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.
It's probably one of the most covered topics on here mate, have a lil' search around.
I've never been a huge fan of the Type R looks, so would always pick the Clio but, assuming that their pace is the same (which is basically is) the Civic is probably the better built of the two and a nicer place to be inside.
I've never been a huge fan of the Type R looks, so would always pick the Clio but, assuming that their pace is the same (which is basically is) the Civic is probably the better built of the two and a nicer place to be inside.
If you have a 172, then there isn't much difference between that and the 182. (182's rarely make their quoted power) Honda is a very reliable car but I've had no issues with my Renault, after 5 years of ownership. Performance is almost identical, which I think is the real reason for your thread. Handling goes to the 182, imo.
This dicussion can only go one way......
182
Get an audi S3 haha if you can afford to run one!
Depends what you want, test drive both different characters totally
In terms of straight line performance its been done to death theres nothing in it
Handling - the CTR is "tighter" sharper etc, but the clio is more "organic" giving more feel and fun factor
Looks, clio all day long for me, CTR looks like a jumped up breadvan mpv
Reliability - got to be the honda surely?
182's are generally cheaper to buy giving you abit of cash to improve the 182
Depends what you want, test drive both different characters totally
In terms of straight line performance its been done to death theres nothing in it
Handling - the CTR is "tighter" sharper etc, but the clio is more "organic" giving more feel and fun factor
Looks, clio all day long for me, CTR looks like a jumped up breadvan mpv
Reliability - got to be the honda surely?
182's are generally cheaper to buy giving you abit of cash to improve the 182
Tiger R6 / Saxo Vts
Personally I got my choice of car down to the civic or the 182 last year and picked the 182. for the money I got a newer, lower mileage car, with more toys.
I imagine the Honda should be the more reliable, although parts are more expensive to buy when things do go wrong, and you had to look round to get one even with air conditioning on as was an optional extra. A lot of them at £6k were very scruffy.
In terms of performance, one mate has a type r, and the other a 172 cup. The Civic on paper is just marginally quicker, but really not much in it. When out in my mate's 172 the other day we edged a type r for outright pace. I was surprised, but it really does come down to the driver as there is so little in it.
Personally I picked the 182 as it felt faster inside as it's a smaller car, and was more fun to drive being very responsive to direction changes. Also get more steering wheel feedback.
Mine is for sale so I'm bound to be a little biased, but that's as objective a view as I can manage - http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?t=371108
I imagine the Honda should be the more reliable, although parts are more expensive to buy when things do go wrong, and you had to look round to get one even with air conditioning on as was an optional extra. A lot of them at £6k were very scruffy.
In terms of performance, one mate has a type r, and the other a 172 cup. The Civic on paper is just marginally quicker, but really not much in it. When out in my mate's 172 the other day we edged a type r for outright pace. I was surprised, but it really does come down to the driver as there is so little in it.
Personally I picked the 182 as it felt faster inside as it's a smaller car, and was more fun to drive being very responsive to direction changes. Also get more steering wheel feedback.
Mine is for sale so I'm bound to be a little biased, but that's as objective a view as I can manage - http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?t=371108
I've got a 182 but ideal package would be a Type-R engine in a 182. Civics are much better built and generally more reliable but the 182 handles better.
If I were buying again I'd go for a 1999-2000 Civic Type-R EK9 (Import only). I raced one in a 55-Plate 182 and he pulled away. 187hp. 0-60: 5.7 secs. The engine is a gem. Expect to pay £6-7k for a good one. Civic also has nicer recaros and seating position than my 182.
As for things going wrong - its a car, things will go wrong but more chance of expensive repairs on a Renault than a Honda.
On the other hand £6k buys a 182 thats 5 years newer and with mileage thats easier to verify. Choices choices.
EK9 Civic Type-R if I were you.
If I were buying again I'd go for a 1999-2000 Civic Type-R EK9 (Import only). I raced one in a 55-Plate 182 and he pulled away. 187hp. 0-60: 5.7 secs. The engine is a gem. Expect to pay £6-7k for a good one. Civic also has nicer recaros and seating position than my 182.
As for things going wrong - its a car, things will go wrong but more chance of expensive repairs on a Renault than a Honda.
On the other hand £6k buys a 182 thats 5 years newer and with mileage thats easier to verify. Choices choices.
EK9 Civic Type-R if I were you.
Tiger R6 / Saxo Vts
I'd take the 5 year newer car myself. Forgot to mention I looked at Integra type r's even more then the Civics, but couldn't spend at least £6k on a car that was 1998/99, with mileage of at least 60k on the clock, and probably with worn bolsters on the seats.
For similar money you get an '04 car with no more then 45k on the clock, with more luxeries, that is pretty much as quick, and handles almost as well. Add coilovers and a couple of bits and you get on level terms, and your car is still newer/lower mileage, and looks nicer.
Easy decision for me. I made it!
For similar money you get an '04 car with no more then 45k on the clock, with more luxeries, that is pretty much as quick, and handles almost as well. Add coilovers and a couple of bits and you get on level terms, and your car is still newer/lower mileage, and looks nicer.
Easy decision for me. I made it!
Christopher
ClioSport Club Member
Z4M
Totally different cars... in looks, drive, power delivery etc etc
Drive both and decide. That's it.
Drive both and decide. That's it.
Sir_Dave
ClioSport Trader
Heres a suggestion:
Drive both. Buy the one you prefer.
Drive both. Buy the one you prefer.
6/468 17poo
Ive been in a couple, first initial feeling is the seats there the nuts but the exterior is a bit bland, i like them but a clio looks a bit different to the lower budget clios where as in my eyes the type r just looks like a type s.
If i were to buy again, it would definitly be a trophy, due to handling and extra goodies, these were £10k when i was looking a bit too much but have surely plummeted over last 10 months?
Thats my opinion though
If i were to buy again, it would definitly be a trophy, due to handling and extra goodies, these were £10k when i was looking a bit too much but have surely plummeted over last 10 months?
Thats my opinion though
HyperAlloy Combat Chassis
You can't lose, both are good.
Pluses for the Civic:
Great engine and gearbox
Great build quality
Pluses for the Clio:
Cheap (very cheap!)
Has a handling edge over the Civic
More character, more communicative chassis.
The thing about the Clio is it's riddled with faults, but somehow it's more than the sum of it's parts and a good laugh to drive.
Pluses for the Civic:
Great engine and gearbox
Great build quality
Pluses for the Clio:
Cheap (very cheap!)
Has a handling edge over the Civic
More character, more communicative chassis.
The thing about the Clio is it's riddled with faults, but somehow it's more than the sum of it's parts and a good laugh to drive.
hi bbe x
B/G 182 + PH1 Track
I never understand this.
Ok on many car shows the CTR has been compared to the ST and the Megane and the clio ect.
Imo the CTR is the size of a megane and focus and its price tag has always lent its self to the megane and focus range a bit more.
When i considered my clio i looked at the CTR and found that it was more to insure and more to buy.
If i was now considering a CTR i would be comparing it to a megane.
Love my clio dont see a great deal of them about, CTRs are ugly especially prefacelift ones.
Ok on many car shows the CTR has been compared to the ST and the Megane and the clio ect.
Imo the CTR is the size of a megane and focus and its price tag has always lent its self to the megane and focus range a bit more.
When i considered my clio i looked at the CTR and found that it was more to insure and more to buy.
If i was now considering a CTR i would be comparing it to a megane.
Love my clio dont see a great deal of them about, CTRs are ugly especially prefacelift ones.
I'd have once said Clio, but having lived with one for 4 years, I say Civic. If nothing else, the steering wheel won't melt, and the seat belt will still retract after 40k miles. Saying that, there's no doubt that the Clio is the more fun of the two. Then again the engine in the Honda is from the future when compared to the Clios gruff unit, and the gearbox is from a different universe. For every pro there's a con. Just decide which you prefer to drive, but keep in mind the Clio will have started falling apart pretty much since the day it was built
Not sure what you wanted to hear, but I can only tell you the facts - i.e. HE PULLED AWAY!
CTR EK9 - V nice car. Should hold its value better too. Glad I bought a Trophy and not a standard 182 - prices have fallen through the floor though. Honda will hold its value better too and it'll be in one piece in 10 years time, whereas the Renault will probably have fallen to bits! lol
CTR EK9 - V nice car. Should hold its value better too. Glad I bought a Trophy and not a standard 182 - prices have fallen through the floor though. Honda will hold its value better too and it'll be in one piece in 10 years time, whereas the Renault will probably have fallen to bits! lol
Christopher
ClioSport Club Member
Z4M
EK9's were manufactured from 1997 to 2000.
They did a Type R, Type R facelift, Race Base and a final Type Rx.
I nearly bought an early '97 car, but couldn't sell my 182 in time.
I've driven a fair few though... and in anger, they're one of the most enjoyable hatches ever IMO.
Awesome things.
They did a Type R, Type R facelift, Race Base and a final Type Rx.
I nearly bought an early '97 car, but couldn't sell my 182 in time.
I've driven a fair few though... and in anger, they're one of the most enjoyable hatches ever IMO.
Awesome things.
No offence but you are a geek!
A £4.5k CTR will be a dog, and will have been to the moon and back. Maybe Honda's can take the mileage, but who's going to be happy paying out £5k for a car on 80k+.
I'm with Joebristolgym on this one as I was in a similar position. £6k to spend, early CTR with highish miles or an 04/05 low mileage 182- no brainer for me.
Stagecoach Ticket
Harsh! haha i think your useful christopher
Ever Considerd a 1.8t golf gti there pretty reliable comfy and not that slow with tunning potencial and you would get a nice one for less than a 182 or ctr.
But if your going jap dnt be a girl about it get an ek9 my mate has a lesser model one with an integra type r lump in it tunned and that thing feels so fast.
Tiger R6 / Saxo Vts
Golf Gti turbo....what's wrong with you? That is an overweight lump of a car with a soggy chassis, unlike the mk5 golf which is meant to be good (although never driven one). Wouldn't even compare to a 182 or CTR...
Stagecoach Ticket
Nither does the price though. i wasnet meaning it in a straight comparison 182s and ctr more of an alternative golf gti's are more mature cars were as 182s and ctr are toys designed to be faster and more fun.
350z/172 cup
Drivin CTR's a lot.
If i had a personal choice, it would be a DC2 Inetegra import with the standard LSD. Simply amazing car.
If i had a personal choice, it would be a DC2 Inetegra import with the standard LSD. Simply amazing car.
Mk3 Clio dynamique SX
Do you think the S2000 needs to be in the mix....
R26
I was contemplating the same before I got a 182.
I got a Clio partly because a CTR was more expensive in pretty much everything. ie. tax, fuel, insurance, and the car itself!
I got a Clio partly because a CTR was more expensive in pretty much everything. ie. tax, fuel, insurance, and the car itself!
Poopensharten
ClioSport Club Member
Golf R
Mmm im not so sure about the claimed 5.7 to 60 mate
Im a member over at www.ek9.org ask any member and they will tell you that its probaly little over 6 seconds realistically.
That 5.7 figure was achieved in the stripped out Ek9 with a japanese driver that weighed about 8 stone with barley any petrol.
Dont get me wrong a 1600cc N/A Engine making 185 bhp @ 8300rpm is impressive by any standard, if it wasnt so expensive to insure id have one tomorrow
I went from a ph1 172 to a CTR and the CTR is the better car in every single way IMO. But that's just me. I wouldn't blame anyone for choosing a clio over the civic or vice versa, it's purely personal opinion.
You do however get more car for your money with the clio.
As a couple of other people have said, despite looking similar on paper they're actually very different cars in reality and shouldn't really be compared to one another (even though they always are).
The only way to know which one is right for you is to try them both out.
You do however get more car for your money with the clio.
As a couple of other people have said, despite looking similar on paper they're actually very different cars in reality and shouldn't really be compared to one another (even though they always are).
The only way to know which one is right for you is to try them both out.
Last edited:
