mk1 or mk2 cilo V6

[Simo]

Quote: Originally posted by Toypop on 24 September 2004


The news article on the main website says the VX220 is a better car. Its the same price, has the same number of seats and is a lot faster so a no brainer really!

Yeh, but a real drivers magazine aka EVO rates the V6 much better that the VX.

A no brainer really!

 

[telford_mike]

Quote: Originally posted by Toypop on 24 September 2004


The news article on the main website says the VX220 is a better car. Its the same price, has the same number of seats and is a lot faster so a no brainer really!

Topic: mk1 or mk2 cilo V6

didnt know a VX220 was a Clio V6? (or even a Cilo lol)

 

[V6'ing]

Quote: Originally posted by Toypop on 24 September 2004


The news article on the main website says the VX220 is a better car. Its the same price, has the same number of seats and is a lot faster so a no brainer really!






I was going to buy one of these VXT, but... even the sales person told me not to bother! ITS A TRACK CAR!! Lovely....but not for every day.

Love both mk1 and mk2 V6ssss! The time will come when I will need to upgrade to the MK2 V6 as time goes by, so not going to put down a car I will be owning one day : ) Choice of colour might be a problem tho.. being there are SO many nice colours!

For now tho.... Im well happy with my mk1 V6... gonna be a sad day when its time to change it...thats 4 sure!

 

[steveV6]

Toypop, no Brainer??? when your a fat knacker like me??? Stupid boy!!

http://erc.qmuc.ac.uk/cliosport/gallery/full/1096038567__SteveV61.jpg

As Mike said, what suits at the time!!!

Now, wheres that Slim Fast..........

 

[CraigV6]

I doubt I will upgrade to a mk2. I will be keeping the mk1 in totally standard mint condition and keeping the mileage down as I have a second car now.

I have stated my opinion above, not the opinion of a magazine. In my opinion the mk2 is a more sensible progression of the mk1. If that makes it better according to Evo magazine then since they are god it must be the gospel. If you go through life relying on reviewers opinions you will miss out on much.

Surely if you rely so highly on Evo, you would have a better car than a V6????????????

If Renault sent out the mk2 and hadnt sorted the previous quibbles from the mk1, what would have been the point? As I said it is a better car and alltogether more user friendly, but in my opinion that takes some of the escence of what the V6 is - a completely mental rear wheel drive hatch back.

It may be "superior" but I doubt it is as much fun, nor will it be as sought after in 10 years time.

 

[SimonV6]

Well let me see, IMHO,

Mk2 looks better, is faster (sub 6 second car 153mph), handles better, much faster round a track as well as road, and in EVERY single road test I have read the MK2 comes out well on top.....

Mk2 V Mk1.....MK2 everytime..... (standard to standard of course)

sorry Mk1 owners.....buts that my opinion (as well as most car mags)

Simon.

 

[Ian_182]

I remember tiff drove the new one and slated the old one on the telly a while back.EVO are a group of pro drivers,theyve driven everything you wont and then some

Why do people slate them so bad......their all ex touring car and rally drivers and in a much better position to comment than us menials...

ian

 

[iwantaV6]

no pink flip in my car, thatll be the sunlight.



eVO list the mk1 as a 5.8 to 60 too, and ive seen others say that they have had 6 secs, so it aint far behind.



if i were to have a mk2, it would have to be silver. used to like the blue, but silver is THE colour for any Vee IMO.

 

[steveV6]

Quote: Originally posted by iwantaV6 on 24 September 2004


if i were to have a mk2, it would have to be silver. used to like the blue, but silver is THE colour for any Vee IMO.





We are going to agree on something at last, lol.

Although that liquid yellow is growing on me, uuummmmm if I get another vee maybe ill go for the............

 

[Ian_182]

I love the blue,its great...The only thing i didnt like about my 172 is that they didnt do it in cup blue

guess theres always a 182 in artic....mmmmmmmmmmm

ian

 

[V6'ing]

Ian, the reviews are based on these cars being driven to within an inch of their lives...and thats ON THE RACE TRACK! In the REAL WORLD for fast road use, youll love this car! Forget the BS from these mags, its VERY hard to unsettle (just sticks like glue) under 60mph! Not many of us will be pushing them to within a few 10ths of its limit in the entire time we own them! It would have to be uncomfortably hard pushed to turn nasty! Also.. getting to 60 in sub 6 secs is common amongst mk1 V6 owners.. the 5.8 secs in EVO Mag, that they achieved in there own mk1 V6 is pretty accurate.

This is where the bad reviews come from.. The TEST TRACK! I have owned my MK1 for a year...and have pushed too hard at the wrong time in the wrong place! and my V6 mk1 has saved me from disaster as it just gripped and controlled the situation so well!! and that was standard.. before I decided to go for the ultimate KWs I have now, which lets you drive very quickly IN and OUT of corners with no fuss and with less pitch and roll.

I dont think there can be a real argument on the choice between mk1 and mk2. They are both stunning cars, but the mk2 has been given a good makeover.. more horses... updated looks (like it or not) and nicer interior...and more! Surely, its gotta be the natural progression from the mk1 V6 to the mk2?? IMO...being a better car...doesnt make the mk1 a bad car! Its just progress! (Although.... the gap between the these 2 cars is NOT as big as you might think. SteveV6 has also mentioned this before, and hes had both mks!)

I can see the argument that they may have tamed the mk2 now, and resulting is less of an experience to own! and I would agree the mk1 is more raw... and I actually like the fact it has been branded by some as dangerous... lol...even if that is a load of BS! : )



Take it easy... and enjoyem all!

 

[V6'ing]

Quote: Originally posted by ian 172 on 24 September 2004


guess theres always a 182 in artic....mmmmmmmmmmm

ian






Yep, my brother has a 182 in Arctic Blue with the Cup pack..it looks really nice! The wheels look smart against that colour too.

 

[SimonV6]

Quote: Originally posted by steveV6 on 24 September 2004

Quote: Originally posted by iwantaV6 on 24 September 2004


if i were to have a mk2, it would have to be silver. used to like the blue, but silver is THE colour for any Vee IMO.






We are going to agree on something at last, lol.

Although that liquid yellow is growing on me, uuummmmm if I get another vee maybe ill go for the............

Sorry guys can not agree with you on that, Silver cars are just way to common these days...even more than RED...lol

Simon.

Also if the Mk1 really does 5.8 to 60 in std form then I love my mk2 even more, as it has a better power to weight and better gear box for acceleration than a Mk1 so must do 60 in around 5 dead then....lol

Simon.

 

[Zonda]

Can someone tell me how far is 0.5 of a second in car lengths to 60 mph please? I want to see how many car lengths this will be to 60 as I have always wondered why this means so much?

 

[Jason C]

Quote: Originally posted by Liquidcool on 17 September 2004

Would u chose a MK1 Lotus Elise over the New Elise? Not!

Such a bad example. Loads of folks actively by the S1 over the S2.

 

[Zonda]

I like Lotus elises, but the old one looks crap now! I used to like the old one when it first came out but looks sh*te now I think. Why would you want the old one. I think I remember someone that owned one said everything fell to peices on the mk1 is was so cheaply built is the mk1 better car then mate?

 

[SimonV6]

Quote: Originally posted by Zonda on 24 September 2004




Can someone tell me how far is 0.5 of a second in car lengths to 60 mph please? I want to see how many car lengths this will be to 60 as I have always wondered why this means so much?

Well at 60 mph you are travelling at 88 per second so 0.5 second = 44 or approx 3.6 car lengths ...lol

The gap is much biger by the time you reach 100mph ( where only 1 second gap = 146 or approx 12 car lenghts), and I would rather be 3.6 car lenghts in front than behind....lol



Simon.

 

[telford_mike]

LMAO @ some of these comments - you cant buy a Mk1 any more guys - theyre all gone! It might be the best car in the known universe, but if you pitch up at your dealer with £50,000 in cash they still cant get you one.

maybe its a new/used question, but theres little point comparing 2 cars when one of them isnt available to buy..

 

[Zonda]

hehe lucky Renault didnt get the times right then hehe

Whats the 182 time to 60?

 

[telford_mike]

182 is meant to be 7.1 , but its probably much quicker.

 

[Simo]

Quote: Originally posted by CraigV6 on 24 September 2004


I have stated my opinion above, not the opinion of a magazine. In my opinion the mk2 is a more sensible progression of the mk1. If that makes it better according to Evo magazine then since they are god it must be the gospel. If you go through life relying on reviewers opinions you will miss out on much.

Surely if you rely so highly on Evo, you would have a better car than a V6????????????

If Renault sent out the mk2 and hadnt sorted the previous quibbles from the mk1, what would have been the point? As I said it is a better car and alltogether more user friendly, but in my opinion that takes some of the escence of what the V6 is - a completely mental rear wheel drive hatch back.

It may be "superior" but I doubt it is as much fun, nor will it be as sought after in 10 years time.

Oh dear. Ill have to go out in my superior car to get over that lyrical attack, but thats just my opinion, and Evos of course, Amen.

Could you also please enlighten me as to what car you would recomend instead of the V6, new, for £25k, mid engined, rear wheel drive, oh wise one????

And dont mention any of the jap stuff or the VX / Lotus puff carraiges either. Cause I fooking hate those things. I await your reply with interest

 

[CraigV6]

There is no disagreement about "superior" I admitted the V6 mk2 was superior - otherwise Renault would never have released it.

My argument was that it doesnt look as good (other than interior) because of all the cheap looking black plastic on the front, and it isnt as much fun; it is an easier car to handle/drive. The mk1 is a real enthusiasts car - a drivers car. I have seen the mk2 described as a "haidressers car" on this very forum (and not by me). I think this is a touch severe, but explains my point.

You should have bought a 2003 mk1 V6 with 2 years remaining on warranty and saved yourself £9k and had a lot more fun and the greater prospect of a future classic.

Have you read the review in Evo for the mk1? As I said of course the reviewers will appreciate the mk2 more, or why bother with it? A reviewer however has the car for half a day, and around a track.

When you own the car and live with it day in day out it is a totally different experience than ripping the arse off of it for 4 hours. See comments above - someone who has owned both seems to mirror some of my opinions. I would rather take their opinion than that of Evo.

You are happy with your £25k car which differs none from my £16k car unless we are racing on a track. With my extra £9k I have bought a practical day to day car so I can keep my Clio with low low miles (currently 16k) and for use in good weather at weekends. I am certainly happy with my set-up!

 

[Simo]

Fair enough Craig, but thats just your opinion. Not mine.

Why would I want a Mk1 V6? There flawed as a driver car in my opinion. Also I believe the Mk2 is the better looking car by far. I refer to Evo simply because they are the best enthusiasts car magazine around and therefore well qualified on this matter. They also had a long term Mk1 V6 which they tested against the Mk1 172 and the 172 was given the knod over the V6, hence why I bought a Mk1 172 over a Mk1 V6 some years ago and saved considerably more than £9k

Im lucky enough to have a small collection of cars so the V6 is hardly ever used apart from trackdays and trips to various motorsport events. I have a landrover and Jag as everyday cars, the V6 will shortly be accompanied by a Westfield XTR2 (Ordered last week). So I do use my V6 on the track, so the areas where the Mk1 is flawed as a drivers car do show through for me.

The cost of the V6 never really came into the equation when I ordered it, thats not bragging, its just I buy the cars I want drive them as there intended and sell them.

 

[SimonV6]

Quote: Originally posted by CraigV6 on 25 September 2004


I admitted the V6 mk2 was superior .....AGREE with you there.

My argument was that it doesnt look as good (other than interior) because of all the cheap looking black plastic on the front, and it isnt as much fun; it is an easier car to handle/drive. The mk1 is a real enthusiasts car - a drivers car.



Funny how a "Flawed" car (in handling)is meant to be a better drivers cars...LOL...you make me laugh pal.....

The Mk1 has sub standard handling, crappy gear box, less power to weight and front end looks Boring imho.....

Thats why i bought a Mk2, would never have bought a Mk1, just dont like them...sorry Mk1 owners.

They are both under powered though for 3.0 V6s, should be kicking out at least 300bhp..... thats my next project....

Simon.

Looks like this is turning into a Mk1 owners verses Mk2 owners thread..... LOL

 

[Ian_182]

Quote: Originally posted by telford_mike on 25 September 2004

182 is meant to be 7.1 , but its probably much quicker.

autocar have tested the 182 at 6.3 to 60mph

ian

 

[Zonda]

Quote: Originally posted by ian 172 on 25 September 2004

Quote: Originally posted by telford_mike on 25 September 2004

182 is meant to be 7.1 , but its probably much quicker.

autocar have tested the 182 at 6.3 to 60mph

ian





But how? That means the 182 is even faster than the 172 cup?! mmm? How many different figures for all our cars are there that keep contradicting each other??

I cant remember who but someone said a silver V6 was common?! well how can they be common? In 3 years I have only ever seen 1, EVER! None of them are common?

I would say that you should make your own mind up, and that decision is yours and the best decision for YOU! not for anyone else, even with so many quotes and figures? agree?

 

[Ian_182]

The people that test these cars are pros and way more qualified to test the best set of figures for each car....IMHO autocar are very good and have been really consistant over the years....even with big exotic cars they will still sl*g them off if something isnt right

I thought it was well known that the 182 was marginally quicker than a cup to 60 with a bit of traction through having the better stiffer tyres ...

ian

 

[Zonda]

ok, I dont wanna go off topic any longer on this thread, BUT in EVO mag it does say Cup 6.5 sec and like Mike said I thought 182 was 7 secs or just under. Thats why I always thought the Cup was quicker car, cheers

 

[SimonV6]

Quote: Originally posted by Zonda on 25 September 2004

Quote: Originally posted by ian 172 on 25 September 2004

Quote: Originally posted by telford_mike on 25 September 2004

182 is meant to be 7.1 , but its probably much quicker.

autocar have tested the 182 at 6.3 to 60mph

ian






I cant remember who but someone said a silver V6 was common?!

Well I said that the colour SILVER was so common on all tyopes of cars, there are more silver cars around than any other colour it would seem...... I hate Silver.

I know thwere are not many V6s around, but if you look at Auto Trader most of the ones for sale are SILVER.

Simon.

And before any sats anything.... I know RED is a common colour, but not very common for Mk2 V6s.....

As far as 0-60 times go..... it looks like you may as well just make up your own times as the reviews seem to vary to bloody much as to be of no help at all......

 

[V6'ing]

Mars Red is nice, so is Black.... and Blue.... oh and I still like the Silver... LOL.. sod it! Like em all... even liking the dam Acid Yellow now! Will be a tuff choice to make

 

[CraigV6]

You make me laugh pal.

The mk2 is derived from a mk1. If you dont like the mk1, you cant possibly like mk2. I would think 75% of the mk2 is as was on the mk1.

How do you put up with driving a car that you like only 25% of????????????

Each to their own.

In my opinion the mk1 is more exciting, better looking and more likely to be a real classic.

I will not slate the mk2, as it is an awesome and stunning car. It just doesnt have the rawness nor character a mk1 has.

 

[SimonV6]

Quote: Originally posted by CraigV6 on 25 September 2004


You make me laugh pal.

The mk2 is derived from a mk1. If you dont like the mk1, you cant possibly like mk2. I would think 75% of the mk2 is as was on the mk1.

How do you put up with driving a car that you like only 25% of????????????

Each to their own.

In my opinion the mk1 is more exciting, better looking and more likely to be a real classic.

I will not slate the mk2, as it is an awesome and stunning car. It just doesnt have the rawness nor character a mk1 has.

Well we could go on like this all day mate....it wont get us anywhere will it?

The Mk2 has a huge amounts of upgrades over the mk1, and all make it better in my opinion...pal...

New Gear box, wider track, new subframe, better setup, more power, better front end, bigger wheels, better power to weight ratio, better handling on the edge, faster top speed, faster 0-60mph, faster 0-100mph.....infactr I can not think of one thing that make the Mk1 better apart from you can buy them cheaper because they are older now.....lol



Funny how people see cars with bad trates (swoping ends almost at will on the edge) and call them "Character"... LOL, that does make me laugh.

Simon.

I know which I prefer, and that includes the looks.... Mk2 forever.... or maybe Mk3 if one is released with 300bhp.....power that this car needed from day one.....

Anyway you are going to defend the Mk1 because you havwe one, I will continue to defend the Mk2 because I own one....there you have it.....

 

[Zonda]

Come on guys, kiss and make up!!lol

 

[Mike T]

I have a MK1 with Mk2 subframes and suspension and wheels. Mk2 gearbox and all the horses you could ever need.

The differences are small but important and the Mk2 handles differently - it does however understeer a lot to cure the end swappy stuff. To stop this I went back to the MK1 front anti roll bar (smaller) and fitted the development chassis ex TWR) rear anti roll bar (not on a MK2 cos of production cost) and its all lovely!!

The KW varient 3 kit for the Mk1 from K Tec is likely to push the handling beyong MK2 territory if anyones after an upgrade.

Just be happy that your happy with what youve got and tweak it so your happier. I like both cars and could have bought two Mk2s for what Ive spent on my Mk1 - but I have the only Mk1.5 about!!

Peace!!

 

[SimonV6]

Well Fair enough, I do intend to tweak the hell out of my Mk2 over the years, 450bhp is what I am after at some point in the future, with pin point handling to make a great road and track car, so springs, anti roll bars, superchager and so on will all go on my Mk2, I intend to keep it for many years...... I perfer the looks... Lol



Peace to you all...



Simon.

 

[Mike T]

new crank for over 400bhp unless peak revs dropped - hope youve got deep pockets!!

 

[SimonV6]

Quote: Originally posted by Mike T on 25 September 2004

new crank for over 400bhp unless peak revs dropped - hope youve got deep pockets!!



Yeah no problem.....

Simon.

 

[V6'ing]

Quote: Originally posted by Mike T on 25 September 2004

new crank for over 400bhp unless peak revs dropped - hope youve got deep pockets!!




Mike, how is your V6 beasty progressing? Any latest pics of your engine if poss? cheers, havent heard from Tim in a long time!! Surely his V has been completed by now with his new Motec? That must be some machine now!

Ques... What exhaust do u have? and I also called Dave about the rear anti-roll bar last week that u just mentioned..(and he confirmed its certainly worthwhile!!)... but now I have changed to KWs .. where will the Roll bar connect to? Will I need to weld new mounts?

Grant.

(next move: De-cat at Damax and Bigger throttle body and latest plenam and re-map... just need to know if I need the bigger injectors? Or will mine be able to cope? Waiting to ask Rob as he will not be around until Tues next week) Already have the EVO I.K which will combine well with this.

 

[SimonV6]

Quote: Originally posted by Mike T on 25 September 2004

new crank for over 400bhp unless peak revs dropped - hope youve got deep pockets!!



A quick question, what Clutch are you using for over 400bhp??

I am thinking of upgrading the clutch because the std one is slipping already

Simon.

 

[telford_mike]

Quote: Originally posted by shmall on 26 September 2004

I am thinking of upgrading the clutch because the std one is slipping already

Simon.

really? isnt it covered under warranty?