New versus old. Continued.

[Clio V6 2004]

Ten year old cars dont just mean dated technology and less power. It means worn components and just changing the brakes and other regular running-gear stuff and giving the engine a freshen-up will not prevent it being less efficient, on performance and handling, compared to when it was new or almost new.

A USA motorcycle magazine did some research on this. A Honda Super Blackbird was dyno tested new and then at 5000 miles, then at 10000 and later at 50000 miles.

Serviced as per the handbook, it gave the most power at 10000 miles, but 7% less at 50000 miles.

Also, the handling had suffered and lap times were poorer.

 

[Clio V6 2004]

Quote: Originally posted by blaupunkt on 17 July 2004


im sure i read on this forum that there will be no new renault sport released next year and the new model will be released in 2006, im sure someone will correct me if im wrong, so all this 192 talk is total bolloxs and pure guesswork.



also has anyone noticed how very very simulor Clio V6 2004 and 182 sport posting styles are wording, use of words etc.. not 1 person using 2 accounts is it <SCRIPT language=javascript>

I am NOT 182 sport, that I can assure you. We drive different cars, fgs!

But, unlike a few on here, he does seem to know what he is talking about. I know the odd thing about cars, after a quarter of a million miles of driving, too.......

The next Clio will have around 190 bhp, Renault said so themselves, but whether it is 2005 or 2006 I do not know.

 

[182 Clio]

I have kept out of this debate, since pretty much the start.

OF COURSE, cars get better with time.

OK, they get heavier and more luxurious in some cases and, after so many years of performance gains, improvements will be marginal from now on, with the petrol engine in its present form, but 1984 cars or 1994 cars are inferior, 99 times out of 100, to current stuff. Fact.

The Williams was and is a very good car. But most stuff from that year and before cannot hold a candle to todays cars.

A friend with an immaculate 5 GT turbo drove my 182, a week or so ago and could not believe how much better it was, all round than his car. Sure, he loves his car, one of the best 5 GTs still on the road, 61000 genuine miles, fsh, immaculate, but it felt like a loose cannon by comparison to the newer car, he said and the extras as standard that the 182 had, he could not believe.

He is getting a 182 Cup in a month or so, his order is in!

 

[Mark@Ritchspeed]

Will add my twopence worth . The new Clios are undoubtedly faster , grippier and brake harder than a Willy . What they do NOT have is the same playable chassis and the extra fun factor and adjustability that you find in the older cars .

The comparison is very similar when you compare an older Mitsubishi Evo2 to a later Evo6 . The 6 doesnt pull any of the buttons for me as the car is doing all the work , whereas the 2 with its turbo lag and lack of electronic trickery in the chassis makes you work to get the best out of it .

The Williams is the same in this respect , but it begs to be driven at 110% all the time and responds well to being driven on the edge . Have tried a 172 and Cup recently and to be honest , the whole chassis set-up is boring in comparison to the Williams . It is a better car all round until you go hunting for that extra 5% of agility and feedback which you only find when driving at the limits in the older machine .

To be honest I dont think the later Clios are any different from all other manufacturers cars . They are all faster etc etc . but have lost that all important driver involvement slightly .

 

[u33db]

Quote: Originally posted by ian 172 on 16 July 2004


Some of you can only afford half and i think thats why people get so defensive,because you paid half doesnt mean it has twice as much character..Im not pointing that at anyone in particular but lets face it if money was no object then 99% of us wouldnt even be on this forum.Some older cars like the willy can have lots of charm but thats it,charm and nostalgia can only take you so far........The williams has bucket loads of this and that along with the budget is what people hold on to.And lets not forget they are not bullet proof.If there was a huge divide between the reliability of a willy to a 182/cup then the aurgument would be over.People will reply that they own a willy and nothing has gone wrong,i too can say my 02 172 has never broken once either,as i said before they are both cut from the same cloth...~~~ that went into the williams was resourced for the 172/cup and 182...They didnt just throw away the mold.The succes the williams had was astonishing when it came out and it re-wrote the books as we have ~~~ read but now they are saying the same with the 182...Phill bennett holds the nurbergring record for a production car and knows his stuff,hes been racing for years now and says the 182 is the finest FWD car he has ever driven...That must mean something.......Just because weve spent more money than you doesnt mean weve got more to proove...Its just that things do move on...The clio williams tested in evo 2 yrs ago had 25k on the clock so when the 172 outbraked it and pulled more G in a corner i think this was a fair example of two evenly matched cars with similar miles.....

Both great cars but progress is progress however much anything costs or however new cars are......The williams is still great though

Regards,ian

Was gonna reply to this last night but a few bottles of wine got the better of my ability to type! Anyway, here goes;

Ok, i could reasonably afford any car out there atm (be it skyline, bmw, clio v6 etc) but, for certain reasons, i have chosen my 16v. For me it sums up a fantastic car thats untainted by modern standards - i.e a "pure" driving car and nothing else. The looks it has are second to very few becuase everyone who sees it knows its something a bit different to your average 1.2 whether they know about cars or not. I feel this doesnt not apply to the new breed of clios and im sure most people would agree, regardless of what they own. Now is it a better car than the new breed? Well, theres no denying the 172/182s are a great new design, slightly quicker, safer etc but IMO they dont have the above characteristics which has made me lean towards the 16v. As ive said there isnt even that much of a gap between old and new and any there is can be sorted with a few mods and still weigh in cheaper. I think the point is all of these cars are great - this is shown by the amount of people who own both - but neither have all the qualities to make one completely better than the other.

As for the money no object point raised above, fair point. If i had my choice again, i wouldnt have bought the 16v but i wouldnt have bought a 172/182 either...

 

[182 Clio]

Nowt queer as folk, they say!!

Then again somewhere, I guess, someone, will prefer a 1973 Porsche Turbo to a 2003 one.

200bhp versus 400 bhp.

150 mph versus 190 mph.

Average handling versus incredible handling.

Basic versus fully equipped.



But it is obvious which car is best.

 

[Clio V6 2004]

Agreed, yes 182 Clio.

Newer IS better in MOST ways, MOST of the time.

People get carried away where the basic 16v is concerned, as do some people with their XR3i Fords, believing that they still rule the roost.

Escort XR3i 1987 versus Escort RS2000 1997. Two cars I have personally owned and modified.

NO COMPARISON. The newer car was far, far better and it is the same with Renaults.

 

[Rasclart]

I own an old 16V and have to say I am in the position to buy a new car if wanted as many on here know.

I persoanlly think that the older clios are put together better (comapring to 172) HOWEVER I would if givent he choice have a 172/182 any day over my car. Maybe I am soft but I like the toys, interior etc etc and of course the warranty.

I do love my valver however its time to move on but one thing for surew I am not buying another renualt for now


[Edited by Liquid_ICE on 17 July 2004 at 12:19pm]

 

[BossCup]

What a great thread, and still nice and civil too

As above I think few would argue that newer is better in most ways ..broadly speaking. Of course there is the endless tug of war that now goes on between power and weight (all the toys and modern safety gubbins come at a price after all). I genuinely think that no manufacturer could get away with producing a Williams (or 205 GTi) in this day and age so we will just have to be grateful for the likes of the 182 and accept that its as good as were gonna get.

 

[Clio V6 2004]

I am pleased that the Clio V6 is now sorted as the Mark 2, yet raw enough still, but with niceties like climate control.

I got this instead of a Scooby or Evo, because they are too common and boring-looking, like a Cavalier with spoilers, whilst the V6 Clio is totally unique, nothing like it on Earth.

I give it nine and a half out of ten, my highest rating yet for a car.

 

[2 live]

again it depends on ur opinion of wot is better.....looks or performance....



the performance of the v6 is piss poor compared to the EVO ........i know where my money wouldve been goin .............and it would have been jap.....

again it all comes down to opinions..................most ppls opinions of the v6 that i know are the same..........yeah they are a fantastic looking car.......but not worth the money performance wise.........

like the old vs new thing............is the mini cooper of the 90s better than the mini cooper of the 60s??............safer?? same shell........faster??.........same engine.......lol........given the choice between the 2 ....i know where my ass wud be sat........yep the 60s, why?? because it epitomises the fast car thing.......think about it.....back in the day they were beatin the lotus cortinas etc........in the 90s they were beating fuk all......

much like the willy was back in the day,beatin evrything, they still there or thereabouts with most things now, but the new generation clios have to race against themselves to be in with a shout of winnin.......nuff sed lol

 

[182_blue]

Quote: Originally posted by riplash on 17 July 2004


The one reason Id choose new Clio over old ..................


warranty

yeh, exactly the same reason i buy newer cars, not just warranty but the fact that things start to go wrong on older cars and i dont want to start paying out more than is needed (i once had a series 1 rs turbo custom, it was completely mint with only 15k miles on it and was 7 years old, but it still cost me a fortune in spares etc, alot more than the car in fact, and i could have bought a 172 with what i spent on it).

so i would buy the newest and fastest car that i could afford, and newer cars are alot safer than old ones

 

[Clio V6 2004]

The Mini of 1993 was still a much better car, all round, than the first ever 63 one, head to head. Faster, better brakes, you name it. Like the 2003 Mini is much, much better than the 1993 version. Get over it.

We are not interested though, here, in how they did way back when. New versus old, sees new winning almost every time.

Scoobys and Evos look like boring repmobiles, with loads of added plastic...YUK! I have driven an FQ330 and yes, it was bloody fast, but getting that amount of power from a little engine always has its downsides.

The Clio looks twice as good and it gets its power from a gorgeous naturally-aspirated and lovely-sounding 3000cc V6, not an overstressed little engine with a bloody great turbo charger sitting on it.

 

[182 Clio]

The traction the Scoobies and Evos get with their 4wd is vast and they offer huge power now, with the flagships offering over 300 bhp.

But I agree, the Clio is far better looking, has better presence, as someone described it earlier and is rarer and far more unique. The 2 Japs look like Gary-boy saloons, with big turbos and, performance-wise, anything quicker than the Clio V6 is irrelevant on UK roads anyway.

Clio V6 every time, but getting back on topic, the Evolution 8 is way better than the first one in every department.

New beating old again, as usual.

 

[2 live]

The Mini of 1993 was still a much better car, all round, than the first ever 63 one, head to head. Faster, better brakes, you name it. Like the 2003 Mini is much, much better than the 1993 version. Get over it







the single point injection 1275 cooper of the 90s was nowhere near as fast as the twin 1 1/4 su carbed models of the 60s ............fact.....lol, the cat robbed the inj models of so much power it was unreal.....straight thru zorst of the original cooper was much freer flowing......the 7 1/2 in discs on the original cooper were well up to spec in the stoppin dept, altho a little fade was apparent, the 8.4 in discs of the 90s ones were no better........

the 90s car can be pickd up now for a couple hundred quid............the originals are stil worth a couple of grand.........fact

newer = better???????????

depends whos eyes ur looking thru

 

[Daz]

I dont agree that the 182, performance wise is better than the Williams.. the Williams always comes out on top in reviews.. against the 172, 182, V6 etc.. it also came 6th in the 10 best cars of the last decade (Evo).

Ok, I know I said Id have a 182 over a Williams - and I would.. but only because its newer and has comforts like climate control, traction control etc.. and Im a sucker for gadgets, hehe.

 

[Clio V6 2004]

The 182 is a better handling, more powerful, more torquey car, than the admittedly very good Williams. BUT...

The Clio Williams was very good indeed and relatively low-volume, so the new versus old argument shoud centre on other comparisons more, anyway.

Cortina versus Focus. I wonder which is best. DOH !

Early Cavalier versus latest Vectra. DOH!

Sierra versus new model Mondeo. DOH!



OBVIOUSLY, newer is better every time, get real.

 

[riplash]

Quote: Originally posted by Clio V6 2004 on 17 July 2004


Cortina versus Focus. I wonder which is best. DOH !

Early Cavalier versus latest Vectra. DOH!

Sierra versus new model Mondeo. DOH!

I dont understand why you compare cars with such a huge gap between production dates, when the main basis of the thread is new clio vs old.

List should say:


Mk5 Escort versus Focus.. well they sorted out the handling a bit I guess..

Early versus latest Vectra... oh, you mean they still make it in a revised form.

Early Mondeo versus new model Mondeo... oh, still making this one too then.







Anyway, why is it I see posted on internet forums (and written in the motoring press at times) that Ferrari have lost their edge.. and arent making the calibre of car that they once were?

Is this not a case of old is better than new?

 

[Rasclart]

Quote: Originally posted by Clio V6 2004 on 17 July 2004


The Mini of 1993 was still a much better car, all round, than the first ever 63 one, head to head. Faster, better brakes, you name it. Like the 2003 Mini is much, much better than the 1993 version. Get over it.

We are not interested though, here, in how they did way back when. New versus old, sees new winning almost every time.

Scoobys and Evos look like boring repmobiles, with loads of added plastic...YUK! I have driven an FQ330 and yes, it was bloody fast, but getting that amount of power from a little engine always has its downsides.

The Clio looks twice as good and it gets its power from a gorgeous naturally-aspirated and lovely-sounding 3000cc V6, not an overstressed little engine with a bloody great turbo charger sitting on it.





It isnt overstressed from the factory. What are the downsides? I would rather have an Evo over a V6 (which I do like by the way). Better built for a start. I mdont see how u can say an evo looks like a Cavalier with a wing

 

[Mark@Ritchspeed]

Clio v6 . I take it your basing your opinions on personal experiences ? Have you infact driven a 182 and a Williams on the limit ? I havent yet driven the 182 but have driven a 172 and a Cup and although they both grip better than the Willy the chassis does not handle as good as the earlier car . Lots of people confuse grip with handling .

182Clio I take it you have also driven an early Evo and an Evo 8 or are you basing your findings on what magazines say ? I have personally yet to sample an Evo8 , but the Evo2 is far more involving than the Evo6 . IMO of course .

 

[Clio V6 2004]

The point in extending the gap in years, when comparing cars, is to get the thing across better. Obviously, cars dont that often improve overnight, by massive amounts, be sensible.

Everything from televisons to mobile phones, computers to cars and motorcycles, have got better as time has gone on.

I have just bought a Triumph Rocket 111 motorcycle for the summer. Tell me a ten year old bike to match it.

I have just sold a Yamaha R1 2003. Tell me a bike from the 80s to match that.

The Williams is a rare car, that can get close to its later versions, but in nearly every other case, newer is better, is more powerful, is bigger and better brakes, is everything that makes a car better.

I know because I have been there and done it, got the t-shirt, etc.

32 cars and 26 motorcycles.

 

[182 sport]

man:I really like that car over there!! ------------------>points at the 182 Sport

salesman:yes its pure beauty!

man:bet that can shift, how much we talkin?

salesman:well before you check that out have a look at this------------------> points to Williams

man:and

salesman: thats the Williams,its a 94 plate.only has 74,000 on the clock & 1 lady owner

man:74000miles!!

salesman:yes

man:i dont want that old thing there, I aint gonna be impressin nobody driving that barry boy motor-especially with its gold wheels. I want this brand spanking new version here.

salesmanam. ive been trying to shift that car for weeks!

 

[richy]

man:I really like that car over there!! ------------------>points at the clio williams

salesman:yes its pure beauty!

man:bet that can shift, how much we talkin?

salesman:well before you check that out have a look at this------------------> points to 182(cup options)

man:and

salesman: thats a 182 cup options, comes with anthracite alloys, and a little splitter and few other bits,

man:anthracite alloys!!!

salesman:yes

man:i dont want that thing there, I aint gonna be impressin nobody driving that barry boy motor-especially with its anthracite wheels and tiny splitter, ill have the williams

salesmanam. ive been trying to shift that car for weeks!

 

[182 sport]

continued



mannly joking u fool,give me the 182 in blue

 

[richy]

continued



mannly joking u fool, give me a CTR instead

 

[182 sport]

CTR960 Fireblade

 

[richy]

haha

 

[Clio V6 2004]

ANNOUNCEMENT ! CAR BUYERS !

"(Whichever) Motor Company Limited" are pleased to announce their new range for 2005.

Our sports hatchback, is to be given less power, via a less efficient intake system, and weightier internal engine components, which will knock about 15% off the power output. The brakes and suspension will be downgraded and the wheels will drop a size in diameter and width. We are also removing the climate control to save weight. Many other recent improvements are being reversed.

The new diesel saloon, meanwhile, will have 30 bhp less and 40 ft/lbs less torque, the cabin will be noisier and the engine less fuel efficient than the current model. Again, many detail improvements are being reversed.

A full explanation of all the changes to all our 2005 cars can be found on our website, but we hope we have whetted your appetite, with the changes being made to our 2005 cars, changes decided on after discovering that old cars are actually better than modern ones.

Without your input, we would have never realised, so the company wishes to thank all fanatics of old cars for allowing us to see the light.

Faithfully,

Managing Director.

 

[182 sport]

class ^ ^ ^ ^

 

[Ian_182]

Quote: Origin~~~y posted by Clio V6 2004 on 17 July 2004


ANNOUNCEMENT ! CAR BUYERS !

"(Whichever) Motor Company Limited" are pleased to announce their new range for 2005.

Our sports hatchback, is to be given less power, via a less efficient intake system, and weightier internal engine components, which will knock about 15% off the power output. The brakes and suspension will be downgraded and the wheels will drop a size in diameter and width. We are also removing the climate control to save weight. Many other recent improvements are being reversed.

The new diesel saloon, meanwhile, will have 30 bhp less and 40 ft/lbs less torque, the cabin will be noisier and the engine less fuel efficient than the current model. Again, many detail improvements are being reversed.

A full explanation of ~~~ the changes to ~~~ our 2005 cars can be found on our website, but we hope we have whetted your appetite, with the changes being made to our 2005 cars, changes decided on after discovering that old cars are actu~~~y better than modern ones.

Without your input, we would have never realised, so the company wishes to thank ~~~ fanatics of old cars for ~~~owing us to see the light.

Faithfully,

Managing Director.

very good..lmao

ian

 

[182 Clio]

Brilliant and this should shut up the ones who dream on about their old bangers once and for all.

Superb, mate!

 

[Daz]

The problem is, the Williams is still regarded as the best hot hatch ever.. no matter what other companies have done since then. Its not about newer, quicker blah blah blah.. its about the car as a whole.

Why is the Williams still "The Ultimate Clio" if the new Clios are so much better, and quicker, and better at braking and BLAH!

The only thing, according to this thread is the cheapness of it.. and when its reviewed as a drivers car, its disregarded.
So, why is it still "The Best Hot Ever", "The Ultimate Clio", "6th Best Car of the last Decade" when its such a "shed", "slow",and an "old banger".

[Edited by Daz on 17 July 2004 at 6:40pm]

 

[word_easy]

Why do people think the new Clios have less charactor? I dont understand this at all.

When the old Clios first arrived did everyone say they have no charactor compared to the Renault 5s???

 

[Daz]

Quote: Originally posted by word_easy on 17 July 2004


When the old Clios first arrived did everyone say they have no charactor compared to the Renault 5s???

No, they were too busy winning rallies with the Williams to care.

 

[Mark@Ritchspeed]

Lol . Still its always fun overtaking all the superior 172s , 182s etc time and again on track in my old banger with its standard engine .

 

[Clio V6 2004]

The Clio Williams is an isolated case. Not as good as the 182, but closer to it, than most cars are, to those made ten years later.

NEW VERSUS OLD, in general, was the thread I began.

In almost every case, new IS better.

EVO magazine rate the Clio 182 the best hot hatch ever, by the way. They also chose it to represent the hot hatch category in their performance car giant test, ahead of cars like the Civic Type R.

The Williams is class, but most old cars are just that. OLD.

Outdated, old cars, like old computers are outdated, old computers.

 

[Clio V6 2004]

Quote: Originally posted by word_easy on 17 July 2004


Why do people think the new Clios have less charactor? I dont understand this at all.

When the old Clios first arrived did everyone say they have no charactor compared to the Renault 5s???

The same reason they say steam trains have more character than diesel and diesel than electric.

Old and decrepid, somehow means more character, I am told. Like a Vincent motorcycle has more character than my Triumph 2300cc motorcycle.

XOLLOB. (Re-arrange.)

Give me technology and modern design every time.

 

[u33db]

"Not as good as the 182"

so why does just about everyone quote the williams as one of the best handling hatches of all time but not the 172/182? Indeed far more people have been seen to mod the handling of a 172 than compared to a williams. Even in this and the other thread there have been quotes from 172 owners that a williams would be "quicker on a give and take road".

Everyone accepts that the 182 has more power, more toys, safer etc but what i dont get is you reluctance to accept that the williams is superior handling wise. A great chassis can help outweigh performance deficits and this has been proven by other manufacters not just with renault and the willaims - eg 205 GTI for one.

Whats wrong with you man? Credit where credit is due surely; the williams still cuts it today because of an ahead of its time design, and in the same way, the 182/172 cut with the best because they have moved the power/safety/comfort targets for other hatches way higher.

 

[Martin]

Quote: Originally posted by Clio V6 2004 on 17 July 2004


I know because I have been there and done it, got the t-shirt, etc.

32 cars and 26 motorcycles.

Let me guess youve done around 250,000 miles in those cars and on those bikes? What do want a medal? You dont have to tell us about your driving experience every five minutes!

 

[Dash]

Quote: Originally posted by Martin. on 17 July 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Clio V6 2004 on 17 July 2004I know because I have been there and done it, got the t-shirt, etc.32 cars and 26 motorcycles. [/QUOTE] You dont have to tell us about your driving experience every five minutes!



I think maybe he does