Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Had a 172mk2, 182 cup, now a 306 rallye. Clio has more secure handling, more grunt, better brakes, and ridiculous front end bite. 306 has better driving position, steering, more fun handling (lift off) and because of the lower limits, you get to enjoy the handling more often. Would take a confident driver to stay with the 182 on a difficult road.
Had a 172mk2, 182 cup, now a 306 rallye. Clio has more secure handling, more grunt, better brakes, and ridiculous front end bite. 306 has better driving position, steering, more fun handling (lift off
Ultimately not that much faster than the clio, but its an amazingly competent machine.
Interesting thread.
I personally think the 182 is somewhat overrated. Thats not to say its not a great little car, because it is, but it is possible to have more fun in equally so, or even more attainable cars.
Before I got the 182 I had a mk2 Golf GTI. It was only the 8v model, so as hot hatches go, it was dog slow... 0-60 in about 8.5 seconds and 120 mph top speed. However it was great fun. The cable throttle meant it was very adjustable, the relatively small wheels coupled with skinny tyres meant you could really play with it, the engine was coarse and really made itself heard, the exhaust note booming. No power steering, and although the response was somewhat slow, it was nice and weighty with plenty of feel. I absolutely loved that car when it worked. However, it was incredibly unreliable. It was definitely slower than the clio, but it was more fun to drive. It didnt feel that slow, it was only when you raced anything modern you realised it was. That said, it wasnt THAT much slower than a Focus ST170 at sane speeds.
I now drive an Integra Type R. What a wonderful car that is. It really deserves the praise. Again, a cable throttle, so very adjustable. It does have PAS, but its brimming with feel, as much feel as the Golf, but much quicker to respond (a bit like the clio). The steering wheel is a small momo one, and is lovely to hold, the gearknob a titanium one, and lovely recaro buckets. It manages to combine handling and ride wonderfully - long wheelbase means its planted, no diving under braking, planted and surprisingly good ride quality as speed, and a neutral chassis, which if anything, feels like it will oversteer slightly before understeering. The LSD affords it superior traction. The brakes are tremendous. And the engine, hearing it at 9000 RPM without the sound proofing is so addictive it means your license is always in danger. Its great seeking out a tunnel, winding down the windows and giving a blast of 2nd gear
The Clio 182 was good fun, but it has many flaws. The engine note as standard is somewhat muted to my mind, and really benefits from an exhaust and induction kit. The brakes fade a little too easily on the standard pads, and when you upgrade pads, it shows up its tendency to dive at speed which can be a brown trouser moment. There is perhaps slightly too much body roll, and it feels quite nose heavy. The DBW throttle robs it of immediacy and adjustability. The steering wheel and gearknob is a joke and the driving position could be so much better. The seats look nice and are comfortable enough but could be more supportive. It does however have more character than a lot of its modern rivals, such as the EP3 CTR, and cars such as the Ibiza Cupra are frankly not even in the same league.
So the clio IS a good car, but I just think theres a purity about older school cars that is very difficult to beat, and I very much doubt we will ever see it again in modern hatchbacks. If you want that kind of purity now, you will have to buy a proper sports car.
It's a quick, very good value little hatch. Again, the Honda subject comes up though?honda, peugeot, both different manufacturers.Dave, you forget that I went looking for another car precisely because I realised the Clio is a tin box with a big engine and a stiff suspension
I do not recall saying the Clio is crap in my post, I merely suggested that I personally think it is overrated
Also Dave, you are one of the lucky ones who has had good dealership experiences. Mine have worn me down over my 2 years of ownership. But anyway the point of the thread is that a 12 year old Peugeot can teach the 182 a thing or two. Nothing to do with Honda.
just that you said it had loads of faults now and had fallen out of love with it, i think thats fair to say?well, magazine wise, i think that most people on here listen to what evo have to say for a monthly magazine and what autocar have to say for a weekly magazine. I remember reading reviews from autoexpress (i subscribe) on cars they hadn't even driven so i never even read the reviews in there now, i just read it for the news.
Which is why I added "But anyway..."
I don't disagree with anything else you say, except to point out I was already realising the Clio is overrated and hence I started looking for a change. It's not like some bloke knocked on the door with the keys to a CTR. This was not intended to be a Clio bashing thread and I have nothing to add that I haven't already said
Incidentally, with the exception of Evo & Autocar, many many magazines have universally praised the new CTR. Personally I think magazine reviews mean squat, but since you brought it up
I'll have to let you have a drive of mine while you are waiting for yours, give you chance to cancel the order and go for the best hot hatch of 2007 You sure you aren't just thinking that now as you wanted a new car and were trying to let go of the clio and become emotionally detatched from it I can't mention any car these days without some goon bringing up the MkII Breadvan 
