RE: Driven: Megane Renaultsport 250 Cup
Discussion
G_T said:
Dr Imran T said:
I quite like the look of it. However, I feel that as cars get heavier manufacturers 'should' beef up the engine accordingly.
The focus RS being a good example - lugging round all that lard needs a bigger engine such a 2.5/ 5cylinder lump..
Perhaps Renault should have done a similar thing.
I would have thought a 2.0 turbo with 180bhp/ton was sufficient to carry a medium sized hatchback?The focus RS being a good example - lugging round all that lard needs a bigger engine such a 2.5/ 5cylinder lump..
Perhaps Renault should have done a similar thing.
I know it doesn't make much difference in practical terms on paper, but in driving!?
Imagine the old Clio Williams with 2.0 4 pot on high compression NA and sod all mass. On the throttle, bam, go.
THAT is what a hot hatch is about to me. That instant response and 'go' character. No lag, no give, no compromise for soppy retarded A to B owners who just want the most expensive flash looking model...
3.0 V6 NA is what it should have had, from the Clio V6, and hotter cams.
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
G_T said:
Dr Imran T said:
I quite like the look of it. However, I feel that as cars get heavier manufacturers 'should' beef up the engine accordingly.
The focus RS being a good example - lugging round all that lard needs a bigger engine such a 2.5/ 5cylinder lump..
Perhaps Renault should have done a similar thing.
I would have thought a 2.0 turbo with 180bhp/ton was sufficient to carry a medium sized hatchback?The focus RS being a good example - lugging round all that lard needs a bigger engine such a 2.5/ 5cylinder lump..
Perhaps Renault should have done a similar thing.
I know it doesn't make much difference in practical terms on paper, but in driving!?
Imagine the old Clio Williams with 2.0 4 pot on high compression NA and sod all mass. On the throttle, bam, go.
THAT is what a hot hatch is about to me. That instant response and 'go' character. No lag, no give, no compromise for soppy retarded A to B owners who just want the most expensive flash looking model...
3.0 V6 NA is what it should have had, from the Clio V6, and hotter cams.
Dave
I also don't see any problem with turbo chargers in this application. The sensation of speed combined with reasonabe fueling costs is the goal of most hot hatches (Ask any type-R owner! The fun begins when the Vtec kicks in). Forced induction is beautifully suited to this.
These cars are supposed to be jacks of all trades that's what makes them popular. Despite a linear power delivery I would have thought a thirsty and complicated V6 would make the car far more specialised. Which it shouldn't try to be in this market. I think it was clear from the press statement about "not trying to compete with the more focused R26.r" that this was always the aim. Afterall how many 172 cups were sold compared to the better spec'd 172s?
I think renault have done a good job to be honest. Not driven one yet mind.
G_T said:
Mr Whippy said:
G_T said:
Dr Imran T said:
I quite like the look of it. However, I feel that as cars get heavier manufacturers 'should' beef up the engine accordingly.
The focus RS being a good example - lugging round all that lard needs a bigger engine such a 2.5/ 5cylinder lump..
Perhaps Renault should have done a similar thing.
I would have thought a 2.0 turbo with 180bhp/ton was sufficient to carry a medium sized hatchback?The focus RS being a good example - lugging round all that lard needs a bigger engine such a 2.5/ 5cylinder lump..
Perhaps Renault should have done a similar thing.
I know it doesn't make much difference in practical terms on paper, but in driving!?
Imagine the old Clio Williams with 2.0 4 pot on high compression NA and sod all mass. On the throttle, bam, go.
THAT is what a hot hatch is about to me. That instant response and 'go' character. No lag, no give, no compromise for soppy retarded A to B owners who just want the most expensive flash looking model...
3.0 V6 NA is what it should have had, from the Clio V6, and hotter cams.
Dave
I also don't see any problem with turbo chargers in this application. The sensation of speed combined with reasonabe fueling costs is the goal of most hot hatches (Ask any type-R owner! The fun begins when the Vtec kicks in). Forced induction is beautifully suited to this.
These cars are supposed to be jacks of all trades that's what makes them popular. Despite a linear power delivery I would have thought a thirsty and complicated V6 would make the car far more specialised. Which it shouldn't try to be in this market. I think it was clear from the press statement about "not trying to compete with the more focused R26.r" that this was always the aim. Afterall how many 172 cups were sold compared to the better spec'd 172s?
I think renault have done a good job to be honest. Not driven one yet mind.
The Megane is now a large family car, but to give it this kinda engine feels odd. No one complained that an ST220 Mondeo, or even the ST24/200 before it, had big complex engines on a ~ 1350-1450kg hatch back car.
The new Clio is really the new Megane in a way, shame the Twingo (which essentially sits where the Clio did in the old days) has a crummy engine. Williams and mk1 172 had more power and go a decade ago! Also it looks like *surprise surprise* a mini bloody MPV!
Sorry, just generally being negative at the fact everything looks like a b
d people carrier these days!Dave
Mr Whippy said:
I kinda agree. But you have described the current 197 Clio family.
The Megane is now a large family car, but to give it this kinda engine feels odd. No one complained that an ST220 Mondeo, or even the ST24/200 before it, had big complex engines on a ~ 1350-1450kg hatch back car.
The new Clio is really the new Megane in a way, shame the Twingo (which essentially sits where the Clio did in the old days) has a crummy engine. Williams and mk1 172 had more power and go a decade ago! Also it looks like *surprise surprise* a mini bloody MPV!
Sorry, just generally being negative at the fact everything looks like a bd people carrier these days!
Dave
I was trying to make a point about fasthatch owners not necessary wanting the more focused models but I agree it wasn't the best comparison in hindsight.The Megane is now a large family car, but to give it this kinda engine feels odd. No one complained that an ST220 Mondeo, or even the ST24/200 before it, had big complex engines on a ~ 1350-1450kg hatch back car.
The new Clio is really the new Megane in a way, shame the Twingo (which essentially sits where the Clio did in the old days) has a crummy engine. Williams and mk1 172 had more power and go a decade ago! Also it looks like *surprise surprise* a mini bloody MPV!
Sorry, just generally being negative at the fact everything looks like a b
d people carrier these days!Dave
I really like the looks of it. Looks like I'm alone on that one though! I guess it's like evolution in many ways. When the driving force is better aerodynamics and safety, if there's only one way of doing it then all the cars start looking the same irrespective of manufacturer.
Edited by G_T on Friday 30th October 14:45
I think I like it, can't wait to see one irl. It's certainly better than the Clio 200, the front works a lot better on the Megane imo. It's 100% better looking than the R26! But not exactly a hard task considering the R26 was one of the ugliest cars ever made.
I think the closest comparison looks wise is the Astra VXR, I'll have to reserve judgement on what's better for now.
I think the closest comparison looks wise is the Astra VXR, I'll have to reserve judgement on what's better for now.
I was driving a 1999 Renault Megane 1.6 the other day and I thought, hmm this thing surges forward pretty well in the first 3 gears for just a 1.6. Then after the car came from back from the equivalent of the MOT I seen the cars tested weight with a quarter tank of petrol was only 1040kg! 10 years and the car has gained 300kg, wow!
The F4Rt is a variant of the F3R engine, apparently - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_F-Type_engine
RAH said:
The F4Rt is a variant of the F3R engine, apparently - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_F-Type_engine
Not sure who wrote that but I'm pretty sure it's wrong. The F4R lineage began in the 172. I understood that it was effectively an F7R with VVT. The F7R was used in the Williams and the mk1 Megane and was a development of the F7P used in the Clio and 19 16valves.The F4R is still used in the Clio, and the F4Rt is the turboed version used in the Megane.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff