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!

opinions on 1.6 16v clio

im saving the pennies for a new car and toying between a 1.8 16v and a 1.6 16v clio.

what would you lot go for?

i really do like the new clio and just wondered how quick they are?

what in terms of tuning can u do to them(suppose like tuning any other car)

and what models are there

ive been looking at 1.6si(are they 16v or not)

any help appreciated

cheers delboy

Do you mean a choice between the Clio 91-96 Clio 1.8 16v (konwn as 16v or Valver) and a 98-00 1.6 16v (later RSi)? If thats the case, then youre really looking at two totally different kettle of fish.

The Clio 16v was developed from Group A rallying - where Renault Sport still holds the record on many courses with the 16v/Williams for the fastest FWD non-turbo car. This is why youve got pumped up arches etc. They changed to use 2.0s in 1993 - hence the Williams homologation special. The Clio 16v was basically the hottest hatch of the early to mid 1990s and was only overshadowed by its Williams cousin (which was a special edition of the 16v).

The Clio 2 1.6 16v is not really in the same league - good as it is. Performance-wise it gets blown into the weeds by the original 16v, as it weighs more and its 1.6 is less tuned.

Basically the 172 is the replacement for the 16v - not the 1.6 16v/RSi. The 1.6 is a fine car, but not a hard-core hot hatch.
  clio 20v

clio 2 1.6 16v ok could just do wiv a 2.0 engine lol

clio1 1.8 16v lots of fun bit harder tracking down a decent one and would prob cost ya more to run than the clio 2

but i kno wot id rather have!


you may want a newer car, cause lets face it renaults build quality arent great, a valver will sound like a box of bolts on the move lol

Hmmm...I kind of see where youre coming from. But if youd seen my Valver, and many other absolute minters that have been pampered, then you might get a different impression!

Most 16vs and Williams are run by true hot hatch enthusiasts and their condition will reflect that. They are maintenance-intensive though, so the odd few have been let to rot.

I dont think anybody would call many of the Valvers here a box of bolts!:D

not slating the valver as i think they are gorgeous in all the colour except silver:), just saying that even if it well care for, theys always one or two annoying squeaks

as for tuning potential, the 1.6 is a BEAST....

the valver - or more correctly - 1.8 16v.. (1.8 was due to taxation bands for company cars...... (not... unfortunately.. group anything rallying.... )

Some hide behind the term valver or vulva as it will probably mean the same lol....

at the end of the day, its a 1.8 twin cam...

not a 2 litre, not cos reno wanted a better model, simply cos it was in the tax band....

So, the vulva is a compromise, plain n simple, and the willy is the epitomy of the breed.....

Jeeeeeez, freud would have a field day with the overtones lol...

then, you have the evo 2002, the 172..

but its in such a different league that its not fair to use as a comparison..


i wouldnt even entertain the idea of owning anything less then 2ltrs,

Joe we all know you dont like the 16v/williams (wierdo) what car would you run from that era?

My God Joe! Havent you ever seen a 16v in the flesh? Well, actually, if youve seen a Willy then thatll do...

Yup, 1.8 was a convenient engine size, and an off-the-shelf job from the 19 16v. But theres no doubting that in 1990-1992 Renault were running a N/A 1.8 for their Group A rallying efforts. They switched to 2.0 in 1993 - hence the Williams. Read the CCC article on the main Cliosport website!

Lofty: your 2.0 principle is a well and good now isnt it;)
  2005 Audi A3 3.2 Quattro

If I lived by loftys principles, then Id never drive new cars

My first was a 1.8 8v (70kW / 150Nm)

My next was a 1.6 8v(75kW / 138Nm)

My current is a 1.4 16v (70kW / 127Nm)

Quote: Originally posted by Ben H on 24 October 2002

The Clio 2 1.6 16v is not really in the same league - good as it is. Performance-wise it gets blown into the weeds by the original 16v, as it weighs more and its 1.6 is less tuned.

Basically the 172 is the replacement for the 16v - not the 1.6 16v/RSi. The 1.6 is a fine car, but not a hard-core hot hatch.
Sorry mate - I have a 1600 16V with near 140 BHP which pisses over most valvers I know here in Northern Ireland and is about a second of a 172 (dont argue now we own both, 1600 and Cup - My Fiancee and me) - but as standard with 14 inch rims it held its own with my mates 96 valver with its pipercross induction and full exhaust and 17s. I agree its not a hardcore hot-hatch but neither is the Valver - the williams was the crowning glory of the hothatch market back then and the 172/Cupis now. The 1.8 16V and the 1.6 16V (both 16 valves as most people seem to forget but with an added 0.2 litres - hummm) were just tasters for the real Renault hot - hatches.
  Renault Laguna Coupe

A pal of mine has a 1.6 Dynamique+ (2001 model). Its a flyer! Id have no hesitation in getting one - theyre great value for money (less than 10 grand new), come with all the kit and go really well. Remember were talking about less than 10k on the road - its brilliant value!

Cupsize - you seem to have a very nice 1.6 there. I dont for a moment question that your experience with your mates 16v is valid, but would ask what condition that particular 16v is in. The book acceleration and in-gear times for an old 16v are very fast - much better than most modern hot hatches of the hot hatch revival era.

I think youll find that the 16v was the hottest hatch on the market for some time. I think a little mechanical investigation will reveal just how markedly different a 16v is from the normal Clio 1 line up...

Arches to accommodate wider tracks; bulge to allow space for inlet manifold; vent to cool exhaust manifold; enlarged discs (and all round); different callipers, diffs, gbox, engine mounts; uprated cooling system and electical system; oil cooler; markedly different rear torsion bar suspension; lower all round by -38mm; reserve fuel tank; oil pressure, temperature and level gauges; very different seats...

The list goes on. Id like to suggest with all due respect that the 1.6 16v is - bar the engine and transmission - not so different from a 1.4, certainly not to the extent the old 16v is from the rest of the range.

The 16v was the 172 of the old range - the RSi 1.8 was the warm hatch. The Williams was a limited-edition homologation special - it addressed the Clio 16vs main failing: torque at lower revs.

The 16v was the M3 of the range - the Williams the M3 CSL, if you like.

Williams: 0-60 in 7.7, 30-70 in 6.9, top whack 133.

16: 0-60 in 7.7, 30-70 in 7.1, top whack 130.

The Williams is quicker to a greater degree than the figures here would suggest due to a flatter torque spread that the 16v.

Williams, 16V, Rsi......

V6, 172CUP/172, 1.6 16V

Williams was not limited - it was top of the range and top of its class

The Williams was a collaberation with Williams and Renault just like now the 172 was the first collaberation with reanault and their motorsport division RenaultSport, so me thinks the Vulva was the top of the reanult range until the Williams came out just like the new 1600 16V is the top of the new clio range before u go into Renault Sport territory - the same engineers who worked on producing the Williams then turned their greasy hands to the 172 (it was renaultsport divison all along who made the Williams - Williams was the name that sold it - it may as well have been Renaultsport 2.016V Williams/172. Period
  clio 20v

you cant compare a 1.6 16v clio2 to a 1.8 16 v clio 1

i KNOW when i see a valver it stands out

a 1.6 16v was just not in the same league i went to look at one wanting a newer car but valver just lot better i wasnt impressed with it

and monk not impressed wiv ya my valver is silver im not speakin to ya no more


Williams Clios were strictly limited in production. They were special editions of the 16v. Willy 1 was an edition of 400 UK cars. Willy 2 was about 400ish and Willy 3 was about 390ish. Only 1200ish UK 1, 2 & 3 cars in total.

The Clio Williams was not actually developed by, nor in conjunction with Williams. It was developed by Renault Sport - as was the Clio 16v. Dont ask me why - see the CCC article on the main Cliosport page for elaboration on this.

Just read the article - it outlines whats the same and whats different between the Williams and 16v.

The Williams was clearly the top of the pile. But it was to the 16v what the 172 Cup is to the 172 - in essence.

Stubod - we discussed this back at the start of the year - i think its on a few old threads cant remember exactly where though? Thought u were changing ur motor?