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!

Watch out 172s...





Still dont think its going to be up there with the 172 and CTR. It certainly isnt a 205GTi for this generation. I dont think Ive ever seen an article that has given the 206 a good rating - not even the 206GTi. The chassis just isnt as good a starting point as the 106 and 306 were.

Headline power figures arent what matters - think of the Toyota Corolla T-Sport: 190bhp but definitely not a cult legend!!
 


Unlike the Cup, aircon and ABS are fitted to the new 206. However, I am not scared, too. Because BenR has developed a RSR package for us, our 172s will become 185 plus very soon.
 


Havent seen the any pics of the 206 RC but I have to agree the gti looks rubbish, just no road presence at all.
 
  2005 Audi A3 3.2 Quattro


Id disagree on the looks front. the 206 is a much sexier shape. The clio is more...um...whats the word Im looking for...a lot less sexy.

On paper the RC is right up there with the 172. All your comments seem to be totally unfounded and biased towards the 172 (but that is totally expected from a clio forum).

You are right on one point though. the RC is everything that the GTI should have been to begin with.
 


I agree with geoff_clio172. As I mentioned on another forum, if I was a 206GTi owner I would be bummed right now. You buy a car thats meant to be the top-of-the-range and next thing you know theres something bigger, better, faster. If they can do all this using the existing GTi as a starting point, why couldnt they have done it on the GTi? To call it 180 is soooooo obviously a shot at the 172. At least when you buy a 172, you know its top of the heap as for as "standard" Clios go (I hesitate to call the V6 standard). LOL :oops: Ill kick myself if Renault announce a Clio 181 next month!
 


The 206 gti 180 will probably be a fraction faster than the 172 at best, so at least we know that it would be pointless swapping the 172 for one( no doubt there were quite a few people on this forum interested to see if it was worth buying ). So maybe only the Civic type r is now the only option for some? Shame it is 15k at cheapest for quarter of a second quicker to 60 and 1.5 secs quicker to 100 over the cliosport. Is that worth it?

On another note, Its funny isnt it, that 6 months ago the peugeot brigade were saying that these 206 rcs would be leaving the factory with 185bhp MINIMUM! Yeah right, what a load of tosh, if it was that easy to build a very fuel efficient, cheap, high performance normally aspirated hot hatch, then the 172 would have had 175-180 bhp to start with 3 years ago. Renaultsport won half a dozen F1 titles, countless rally victories etc.. and put most of what they learned into this bog standard mass production cliosport so that even lotus are struggling to better it in the 206 rc. Just goes to show how good the cliosport is, please have more faith in their ability( the 172 that is, not the after sales service )people.

Finally, got some interesting news about the cliosport cup. My brother just got one and we raced yesterday( in my mk 2 172 ), going from a sliproad onto an A road, from about 50mph up to about 115 mph, side by side! the result?.............he won by a car length so did not get cained like I thought I might. YES he confirmed he was taking it to 7k rpm in the first 4 gears and he has only done 1000 miles in it, wheras I have 8000 on my 172, and my 172 has 144bhp@the wheels, so we cliosport users continue to get value for money, were not past it yet are we?

Thanx
 


Weyland - the Cup is obviously the option - quicker than the lot it would seem...........and Im not being biased but thats what the figures say
 


hi vic

long time no hear how things going ,still trying to get rid of that black thing of mine, but time will hopefully get rid of it.

tim
 


Hey guys.....

I agree.. i think ure all a bit too biased towards the 172..... honestly i think i might have bought the 206RC based on its current specs if it came out the same time as the 172. It has 160nm @2000rpm which is 80% of its peak, plus its peak torque comes on at only 4750rpm... lower than our 172s.... plus its quite light at 1100kgs.......



And didnt alot of reviews say the chasis of the 206Gti was quite good? also in the autocar hot hatch test (when the Clio 172 whopped everything else around the lap but still came second to the Cooper S), the 206 Gti had the second fastest lap time....



So in my opinion i honestly think the 206 RC is a car that is equal to the 172 (at least on paper- we wont know till the reviews come out), and deserves some respect.
 


According to 4car.co.uk the 206 gti is a better all round car than the 172, but the looks of the 206 just dont do it for me.
 


comes back to being an individual opinion thing again guys, - you can argue about what it does and doesnt do, and whether it looks better or worse, for your whole lives !!!

but if I was you I would move on and get a real life - till you drive one youll just never know - I had a 206GTi on test for 2 days and thought it was complete garbage!
 
  2005 Audi A3 3.2 Quattro


Quote: Originally posted by toolmantim on 02 October 2002


hi vic

long time no hear how things going ,still trying to get rid of that black thing of mine, but time will hopefully get rid of it.

tim





Hi Tim,

why you trying to get rid of yours? I would have thought it would be quite easy to get rid of as theyre not that common. While I still dont have the money for one I see a few for sale in autotrader and theyre never there long.
 


Weyland - ur race with ur bro - not bad but does it not sort of say something - that a fresh out of the factory cup with 1000 miles on it won by a cars length over a 172 with 8000 miles on it? Whats the cup gonna win buy when its fully broken in? Must have been a nice sight to see to sport badges side by side all the same !
 


Cupsize. I dont really see your point mate. Weyland was confirming (as we all already accept) that the Cup is a quicker car: It really damn well should be too, seeing as its just the same as a 172, but without all the heavy (and nice) stuff, meaning its got less to lug around... If it was not faster fresh out the factory than a (still not very run in) 172 than I would be alarmed!!! Wait till the 172 gets to about 18000 miles, then mine really started flying like a rocket ship!!!

I think the main point that was being made here is that it aint that much faster... How many extra car lengths do you think it would get away with the same miles then? One car, two cars? If you think it would make a significant difference then I think youre not being too realistic.

Sorry if Ive got the wrong end of the stick or something, I really dont mean to offend (if indeed I have done) but you generally seem a little bit over-reactive to the whole issue of the Cups speed, and a little too quick to point out to other owners that their car is not as fast as yours (Im thinking about the posts on the 1.2 16v threads, BTW)... In the real world, there aint that big a difference, as Weyland kindly proved! :)

Just my humble opinion, and Ill gladly accept that Im wrong if you wanna prove me wrong!!! Cheers mate...

Matt
 
  williams and trophy


Cup

Standing quarter mile in 14.8secs

0-100 in 16.9secs



official Renault book figures - easily be beaten



not much faster than a 172

looks like the williams owners have nowt to fear...................yet again lol

cheers

jon
 
  S2000


Rob, you talking about the 206, if so, Id have to agree!! Its hard to tell the difference between a GTi and an HDi these days!
 


yes I am, if I just spent all that cash for a top spec model I expect a little styling on top. My cousion has a grand tursion (sorry not sure about name) the limited edition and that comes with bigger bumper etc. That is worth the money
 


just had a look @ the photos above of the 206 rc.

doesnt look much does it? nice seats though.but i missed the important bit "BLACK DIALS WITH WHITE NEEDLES".............ummm hello?

and wheels from a 307!!!.comon peugeot at least use speedlines,bbs or o.zs(eg clio 172).

here we go another half assed attempt by car manufactures to cash in on a good thing.
 


Matt - I started on a 1.2 8V and they are slow - end of story - its a fact and maybe Im just biased towards the new car were expecting tomorrow as Im sure everyone is towards nis/her car. - its called pride/human nature - and were all allowed to post replies to threads these days are we not - is it not a discussion forum - sorry if u get all defensive reading posts that u dont sound the like of, but freedom of speech and opinion ans all that - I stick by my guns. Chill..............yeah whatever girlfriend!
 
  williams and trophy


and as for the looks of the 162 i must admit the only way i can tell the dif between a 162 and a 1.2 is the silver thing on the door lol

and if its 1 of the special 1.2 thingys then its a dead ringer for a 162

the same goes for the pugs and saxos ...... they all look the fukkin same

thank god reno had the sense to make the valvers and williams difrent to the base 1.2 models

the last of an era??????????

lol

cheers

jon

ps is anyone bringing their cup to york on sun??? if so i would be intrested to see if they are actually quicker than a 8 year old standard(ish) williams haha
 


ERM - THE 172/CUP IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LOWER MODELS LAST TIME I LOOKED, WINGS, BUMPERS, SKIRTS, NO SUNROOF, INTERIOR, BADGES, TRIM, WHEELS ETC - I THINK ULL FIND THAT ITS JUST AS DIFFERENT TO A LOWER SPEC NEW CLIO THAN THE OLD WILLIAMS WAS TO A THEN 1.2 - MAYBE EVEN MORE SO - AND THERES A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WILLIAMS AND A 172 SURELY - OH ABOUT 22 HORSIES - END OF AN ERA - YEAH THE WILLIAMS WAS THE END OF AN ERA - ITS BIN REPLACED NOW ME THINKS?
 


Cupsize,

"Matt - I started on a 1.2 8V and they are slow - end of story - its a fact" - I agree that 1.2 8V are slow. I had a loaner for a week and can confirm it was the most god-awful slow piece of metal Ive ever driven. No arguments there... But we were all talking about the 1.2 16V - a totally different animal. Ive never driven one, but from what Ive heard theyre a top value car that has a lot more pep about it than the 8V !!! All I was trying to say was "Dont keep going on at people with slower cars about how fast your cup is / will be." They know that already.

"and maybe Im just biased towards the new car were expecting tomorrow" - I had rather gathered that.

"and were all allowed to post replies to threads these days are we not - is it not a discussion forum" - Who said it wasnt? I would just feel a bit bad if I owned a slower clio and had you constantly telling me how sh1t it was, thats all. I would have thought that as an area rep youd have more respect for any clio owner... Do I have to buy a cup or faster to join your club?

"sorry if u get all defensive reading posts that u dont sound the like of" - You missed the point totally mate. All of your posts have been about the cup being faster than x, y and z. I do not get defensive reading these posts and, as I said, I totally accept that the Cup is, and bl**dy well should be faster than my 172 Mk1. My problem is that I try to think how my posts will be read by people with other cars than mine... This is not a 172/Cup/Williams/16v only zone and I think that if I had any lower model Clio, that Id be upset to read about how carp someone in my club thinks my car is.

"but freedom of speech and opinion ans all that - I stick by my guns" - Good. I like freedom of speech, thats why I thought Id reply, and I hope you do too. I honestly have nothing against you, and your comments are every bit as valid as mine, but in my opinion you seem to be trying to enforce at every opportunity how fast your car is / will be, and I think thats not too fair on some other owners. If I thought my nose would be rubbed in it every time I came on here, Id stop coming (no jokes please!)...

"Chill..............yeah whatever girlfriend!" - I am Mr Chill of Coolsville... How about you?

I do agree with what you said above though (more or less) the Williams was and still is a great car, but its just not a modern car anymore... Id still love to own one though...

Sorry for the essay peeps!!!
 
  williams and trophy


cupsize mate.. iv gotta admit i dont really look at the new-er clios as much as i do the older ones.. so yeah it might look a bit difrent to the 162. but is it as difrent as a completely difrent shell??????????? hmm

as for the williams being replaced by now......by what??... i wonder if the cup will have such a following and reputation in 8 years much as like the 5 turbo n gordinis had too .........and still do............

now im not sl*gging anyones car off but IMHO i think the new clios are fukk ugly compared to ph1 2 models whichever spec it is and that is MY opinion .

a lot of people agree with me

a lot dont

u coming o york on sunday then so you can show me how difrent it is to a 172 and maybe see how it fares down the strip against both them and the williams???????

cheers

jon
 


Too Little too late.

The 206 RC 180 is, from 206 GTI owners point of view, is a 206 GTi, with 17" alloys (they currently come with 16" with are arguably nicer looking and possibly give better performance), stiffer suspension (you can get eibach springs, £80, transform the handling and bodycontrol of the car) colour coding (wow £100 at my local bodyshop), new seats (fair enough they look good), and 40bhp more. Bear in mind its fairly easy to get a GTi up to 160bhp as ive done (chip/decat/backbox/filter - 158bhp, £500)

So im simplyfying it, true, but this car in essence is a GTi you can buy in the shops and sensibly mod for yourself, but with an extra 20bhp. Can you tell im peeved Peugeot didnt release either a more powerful version, or a 4wd variant? Dont get me wrong this car will be there or thereabouts in the "best" hot hatch stakes....but bloody hell most people were expecting more for the wait.
 


Quote: Originally posted by 2 live on 04 October 2002


and as for the looks of the 162 i must admit the only way i can tell the dif between a 162 and a 1.2 is the silver thing on the door lol

and if its 1 of the special 1.2 thingys then its a dead ringer for a 162

the same goes for the pugs and saxos ...... they all look the fukkin same

thank god reno had the sense to make the valvers and williams difrent to the base 1.2 models

the last of an era??????????

lol

cheers

jon

ps is anyone bringing their cup to york on sun??? if so i would be intrested to see if they are actually quicker than a 8 year old standard(ish) williams haha
so, the difference between a 172 and a 1.2 basic model is:-

front wings, rear quarter panels, front bumper, rear bumper, spoiler, wheels, colours (mostly), colour coded bumpers front and rear, side skirts

and the difference between a Williams and a 1.2 basic model was:-

front wings, rear quarter panels, wheels, colour, bonnet (as far as I know)

Is there anything else that differs on a Williams??? I would be pleased to hear. So basically there are more differences between a 172 and a basic 1.2 than between a Williams and a 1.2 (unless I am corrected - and I am sure that if I am wrong I WILL BE corrected!)

So maybe the reason that some people cannot tell the difference between a 172 and a 1.2 is a wish not to be able to???? Just a thought!
 


Top