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.
New versus old. Continued.
- Thread starter Clio V6 2004
- Start date
Nurse, up the dosage for The Jesus.
He really is sounding quite ill.
PS
New beats old 99 times out of 100.
Even if a Williams is a very good car and close to the 182. It is the exception to the rule. 1982 or 1992 cars dont hold a candle to the latest stuff.
Not as good as the 182 but it puts up a good effort.
My thing is new versus old in general. New is way better.
In whos view?
Ive yet to see a review where the Williams, purely as a drivers car, didnt come out on top.
[Edited by Daz on 18 July 2004 at 6:07pm]
The reason I ask is purely so I dont look like an idiot.. saying the Williams always comes out on top, when it doesnt.. but in all the reviews Ive seen/heard about, this is the case..
Why is the 182 better than the Willy?
Well because you cant buy a new Willy. Reason being that they pollute and therefore dont meet current emissions laws and Renault dont want to sell cars that kill their occupents in what by todays standards are relatively minor accidents.
A new vs old discussion is therefore rather vague, silly and pointless.
Better to discuss which car was the best in its day in comparison to the other cars that were available at that time. Both the Willy and the 182 beat their main rivals so its a draw. However both lose to the Mk1 Golf GTi.
Not bein able to buy one and dyin if you crash it does have a detrimental effect on the driving experience for me personally but others are quite happy to overlook those minor flaws
I hear the expression "drivers car" a lot but it seems to cover a small focused area of attributes....and these attributes depend on who is using the term.
Is a Caterham Superlight a drivers car or a top of the range luxury Jag? Depends on the driver I guess. I think most people would say the Caterham best fits the term including myself but perhaps "raw undiluted driving experience" is a far more accurate definition. If we go for that then yeah we should probably be talking about the Cup Vs the Williams as the 182 is compromised by luxuries and many an older car will come out on top.
Quote: Originally posted by Clio V6 2004 on 17 July 2004
You clearly have a problem differentiating between opinion and fact.
Yes you must be right the new Clio looks so much better I was wrong all along
No Id feel glad that I didnt own one of those ugly new things!Quote: Originally posted by 182 sport on 18 July 2004
Park your car next to a new clio and the only car that will look the bag of sh*te is yours.Park next to a 172/182 and you will feel sh*te!
Park a 16v next to a new one and I know which looks mean and which looks a big girls blouse
Anyway this is boring now so Ill leave. Old vs new, tables vs chairs. Who gives a f**k
The Clio Williams is the best Hot Hatch of all time. According to nearly all the magazines articles Ive read. It has been hinted, by one driver, that the 182 might be better. A bit inconclusive. Ive nevr driven a Williams so cant say whether or not that is true.
Seriously, I think we should all write in to Evo and get them to do a head to head test of all the Hot renaults ( Williams, 16v, 172 mks 1,2 and Cup, 182 and V6). They obviously love the Williams and the 182 (and they loved all the 172 variants that came before it) they might go for it?? What do you think??
"Thats crap though as I have seen people killed from what would be termed relatively small accidents on Modern cars and seen more sewrious accidents in older cars where people have walked away. Luck of the draw"
Hmm there is a school of thought that says in order to achieve high scores in the NCAP tests which take place at 40mph the newer cars are built stronger and stiffer than before. In a far slower crash at say 20mph the old car will deform and absorb more energy. The driver could therefore walk away uninjured where as the driver of a modern car that wont "give" as much in the collision could be more likely to suffer from whiplash.
I dont however see how this could lead to someone in a modern car dying in accident that they would have survived in an older car.
In a higher speed impact the 40mph frontal impact tests used by ENCAP clearly show that you can walk away with minor injuries from an accident that would result in serious injuries or death in an older vehicle.
Where my life (or risk of permanent disability) is concerned I would rather play the odds than go for "luck of the draw" any day. I think everyone should remember that when buying a car and balance it up against "the best drive".
Ive just skipped from the first page, so excuse me if Im moving things backward.
Im one of those who genuinely was considering replacing my 16V and then my Williams with a 172/Cup/182. A bit of perspective on the "would you have a Williams or a 182" question then:
At the time, I chose a Williams over a 172/Cup when I sold my old Valver. There were admittedly a few thousand in it, but not that much. I also had a similar choice when I sold my Williams. In the end, I couldnt be satisfied by the newer models and left the Renault fold (although in their defence I dont have a hot hatch any more).
In reality, a lot of the 16V/Williams crew will have funded their cars by cash - avoiding the finance that would make a 172/182 possible. Im one of those. I still cant justify buying a new(ish) car on the grounds of depreciation. I certainly wouldnt like to borrow money to fund depreciation either.
So, for a new (or newish) car to tempt me, it would have to be absolutely stunning and depreciation proof. YES, if Renault slap on a 2.2 bottom end onto a stripped out 182, beef up the suspension, give it a distinctive colour scheme, bonnet bulge and misleading name... and Id buy a BRAND NEW one!!! A modern-day Williams - thats what I want.
Interestingly, the history of my old Willy showed that it sold at £12k after 3 years - having been bought for a little over £13k new!! Beat that!!
Only because there was less competition when the williams was built.Now theres loads of competion so its bound to be copied off many other manufactures.Where as the williams was a new breed with the golf gti.They were the starting point... and look now wher we are 172s 182s V6 clios its all good
FN2 Type R +MK6 Golf
If you could choose between the new willy with 150 bhp and normal headlights like candals and seats like deckchars.....Or you could choose the 182 with xenons,half leather,climate,a.b.s,and ~~~ the trimings and the 182 was over a second faster to 60mph what would you choose.
No disrespect the willy is fast but is old in its design,it still goes well but not aswell as the 182
ian
Quote: Originally posted by ian 172 on 19 July 2004
If you could choose between the new willy with 150 bhp and normal headlights like candals and seats like deckchars.....Or you could choose the 182 with xenons,half leather,climate,a.b.s,and ~~~ the trimings and the 182 was over a second faster to 60mph what would you choose.
Yes.. thats why I would have a 182.. but, the extra trimmings dont make it a better performer.
The second faster to 60 isnt really that accurate anyway, as you have an extra gear change..
The 182 is the better car. Fact.
But where other makers are concerned there is a gulf in ability, not just a measurable amount, as in Williams versus 182.
How many Williams were made anyway?
How mass production was it, in fact?
The lack of knowledge on this forum is phenominal . Its impossible to have a reasonable debate with people who dont know anything about vehicle dynamics .
Also as much as I love the Williams , a 205 GTI still has better handling and steering feel than just about any FWD car ever made barring maybe an Integra Type R.
Looks like this thread needs renaming to "Cut me rusty arches out and give me one more lap for the good old days"
Anyway, getting back to the Old vs New discussion. Take the V6 for example. Lets just say you happen to be a great big fat lard arse. Sit in the MK1 V6 and your going to look like a lump of suet which adds nothing to the cars performance.
Now then getting right up to date with the New version. If you sit the same great big dough ball in a MK2 V6, guess what?
Your still going to look like a lump of suet which adds nothing to the cars performance.
Just one small (or large) example to argue that New can sometimes be no better than Old.
To qoute my BIG Sister recently, "Nooooo!! Dont go gettin one of those silly Clios again, you know I cant get in the stupid thing, and all you did was moan about how much slower it went with me in it"
So. Just to confirm once again. Old is sometimes no better than New, and of course Big always knows Better
Quote: Originally posted by Clio V6 2004 on 19 July 2004
The 182 is the better car. Fact.
But where other makers are concerned there is a gulf in ability, not just a measurable amount, as in Williams versus 182.
How many Williams were made anyway?
How mass production was it, in fact?
*lol* Is it f**k. In your opinion it is. Id prefer a 16v/Williams anyday. But as I say you obviously have no concept of the differences between fact and opinion.
I really am leaving and not coming back this time
Yes I have.
I get my opinions from lots of experience, which is the best way.
I have driven the Williams, by the way, since this debate began and it is good. Better than I thought it would be. But it is not as good as a 182 and indeed the owner could not keep up with my step-sons 182 when they went head to head, either.
But a 1992 Mondeo is not as good as a 2004 one, just like a Capri 2.8 is not as good as my Clio V6 Mark 2.
Newer IS better. It is called PROGRESS. TECHNOLOGY. IMPROVEMENT.
You compare an ancient capri against a brand new clio v6...erm, theyre completley unrelated designs - thats hardly realistic now is it?
You had one driver in one car against another in a completely different car - erm...thats not really an accurate measurment in the least now is it?
You started this debate without even having had a drive in a Williams - that hardly made you justified in some of your posts now did it?
I think you should quit while youre ahead...or not m8...as you clearly have no right to comment. Even now, the fact that you have only just driven a williams, is hardly an unbiased view; given a car you spend 100% of your time driving versus 30 mins experience of a different car its obvious which you will choose!
No offense m8 but i dont think a day is suffient to soak up what the williams is about. For example i had a 1.2 16v courtesy car for a week and despite how quick i thought i drove it, itd be nowhere near how quick an owner could get it to go. Fact is, without owning a car or having it for an extended period youre never going to be able to exploit it to its best....obviously it follows that if you cant do that then you cant really make definative comments like A is better than B.
As for being more entitled to comment, i drive my sisters 172 quite frequently and own a 16v - both of the cars at the subject of this thread and the last so id say im more entitled TBH. Also, my last 5 cars have all been renaults (2 R5s, 2 Clios and a Megane) so im also fairly well informed on how progress has affects the renault range over the years....
