RE: Blood Brothers: Twingo 133 vs Clio 182

[dtrump]

Noesph said:

RenOHH said:

As with the new Clio 4, Renault design has taken a bad turn. The pre face lift Twingo 133 (above) is a pretty nice looking car.

+1

I liked the old design, the new design is just horrible.

+2

The new one makes me actual lol
Like you say, its just horrible

[Gilhooligan]

My god that face lifted Twingo is a munter!

[Johnnytheboy]

I miss my Trophy, lovely car, and the early post about BG Motorsport refurbing dampers is spot on, no need to replace.

What puts me off Twingos is the dash that looks like it was designed by a child.

Trying too hard to emulate MINI-cutesiness methinks.

[Bezza1969]

I suspect the only way a Twingo will do a genuine 0-60 in 7.6 secs is if it is dropped off a cliff!!

Don't forget that road tested cars are two up, with a full tank of fuel and tested with accurate timing gear, not an optimistic speedo!

Shame the post face lift car is so ugly, Personally I prefer the Suzuki Swift.

[bagseye]

I have the 2010 RS133 and I love it. As said, most people who don't know about cars underestimate it. Fine its not tear the skin off your face fast. Buts its fun. cheap, fun and fairly fast. Living up in the Highlands I have access to some excellent roads and the first evening I had my car I took it for a full on blast through the cairngorms. It turns in quick, makes a fantastic noise and loves to be revved.

It does have its faults. mainly the ride in town but its so cheap to run I don't really care. The quoted 130bhp though is apparently far of the actual mark when they are dyno'd according to other forums. But, for me, it proves a point that power is not everything.

Im yet to drive a 182 but at those prices will consider one in the future as a blaster. I did want to upgrade to the new clio rs, but as stated, the additional weight and features on the car seems to have taken some of the thrill out of the driving.

[BadBanshee]

Which one do I score, the Clio 182, the Twingo 133 or how much I agree they're blood brothers? :s

[dickvandamme]

Why are we going down the same old road on the 0-60 time's again? I always thought it was the pleasure of driving down a great piece of road that made these cars come to life? Not revving the st out of the thing and smoking the tires worrying who has the fastest acceleration times!!! like a Chav in a stolen Nova! I really don't understand some people!!!

[Martin_Hx]

Erm I think these cars need revving and thats the pleasure in the drive !

Sorry if I sound like a chap who enjoys driving a car ;-)

[bagseye]

dickvandamme said:

Why are we going down the same old road on the 0-60 time's again? I always thought it was the pleasure of driving down a great piece of road that made these cars come to life? Not revving the st out of the thing and smoking the tires worrying who has the fastest acceleration times!!! like a Chav in a stolen Nova! I really don't understand some people!!!

Its a shame because people miss out on some real gems by just looking at those.

[GrumpyTwig]

bagseye said:

I have the 2010 RS133 and I love it. As said, most people who don't know about cars underestimate it. Fine its not tear the skin off your face fast. Buts its fun. cheap, fun and fairly fast. Living up in the Highlands I have access to some excellent roads and the first evening I had my car I took it for a full on blast through the cairngorms. It turns in quick, makes a fantastic noise and loves to be revved.

It does have its faults. mainly the ride in town but its so cheap to run I don't really care. The quoted 130bhp though is apparently far of the actual mark when they are dyno'd according to other forums. But, for me, it proves a point that power is not everything.

Im yet to drive a 182 but at those prices will consider one in the future as a blaster. I did want to upgrade to the new clio rs, but as stated, the additional weight and features on the car seems to have taken some of the thrill out of the driving.

Having driven both 182s and the newer 200 (obviously) I can safely say I'd keep the extra weight and sacrifice having to deal with the extra power and torque, better build quality and interior, perfo hubs, brembo 4 pots and vastly more stable chassis etc. etc. I know it's heavier and can feel slightly less frantic in comparison but the mk3 Clio is a lot better all round.

As for the Twingo, I'd prefer the Swift as I think it looks a lot better and comes very well equipped. It would annoy me that it was just based off (built from) the old mk2 Clio I think. They're good cars though, they keep up for the most part on the road with the Clio within normal driving.

[BBS-LM]

I'm not to sure about this, the only thing I see these cars have in common are there both small and made by Renault, One is Fast, and the other is definitely not.

[BadBanshee]

BBS-LM said:

I'm not to sure about this, the only thing I see these cars have in common are there both small and made by Renault, One is Fast, and the other is definitely not.

I didn't know 1.5 seconds difference 0-60 turns a car from "fast" to "definitely not".

[Maggi112]

I think people need to remember that 8 years ago the Clio cost near £16,000 and the 133 is £12k now with more standard equipment. And only a few months ago you could of had a cheaper 133 cup in the far superior ph1 clothing the fact Renault can offer a car like the 133 still should be applauded. I've driven 182s as well as my 133 and I can hand on heart say I much prefer the way my car drives. Regardless of it loosing out a little in the traffic light gp

[MiseryStreak]

Maggi112 said:

I think people need to remember that 8 years ago the Clio cost near £16,000 and the 133 is £12k now with more standard equipment. And only a few months ago you could of had a cheaper 133 cup in the far superior ph1 clothing the fact Renault can offer a car like the 133 still should be applauded. I've driven 182s as well as my 133 and I can hand on heart say I much prefer the way my car drives. Regardless of it loosing out a little in the traffic light gp

Nobody paid near £16,000 for one though, they listed at £15,500 and I knew of a couple of owners at the time that paid less than £14,000 brand new. I paid £13,000 for mine with 2,000 miles on the clock. I understand what you mean though, it's comparing a Hot Hatch with a Supermini.

If it wasn't so hard for me to justify having even one toy car I'd have another Trophy in a heartbeat. At the current prices I don't see how any petrolhead, unless they hate Renaults or front wheel drive, can afford not to have one. The whole Sachs damper rebuild issue is completely overblown, just buy one of the many Trophys that has had them serviced or budget it into the cost. It's still a stupidly cheap way into owning one of the best hot hatches and indeed performance cars ever made.

[TameRacingDriver]

MiseryStreak said:

If it wasn't so hard for me to justify having even one toy car I'd have another Trophy in a heartbeat. At the current prices I don't see how any petrolhead, unless they hate Renaults or front wheel drive, can afford not to have one. The whole Sachs damper rebuild issue is completely overblown, just buy one of the many Trophys that has had them serviced or budget it into the cost. It's still a stupidly cheap way into owning one of the best hot hatches and indeed performance cars ever made.

Except an Integra Type-R is cheaper, and better.

Oh and I paid under £11K for an almost brand new 182 in 2005.

[MiseryStreak]

TameRacingDriver said:

Except an Integra Type-R is cheaper, and better.

As much as it pains me, I can't disagree with you there, but they are at least 5 years older, being a minimum of 13 and maximum of 18 years old now.

[TameRacingDriver]

MiseryStreak said:

As much as it pains me, I can't disagree with you there, but they are at least 5 years older, being a minimum of 13 and maximum of 18 years old now.

True... although I'd argue that a 15 year old Honda has more chance of being reliable than a 10 year old frenchy... so unless you're hung up on the age thing, I'd say it mattered not

[RacingBlue]

TameRacingDriver said:

MiseryStreak said:

As much as it pains me, I can't disagree with you there, but they are at least 5 years older, being a minimum of 13 and maximum of 18 years old now.

True... although I'd argue that a 15 year old Honda has more chance of being reliable than a 10 year old frenchy... so unless you're hung up on the age thing, I'd say it mattered not

The problem is they are now so cheap, they tend to fall into the hands of owners who say idiotic things like 'VTEC, yo' and so on.

[Maggi112]

True I compared list price. But who says the 133 was bought at list price? I got what I thought was a good deal, and paid less than £12k in 2011 for a brand new 133

[enroz]

Everyone loves a good 0-60 time, but that's only for traffic light racers and will alway vary massively due to road conditions and getting a good start!!

I've always liked the 30-70mph times through the gears, which alway seem more relevent for normal fast driving. Autocar timed the 182 at 5.8 seconds, which by any hot htach standards is fairly rapid and shows off why this car scared the hell out of drivers of bigger 'faster' cars.