Well, Im lowered 40mm on 17"s, with the standard shocks, and the ride heght is still visibly lower than standard Clios. If Im parked next to one, the roof is obviously a few cm lower, and the mirrors, when parked close side-by-side, are again much lower. There is no room between the wheels and tyres in the rear arches (cant jam a finger in), but the fronts have a few cm. All in all, the car doesnt look too high. It just doesnt look overly low.
But if I were doing it all again, or if I were you, I would go for a 60mm drop on the standard shocks. Loads of people on this forum have done so, and no one has had any trouble withthe shocks wearing/leaking, or damage to any other suspension components as far as Im aware.
I would definitely get the 17"s, for several reasons.
Firstly the arches are big, and 16"s really dont fill them that well. Even 17"s to me dont look that big on the Clio. youll probably regret it and end up going bigger at a later date anyway if you get 16"s.
Secondly the tyres for 16"s are quite frequently dearer than for 17"s, due to how common the 205/40/17 size now is.
Thirdly theres not that big a difference in price, and its worth it! 17"s are the minimum I would get. They dont affect handling or ride quality when lowered 40mm. They slow the car down a little, but then with a 1.2 its not a performance car anyway, and its not really that noticeable.
