I want to build a 172 replica is it worth the time and money...

[mini-valver]

Yeah agreed but i said on the phone i use the car at night and weekends which is true so theoretically i have told the truth and so should be hunky dorey. Again niave but i just cant justify spending 2k on insurance when i can quite legitimately spend 5-600.
At the end of this policy hopefully ill have 2 years Named driver NCD so will be taking out my own policy which ive quoted at £600 FC. A saving of potentially £2.8k which is a shed load of money in my eyes.....

 

[Giles]

get a real 172 or if you can't then don't bother

 

[ant]

yes big G, tell it like it is me breadbin.

 

[you'd never of guessed]

well said... i had my first lesson on my birthday 7th march 2005 and i have never had so much of a scratch in any of the 4 cars i have drove and i do do a hell of alot of driving.....9000 miles in 3 months...

 

[JD]

lol. i agree mate. just 1 question though. is it currently still on its standard suspension? just wondering why the wheels look smaller.

yeah its still standard if that was aimed me mate, im going to lower it i think but not 100%. purely because it will be pretty poor on all the roads in leeds!!

you may as well take the clio one off and stick saxo on it.

and do you think that my mum, my aunt or jo bloggs in the highstreet would have any idea, or take any notice for that matter, of whether mine was a clio or a saxo??? i can tell you know, stick a saxo sign on your car, ask a randomer what your car is, and i bet they will say "erm well it says saxo on it . . . "

at the end of the day, i dont drive like i have a 2.0l, i dont drive like i have a 1.2 TBH. i get from A to B without causing a fuss and blowing smoke and grit at someone at the lights.

so me having 2.0l badges on a 1.2 is not doing anyone any harm, its not gonna make anyone look bad, and its certainly not gonna bother me

the only reason people mod their car is because they are proud to own it and so want to make it very individual and to their tastes. i like the sporty looks of the 2.0l, i dont need the power, nor can i afford it, so i make my clio my own.

jamie

 

[you'd never of guessed]

i have alot of respect for ya jamie... i think the same as u...

 

[robbie17]

tbh honest mate, I'd just go for it. And in a few years you may look back and say 'what a waste of money' but more than likely you will look back and be so proud of what you have done. And tbh when you've done it most people on here will tell you it looks good

 

[you'd never of guessed]

thanks mate i appritiate that

 

[Martin_172]

ive spent £1600 converting an expression to a dynamique, do i regret it?? not really.

 

[Neil G]

ive spent £1600 converting an expression to a dynamique, do i regret it?? not really.

Why?

 

[172boost]

What is the point in driving a car around that looks like a 172 and has the performance of a lawnmower? I was 25 when I bought my 1st 172 because I couldn't afford to buy, run or insure one until then. If I were you then I would would just wait until you can afford something quick instead of driving round in a milk float. Work your ass off and save like a b**ch!

 

[Neil G]

Same old story.....I think the general consensus is to wait, save and then buy the real thing.

 

[172boost]

I know what it's like when your 18/19 and want a fast car but it really isn't worth the money doing up a milkfloat. Just drive a heap round for a few years or get adopted by some rich people. Trust me you will apreciate it even more if you have to wait and save.

 

[gazbenger]

I'm loving the ignorance of all the people who own 172's + 182's and likewise. Its easy enough for you all to say "get a real 172" in your position simply because you have one yourselves. If you put yourself in this lads shoes, hes 18 and wants his car to look like a 172. Yes its likely to cost a fair bit of money but as previously highlighted it'll cost a damn sight less than a real 172. Then the come back for you will be "that could be money spent on a real 172", which yes is true, but itll be years before 172's are a realistic option. One of my best friends has a 1.4 dynamique 182 replica sprayed in Inferno. Its probably the best replica i have and alot of people will have seen. Everything:wings, sideskirts, cup spoiler, front + rear bumpers,grille, carbon fibre splitter, turinins, ktec exhaust etc. Im fairly sure that if some of you who dismiss the lads ideas would praise my friends 182 and say it was fantastic - because it is already finished. I think that some people should be less arrogant and dismissive towards people questioning how to and how much making a 172 replica will cost.

Essay Over!

 

[Martin_172]

ive spent £1600 converting an expression to a dynamique, do i regret it?? not really.

Why?

because i liked the look of it and couldnt afford one at the time

 

[Mike_182]

I'm loving the ignorance of all the people who own 172's + 182's and likewise. Its easy enough for you all to say "get a real 172" in your position simply because you have one yourselves. If you put yourself in this lads shoes, hes 18 and wants his car to look like a 172. Yes its likely to cost a fair bit of money but as previously highlighted it'll cost a damn sight less than a real 172. Then the come back for you will be "that could be money spent on a real 172", which yes is true, but itll be years before 172's are a realistic option. One of my best friends has a 1.4 dynamique 182 replica sprayed in Inferno. Its probably the best replica i have and alot of people will have seen. Everything:wings, sideskirts, cup spoiler, front + rear bumpers,grille, carbon fibre splitter, turinins, ktec exhaust etc. Im fairly sure that if some of you who dismiss the lads ideas would praise my friends 182 and say it was fantastic - because it is already finished. I think that some people should be less arrogant and dismissive towards people questioning how to and how much making a 172 replica will cost.

Essay Over!

We're dismissive because we've driven basemodels in our past. I had a Fiesta LX, and all I did was make it look different - not like something that it isn't!

I've now got my 182, and I would absolutely wet myself at a 1.2 sat next to me with all the badges of a 182, and a wonky 'wish I'd done better in life' exhaust and badges.

If you can't afford the car, you really can't afford to make a lookalike! All you do is put off the initial expense. To buy a 172 now would cost, what, tops £4k for an alright ph1 one? And to buy an alright ph1 Clio would cost £2500, add another £2500 for all the money you'd waste on getting the bits, the extra insurance cost (which, typically is more than getting insurance for a standard performance model!) and you've wasted money.

Big time.

 

[Mike_182]

Yeah agreed but i said on the phone i use the car at night and weekends which is true so theoretically i have told the truth and so should be hunky dorey. Again niave but i just cant justify spending 2k on insurance when i can quite legitimately spend 5-600.
At the end of this policy hopefully ill have 2 years Named driver NCD so will be taking out my own policy which ive quoted at £600 FC. A saving of potentially £2.8k which is a shed load of money in my eyes.....

It's one thing saying when you're going to be driving the car, but it's another thing neglecting to tell them that your parents AREN'T driving the car. I just hope you don't crash into me. I'd get a solicitor to wipe the floor with you and have you paying me back for years to come.

 

[AlexS]

I'm loving the ignorance of all the people who own 172's + 182's and likewise. Its easy enough for you all to say "get a real 172" in your position simply because you have one yourselves. If you put yourself in this lads shoes, hes 18 and wants his car to look like a 172. Yes its likely to cost a fair bit of money but as previously highlighted it'll cost a damn sight less than a real 172. Then the come back for you will be "that could be money spent on a real 172", which yes is true, but itll be years before 172's are a realistic option. One of my best friends has a 1.4 dynamique 182 replica sprayed in Inferno. Its probably the best replica i have and alot of people will have seen. Everything:wings, sideskirts, cup spoiler, front + rear bumpers,grille, carbon fibre splitter, turinins, ktec exhaust etc. Im fairly sure that if some of you who dismiss the lads ideas would praise my friends 182 and say it was fantastic - because it is already finished. I think that some people should be less arrogant and dismissive towards people questioning how to and how much making a 172 replica will cost.

Essay Over!

We're dismissive because we've driven basemodels in our past. I had a Fiesta LX, and all I did was make it look different - not like something that it isn't!

I've now got my 182, and I would absolutely wet myself at a 1.2 sat next to me with all the badges of a 182, and a wonky 'wish I'd done better in life' exhaust and badges.

If you can't afford the car, you really can't afford to make a lookalike! All you do is put off the initial expense. To buy a 172 now would cost, what, tops £4k for an alright ph1 one? And to buy an alright ph1 Clio would cost £2500, add another £2500 for all the money you'd waste on getting the bits, the extra insurance cost (which, typically is more than getting insurance for a standard performance model!) and you've wasted money.

Big time.

Fair point. My 1.2 16v isn't a 172 replica but is subtly modified, obviously this is a complete waste and money and I should have gone out and got a 172. Well i've got news for you I don't want a 172! Im lucky in that I could afford to go and buy one now, but Im not going to. Alot of people say replicas are gay get the real thing, well excluding buying the car there is a large gap in terms of running costs between the two. This is why so many replicas exist, because people want the sporty looks with cheap running costs.
I will be sticking to my £100 a year tax
45mpg +
Cheap tyres (15s)
DIY servicing etc for a long while yet.

 

[Ali]

I'd rather see a nice looking dynamique than a 172 look alike!

 

[ChrisPearson]

I'm loving the ignorance of all the people who own 172's + 182's and likewise. Its easy enough for you all to say "get a real 172" in your position simply because you have one yourselves. If you put yourself in this lads shoes, hes 18 and wants his car to look like a 172. Yes its likely to cost a fair bit of money but as previously highlighted it'll cost a damn sight less than a real 172. Then the come back for you will be "that could be money spent on a real 172", which yes is true, but itll be years before 172's are a realistic option. One of my best friends has a 1.4 dynamique 182 replica sprayed in Inferno. Its probably the best replica i have and alot of people will have seen. Everything:wings, sideskirts, cup spoiler, front + rear bumpers,grille, carbon fibre splitter, turinins, ktec exhaust etc. Im fairly sure that if some of you who dismiss the lads ideas would praise my friends 182 and say it was fantastic - because it is already finished. I think that some people should be less arrogant and dismissive towards people questioning how to and how much making a 172 replica will cost.

Essay Over!

We're dismissive because we've driven basemodels in our past. I had a Fiesta LX, and all I did was make it look different - not like something that it isn't!

I've now got my 182, and I would absolutely wet myself at a 1.2 sat next to me with all the badges of a 182, and a wonky 'wish I'd done better in life' exhaust and badges.

If you can't afford the car, you really can't afford to make a lookalike! All you do is put off the initial expense. To buy a 172 now would cost, what, tops £4k for an alright ph1 one? And to buy an alright ph1 Clio would cost £2500, add another £2500 for all the money you'd waste on getting the bits, the extra insurance cost (which, typically is more than getting insurance for a standard performance model!) and you've wasted money.

Big time.

I agree with you Gazbenger. I think Mike182 has forgotten what driving a new car is like, probs driven in a different time!
IMO the replica is a good idea

 

[Mike_182]

I f**king hate this server.

Posted a half decent reply and it fucked up. POS. Sort it, you've got the man and the box!

Anyway, sum of my reply was that there's never going to be a winner to this argument - I see it as common sense that you can't polish a turd, while others may see what they're doing as making the most of what they've got.

 

[gazbenger]

Fair point, there probably isnt ever going to be a winner of this arguement your right. What can be done is to be open minded and consider the lads ideas

 

[rs32]

imo spend the extra money on your own insurance policy, build up some no claims then go for the car you really want.

Otherwise you're just throwing money away. I wish I'd done what I'm advising at age 17/18/19

Driving isn't cheap - appreciate that insurance costs are huge for young drivers but there's a reason for that.

Just to show the difference - I've just insured the Clio 172 Cup as a second car, so I wasn't able to use my existing 5 years NCD from the policy on my R32. However the insurers looked at my claims history and 12+ years driving experience and decided to mirror the 5 years NCD to give me a decent discount. Fully comp on the Clio including declared modifications, trackday cover and legal protection came in at less than £400.

At age 19, I had a modified Nova 1.2 and this cost £1200 to insure fully-comp at 1997 prices ! The money I spent modifying it would have paid for the Clio I've just bought, and the 2k's worth of servicing/track prep that I'm just about to get done. Scary stuff really - it's so easy to get carried away. but to what aim exactly ?

There is no subsititute for saving your money on mods now and building up your own insurance history / NCD, good luck with whatever you decide to do !

 

[you'd never of guessed]

I agree to gazbenger and cliochris1 (lol) iv asked the questions herd ur opinions... and the final decision is...

IM MAKING A 172 REPLICA

if it goes wrong im sure when in 30+ i will have got over it....
thanks 4 all listning...

 

[ant]

so me having 2.0l badges on a 1.2 is not doing anyone any harm, its not gonna make anyone look bad

course it looks bad.

you want people to think your 1.2 is a 2.0, why else put them on?



I wouldn't dream of putting a V6 badge on my 172 but it amounts to the same thing.





there's a difference between modifying and copying.

 

[mini-valver]

Yeah agreed but i said on the phone i use the car at night and weekends which is true so theoretically i have told the truth and so should be hunky dorey. Again niave but i just cant justify spending 2k on insurance when i can quite legitimately spend 5-600.
At the end of this policy hopefully ill have 2 years Named driver NCD so will be taking out my own policy which ive quoted at £600 FC. A saving of potentially £2.8k which is a shed load of money in my eyes.....

It's one thing saying when you're going to be driving the car, but it's another thing neglecting to tell them that your parents AREN'T driving the car. I just hope you don't crash into me. I'd get a solicitor to wipe the floor with you and have you paying me back for years to come.

Lets get this straight, insuring a car in your parents name doesnt necessarily mean they drive the car. It just means they are the policyholder and COULD drive the car just the same as im a named driver and can drive the car. Wether my parent is driving or im driving we are both covere hence having the scope for a named driver on any policy.
If the named driver wasnt supposed to be driving why have the policys got the otpion of having a named driver?

Jump on the bandwagon of 'named drivers wont be insured if they crash'
IMHO its b****cks as thats the reason you can have a named and main driver!
If your veiw is the case why does anyone bother naming a driver on a policy as you wouldnt be covered if you crash anyway!

Have no time for arrogant w*nkers like you, grow up FFS

 

[gazbenger]

Well said ^, a bit of maturity from an elder statesman is something you'd expect!

 

[AlexS]

It's one thing saying when you're going to be driving the car, but it's another thing neglecting to tell them that your parents AREN'T driving the car. I just hope you don't crash into me. I'd get a solicitor to wipe the floor with you and have you paying me back for years to come.

Lets get this straight, insuring a car in your parents name doesnt necessarily mean they drive the car. It just means they are the policyholder and COULD drive the car just the same as im a named driver and can drive the car. Wether my parent is driving or im driving we are both covere hence having the scope for a named driver on any policy.
If the named driver wasnt supposed to be driving why have the policys got the otpion of having a named driver?

Jump on the bandwagon of 'named drivers wont be insured if they crash'
IMHO its b****cks as thats the reason you can have a named and main driver!
If your veiw is the case why does anyone bother naming a driver on a policy as you wouldnt be covered if you crash anyway!

Have no time for arrogant w*nkers like you, grow up FFS

The idea is the named driver does less miles than the policy holder. Your wrong get over it.

 

[Gaz_]

I'm loving the ignorance of all the people who own 172's + 182's and likewise. Its easy enough for you all to say "get a real 172" in your position simply because you have one yourselves. If you put yourself in this lads shoes, hes 18 and wants his car to look like a 172. Yes its likely to cost a fair bit of money but as previously highlighted it'll cost a damn sight less than a real 172. Then the come back for you will be "that could be money spent on a real 172", which yes is true, but itll be years before 172's are a realistic option. One of my best friends has a 1.4 dynamique 182 replica sprayed in Inferno. Its probably the best replica i have and alot of people will have seen. Everything:wings, sideskirts, cup spoiler, front + rear bumpers,grille, carbon fibre splitter, turinins, ktec exhaust etc. Im fairly sure that if some of you who dismiss the lads ideas would praise my friends 182 and say it was fantastic - because it is already finished. I think that some people should be less arrogant and dismissive towards people questioning how to and how much making a 172 replica will cost.

Essay Over!

We're dismissive because we've driven basemodels in our past. I had a Fiesta LX, and all I did was make it look different - not like something that it isn't!

I've now got my 182, and I would absolutely wet myself at a 1.2 sat next to me with all the badges of a 182, and a wonky 'wish I'd done better in life' exhaust and badges.

If you can't afford the car, you really can't afford to make a lookalike! All you do is put off the initial expense. To buy a 172 now would cost, what, tops £4k for an alright ph1 one? And to buy an alright ph1 Clio would cost £2500, add another £2500 for all the money you'd waste on getting the bits, the extra insurance cost (which, typically is more than getting insurance for a standard performance model!) and you've wasted money.

Big time.

i still drive a base model

 

[mini-valver]

Alex,
How is that then? Ive looked over my policy cover details and it doesnt say anywhere that the named driver should do less miles! Im not wrong, so have nothing to get over apart from the egos of the supposedly more mature generation.

Bottom line is, whoever is driving the car at the time of an accidnet is covered. Why dispute it as i maydo more miles in the car? It's irrelavant!

 

[Mike_182]

Alex,
How is that then? Ive looked over my policy cover details and it doesnt say anywhere that the named driver should do less miles! Im not wrong, so have nothing to get over apart from the egos of the supposedly more mature generation.

Bottom line is, whoever is driving the car at the time of an accidnet is covered. Why dispute it as i maydo more miles in the car? It's irrelavant!

It's not, it's not a loophole and if you have an accident and it's big enough to pique the interest of your insurers, they probably won't pay out.

Been there, seen it all before. You'll get shafted - I hope. If just towards your attitude towards people who know what they're talking about - including Neil at Greenlight who has confirmed what everyone who is 'jumping on the bandwagon' is saying.

Unlucky sunshine!

 

[Mike_182]

so me having 2.0l badges on a 1.2 is not doing anyone any harm, its not gonna make anyone look bad

course it looks bad.

you want people to think your 1.2 is a 2.0, why else put them on?



I wouldn't dream of putting a V6 badge on my 172 but it amounts to the same thing.





there's a difference between modifying and copying.

Some would argue the 182's exhausts are copying... but Renault did that and I quite like it!

2litre badges on the 1.2 is sacrilege and laughable at best. By all means paint them silver to make them look closer, but it's like walking around telling girls you're hung like a horse when you've got a mini-weenie... Nothing wrong with it in itself (if what women say is true!!! lol) but when you get going you'll be ripped to shreds and mocked...

 

[mini-valver]

Yeah if it was insured ilegally i can understand but NOTHING i have done is illegal. If they say they are not paying out and give me the reason i drive the car more often ill take them to court on the basis that its insured legally and legitametly. How on earth is it illegal to be a named driver and drive the car as i stated when taking out the policy?
Not been secretive, mods are declared and the insurance company are completely happy with how my policy is so why worry? I have nothing to hide, i drive the car more often and the insurance know this so everythings gravy in my and thier eyes.

As you say 'Unlucky sunshine'.

 

[A13EX F Trophy No70]

some insurance companies will say it looks liek a 172 therefore it is as likely to be stolen as a 172 (only when the steal it it'll not make a very fast getaway!)

the bodywork aspect shouldnt be too bad as most insurance companies wouldnt load your insurance up as it is factory bodywork.

 

[AlexS]

Alex,
How is that then? Ive looked over my policy cover details and it doesnt say anywhere that the named driver should do less miles! Im not wrong, so have nothing to get over apart from the egos of the supposedly more mature generation.

Bottom line is, whoever is driving the car at the time of an accidnet is covered. Why dispute it as i maydo more miles in the car? It's irrelavant!

There is more risk for the insurance company with you driving the car than your parents. The insurance company thinking they are insuring your parents (low risk) as the main driver, and you as a named driver (use it every now and again, you are high risk being a young driver etc.
A typical scenario being your mum takes the car to work during the day and you borrow her car in the evenings or to go to the shops etc (this is legal).
As it stands it is not your mums car it is your car and you are the MAIN DRIVER not her. Its a type of insurance fraud called fronting, you are getting a cheaper premium by tricking the insurance company into thinking they are providing cover for your mum and you occasionally, they think the risk is low because its primarily your mum driving it. You need to switch it so that you are the main driver and your mum/ parent is a named driver.

 

[mini-valver]

I fully understand the implications but i did explain to the company i use the car at night an weekends and they were fine with this so assume its all covered which is good enough for me!
I will be insuraing in my name next time round but until then ill take the companys word for it, which after all is the deciding factor whatever the scenario.....

 

[Mike_182]

Yeah if it was insured ilegally i can understand but NOTHING i have done is illegal. If they say they are not paying out and give me the reason i drive the car more often ill take them to court on the basis that its insured legally and legitametly. How on earth is it illegal to be a named driver and drive the car as i stated when taking out the policy?
Not been secretive, mods are declared and the insurance company are completely happy with how my policy is so why worry? I have nothing to hide, i drive the car more often and the insurance know this so everythings gravy in my and thier eyes.

As you say 'Unlucky sunshine'.

They'd laugh at you taking them to court whether they'd done wrong or not - so would I. They can afford solicitors that you can only dream of.

Only the rediculously rich or stupendously stupid take on a company of that sort of scale...

 

[Mike_182]

I fully understand the implications but i did explain to the company i use the car at night an weekends and they were fine with this so assume its all covered which is good enough for me!
I will be insuraing in my name next time round but until then ill take the companys word for it, which after all is the deciding factor whatever the scenario.....

It's irrelevant when you use it. It's down to who uses it most as to who is the main driver. Now there's a bit of leeway in this that you might do a few more miles than the main driver cos she uses it to go to work, you use it when she gets back - it'd be arguable that she gets priority over use of the car because you use it socially, however you're trying to hide the fact that you're the only driver by saying that you only use it some of the time... Which is fronting. Period.

 

[mini-valver]

The recent bank charge rebates would suggest otherwise. The bad publicity wouldnt be worth it i think. You think theyd pile money into a lawsuit that would probably cost more than the claim? I think not fella.

 

[mini-valver]

I fully understand the implications but i did explain to the company i use the car at night an weekends and they were fine with this so assume its all covered which is good enough for me!
I will be insuraing in my name next time round but until then ill take the companys word for it, which after all is the deciding factor whatever the scenario.....

It's irrelevant when you use it. It's down to who uses it most as to who is the main driver. Now there's a bit of leeway in this that you might do a few more miles than the main driver cos she uses it to go to work, you use it when she gets back - it'd be arguable that she gets priority over use of the car because you use it socially, however you're trying to hide the fact that you're the only driver by saying that you only use it some of the time... Which is fronting. Period.

Nope my step dad uses it for things, going shopping and to work sometimes. I think we've hit a brick wall so we'll leave it there...........