Renault Clio 1.5DCi (106 BHP)? OR ALTERNATIVE?
Discussion
Matt100HP said:
On the Fiat theme, I am more than a little biased here, but the 100HP is a much better driver's car than a diesel Punto. Also, it's just as quick to 60, if that bothers you and it's definitely quicker than both your current car and a 1.5 diesel Clio.
I've never heard anything too great (or too bad, to be fair) about the way the way the Grande Punto drives, whereas the 100HP is generally considered to be a good, fun little car. It'd probably be cheaper to insure, too and there's not the diesel bork factor which comes with the GP. As for the VED, they're both a bit extortionate at £180 per year...
If it interests you, I'm 20 and my 100HP cost me £500 to insure fully comp this year. Obviously, YMMV with the insurance companies.
You have a 100 BHP phase 2 clio?I've never heard anything too great (or too bad, to be fair) about the way the way the Grande Punto drives, whereas the 100HP is generally considered to be a good, fun little car. It'd probably be cheaper to insure, too and there's not the diesel bork factor which comes with the GP. As for the VED, they're both a bit extortionate at £180 per year...
If it interests you, I'm 20 and my 100HP cost me £500 to insure fully comp this year. Obviously, YMMV with the insurance companies.
Matt100HP said:
On the Fiat theme, I am more than a little biased here, but the 100HP is a much better driver's car than a diesel Punto. Also, it's just as quick to 60, if that bothers you and it's definitely quicker than both your current car and a 1.5 diesel Clio.
I've never heard anything too great (or too bad, to be fair) about the way the way the Grande Punto drives, whereas the 100HP is generally considered to be a good, fun little car. It'd probably be cheaper to insure, too and there's not the diesel bork factor which comes with the GP. As for the VED, they're both a bit extortionate at £180 per year...
If it interests you, I'm 20 and my 100HP cost me £500 to insure fully comp this year. Obviously, YMMV with the insurance companies.
My grande isn't to bad. Alright I agree the steering is numb, but it goes, and grips well and I find myself hooning it about a lot more than I thought I would. I think it has got stiffer springs, and aftermarket dampers. I've never heard anything too great (or too bad, to be fair) about the way the way the Grande Punto drives, whereas the 100HP is generally considered to be a good, fun little car. It'd probably be cheaper to insure, too and there's not the diesel bork factor which comes with the GP. As for the VED, they're both a bit extortionate at £180 per year...
If it interests you, I'm 20 and my 100HP cost me £500 to insure fully comp this year. Obviously, YMMV with the insurance companies.
JakeThePeg said:
My grande isn't to bad. Alright I agree the steering is numb, but it goes, and grips well and I find myself hooning it about a lot more than I thought I would. I think it has got stiffer springs, and aftermarket dampers.
I'm sure those aftermarket suspension parts are significantly improving the way the car drives, as the equivalent parts would on a 100HP. My point was that comparing apples to apples, a standard 100HP is a better, more engaging driver's car than a standard GP 1.9 Sporting. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying there's anything massively wrong with the GP 1.9 Sporting, mind you. As for the Panda it's not perfact; it's a smaller, less practical car and the fuel economy is almost certainly worse than the GP.
Memorise97 said:
SeanyD said:
Wasn't the phase 2 clio the one with the suicide bonnet issue?
Regarding the engine we had a 1.5DCI 106 phase 3 clio, very capable engine and pretty quick for a diesel. Probably En-par with warm hatch petrols.
Yeah I am looking at the 106 phase 3 cliosRegarding the engine we had a 1.5DCI 106 phase 3 clio, very capable engine and pretty quick for a diesel. Probably En-par with warm hatch petrols.
Only issues:
1. It liked it's tyres, probably around 10-12k per set of fronts
2. Windscreen wiper used to get slower and slower over the course of a year before grinding to a halt, and needing the mechanism cleaning down.
3. Ours had the panoramic roof option, nice, but used to constantly rattle like buggery.
4. Approaching 60,000m and the clutch was starting to slip a bit, that's when we traded it.
Other than that, brilliant.
SeanyD said:
Sorry was multi-tasking. We had ours for around 5 years, generally very very reliable.
Only issues:
1. It liked it's tyres, probably around 10-12k per set of fronts
2. Windscreen wiper used to get slower and slower over the course of a year before grinding to a halt, and needing the mechanism cleaning down.
3. Ours had the panoramic roof option, nice, but used to constantly rattle like buggery.
4. Approaching 60,000m and the clutch was starting to slip a bit, that's when we traded it.
Other than that, brilliant.
So now, looks like the Punto or the Clio, Audi a3's are hard to find a lower than 125-150k mileage one and parts are more expensive, need to find someone with a grande punto 1.9Only issues:
1. It liked it's tyres, probably around 10-12k per set of fronts
2. Windscreen wiper used to get slower and slower over the course of a year before grinding to a halt, and needing the mechanism cleaning down.
3. Ours had the panoramic roof option, nice, but used to constantly rattle like buggery.
4. Approaching 60,000m and the clutch was starting to slip a bit, that's when we traded it.
Other than that, brilliant.
Memorise97 said:
Not looking for a petrol, also want good MPG, diesels definitely have that, the grande punto is similar to the 1.5 dci MPG
I'm sure you have done the maths, but just bear in mind that the TCO of a diesel isn't automatically lower just because it gets better fuel economy figures on the NEDC cycle. It's a mistake lots of people seem to make, unfortunately. Memorise97 said:
My 1.2 corsa seems to drink a lot and it's a petrol, couldn't imagine what a 1.4 t-jet or panda 100 would drink, but the Clio and punto MPG is much higher than both
But what's the problem with that? How do you know that the Clio and Punto MPG is actually better?These are all leading questions.
How many miles a year do you do? And what type of milage?
EDIT: I'm not one who says, don't get a diesel unless you do x million miles a year. Each case and car should be taken on it's merits and weighed up v.s. how much it costs.
Edited by xxChrisxx on Monday 10th November 17:21
Memorise97 said:
My 1.2 corsa seems to drink a lot and it's a petrol, couldn't imagine what a 1.4 t-jet or panda 100 would drink, but the Clio and punto MPG is much higher than both
The difference between 35mpg (what I average in my 100HP, driving enthusiastically) and 45mpg (what I reckon you'd realistically get out of an enthusiastically driven GP 1.9) is about £35 per 1,000 miles, or about £275 per year using the average UK mileage for 2013. When you're looking at insurance quotes of £1700 and describing them as "reasonable", an extra £275pa shouldn't be too much of a concern.
Also consider that a diesel takes much longer than a petrol to warm up, so will take far longer to reach optimum MPG on each journey. Talking of journeys, diesels hate doing lots of short ones, it clogs up the DPF and, as I mentioned, you get awful MPG (or at least further from the manufacturer's claims for longer than in a petrol). Diesels also tend to have more to go wrong (DPF, EGR, turbo and associated stuff) and when they do go wrong, they tend to go wrong more expensively.
That said, if you 20,000 miles per year and 90% of it is on the motorway, a diesel seems like a very sensible choice.
Edited by Matt100HP on Monday 10th November 17:32
Matt100HP said:
The difference between 35mpg (what I average in my 100HP, driving enthusiastically) and 45mpg (what I reckon you'd realistically get out of an enthusiastically driven GP 1.9) is about £35 per 1,000 miles, or about £275 per year using the average UK mileage for 2013.
When you're looking at insurance quotes of £1700 and describing them as "reasonable", an extra £275pa shouldn't be too much of a concern.
Also consider that a diesel takes much longer than a petrol to warm up, so will take far longer to reach optimum MPG on each journey. Talking of journeys, diesels hate doing lots of short ones, it clogs up the DPF and, as I mentioned, you get awful MPG (or at least further from the manufacturer's claims for longer than in a petrol). Diesels also tend to have more to go wrong (DPF, EGR, turbo and associated stuff) and when they do go wrong, they tend to go wrong more expensively.
That said, if you 20,000 miles per year and 90% of it is on the motorway, a diesel seems like a very sensible choice.
Well, with that said, actually I don't do many motorway miles apart from weekendsWhen you're looking at insurance quotes of £1700 and describing them as "reasonable", an extra £275pa shouldn't be too much of a concern.
Also consider that a diesel takes much longer than a petrol to warm up, so will take far longer to reach optimum MPG on each journey. Talking of journeys, diesels hate doing lots of short ones, it clogs up the DPF and, as I mentioned, you get awful MPG (or at least further from the manufacturer's claims for longer than in a petrol). Diesels also tend to have more to go wrong (DPF, EGR, turbo and associated stuff) and when they do go wrong, they tend to go wrong more expensively.
That said, if you 20,000 miles per year and 90% of it is on the motorway, a diesel seems like a very sensible choice.
Edited by Matt100HP on Monday 10th November 17:32
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff