Is it worth getting the 1.4 16v over the 1.2 16v?

[mr_arc]

Hi all. Hope you don't mind me posting about the lesser Clios!

I currently have a Xsara VTS (167bhp) but am looking at part ex'ing at against a Clio for my girlfriend to learn to drive in - once she passes, she gets the Clio and I get to buy a new (silly) car. In the mean time though, I'll be using the Clio for getting to work and what not.

I've been look at spending around £1500, and am torn between the 1.2 and the 1.4. I'm very aware that both will be slower than my VTS, so am leaning toward the 1.4. Is that wise? Is it worth spending a little bit more on running costs, tax, fuel etc? Are both engines based on the same design, is one known to more reliable than the other?

Just after a bit of help here guys, anything else I should be checking for. Cambelt intervals, how can I spot dodgy electrics easily (my VTS has shown me how fun they can be!).

I keep hearing that sunroofs rattle a lot. What's the deal there?

 

[Alastair.]

1.4 16v is a very good engine, 1.2 16v are poop especially the pre 2004 ones. Just put a throttle body on one the other day, £288 for just the part and that was trade price.

There is a mod for the sunroof ratlle, takes 30seconds to sort

 

[mr_arc]

Thanks.
Is the 1.4 not just a bored / stroked 1.2 then?
What changed in 2004?

 

[mantis946]

Thanks.
Is the 1.4 not just a bored / stroked 1.2 then?
What changed in 2004?

I believe the 1.2 and 1.4 use completely different engines, to be honest the 1.4's can be a little unfriendly on fuel and the tax is a little high - if I had to choose again I'd probably get a slower DCi.

 

[Martin_172]

1.4 and 1.6 are bassed on the same engine, pretty bullet proof other than apparently ignition coils however we've never went through any on ours, maby they changed them at a later date and are now more reliable.

1.2's have a load of common faults although again ive not had any bother with them in the past either apart from the odd coil pack here and there!

ive never driven the 1.4, but its only 10hp and a bit of torque down on the 1.6 which is a nice engine to live with, but its thirsty!!! best weve saw from ours is high 30's around town, and thats really trying, it usually averages 35/36mpg.

personally id be looking for a nice DCi65 for you and her to share, £25 a year road tax, 65mpg, nice torquey engine.

 

[JLister]

If your just using it to get to work and for your girlfriend then just get the 1.2. And just wait till she passes to get a faster car.

 

[AKFM1]

id go for a dci if you can mate!

 

[Englebert]

Both are pretty slow, yet the 1.2 actually gets decent MPG, so don't see the point in the 1.4 really. Coil pack went on mine though, but when you factor in cheaper insurance, tax and fuel costs...the 1.4 would have to be genuinely bullet proof to justify getting one IMO.

 

[Christopher]

Both are woefully slow.

Save your money and go for the smaller engine. Then use said saved money on something better in a years' time.

 

[Dan@M.A.D]

i have a 1.6 and i love it, I get about 34mpg average, If your doing more miles then look at a dci. You need to get an insurance quote on a 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 and the Dci's before you can really consider each one to be honest.

 

[*Wilson*]

I'd also go for a dci. Diesels are easier to drive and are solid engines, good for a learner driver. And with a remap can make good power gains :evil:

 

[mr_arc]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

1.4 16v

0-60; 10.2
Tax; £165
FUEL CONSUMPTION: (Urban) 32.1mpg / (Extra-urban) 54.3mpg / (Combined) 43.5mpg

1.2 16v

0-60; 12.6
Tax; £115
FUEL CONSUMPTION: (Urban) 37.2mpg / (Extra-urban) 57.6mpg / (Combined) 48.7mpg
Insurance differences are around £50.

I am leaning more toward the 1.2, as has been said - they are both slow, and the extra running costs of the 1.4 don't really justify bit more speed. I'm looking at this too much from "what merits would I choose a car on" rather than what would be suitable for her after passing her test. I think the 1.2 would be plenty fast enough, and the more money saved on fuel in the mean time means more money to get a car that I want.

A diesel isn't happening. I only cover around 50miles a week going to / from work. Yes, the diesel has higher MPG - but the fuel is more expensive, the engine (I presume) is heavier - making the car loose some of it's 'fun' (my previous car was a Cinq Sporting that I put a 1.4 16v engine into, light revving car are what I like!).

We're going to go looking at some cars this weekend I think, anyone give me any pointers on what to look for on them? Is there a buying guide on here? Why am I asking, I'll have search!

 

[sbridgey]

if i were you i would get a dci or a 1.2 16v, the 1.2 16v isnt exactly un reliable mine only broke twice in the year i had it, once was it kept stalling and the other time the coilpack broke. they are quite quick for what they are and the MPG aint to bad, not as good as my 2.0 16v but thats a whole other debate

 

[Dan@M.A.D]

if you do 50miles a week you may aswell get a 1.6 or a dci 100, 1.2s dont always do more mpg, at say 70mph the 1.4 will most likely do more mpg.

 

[mr_arc]

That 50 miles a week is all city centre driving, it's rare I get above 25mph.

I've no idea what kind of mileage my girlfriend will need it for, but I am leaning back toward the 1.2 just to keep overall running costs down. She can already drive but failed her test around 5 years ago, and never got back into it. The main idea behind getting her a car now is so that she can build confidence back up - then once passed it'll make it easier for her to get a job after uni.

If it were a car just for me, I'd be getting the RS - no brainer!

What is the sunroof fix btw, I had a quick look - found a thread from 2004, with dead pics in it. Does the fix work on manual and electric? I don't really want a sunroof, but all the ones I've seen on auto-trader so far seem to have them.

 

[Dan519]

A diesel isn't happening. I only cover around 50miles a week going to / from work. Yes, the diesel has higher MPG - but the fuel is more expensive, the engine (I presume) is heavier - making the car loose some of it's 'fun' (my previous car was a Cinq Sporting that I put a 1.4 16v engine into, light revving car are what I like!).

maaaaaaaaaaaaassively niave

you're doubling your MPG for about 1% increase in fuel cost

I'd be all over the dci. it's quite frankly a brilliant car.

A 1.6 petrol is the smallest engine I would bother with, the rest are pretty painful

 

[-J-]

To be honest the only thing i would be looking at it how much each one is going to cost to insure with your Mrs on as a Learner Driver.

Putting that aside Danny (519) couldnt be more correct the DCI's are great, I have had 5 DCI 65bhp's and everyone has been bullet proof, and very cheap to run.

 

[mr_arc]

I'm not looking for a 'quick' car. I'm looking for a cheap run about for my other half. As I said, if it were soley for me - I wouldn't anything other than the RS.

Something to consider with the dci is that they cost more to buy in the first place, it might only be an extra ~£400 or so, but that's coming up to near 30% of the budget.

I will look at a few though, run some quotes etc.

Are you on about the dci80, or the dci65? The dci65 seems to take years to get to 60. Horribly slow I hadn't noticed the dci80 before, I'll crunch some numbers on that.

edit; DCIs in this price range all seem to have moon miles on them.

 

[Martin_172]

ive owned both the dci 65 and the 1.2 16v, put both in a drag race and the 1.2 is quicker... just! take both out a run and the dci feels MUCH quicker because of the torque, the dci pulls from 1500rpm to 3000rpm like the 1.2 does from 4500 to 5500rpm, 1.2s really need rev'ed to move!

also your point above about the heavier engine, the dci's come with the sports suspension package as standard, with less body roll, nicely weighted steering and handle much better than the 1.2's (1.4 and 1.6 also have the same suspension setup as the dci)

 

[mr_arc]

The DCI80 is quicker, better on fuel and cheaper to tax than the DCI65. Why does the DCI65 exist?! Why are there no DCI80s for sale?

What is the difference, can I get a DCI65 mapped into a DC80?

 

[Dan519]

65 is cheaper to insure, both are the same tax band

80 has an intercooler

 

[bennno2005]

Also i bet the DCI will hold their money a lot better.

 

[montana]

i would go for the dci - cost of fuel these days between petrol & diesel is marginal anyway.

Plus you get BOOOST (well a little bit )

 

[Martin_172]

a dci65 will map to around 90hp, but a 80 will map to around 100, the 80 has a slightly different turbo i think it runs .1 bar more pressure due to a different wastegate and it also has different injectors.

apparently the 80 is more efficient due to its intercooler, hence why its in the lower tax band and is slightly better in fuel. only slightly!

 

[shanedavison28]

Yeh I would look into getting a dCi. Get the 100 if you can as its quite a bit quicker but still dead cheap on tax and fuel etc.

And you can remap it to around 125bhp if you want a bit more power and torque.

 

[mr_arc]

There are barely any DCI80s for around £1500, and even less DCI100s!

 

[RDH]

I had a 1.2 Clio for 3 years. Didn't miss a beat, never went wrong and never let me down. Would do 40mpg easily and sit at 70mph for aslong as you wanted it to. Can't ask for more really.

 

[Alastair.]

65 is cheaper to insure, both are the same tax band

80 has an intercooler

dci 65 is £30 tax and the dci is £20 tax.


Mrs had a 65, was great, sold it on 130k.

 

[sladen1720]

I love my 1.2. never had a major problem it may not be the fastest, it has some reving power if you give it the beans. 1st 2nd and 3rd are all fun gears. the 1.4`s are not much quicker due to the weight at the front end. therefor a 3dr 1.2 16v will be about the same as a 5dr 1.4 16v. gety a 1.2 16v. cheaper to insure, run (i fill up 20pounds every fortnight and tootle around easily on that.

 

[Martin_172]

this site gives mixed opinions sometimes, dont get a 1.6 as its hardly any faster than a 1.4, dont get a 1.4 as its hardly any faster than a 1.2, our 1.6 16v would destroy a 1.2!!!

dont get a 172 its not much faster than a 1.6, dont get an impreza its not much faster than a 172, dont get an m3 its not much faster than an impreza, dont get a GTR as its not much faster than an m3 and dont get anything else as its no faster than a GTR

so basically weve worked out that a GTR is not much faster than walking?

 

[tsoob]

so obviously the answer is get a V6.

 

[Mark_]

Save your money and go for the smaller engine. Then use said saved money on something better in a years' time.

This.

There is a mod for the sunroof ratlle, takes 30seconds to sort

Please expand on this...

this site gives mixed opinions sometimes, dont get a 1.6 as its hardly any faster than a 1.4, dont get a 1.4 as its hardly any faster than a 1.2, our 1.6 16v would destroy a 1.2!!!

dont get a 172 its not much faster than a 1.6, dont get an impreza its not much faster than a 172, dont get an m3 its not much faster than an impreza, dont get a GTR as its not much faster than an m3 and dont get anything else as its no faster than a GTR

so basically weve worked out that a GTR is not much faster than walking?

LOL!!

 

[keo]

My mrs got a 1.4 its a good little car and quite nippy, does around 40mpg on average

 

[glowworm105]

The 1.4 is quite nippy but mine does seem to use alot of fuel, even on the motorway its not very economical due the revs being so high at 70 i would go for a dci if i could choose again