what a load of crap, i'll keep it short. why does it not go like a type r civic both 197 and 6 speed . glad i have driven it now to put my mind at rest. very very disappointing.sorry if it upset new owners but it should be alot more car than this.even if they bring a cup out the car still needs to be more powerful to feel special
ClioSport.net
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!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
C
clio172cup20
Is it quicker that its predesessors 172 and 182?!?! cup/non-cup?!?!
gtvlew said:
This is a good question. Same power/weight (allegedly) with lower overall gearing. It should, in theory, have either;
Similar acceleration, similar top speed - nope.
Better accelertion, lower top speed - only the latter.
Quite strange. I still think it's a great car though :approve:
took my 182 down and drove them back to back, it handles well but there is just no power, took it to the red line 1st to 4th combined, A road work and a spin down the M4, its very busy at 85 mph cruise. i'm not blowing the 182s trumpet but it will kill a 197 all day, i just cant work out where the power is.it should be an evolution of the 172/182 but it is not.the 197 had 3000 miles on the clock.it is a lovelly car but its not hardcore for existing 182 owners.
C
clio172cup20
Roy Munson said:Is it bollox
Good to know mate
The Jinx
Dave3141 said:
Is it fvck.
As for it not being better than a 172/182, I imagine similar threads were abound when the ph1 172 hit the streets.
I cant stand the new ones either mategtvlew said:
The Jinx
FredYozzasport said:
I waiting for the "Light" version of that.:clown:
R
rich[182]
Called into dealers tonight for an air filter and they'd got a black 197 next to a 182 and a megane 225
The red one I liked at FCS and also the red one they've got in the showroom had until now, made me think they looked better in the flesh but after tonight I've gone off it again
My thoughts -
Back end just dont look right
Air diffuser not colour coded, again dont look right
Rear tailpipes - neither in your face or stealth, not even subtle........look pointless tbh
Renault Sport badges, not as nice as the 172/182 nor the Megane 225
Ride height looks too high
No way do the 17"s look like 17"s - think the "lines" of the rear and front wings dont help as they are too high so it just exaggerates the ride height further imo
The red one I liked at FCS and also the red one they've got in the showroom had until now, made me think they looked better in the flesh but after tonight I've gone off it again
My thoughts -
Back end just dont look right
Air diffuser not colour coded, again dont look right
Rear tailpipes - neither in your face or stealth, not even subtle........look pointless tbh
Renault Sport badges, not as nice as the 172/182 nor the Megane 225
Ride height looks too high
No way do the 17"s look like 17"s - think the "lines" of the rear and front wings dont help as they are too high so it just exaggerates the ride height further imo
80MPG BEEZA
i went to pick up my engine mounts and the had the a red 197 so i took the gf over and she says ugh your not changing yours for a megane! tbh i dont mind the front but the back is a load of crap! the seats look cool but the rest of the interior is lame, brembo brakes with neither grooved or drilled discs look turd! i'm keeping my black beauty
Saab 93 Aero Wagon
The trouble with the new car (which i haven't yet driven....why test drive a demo with under 1000 miles on it?) to begin with, is that the Trophy just set the bar way too high.
To go out with a bang is pretty much an understatement.
And then they went and fell into the trap that everyone other than Lotus seem to make....they made the new one too heavy.
But then again I suppose if everyone needs all their toys and creature comforts then its gonna have to gain a little pork.
I just hope the Cup is under 1200kgs when it comes out.
Looks wise, I think it looks good from all sides but in my eyes its too tall.
I love the look of the big brakes, the arch vents and the rear diffuser though....makes it look well engineered.
From what i've heard of the performance, it lacks low end grunt but again thats the opinion of a car that had done less than 500 miles so im gonna bide my time and test a run in one!
To go out with a bang is pretty much an understatement.
And then they went and fell into the trap that everyone other than Lotus seem to make....they made the new one too heavy.
But then again I suppose if everyone needs all their toys and creature comforts then its gonna have to gain a little pork.
I just hope the Cup is under 1200kgs when it comes out.
Looks wise, I think it looks good from all sides but in my eyes its too tall.
I love the look of the big brakes, the arch vents and the rear diffuser though....makes it look well engineered.
From what i've heard of the performance, it lacks low end grunt but again thats the opinion of a car that had done less than 500 miles so im gonna bide my time and test a run in one!
the one i drove had 3000 miles on it, bottom line its just not quick enough, when we all drove the 172 and then the 182 when they were new, those cars were quicker run in or not, renault have dropped a clanger with this version.i dont think we will see many sub 7 second times on these, even if they claim 6.9
Autocar timed it at 6.9
BMW 535D
clio172cup20 said:
point of reference:
clio 197: 0-60: 6.9 secs, 0-100: 18.7 secs (tested by autocar)
clio 182 trophy: 0-60: 6.6 secs, 0-100: 17.3 secs (evo)
clio 182: 0-60: 6.6 secs, 0-100: 17.5 secs (evo)
clio 172 cup: 0-60: 6.5 secs, 0-100: 17.7 secs (evo)
clio 172 mk2: 0-60: 7.1 secs, 0-100: 18.9 secs (evo)
clio 172 mk1: 0-60: 6.6 secs, 0-100: 18.2 secs (evo) (you can call it 'ph. quick' all you like but it aint quite 182 pace
)ive seen 182/cup/trophy acceleration figures for 0-100 as low as 16.5 secs in some earlier autocar mags aswel but i think ive thrown them out lol
anyway this shows that the 197 is pretty much on the same pace as the ph2 172 so make of that what you will!
bring back the big car: little engine lightweight screamers i say
http://www.allvehicles.co.uk/2010.jpg
that white cup looks very good, i can see that being produced in civillian spec..it would be mad not too. Aggressive lighter.. and the chance forRenault to restore some credability
that white cup looks very good, i can see that being produced in civillian spec..it would be mad not too. Aggressive lighter.. and the chance forRenault to restore some credability
chris_m182 said:point of reference:
clio 197: 0-60: 6.9 secs, 0-100: 18.7 secs (tested by autocar)
clio 182 trophy: 0-60: 6.6 secs, 0-100: 17.3 secs (evo)
clio 182: 0-60: 6.6 secs, 0-100: 17.5 secs (evo)
clio 172 cup: 0-60: 6.5 secs, 0-100: 17.7 secs (evo)
clio 172 mk2: 0-60: 7.1 secs, 0-100: 18.9 secs (evo)
clio 172 mk1: 0-60: 6.6 secs, 0-100: 18.2 secs (evo) (you can call it 'ph. quick' all you like but it aint quite 182 pace
Even though these figures are rarely reproducable, are people really that upset that the 197 is 0.3 of a second slower to 60 and 1.2 seconds slower to 100 than a 182? Does it matter that much? When in real world driving would that ever be an issue?
I've driven a 197 and thought it was excellent. It's a bit more refined than a 172/182 which might make it feel a lot slower but the figures just don't bear that out. It's a decently performing hot hatch. I'm not sure what else Renault could do? Maybe they should have booted one to 60, wrecking the clutch and everything, but giving them that extra 0.3 which would have kept all the number crunchers happy.
If you can feel 0.3 of a second slower accelleration then good on you. However, here in the real world I bet that 90% of people will be impressed when the drive it. I was.
BMW 535D
SimonD said:
its a POINT OF REFERENCE mate, all cars being fired up a straight with similar care and consideration for clutches etc (how many journo's are goin to want to destroy a press car?) i understand that on the road figures count for very little, in reality a full second difference in acceleration times can equate to little more than a car's length, and any subsequent tussle on a road is mainly down to driver skill and confidence.
admittedly driver error can account for acceleration figures being anywhere upto a few seconds off the car's optimum pace.
The Jinx
rich172 said:
My thoughts -
Back end just dont look right - on the phase 1 172s it also looked cack
Rear tailpipes - neither in your face or stealth, not even subtle........look pointless tbh - no sign of tailpipes on mk2s until the 182 I think, and no tailpipes is totally ghey
Renault Sport badges, not as nice as the 172/182 nor the Megane 225 - well that's going to stop me buying one
Ride height looks too high - see full fat 172 and 182s
It's heavier because of modern safety regs and that's presumably why it's a touch slower. Still, a couple of tenths 0-60 is naff all on the road in the hands of most people.
What I want to know is not how big/slow it is but how it handles. Didn't evo say it was a better starting point than they had with the mk2 clio?
BMW 535D
Swervin_Mervin said:
Yes they did. Just turn your thoughts back to when the clio 172 ph2 came out and what reviews were like for that, they said it had lost its edge and aggression, but they built on that and 4 attempts later (cup, 182, 182 cup, trophy) they had developed the ultimate hot hatch in the 182 trophy.
So yes it will probably serve as an excellent starting block for much harder and more focused models.
I just can't get over the size and weight of the thing though!
Nissan 350Z
SimonD said:
For me, its not about raw acceleration figures. Its how the acceleration feels when you are driving it. And to me it sounds like the 197 loses the sensation of speed that the older clios have.
That is in fact, why a lot of people prefer older cars (like the williams etc). I had a mk2 Golf GTI, and it felt faster than it actually was. To be fair, for a relatively modern design i feel the mk2 clios feel quite quick, but it was inevitable the newer, heavier, safer car was going to feel a little limp even when in reality its just about as quick.
.
gtvlew said:
Doesnt need more power, its got plenty of that. What it needs is LESS WEIGHT!
Its much bigger and heavier than previous clios and obviously as a result, carries more initia, which has the physical impression of dulling acceleration and handling. Still quick though!
Last edited:
