RE: PH Blog: Clio is the unsung hero

RE: PH Blog: Clio is the unsung hero

Author
Discussion

loose cannon

6,028 posts

240 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
Tell him to get a boccanegra
Apparently you get free oil for the life of the engine. ;0)

jbi

12,668 posts

203 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
It's a diesel Leon.. the "sporty one" he claims.

Should I keep my flatbed trailer on standby?

BOBBY G

481 posts

209 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
Captain Muppet said:
BOBBY G said:
Ahh yes, I would much rather have a Saab 900 Turbo 1.6s over the likes of an R26R*








  • NOT!!!!!!!!!!!
I think that it's vital for future generations that we record cliched responses which fell out of use before the internet was invented.
Glad you approve

(I am typing this on my VIC 20)

thiscocks

3,127 posts

194 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
900T-R said:
thiscocks said:
900T-R said:
Barring track width (or relative lack of it) a classic Saab 900 Turbo would be a better base for a fast FWD car than the last generation Renault Megane.

How so?
Mégane (at least the big-arsed generation) follows the lowest common denominator strut front/torsion beam rear suspension format. Lots of rubber for NVH purposes, indifferent steering set up, compromised driving position. Neither especially light or stiff. Quite tall (as most compact family saloons are nowadays). Off the pace dynamically compared to Golf, Focus et al (neither of which I'd class as particularly engaging in their current form).

Then RenaultSport comes and makes a giant killer out of those pedestrian origins!

The Saab was FWD out of conviction, not because it was cheaper or offered more passenger space (compared to its peers, it did neither of these things). Suspension set up bred from 30 years in top level international rallying; double wishbones at front, fully adjustable (toe, castor, camber). Rear beam axle with four longitudinal links set up to give a small degree of passive rear steer, and a Panhard rod. All designed to work without anti-roll bars (later cars did get them, but that was to compensate for softer springs/shocks) Equal length driveshafts. Engine placed between the wheels rather than entirely in front of the axle line. Short wheelbase by current standards. Little rubber in the suspension, no subframes, steering rack directly bolted to the main longitudinal beams in the engine bay. 2-door models should be easily brought down to sub-1,100 kg - especially as base models featured wind up windows, no central locking etc - so a Turbo can easily be retrofitted with very basic equipment.

Today, inferior to all but the smallest/cheapest current cars in terms of NVH/comfort/passenger space - but therefore better suited to converting into a FWD track/fun car than the current batch of small/midsize family hatches. Dial out the 'safe' understeer that it was set up with, and you're halfway there.
Good points. Forgot they were longitudinal engines. Would be interesting to compare center of gravity between the 900 and a clio/megane.

LewisR

678 posts

214 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
thiscocks said:
900T-R said:
thiscocks said:
900T-R said:
Barring track width (or relative lack of it) a classic Saab 900 Turbo would be a better base for a fast FWD car than the last generation Renault Megane.

How so?
Mégane (at least the big-arsed generation) follows the lowest common denominator strut front/torsion beam rear suspension format. Lots of rubber for NVH purposes, indifferent steering set up, compromised driving position. Neither especially light or stiff. Quite tall (as most compact family saloons are nowadays). Off the pace dynamically compared to Golf, Focus et al (neither of which I'd class as particularly engaging in their current form).

Then RenaultSport comes and makes a giant killer out of those pedestrian origins!

The Saab was FWD out of conviction, not because it was cheaper or offered more passenger space (compared to its peers, it did neither of these things). Suspension set up bred from 30 years in top level international rallying; double wishbones at front, fully adjustable (toe, castor, camber). Rear beam axle with four longitudinal links set up to give a small degree of passive rear steer, and a Panhard rod. All designed to work without anti-roll bars (later cars did get them, but that was to compensate for softer springs/shocks) Equal length driveshafts. Engine placed between the wheels rather than entirely in front of the axle line. Short wheelbase by current standards. Little rubber in the suspension, no subframes, steering rack directly bolted to the main longitudinal beams in the engine bay. 2-door models should be easily brought down to sub-1,100 kg - especially as base models featured wind up windows, no central locking etc - so a Turbo can easily be retrofitted with very basic equipment.

Today, inferior to all but the smallest/cheapest current cars in terms of NVH/comfort/passenger space - but therefore better suited to converting into a FWD track/fun car than the current batch of small/midsize family hatches. Dial out the 'safe' understeer that it was set up with, and you're halfway there.
Good points. Forgot they were longitudinal engines. Would be interesting to compare center of gravity between the 900 and a clio/megane.
900T-R: I couldn't have put it better myself! I'll stand by my point of it being the only FWD car I'll get excited about. I've owned 3; damn they were good fun.

Isn't an E39 M5 less than the price than a Clio? Hmm, 400bhp RWD V8 saloon or 200bhp 4-cylinder tranversed-engined FWD shopping car.


Edited by LewisR on Thursday 26th April 00:59

tommy vercetti

11,486 posts

162 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Unusual colour, looks great on the car though imo.

LuS1fer

41,082 posts

244 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
LewisR said:
Isn't an E39 M5 less than the price than a Clio? Hmm, 400bhp RWD V8 saloon or 200bhp 4-cylinder tranversed-engined FWD shopping car.
Chances are the M5 couldn't lose the "shopping car" and the running costs are going to be way lower otherwise we'd all be running Bentleys.

Rs2oo

2,195 posts

197 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Wow. LewisR you really don't like the fact that a little buzzbox "shopping car" as you put it can run rings around 400BHP RWD cars. Please come up with mature and factual reasons why you think the 2010 and 2011 Autocar Hot Hatch of the Year and What Car Car of the Year 3 years running and winner of virtually every group test it's ever competed in is so bad and you are right and all the experts and people wh appreciate a proper drivers car are so wrong ?

Some comments on here - only a couple - come from ill advised people who quite obviously have never sat in an RS Clio let alone drive one so their comments are worthless.

If you don't like the look of a car I completely understand but unless you have owned or driven a particular car your imput is worthless. So please, tell all the grown-ups why the Clio is so bad.

loose cannon

6,028 posts

240 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
There only response will be because it's a Renault,

Vladikar

635 posts

167 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
My Clio 197 R27 was my first hot hatch which I owned for 12 months - loved that car. Decided to buy a Lexus IS250 which I got rid of 4 months later and now own a Focus RS. I was very fond of my Clio and still miss it today but needed the Focus Turbo in my life.


Renault Clio F1 by PGDesigns.co.uk, on Flickr


Renault Clio F1 Frontal by PGDesigns.co.uk, on Flickr


Renault Clio F1 rump by PGDesigns.co.uk, on Flickr

aspen

1,419 posts

262 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Only complaint I have about my Clio is that you sit a little high.

I wish they'd bring out some sort of coupe version. Lower driving position and centre of gravity.

I've been keeping an eye on the Toyobaru and will definitely be test driving one but recent reviews I've read don't make it seem like 10k more car than my 200.

papercup

2,490 posts

218 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
FlavaDave said:
I once went from 172 cup TO Integra THEN BACK to 172 cup. Integra has had it's day IMO.
A friend and I both went looking at DC2s and drove a few, then drove a 172 Cup. We both bought the 172. The DC2 was always overrated, but you can't say it on here......

Swervin_Mervin

4,429 posts

237 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Well I've owned hot mk1 Clios, driven plenty of mk2 RS's and have owned a 197 for 4yrs now. The Clio 3 RS are a phenomenally capable car, but in my opinion they are almost too capable for road driving. They really come alive at speeds where things going wrong can have big consequences.

The best for me is still the mk1 16v/Williams. Hilarious fun. biggrin

As for build quality? Mine's just come back today from having it's gearbox rebuilt at just 44k/4yrs. And a very quick skim of the internet will show that I've probably been quite lucky for it to have lasted that long. The cars feel better screwed together but the same weak links still prevail.


anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Swervin_Mervin said:
As for build quality? Mine's just come back today from having it's gearbox rebuilt at just 44k/4yrs. And a very quick skim of the internet will show that I've probably been quite lucky for it to have lasted that long. The cars feel better screwed together but the same weak links still prevail.
Yet many run well over 80k and 8 years old without needing this. 44k/4 years is very bad, but it certainly isn't common. Did you buy your car new or used? Maybe a previous owner treated the gearbox badly, they are succeptable to 'misuse' - downshifting early without rev matching, being in the wrong gear and slipping the clutch through corners etc.

StevieB

777 posts

147 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
LuS1fer said:
Chances are the M5 couldn't lose the "shopping car" and the running costs are going to be way lower otherwise we'd all be running Bentleys.
Yeah, its that boring old car v new car argument again. Of course the 10 year old plus M5 will be cheaper, it will also cost double in petrol and break the bank when it goes wrong at some point.

Anyway I think for the UKs crowded and windy roads, you really cant beat a Renaultsport Clio or one of the rivals as simply you can pin the throttle to the floor and wring it out a bit before getting banned for going too fast!!

LewisR

678 posts

214 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Rs2oo said:
Wow. LewisR you really don't like the fact that a little buzzbox "shopping car" as you put it can run rings around 400BHP RWD cars. Please come up with mature and factual reasons why you think the 2010 and 2011 Autocar Hot Hatch of the Year and What Car Car of the Year 3 years running and winner of virtually every group test it's ever competed in is so bad and you are right and all the experts and people wh appreciate a proper drivers car are so wrong ?

Some comments on here - only a couple - come from ill advised people who quite obviously have never sat in an RS Clio let alone drive one so their comments are worthless.

If you don't like the look of a car I completely understand but unless you have owned or driven a particular car your imput is worthless. So please, tell all the grown-ups why the Clio is so bad.
Perhaps I should have tabled the E46 M3, which would have positively obliterated this tin-pot shopping car and I've just seen that 500bhp E60 M5s are coming in at around £15k too but the E39 M5 is perfectly capable enough in its own right, so I'll stick to my guns.

A FWD 4-cylinder, transverse-engined hatchback a "proper drivers' car?" (I'll add the apostrophe for you) What planet are you on? If that was THE configuartion for ultimate handling, then every Formula One car would be built like that but no, they're all RWD. A FWD car will always be a performance compromise; the front tyres have to steer and put the power down, leading to understeer whereas RWD cars use the fronts to steer and the rears to drive.

You've stated that the shopping car will run rings round an E39 M5 yet that claim is totally unsubstantiated. You then criticise my posts for not being factual. Facts here we come:

The Clio may have won award after award but they come with a massive caveat i.e. shopping car.

As for running rings round the M5:
Nordschleife*
8:48.00 - Clio (time for Renault Clio III Sport)
8:28.00 - E39 M5 (even the E34 M5 is 8:34.00)

TopGear Track
1:33.8 - Clio
1:27.0 - E39 M5

Max Speed*:
149mph - Clio
155mph - E39 M5 (limited) ( >180mph unlimited )

Acceleration:
0-100 km/h*
5.8s - Clio
5.1s - E39 M5

0-100mph*
16.1s - Clio
11.2s - E39 M5

0-200kph*
32.6s - Clio
16.9s - E39 M5

Power/weight ratio*
192 bhp/tonne - Clio
220 bhp/tonne - E39 M5


This Clio seems a bit limp-wristed if you've got £16k for a sports car. It'll get you all manner of Lotus Elises, VX220 Turbos, E36/E46 M3s, E34/E39/E60 M5s but if you want something that'll get you to ASDA just before they close, then stick with the Clio.

  • Source Fastestlaps.com [can't be 100% sure about lap times as the Clio seems to come in many guises in an around 197-200 bhp.]

Hoygo

725 posts

160 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Comparing the Clio 200 with a M5 is the most ridiculous thing i've seen lately by PH idiots, after numerous bullsh!ts at Hot hatches vs BRZ thread now this,keep it up please.

Drive the bloody car and than talk if you don't believe what everyone is saying.

deadmau5

3,197 posts

179 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Comparing the Clio to an M5 is ridiculous. The purchase price is only a percentage of the running cost. You can buy a Caterham for £16k which will run rings around the M5, and make the M5 look 'limp wristed' in comparison.

You seem to be under the impression the M5 is a purpose built car? If the Clio is a shopping car, surely the M5 is just a motorway slogging rep's car, which to the untrained eye could easily be mistaken for a 520d?

Edited by deadmau5 on Thursday 26th April 22:00

Swervin_Mervin

4,429 posts

237 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
MSTRBKR said:
Swervin_Mervin said:
As for build quality? Mine's just come back today from having it's gearbox rebuilt at just 44k/4yrs. And a very quick skim of the internet will show that I've probably been quite lucky for it to have lasted that long. The cars feel better screwed together but the same weak links still prevail.
Yet many run well over 80k and 8 years old without needing this. 44k/4 years is very bad, but it certainly isn't common. Did you buy your car new or used? Maybe a previous owner treated the gearbox badly, they are succeptable to 'misuse' - downshifting early without rev matching, being in the wrong gear and slipping the clutch through corners etc.
They haven't been making Clio 3 RS models for over 6 years wink Mine's owned from new. And trust me, there are PLENTY of cases of the gearboxes failing on the 197/200s. Synchromesh collapse on 3rd and 4th usually. Some aren't even making it to 20k...

They've always made chocolate gearboxes, but granted most on the mk1 and mk2s last a fair bit longer than the mk3 'boxes.

Edited by Swervin_Mervin on Thursday 26th April 23:49

LewisR

678 posts

214 months

Friday 27th April 2012
quotequote all
deadmau5 said:
Comparing the Clio to an M5 is ridiculous. The purchase price is only a percentage of the running cost. You can buy a Caterham for £16k which will run rings around the M5, and make the M5 look 'limp wristed' in comparison.

You seem to be under the impression the M5 is a purpose built car? If the Clio is a shopping car, surely the M5 is just a motorway slogging rep's car, which to the untrained eye could easily be mistaken for a 520d?

Edited by deadmau5 on Thursday 26th April 22:00
It's painful reading that people genuinely believe that a fast shopping car is a better performance vehicle than a 400bhp RWD V8 saloon. How can you have any fun in a FWD car? Power-on oversteer? Forget it. As for the aural delights. Can you get excited over an I-4? I know most true petrol heads get weak-kneed over a cross-plane V8.

Well, I guess it is ridiculous really, why anyone would want a shopping car when they could have one of the most respected sports cars is beyond me. No brainer really.

If you've got, say, £18k to blow on a fast car, you could buy the shopping car and have few quid left for insurance and fuel etc. and then watch it depreciate like mad or get a good M5 for £11k and have £7k left for insurance, running costs/repairs etc and you'd still have change.

Oh yes, the Caterham, depending on spec, that may well beat an M5, not top speed though and the 1.6s probably won't touch it anyway. The Caterham is, wait for it, front-engined & RWD. Am I getting through yet?

If you are a tight-arse with running costs, then a VX200 Turbo will also blitz the Clio and have very small running costs, again, with negligible depreciation. I owned & ran a Lotus Elise S2 for 2 1/2 years ('05 - '07) and sold it for £400 more than I paid for it and it's still worth that now, 4+ years later!! It did 40mpg, if that sort of thing bothers you, and hit 60 in about 5.8 secs.
Oh, hang on, but there was nowhere to put your shopping!!


Edited by LewisR on Friday 27th April 00:08