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.
'20 Zoe, '09 V70
I've got a mk2 1.2 16v. It's a decent car, just a bit underpowered with passengers in it!
But round town I do near enough 50mpg, and I deliver for Domino's so that's a lot of town driving! Done 15k this year alone, never let me down. Apart from when I drove it into a muddy bog and got stuck :tongueout::weary: I'm not a particularly gentle driver either. It'll do 60mpg behind a lorry on the motorway as well.
I've done round trips to Wales from my house which is 120 miles each way, 4 people with luggage on board and spent most of my time on the A55 in the outside lane doing 85. It's underpowered but give it time and it will eventually get there.
But round town I do near enough 50mpg, and I deliver for Domino's so that's a lot of town driving! Done 15k this year alone, never let me down. Apart from when I drove it into a muddy bog and got stuck :tongueout::weary: I'm not a particularly gentle driver either. It'll do 60mpg behind a lorry on the motorway as well.
I've done round trips to Wales from my house which is 120 miles each way, 4 people with luggage on board and spent most of my time on the A55 in the outside lane doing 85. It's underpowered but give it time and it will eventually get there.
dann2707
ClioSport Club Member
Best sentence i've read on here this year hands down. Really made me laugh that mate cheers haha
Clio 172, Escort RST
So you are looking at a Clio III?
If you are getting a Clio II I would look at a 1*2. My 172 is worse around town that my 1.4 was on fuel but it is far easier to drive, probably down to the remap. On a run there is no difference in MPG. I would say the 172 is probably not much more pricier to keep than a 1.4 ; Cambelts are expensive on both of them (maybe a little more on a 1*2 due to the potential dephaser pulley issues), but I have seen dephasers with 100k still going strong, albeit the car seeing regular oil changes.
However, despite what some say on here I reckon it would be foolish to go with a cheap 172 but with the best example you could afford. I would also get an insurance quote ; Faster does not always mean more expensive. OK I was in my late twenties but my 944 Turbo was cheaper to insure than my Clio and any of my daily drivers, yet it had the most poke (300BHP vs 180BHP of the Clio).
If the insurance is still prohibitive I would go for the 1.6 out of your choices, but to be honest a solid 1.2 16v will probably be the cheapest to run out of the 1.*s IMHO if looking at a Clio II.
If you are getting a Clio II I would look at a 1*2. My 172 is worse around town that my 1.4 was on fuel but it is far easier to drive, probably down to the remap. On a run there is no difference in MPG. I would say the 172 is probably not much more pricier to keep than a 1.4 ; Cambelts are expensive on both of them (maybe a little more on a 1*2 due to the potential dephaser pulley issues), but I have seen dephasers with 100k still going strong, albeit the car seeing regular oil changes.
However, despite what some say on here I reckon it would be foolish to go with a cheap 172 but with the best example you could afford. I would also get an insurance quote ; Faster does not always mean more expensive. OK I was in my late twenties but my 944 Turbo was cheaper to insure than my Clio and any of my daily drivers, yet it had the most poke (300BHP vs 180BHP of the Clio).
If the insurance is still prohibitive I would go for the 1.6 out of your choices, but to be honest a solid 1.2 16v will probably be the cheapest to run out of the 1.*s IMHO if looking at a Clio II.
T12
ClioSport Club Member
Monaco Clio 172
Little note on MPG. Had a sensible drive back to Kent from Birmingham with both my 172 and 1.2. Traffic was a bit stop start, but had a few stretches of clear motorway driving. 1.2 arrived back with an average MPG of 44.9 (pretty much where it usually sits), and the 172 averaged a surprising 45.9!
Clio 172, Escort RST
Tank to tank or off the computer @T12 ? My Clio never matches the MPG on the computer. It has allegedly done 47.2 MPG but the most I have even seen from it has been 43MPG, not bad at all. Most motorway work will see me around 40MPH if I stay below 80.
The remap may have thrown the computer off TBH. TBH my 172 is WAY more frugal than either my 1.6 Focus or 1.3 Ka. They came close to 40MPG but they never hit it. The Focus used to average around 33-37MPG with the Ka doing around 32 to 38MPG maximum (that was sticking solidly to 70 and never going above it).
The remap may have thrown the computer off TBH. TBH my 172 is WAY more frugal than either my 1.6 Focus or 1.3 Ka. They came close to 40MPG but they never hit it. The Focus used to average around 33-37MPG with the Ka doing around 32 to 38MPG maximum (that was sticking solidly to 70 and never going above it).
Knuckles
ClioSport Admin
If it's a mk3 you're getting, I'd be looking at a 1.2tce or 1.5dci.
Anything else will be slow and waste money.
Or a 182
Anything else will be slow and waste money.
Or a 182
