Clio 182
Hi all, still quite new to Clio ownership (having sold my ST170) and to this forum, but thought I'd share my epxerience of owning both. I know there are loads of discussions about this all over the web but most seem to be based on manufacturer spec instead of owner experience. Both cars are/were completely stock and the Clio is the basic version (no cup packs). Hope its useful anyway...
Insurance:
ST170 was group 15, the Clio is group 16 and with some insurers invokes extra restrictions (depending on the underwriters). In my case it excluded anyone under 25 driving the car. There are other insurers who don't enforce this but it's worth being aware of. The actual cost of insurance isn't much different between the two.
MPG:
On fresh oil, plugs and filters the ST170 achieved 29-30mpg for normal daily commuting with occasional heavy foot - this figure was calculated as there was no on-board computer. I understand that's a fairly good figure for these cars. I collected the Clio miles away and on the journey home (all motorway) I was getting around 43mpg (according to the on-baord computer). Now back to normal driving I'm still getting 37-38, although I expect that to drop a bit. I will calculate a better value once I've filled up the tank a few times.
Looks [personal preference]:
When I had the ST170 I thought it looked great (and still do), and was concerned the Clio would appear too soft. However, now parked on the drive it looks good. This is partly due to the fact the Clio is two years newer and it has been waxed recently! Both are great looking cars, but somehow the clio is just tidier.
Chassis / suspension:
The ST170 has always been known for a good chassis, and my experience agreed with that. It was sharp and turned in well, and the steering was precise. My car was let down a bit by cheap front tyres (didn't change them as I knew I was selling the car) but still very driveable, and comfortable for passengers. The Clio is smaller and a little more urgent in the way it handles. The steering is very sharp (but perhaps slightly too light) and I find the suspension plenty hard enough (despite not having cup chassis). I don't drive fast the majority of the time so this might not be the experience of our speedier friends.
Gearbox:
Again, the Focus (6 speed) is reputed to have a great box. It was sharp and the extra gear helped a bit for motorway driving. The shift was more positive, but did require a lot more force on the lever. The Clio's change is looser but allows for a faster change. Personally I think the Clio would benefit from a 6th for motorway driving but people may disagree with that. I also find that 1st in the clio is a bit short, but again its just preference.
Power / torque:
No contest. As I read somewhere on a Focus forum: "I don't know where the 170bhp goes but it's nowhere near the wheels". The Focus can rev nice and high but has little power or torque low down. Even at the top end it still fails to excite. It is a competent 2l engine, but not much more so than any other 1800 - 2000cc NA petrol. Overall disappointing, and so cannot justify the insurance and running cost. I am willing to concede I may have owned an example at the lower end of the power scale (I understand that Foci naturally vary in output a fair bit from the factory), but still not that impressed. The Clio is lighter which partly explains why it performs better but it is inherently a more powerful and torquey engine. The power is also delivered (silghtly) lower down the rev range. It picks up much more quickly and doesn't force hooligan driving just to get a smile.
Interior:
Difficult as both cars had their fair share of rattles! The Focus was a bit tired inside as the previous owner didnt keep it clean, but it felt solid enough. Given that it was a 9 year old car the interior wasn't bad at all. I don't much like renault interiors in general, and the clio is no exception. There is a lot of dull grey plastic and an unexciting AC/head unit. The seats however look great in an understated way. Both cars suffered from odd driving positions - the Focus seat wouldn't go low enough so I felt like I was driving a bus, and the Clio's steering wheel is too large. You get used to either though.
Verdict:
Much happier with the clio than the focus, and can justify the high cost of insurance/tax whereas I couldnt with the Focus. I will update this post as and when I think of other things or faults (do ro don't!) occur. Let me know if you have any questions anyway.
Insurance:
ST170 was group 15, the Clio is group 16 and with some insurers invokes extra restrictions (depending on the underwriters). In my case it excluded anyone under 25 driving the car. There are other insurers who don't enforce this but it's worth being aware of. The actual cost of insurance isn't much different between the two.
MPG:
On fresh oil, plugs and filters the ST170 achieved 29-30mpg for normal daily commuting with occasional heavy foot - this figure was calculated as there was no on-board computer. I understand that's a fairly good figure for these cars. I collected the Clio miles away and on the journey home (all motorway) I was getting around 43mpg (according to the on-baord computer). Now back to normal driving I'm still getting 37-38, although I expect that to drop a bit. I will calculate a better value once I've filled up the tank a few times.
Looks [personal preference]:
When I had the ST170 I thought it looked great (and still do), and was concerned the Clio would appear too soft. However, now parked on the drive it looks good. This is partly due to the fact the Clio is two years newer and it has been waxed recently! Both are great looking cars, but somehow the clio is just tidier.
Chassis / suspension:
The ST170 has always been known for a good chassis, and my experience agreed with that. It was sharp and turned in well, and the steering was precise. My car was let down a bit by cheap front tyres (didn't change them as I knew I was selling the car) but still very driveable, and comfortable for passengers. The Clio is smaller and a little more urgent in the way it handles. The steering is very sharp (but perhaps slightly too light) and I find the suspension plenty hard enough (despite not having cup chassis). I don't drive fast the majority of the time so this might not be the experience of our speedier friends.
Gearbox:
Again, the Focus (6 speed) is reputed to have a great box. It was sharp and the extra gear helped a bit for motorway driving. The shift was more positive, but did require a lot more force on the lever. The Clio's change is looser but allows for a faster change. Personally I think the Clio would benefit from a 6th for motorway driving but people may disagree with that. I also find that 1st in the clio is a bit short, but again its just preference.
Power / torque:
No contest. As I read somewhere on a Focus forum: "I don't know where the 170bhp goes but it's nowhere near the wheels". The Focus can rev nice and high but has little power or torque low down. Even at the top end it still fails to excite. It is a competent 2l engine, but not much more so than any other 1800 - 2000cc NA petrol. Overall disappointing, and so cannot justify the insurance and running cost. I am willing to concede I may have owned an example at the lower end of the power scale (I understand that Foci naturally vary in output a fair bit from the factory), but still not that impressed. The Clio is lighter which partly explains why it performs better but it is inherently a more powerful and torquey engine. The power is also delivered (silghtly) lower down the rev range. It picks up much more quickly and doesn't force hooligan driving just to get a smile.
Interior:
Difficult as both cars had their fair share of rattles! The Focus was a bit tired inside as the previous owner didnt keep it clean, but it felt solid enough. Given that it was a 9 year old car the interior wasn't bad at all. I don't much like renault interiors in general, and the clio is no exception. There is a lot of dull grey plastic and an unexciting AC/head unit. The seats however look great in an understated way. Both cars suffered from odd driving positions - the Focus seat wouldn't go low enough so I felt like I was driving a bus, and the Clio's steering wheel is too large. You get used to either though.
Verdict:
Much happier with the clio than the focus, and can justify the high cost of insurance/tax whereas I couldnt with the Focus. I will update this post as and when I think of other things or faults (do ro don't!) occur. Let me know if you have any questions anyway.
