What's new
By:
ClioSport.net

This is a sample guest message. 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.

Thinking about buying a 172

G

Glenn_23

Hello there, I have been thinking about buying a clio 172 for a while now and have just sold my Fabia Vrs. I am looking for an 04 reg in Monaco Blue. I was just wondering what things i should be looking out for, common problems etc. Also what mpg are people getting. Any help would be great. Thanks Glenn
 
Make sure all the belts are done etc for a start. Every 5 years or 70k iirc.

Just the usual car stuff, exhausts falling off, bodyparts falling off and different coloured bits generally mean bad things.
 
make sure the cam and aux belts have been done by a Renault dealer or Renault specialist, most garage say they have the proper tools for them but they dont and the timing gets done wrongly causing a power loss.

Rear dampers leak causing them to handle like a bag of s**t!

exhausts are terrible for rotting away and falling off, you will be unlikely to find one with a standard exhaust anyway!

whenever i take my 172 to work i get around 35mpg thats driving at a mix between 30mph zones and 60mph zones most of the time averaging 120mph+ on them lol

i usually take the dci though as i do a load of miles and 35mpg isnt fun for that! as im sure you will know coming from the fabia!

be a different ball game for you coming from a diesel, car will feel slow at first untill you get used to the nature of a high reving n/a engine, my mate had a vrs with a few bits and bobs done to it running around 180bhp and when i first went in it it felt twice as fast as my 190bhp 172, but when we were side by side going for it it was a different story mine was actually quicker!
 
You'll love using the power of a 172 in relation to a fabia. Go for a low mileage car with all the history up to date. The car should be straight, everything matching up otherwise walk away. I get 35mpg if I take it sensibly,which isnt often! Make sure all the belts are ok if its got mileage on it. The brake fluid will need changing if it hasnt been done,otherwise you will get brake fade under very hard repeated braking. I've got a ph1 x reg 172 that I bought 18 months ago and its been a total blast to drive. its done 100,000 miles now and its still driving like a new car. The engine is sweet and revs like its done hardly any miles and doesnt use any oil at all even on the track!
 
Chrisbaker1000 said:
Check the engine and gearbox mounts, they are a common failure - also knocking on offside top mount (suspension)
Click to expand...


+1, nothing more annoying than knocking suspension! although they all seem to do it.

check for any leaks under the car, esp power steering fluid. It's a common fault for the power steering pipe to fail. and its expensive to fix.
 
Thanks for all the replies. Yeah am sure it will take a while to adjust coming from a diesel. There are a few on pistoneads and autotrader that look promosing am looking to get one for around 4k and i want one with all the belts etc done. Thanks again Glenn
 
Believe me mate, people on here slate the fabia vRS, but a 172 is no quicker in a straight line. I made the same move as you, I had a mapped vRS, much quicker than the 172. The 172's are great fun, especially on a good B-road and will be a welcome change from the boat like handling of the vRS, but don't expect much difference speed wise.

Everyone will disagree.
 
Craigus said:
Believe me mate, people on here slate the fabia vRS, but a 172 is no quicker in a straight line. I made the same move as you, I had a mapped vRS, much quicker than the 172. The 172's are great fun, especially on a good B-road and will be a welcome change from the boat like handling of the vRS, but don't expect much difference speed wise.

Everyone will disagree.
Click to expand...
The 172's a much better drivers car, but straight line pace there's bugger all in it.
 
^^ Totally agree, I loved the 172 much more, wanted to hoon around B-roads every evening when I owned it, never experienced that in a car before.
 
People underestimate the Fabia's, as they look pretty ordinary and upright. Good cars though. Oddly I could never get comfortable in the drivers seat, kept getting cramp.
 
Glenn, send me an email, I have an excelent [very long] guide someone showed me when i was thinking of a 172...

gobsheene@gmail.com

Ended up plumping for a 182 instead :)

EDIT: That someone was Warren Soni. A fricken Gent!
 
Brown Bear said:
People underestimate the Fabia's, as they look pretty ordinary and upright. Good cars though. Oddly I could never get comfortable in the drivers seat, kept getting cramp.
Click to expand...

Really? I was the same, on a run I would get bad lower back ache, only ever got it from that car.

But I definately agree they are underestimated. My mates all took the piss, until I smashed their gay little excuses for cars into next week with my 300lb of torque!
 
The fabia isnt much to look at but i did enjoy owning it, definatly suprised a few people. I like the 172 subtle stying and even the original alloys they just all fit. Just need to get a good one now.
 
The Fabia is a good car imo, and there's no denying the pace of the new diesels especially the PD lumps. But imo, the car could be as fast as anything but it offers no driving pleasure at all imo... Also, WTF would you buy a diesel for a performance car? You don't... you buy them as they're economical so who GAF about it's performance? Just my 2p's worth.
 
SteveS Cup said:
The Fabia is a good car imo, and there's no denying the pace of the new diesels especially the PD lumps. But imo, the car could be as fast as anything but it offers no driving pleasure at all imo... Also, WTF would you buy a diesel for a performance car? You don't... you buy them as they're economical so who GAF about it's performance? Just my 2p's worth.
Click to expand...

if you done 30/40k a year and couldnt afford 2 cars what would you do? i know id deffo have a quick diesel!
 
04 reg you will do well as most were iceberg silver as the last of the 172s were all 53 platers as the 182 was launched early jan 2004, so for a 172 to be an 04 obviously it would have to be march 2004 onwards, so not too many made that grade.

03/53 wise youll probably get a few good ones still.
 
how can people say a fabia and a 172 are the same pace?for a start the clio has about 165 bhp.the fabia has 130 plus the 172 is lighter ,172 hits 60 in about 7 secs and the vrs 9 or something.need i go on?.please dont give me it has loads more torque.
 
kaz2664 said:
how can people say a fabia and a 172 are the same pace?for a start the clio has about 165 bhp.the fabia has 130 plus the 172 is lighter ,172 hits 60 in about 7 secs and the vrs 9 or something.need i go on?.please dont give me it has loads more torque.
Click to expand...

What are you basing that on? Have you owned both?

A 172 has a bout 155bhp standard, commonly known on here. A fabia has about 145bhp standard, commonly known on the skoda forums. 10bhp is hardly noticeable, plus the fabia has the turbo, which delivers power much more efficiently.

I came across loads of 172's in the fabia when it was standard, and came across loads of fabia's in the 172. Nothing in it in a straight line, and don't tell me they couldn't drive/missed a gear change.

And yes it has much more torque.
 
Without having driven a 172 yet, i can certainly vouch for the skoda having plenty of torque. On another point what are peoples experience with factor fitted sat nav? are they any good? thanks Glenn
 
so why is the clio nearly 2 seconds quicker to 60 than the vrs .clio are not 155 .maybe about 165 .one is a insurance group 9 and 1 is a insurance 16.ive driven both and the 172 is quicker.
 
so why is the clio nearly 2 seconds quicker to 60 than the vrs .clio are not 155 .maybe about 165 .one is a insurance group 9 and 1 is a insurance 16.ive driven both and the 172 is quicker.
 
look the fabia vrs has 106 bhp per ton and the clio has about 155 bhp per ton .bhp per is everything in straight line performance.dont get me wrong i like the vrs.if it was as quick as a 172 i would have bought one,cheaper fuel,cheaper tax and only insurance group 9.all the facts prove your wrong sir
 
Gobsheene said:
Glenn, send me an email, I have an excelent [very long] guide someone showed me when i was thinking of a 172...

gobsheene@gmail.com

Ended up plumping for a 182 instead :)

EDIT: That someone was Warren Soni. A fricken Gent!
Click to expand...
That would be me lol. How long ago was that?
 
I drive a vrs on a regular basis. If you're going to talk 0-60, yes the Clio is quicker. But all 0-60 is relevant for is pub talk. Performance diesels always look slower on paper, but then we don't drive our cars on paper, do we?
 
My mate has a remapped VRS running at 177bhp and my 172 leaves it for dead side by side.

He can keep up with me if he slip streams but a side by side race is not even a contest.

They weigh over 1300 kg!
 
Just to add my 2p worth. In gear times of the VRS will be quicker due to the torque in the lower rpm and there fore will be easy to drive ( same as in my Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo ) and in the clio 172 you need to be in the hi rev band 5k + . If diven flat out the clio would have the legs of the VRS in std form but if both were in 5th gear doing 2000k rpm VRS would be gone . This is based on the fact that i hav a Clio 172 and the girlfriend has a VRS.

Alan
 
SteveS Cup said:
WTF would you buy a diesel for a performance car? You don't... you buy them as they're economical so who GAF about it's performance? Just my 2p's worth.
Click to expand...

FLOL

and Tractor Pulling is done by petrol tractors?

2877076594_5c162d7e7a.webp


i think not.

nothing wrong with a tuned diesel engine. lots of fun and TORQUE! :cool:
 
I have owned both for long periods of time, and my mate has a vRS, and another a 182, when I had the 172 we often went for spirited drives, I guarantee there is nothing in it straight line speed. 0-60 times mean s**t but bragging rights, if you were rolling at 30mph in both it is dead even.

People depend far too much on stats, having never driven most of the cars they comment on.

People seem to think the Clio is some kind of unbeatable power machine, and can't hack that their shitbox cars aren't the fastest car on the road, especially against a Skoda diesel. But I guess you would get that on a Clio forum.
 
vrs is an extremely capable car, but standard vs standard its not 172 pace, my dci is more on par with fabias untill 80mph then they have the legs slightly compaired to a 172
 
I have both as well. It's horses for courses. The VRS is more of a Cruise missile, once it gets going it just pulls and pulls up to the max speed, very tunable due to the vast VW parts bin. Not to good in the handling dept. as all VW based cars are. The Clio Cup is a Air to air missile and a more focused handling car and is good for short sprints and track days, thats why I just bought a Cup. Wouldn't like going long distances in the Cup though, very tiring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jakeeaton127
Clio 172 Cup issues and what to look out for.
Replies
18
Views
2K
Jakeeaton127
Jakeeaton127
C
Phase 1 Clio 172 as a daily?
Replies
3
Views
220
hopgop1
hopgop1
C
Clio 172 Cup buying advice
2 3
Replies
83
Views
9K
photo_ed
photo_ed
K
Where to buy HT Leads Phase2 172
Replies
2
Views
340
Kierxn.1
K
Struggler
Steering angle sensor - 172 cup owners
Replies
2
Views
430
Struggler
Struggler
Back
Top