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.

RS Clio 2006 - why no turbo



  R26


It seems to me that lots of new cars in the clios class are coming out with turbos etc. Why is it Renault is slow to respond? I take it having a turbo in a production clio is a no go on stock models. Dont know much about engines etc but was wondering if anyone could tell me why Renault havent developed one for the clio. It just seems that the clio is so limited in what can be achieved post production that the few bhp gain to be had is outweighed by the significant cost.

Anyone to enlighten me to why we are missing out ?
 


Dude, I find the RS clio (172 in particular) superb in 5th gear over 70-80. As I get near 90 the powerband kicks in again. How fast do you want to go?
 
  R26


warp speed 10 :D

No its not about the speed I want to go its about the acceleration I want on tap at higher speeds. if you put your foot down in 5th at 70 to overtake it;s not exactly breathtaking is it.
 


turbos suck... even though my next car will have one I hate the waiting for boost feeling then WHACK, all that torque and power at once... yawn... a properly tuned N/A car is always a better drive imo. Turbo is cheating anyway.

And ESCOBAR, that why you change gear in an N/A car... it doesnt take long to change from 5th to 3rd trust me! lol
 


The Megane has a Turbo.

How many direct rivals in the Clios class have a 2.0 16v lump available?
 
  MKIII 138


Quote: Originally posted by Clewsy on 27 June 2005


Dude, I find the RS clio (172 in particular) superb in 5th gear over 70-80. As I get near 90 the powerband kicks in again. How fast do you want to go?
thats the big question. for some the speed will never be enough. but hark back to your parents old cars and your first car and compared to those the 172 is a rocket ship well its certainly faster than my ol 1.0 polo. I think people are used to speed now.. but honestly overtaking safely doesnt require more than 115bhp in a clio in a saloon 140/150hp is fine and will do a 9sec to 60.

just remember 182hp in a clio !! and 200hp in the next.
 
  E90


Im in line to be one of the first to get one, as I have to change my company car at the same time it comes out, Lease companies dont like turbo charged cars more stuff to fix if they go wrong, so Im happy its non turbo
 


I heard somewhere on here that there was a 172 with a turbo on it, and it pushed the bhp up to 240.

Is that true? Cuz that would be kinda cool
 
  R26


Lot of stiff competition coming out now - i.e

Corsa VXR - Turbo 180 bhp 1.6

"The fastest model will be the VXR, built to take on Renault’s next Renaultsport Clio. This is expected midway through 2007 and should comfortably eclipse the 180bhp of the Meriva VXR, itself due next January."

quote autocar


New Smart Braebus 180 bhp tuned turbo - (6.9 0-60) 1.6 claims to be the fastest in its class (not the roadster)



Dont know about you lot but I cant be arsed with boy racers in Corsas trying to noise you up.
 
  tiTTy & SV650


Quote: Originally posted by ESCOBAR on 27 June 2005

ample yes - but my supermini is only running 182 bhp and lacks the oomph at high speed i.e. above 70
put that down to lack of torque rather than lack of turbo, buy a diesel
 
  Meg on pistonheads £6995


The 205 Turbo in the new Laguna GT would be perfect.

same as Meg engine, but retuned for more low and mid range.

in-gear times would be interesting!
 

Tom

ClioSport Club Member
  EV (s)


ive done 142mph in my 182 and i was surprised at how little time it took to get there.

so lack of oommph is not really a way to describe the current clio

how many 140mph superminis have you seen?
 
  MKIII 138


i agree with the tough competion comment..

although gheys will slap a superchip + zorst + dumpvalve on the new turbo corsa it will still probably be lighter than a 182 and with those inevitable chav mods will be faster and produce near 200hp

same for the new mitsubishi turbo + smart turbo hothatches
 

Iain C

ClioSport Club Member


Quote: Originally posted by ESCOBAR on 27 June 2005


Lot of stiff competition coming out now - i.e

Corsa VXR - Turbo 180 bhp 1.6

"The fastest model will be the VXR, built to take on Renault’s next Renaultsport Clio. This is expected midway through 2007 and should comfortably eclipse the 180bhp of the Meriva VXR, itself due next January."

quote autocar


New Smart Braebus 180 bhp tuned turbo - (6.9 0-60) 1.6 claims to be the fastest in its class (not the roadster)



Dont know about you lot but I cant be arsed with boy racers in Corsas trying to noise you up.
Not that much competition then.

The 182 already outshines them.
 
  Dirty E91


Quote: Originally posted by ESCOBAR on 27 June 2005


warp speed 10 :D

No its not about the speed I want to go its about the acceleration I want on tap at higher speeds. if you put your foot down in 5th at 70 to overtake it;s not exactly breathtaking is it.
youd want a TDI then?
 


Im liking the look of the new Astra VXR as advertised in last weeks Auto Express, 240 brake, 0-60 in 6.1 secs, 152mph top end, all for £1500 more than what they reckon the new RS will cost.... good argument for a turbo?
 


but all those comparing the clio to the astra need to look at the size of the cars

the clio is a supermini and its vauxhall rival is the corsa, not the astra

if the clio is close to the astra whilst being n/a, surely thats a great advertisement for renault?
 
  tiTTy & SV650


Quote: Originally posted by jayxx83 on 27 June 2005

i suppose the difference will be that the RS C will actually handle!
VXR not mean Lotus developed? Id expect them to handle too
 
  MKIII 138


Quote: Originally posted by rory182 on 27 June 2005


Quote: Originally posted by jayxx83 on 27 June 2005

i suppose the difference will be that the RS C will actually handle!
VXR not mean Lotus developed? Id expect them to handle too
not on the 19" optional wheels.
 
  Elise/VX220/R26


a turbo clio would not sit in the current model range as it would be quicker than the 225 which ould be no good at all ;)

Maybe in the future they will do a 260 megane and a 225 clio or something. That said theres no small car thats got a 2.0 turbo engine so really there arent any cars in the clios class with turbos, only with a smaller engine capacity
 


Quote: Originally posted by ESCOBAR on 27 June 2005


It seems to me that lots of new cars in the clios class are coming out with turbos etc. Why is it Renault is slow to respond? I take it having a turbo in a production clio is a no go on stock models. Dont know much about engines etc but was wondering if anyone could tell me why Renault havent developed one for the clio. It just seems that the clio is so limited in what can be achieved post production that the few bhp gain to be had is outweighed by the significant cost.

Anyone to enlighten me to why we are missing out ?





What exactly are we missing out on? The 172/182 blows away every single car in its class for pure speed and acceleration, and not only that but the all important handling is generally regarded as the best by some distance as well.

Why do we need a heavy turbo lump added to the mix? As far as I am concerned Renault is ahead, not failing to respond, we have the stupendously good 172/182 (which many people take for granted, a 2.0l car weighing just over 1000kg outputting 170/180bhp for £7-13k, still nothing touches it), the V6 (which nobody else would dare release as a production car) and now the Megane 225 is really coming good with some fantastic models (Trophy and Cup). I dont see how the Clio is lagging behind at all, especially as Im sure most people enjoy the handling qualities over the outright pace of the car on a more regular basis, its certainly why I have my Cup.

I dont know of any other supermini that is out or is coming out that is truely a threat, unless that Corsa VXR ever surfaces, its bound to be quick as hell but I would put my balls on the line and say a Clio would still take a corner quicker. More likely is that you are trying to compare it to what we are used to the Clio being compared to, the Focus ST170s, the Honda Civic Type Rs etc. The Clio isnt lagging behind, its so far ahead that we and the press actually feel confident to put the little bloody thing up against cars that should be laughing at a Clio. Those other manufacturers need to raise their game, hence the Astra VXR, the new Focus ST etc which finally appear to be getting performance on a par with what a car that size (and price) should be acheiving.
 

MaLicE

Honorary Member
ClioSport Club Member
  Lazy v8


Quote: Originally posted by TheJesus on 27 June 2005
turbos suck... even though my next car will have one I hate the waiting for boost feeling then WHACK, all that torque and power at once... yawn... a properly tuned N/A car is always a better drive imo. Turbo is cheating anyway.And ESCOBAR, that why you change gear in an N/A car... it doesnt take long to change from 5th to 3rd trust me! lol





im sorry thats BOLLOX u dont have to wait for boost lol, if the car is settup right and running propper boost not some silly amount then u dont feel much if any lag between pushing the throttle and getting power... and if it upsets u that much run antilag :p

ive driven a r32 gtr (single turbo) that was 570bhp and there wasnt a HUGE amount of lag a bit but not much... and it didnt feel any more delayed than a 182 coming on cam... since then its running 650bhp and its crazy... also been in high power rx7s etc and i prefer turbo over na.... even would the ford f150 lightning that i went in over a na car and thats supercharged
 
  VaVa


Quote: Originally posted by ESCOBAR on 27 June 2005


warp speed 10 :D

No its not about the speed I want to go its about the acceleration I want on tap at higher speeds. if you put your foot down in 5th at 70 to overtake it;s not exactly breathtaking is it.
You shouldnt of bought a 182. Your a lazy bugger. Get the f**ker in third.;)

If peak torque is at about 5250 rpm and peak power at 6500 rpm you have to be in the right gear. The Torque isnt bad for a 2.0 NA, but its never going to pull like a train from 3500 revs in fifth!!!
 
  Elise/VX220/R26


Quote: Originally posted by Swervin_Mervin on 28 June 2005
Turbos are sh*t, thats why. N/A is always superior.


never driven one onbviously. The days of turbo lag are like 5 or 10 years ago. Modern turbo cars dont have turbo lag FFS! what a joke. The power delivery in my 225 is absolutely smooth. If you didnt know it had a turbo you would think you were driving a tourqey n/a

If you think a turbo is a poor way to get good power out of a petrol engine your living in a dreamworld. I can get 40 BHP for less than 600 quid. 3 grand will get you about 20bhp on the clio 172 lump if your lucky
 


Top