williams on an rt

[patty]

will a williams bonnet and the front arches fit on an rt? both r 96 n reg

thanx patty

 

[CS_Matt]

yes

 

[Mike Wright]

Yes no worries

 

[patty]

ta!

patty

 

[Daz]

Depends. Mk1, Phase3, the Williams Bonnet wont fit!

Depends if you are a late Phase2 or Early Phase3 (Phase3 was introduced 1996).

 

[patty]

didnt know they did williams phase 3s??!

 

[Daz]

They didnt, thats why the bonnet wont fit a Mk1, Phase3, heh.

 

[patty]

ooooh i c sorry i didnt get ur post at first!

they r both phase 2 so its all good

 

[Daz]

Yea, then itll fit. hehe.

Daz.

 

[Ben H]

Same as 16v ones - about £30 for each arch and £100 for the bonnet (ex Vat and without the vent) from Renault.

 

[patty]

i jus thought the williams bonnet had a bigger bulge from what i remember or is this totally untrue!?

 

[zedx19]

Yes it does have a bigger buldge and that is it, but the phase 3 Clios had the round headlights which means the bonnet not fit on a mk1 phase 3 without mods, but it will fit on a mk1 and mk2, Ive got it on my mk1 phase 2 RT, see here -> http://members.lycos.co.uk/zcliohttp://members.lycos.co.uk/zclio

SHAMELESS PLUG, lol

 

[Ben H]

No, the Williams does not have a bigger bulge. Where on earth did you hear that??!

The exterior is totally identical to the 16v - bar the wheels, colour and badges.

 

[aaronc]

Quote: Originally posted by patty on 28 April 2003

i jus thought the williams bonnet had a bigger bulge from what i remember or is this totally untrue!?

As benH - 16v/williams bodywork is identical. The williams bonnet bulge is exactly the same size as 16v.

 

[aaronc]

here is the 16v/williams bonnet bulge below:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/aaronchap/car/2.jpg

 

[patty]

ta mate its def gonna fit i know it will otherwise i m gonna cry!!

they r both phase 2 so ill b ok..

ta 4 the pic, ur front looks sweet!

patty

 

[patty]

oh that is in the laxpower/haynes manual on the clio -

sez and i quote after all its not jus a 16v with gold alloys - the williams features a 2.0 litre 150bhp motor, close ratio gearbox, larger bonnet bulge (nice!) and racing inspired suspension tweaks

 

[patty]

ok lets test this out



http://members.lycos.co.uk/aaronchap/car/2.jpg

http://erc.qmuc.ac.uk/cliosport/file.php?image=cs_newcliopic2.jpg

 

[patty]

IMO its true the williams has a bigger bulge

patty

 

[Ben H]

Rubbish!!! Moreover, both those cars are 16vs - the top one is Aarons and the second has cream leather.

Max Power are really wrong there. They also give the 0-60 of the 16v as 8.6 - its 7.7, the same as the Willy!! Bunch of muppets. Never trust anything they say.

 

[Daz]

The top pic has a bigger bulge, from that pic.

Could just be Phase1/2.. because if I remember, they had slightly different vents.

 

[patty]

i dont really know, mayb its jus the way the pic is took

have to agree tho max power r muppets

 

[Ben H]

The purpose of the bonnet bulge is to provide clearance for the inlet manifold of the F7P/R (16v/Willy) engine - if you closed a regular Clio bonnet on the engine it would foul it. So - the bonnet bulge isnt cosmetic.

Now, all the Clio 16vs used the same engine with the same inlet manifold - so theres no reason for a bigger bulge on a later model. Moreover, the Willys F7R lump used the same inlet manifold, so theres no reason for a bigger bulge on the Willy either. Add to that the tooling costs of fabricating a different veriosn of what is already a complicated bit of paneling and youll see why there was only ever one Clio 16v/Willy bonnet.

It just looks bigger on Aarons car because of the light/paint.

 

[Ben H]

Heres another pic of the 16v/Willy bulge:

http://images.cardomain.com/member_img_b/286000-286999/286766_2_full.jpg

Looks massive from the left hand side of the pic and smaller on the right hand side!! Its all to do with pictures and light!!

 

[patty]

yeh i think aarons car looks bigger on that pic, mainly due to paint, u obviously know more than me ben!!

didnt know they were both 16vs either!!

wot u sed makes sense, friggin max power misleading me - im gonna burn that book tommorrow me thinks

 

[Ben H]

Max Power is a front for a publishing company that has spotted a niche in the market to make money out of. They are not some revolutionary band of crazy car lovers that want to give you the best info out of the bottom of their hearts! Theyve joined up with Haynes not in the interests of producing the most accurate Clio book ever, but to make money out of people. Simple as that.

The facts and figures that people like us use may not be correct all the time, but theyre a hell of a lot more accurate than Max Power.

The Williams obviously gets loads of attention, but it creates some serious myths. I was reading on http://www.carsurfer.co.ukwww.carsurfer.co.uk that the Williams was developed by Williams!! What rubbish! It was developed by Renault Sport (who did the 16v and later the 172 etc) as the homologation car for the new 2.0 they were using in their Group A rally car, replacing the 16v unit. It was only called the Williams to celebrate the Renault/Williams F1 victories - and nothing else!!

 

[Daz]

Think it is the paint, cus aarons looks like its got wider arches too!

 

[Ben H]

Yeah, but Aarons is also suspiciously fast for a standard 16v - so maybe its a Group A rally Maxi car in disguise??!

 

[Ben H]

..and here are some proper fat arches!:

http://images.cardomain.com/member_img_b/286000-286999/286766_27_full.jpg

Notice how the bulge looks really weeny too!

 

[Daz]

Saw a Racing Puma - wide arches look mega out of place.

 

[aaronc]

Quote: Originally posted by Ben H on 28 April 2003

Yeah, but Aarons is also suspiciously fast for a standard 16v - so maybe its a Group A rally Maxi car in disguise??!

ssshhhhh......

 

[patty]

if u want quality wide arches i would go 4 a lancia integrale every time

 

[Ben H]

Oh yes...

But it would be difficult to choose between that and a Maxi... roll on the lottery win!

 

[patty]

y not have both!!