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.
Yep track is wider on willys, the engine has (correct me if I am wrong anybody) slightly differing cam profile and obviously an extra 200cc give or take a few, think rest is cosmetic.
I have a 16v which I love, but if there is one thing i dislike about it is, it wont do piss all until it gets a few revs built up, no low down torque, which I believe the willy goes someway to addressing.
I must be one of the few that dont like the colour of the willy and so woundnt have one, however I definetly want a 2ltr bottom end for my valver. IMHO willy is worth going for for the extra torque and you like the style.
Alex
Well Id certainly love a 2ltr lump!
But theyre too expensive for me, Hill
Power charge £2500 for a 2.0ltr conversion which give 160bhp.
It includes all the necessarys to go with the engine, but thats still a lot of money.
ok,
you decide
how much you think is fair..
and I WILL get 10 2ltr lumps @ 140 BHP - 150 each.. but with 188 Nm torque... but the starting price (NEW UNITS !!) would be £1350 each.. without fitting..
seems like a nice conversion
Hello all,
Right now here we go.
I have been lead to believe that the differences in Willy and Valvers are:
Willy has uprated brakes (front only), uprated suspension, Wider track, 2.0 engine, different cams, different gearing, apart from all the obvious cosmetics.
I have tried many valvers and willys in my search for my now beloved....I also have raced many a valver. On paper there is not a great deal between them but in reality there is a world of difference in performance. To say they both have the same 0-60 imo is a complete load of b****cks, not a biased view as I too was unsure which to buy but until I tried many of both Clios.
The feeling and response from the public you get when driving around town is amazing.
The price difference between the 2 is a huge gap but then I spose so is the resale value.
However, for creature comforts, the valver outweighs the willy in many ways.
Oh and a Willy is a group 18 not 17 so that also have its drawbacks.
Bill
Yeah definitely agree about creature comforts (mmmm...leather) - but the Willy isnt exactly poverty-spec!
Ive not had the benefit of actually driving a Williams, but have raced two (two of my mates have them). Theyre not an awful lot quicker in a straight line Id say than a 16v, so have to disagree there. Guess thats just down to experience - my other mate has a 16v and the 0-60 is no problem for him versus one of my mates standard Williams. I always beat that one (but not the 200bhp+ nitrousd one ).
Yeah definitely agree about creature comforts (mmmm...leather) - but the Willy isnt exactly poverty-spec!
Ive not had the benefit of actually driving a Williams, but have raced two (two of my mates have them). Theyre not an awful lot quicker in a straight line Id say than a 16v, so have to disagree there. Guess thats just down to experience - my other mate has a 16v and the 0-60 is no problem for him versus one of my mates standard Williams. I always beat that one (but not the 200bhp+ nitrousd one ). But the Williams is definitely more responsive than the 16v. Its not just the torque advantage, but a different set of gear ratios too.
Actually, youd expect the 16v to be miles slower from 50-70 in 5th, but its actually quicker for some inexplicable reason (by 2 secs - see old Autocar mags). Overall though, the Williams is definitely quicker - no doubt. I reckon its much more of a complete job than the Cup is of the 172 (dare I say it ). Having said that, the 16v isnt exactly a poor cousin. Its just different. More of a Q-car, a bit more refined, not as flashy (but sadly practically unheard of), better for moding (becuase who wants to over-mod the Willy - its already a classic), and is definitely a peaky classic 16v enigined car.
Couldnt agree more with your comments Ben and agree totally that the 16v is no poorer cousin. Valvers are damned fine motors and totally agree with the modding comment.
Next meeting you turn up to, gimme a shout I will gladly take ya for a spin mate. If you were fully comp Id let ya drive it too
Bill
well i agree and disagree lol
the valver is a very quik car... but the willy outpaces it in all respects, the only time a valver will keep with a willy is in 1st gear, theres about 0.1-3 difrence in 60 ft times but about a second over the 1/4 (in simularly tuned cars)
cheers
jon
Its all down to the car and the driving.
Ive beat a Willy2 on a roundabout then up a straight!
And ive also kept up with one from bout 80mph to 110mph the willy was in 5th and i was in 4th and it just couldnt over take me!
But in most cases the williams is quicker. Its so hard to catch one when its going through the gears so quick.
Ive always liked the Clios in general but i work hard and went for the willy, i love it and the performance is brill, well worth the extra cost, but RENWILL...the will is group 17 not 18, so if i was you id cheak your insurence company mate, they may be haveing you on.
col
i had a valver before the willy , and was considering the 2litre conv. for the valver, but after weighing evrything up i decided that selling the valver and using the cash i had for conv. and buying a willy instead was a better option because of all the other things that you get with the willy.
to make a valver as good all round as a willy is youd have to spend quite a bit of cash on it and ins premiums would go up too remember. but in my case the willy is only about £150 more per year to ins. than the valver was for some reason lol
cheers
jon
well itd be a Willy every time for me if I hadnt already spent so much on my valver. To my mind theres no competition, 2.0 power is the way to go, ok the figures may not say much but the point is that you really have to wring out a 16v to get it flying, a Willy is more leisurely and when you plant it, it goes.
BTW Me and Wongy were after 2.0 Megane bottom ends and got offered a pair on lowish mileage for £600.
People, lets not forget a few basic points here regarding performance of these 2 hatches. The williams is the sports model of the clio from that time period (equivalent to the 172 sport). The 16V is the top of the range model (aside from the baccara or whatever it was, which was 1.8 8v with leather, auto gearbox, wood style trim etc.)- NOT a sports model to speak of. Yes its fappin quick - what do you expect from stuffing a 1.8 16v into a car not much bigger than a Nova??
The Williams was designed to be a road equivalent of a racing version, the 16v is simply a fast as fcuk road car. See the difference?
The Megane 2L lump I remember being the same as a willy, and the 16v block is basically the same as the willy(bored out as said earlier)
So when comparing dont forget that, although similar - these are two different monsters.
I do have some questions tho...
How much wider is the track on the willy over a 16v? Has the 16v got a wider track than a standard clio?
p.s. I love the leather in my 16v - any willys with leather as standard? didnt think so...
Lets not forget. There would be no williams if it wasnt for the 16V. As the Williams is basically a special edition of it.
I like my 16V and Im pretty happy with it. Id have a williams but im 21 and a 16V is cheap to insure really compared with a lot of other cars in their class. A williams would cost me a fortune.
Most people dont know the difference anyway apart from enthusiasts if they are blue anyway.
A 16v not a sports car? Are you having a laugh?
The 16v was the sports range and the Williams a limited version of it.
The tracking isnt much wider.
Not sure if a 16v has wider trackin than a normal clio. Id say it has.
The williams is 5mm lower than the 16v as standard and a 16v is 10mm lower than a normal clio.
Tonys, it may well be correct that a 16v is not a sports car.
the term 16v appeared in anger when the twin cam design appeared. a 16 v unit should always produce more power than an 8v unit.
reno did as every other motor manufacturer did and jump on the bandwagon of 16v as the panacea to all things great..
it dont mean jack unless taken inot the real context.. but..
I digress, the 16v clios are all pretty bloody good !!
Joe
The 16v is so a sports car! Ok point taken bout the name but what bout the flared wings? the rear disks? The bhp the 1.8 pushes out? The bonnet bulge? There hardly top of the range luxary extras are they?
Compare it to ford. You saying the xr2i was a top of the range and the turbo was the sports car? Where would the fiesta gear come into it?
I say youre mistaken Phil. There is no comparison between the top of the range Baccara etc and a 16v. The 16v was *the* performance Clio. The Willy came along later on as a limited edition slightly reengineered version of what was already a classic sports car if thats what you want to call it. BTW sports car makes me think of a Ferrari Dino or something!
Willys are great cars but lets not get carried away, they have a slightly wider track, they are lower by about the width of a fingernail, and they have the 2.0 lump. That is essentially your lot. Some people seem to think it is a totally different car when it is just a done-up 16v with better all round performance.
If youre writing off the 16v as the top of the range as opposed to the Williams being the proper sports model, then youve just caned every single 172 owner on here in one fell swoop because theirs is not as sports as the Cup. As you know, the Cup is basically the same concept as the Williams was, strip out some of the unneccessary bits, fettle the suspension geometry, make it faster and handle better.
Clio 172 cup
Personally I think the only better thing about the valver compared to the williams is its ability to rev to 6800rpm compared to the williams only managing a 6000rpm. What were the renault sport company thinking when they built the williams? Why o why did they limit it to only 6000??? This means us boys that are lucky enough to have a williams have a big disadvantage on the quarter mile track by losing 1/2 a second by having to change into fouth to cross the line The lucky gits in the 16vs just plant it in 3rd and put their foot down. The only thing i can do is have it chipped which should also increase the rev limit
Jim
coolspot007007
ClioSport Club Member
Seat Leon Cupra
On the subject of 2L bottom ends,(are we talking Megane?) can we have a show of interest, as a growing number of people seem to be considering it. And a bulk buy, if possible, does seem the best idea all round. So if we could do a deal with a large Reno breaker or something whos genuinely interested at the moment?
The thing is a lot of 16v drivers dream of it but then realise that the work involved in the swap is gonna cost a packet. OK Im handy enough with the spanners to do my own mods and service it because Im too poor to pay someone else to. But when it comes to something like lifting the whole lump and swapping the bottom end, thats out of my league, I havent got a front yard let alone a garage to do the work in!
A good idea would be to find someone among us who will actually do one and get it running, then set a price for how much the job will cost. I think a fair price, that people will definitely pay is a grand altogether including the parts. Now whether thats feasible or not is another matter. Its just that people get cold feet about anything thats gonna cost more than a grand, not surprising really.
