking otherwise.

 

[JayR]

Haha are you abit thick!?

Go back and you'll see i have owned both RS's for a good period and give my indiction!

My comments were aimed at you flatly dismissing the fact the RS's are built differently to the standard mk3.

 

[alex-avfc]

Me thick? If anything I find you come across as a bit of a plank

I'm not sure why you're comparing a MK2 RS with a normal MK3? If that is what you're on about? As thats got nothing to do with what I was saying...

 

[Nik]

If build quality = screwed together better then i'd say yes.

If on the other hand you mean quality of the components then i'm not so sure. Some of the most basic simple parts (door seals, seat covers, glove boxes, steering wheels) have quality issues in my experience.

Its a nicer and more comfortable place to sit though lol.

 

[JayR]

Me thick? If anything I find you come across as a bit of a plank

I'm not sure why you're comparing a MK2 RS with a normal MK3? If that is what you're on about? As thats got nothing to do with what I was saying...

f**k sake! For the third time i was questioning your motives for flatly dismissing the fact that the RS 197 (mk 3 Clio if you need this simplifying abit further) is no better put together than a run of the mill mk 3 Clio! Nothing to do with a mk 2! I had already given my opinion on build for build and had come to conclusion that everything but the paint was an improvement on the mk 2 RS!

Even if we go on what Roy stated is different (mk3 RS/standard car) it still contributes to the build of the cars! Build gos alot further than the shell and whats inside imo!

Nice original come back by the way though. lol

 

[KMB]

I seem to have walked into the schoolyard

 

[Munson]

Clio & Clio RS are built the same. Same body. Same holes. Same parts. Same clips. Same bolts.

Mass produced. Although, I did read that the 182Cup was built in a local school playground.

 

[daydotz]

If build quality = screwed together better then i'd say yes.

If on the other hand you mean quality of the components then i'm not so sure. Some of the most basic simple parts (door seals, seat covers, glove boxes, steering wheels) have quality issues in my experience.

Its a nicer and more comfortable place to sit though lol.

yes once these bits fall off the cars solid