|
Hoygo
658 posts
30 months
|
swifthobo said: pah!!! give me a jap engine any day! the clio is a good car, handling is superb! engine is ok lacks in torque and midrange and you have to thrash it to get it to come to life but it pulls nicely when it eventually comes to life but crap for overtaking. and they suffer from problems but what car doesn't just the clio ones are bloody annoying and are normally common faults. if the clio had a vtec lump in it that would be a hell of a car! ^^^ That is the most ill informed sh!t crap thing ive ever heard on here for a while,the engines of both cars are about equal in character and everything,the Clio engine has more torque 220 nm vs 196 nm of the V-tec,and for overtaking starting from the mid-low range is much better. don't post anymore of your b  ks please.
|
|
|
S10 GTA
2,485 posts
36 months
|
Hoygo said: don't post anymore of your b ks please. Ha ha ha. That could be attributed to most the Honda fan boys on this topic.
|
|
|
Disco You
1,717 posts
49 months
|
SystemParanoia said: Legend.
|
|
|
StoatInACoat
617 posts
54 months
|
Mr2Mike said: As a matter of fact yes. It's also a pretty major and expensive issue, what is the equivalent on the Civic? Steering racks on the Civic and, ironically, sychros failing on the ITR. I have had gearboxes fail in the past so am well aware of the costs involved. This threads going way OT now, it really doesn't matter what you or I think it matters what the OP thinks and the only way to find out is to go and test drive the car IMO. I actually like the CTR but couldn't afford the fuel so bought a 172 instead without realising that the choice of one or the other made you "right" or "wrong".
|
|
|
swifthobo
834 posts
39 months
|
Hoygo said: ^^^ That is the most ill informed sh!t crap thing ive ever heard on here for a while,the engines of both cars are about equal in character and everything,the Clio engine has more torque 220 nm vs 196 nm of the V-tec,and for overtaking starting from the mid-low range is much better. don't post anymore of your b ks please. yawn!! The civic is the better car, I drive my girlfriends 172 every single day and it is a great handling car but the engine is boring and is in no way similar to the k20a and for overtaking give me a revvy jap motor every time.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
John D.
9,552 posts
78 months
|
swifthobo said: yawn!! The civic is the better car, I drive my girlfriends 172 every single day and it is a great handling car but the engine is boring and is in no way similar to the k20a and for overtaking give me a revvy jap motor every time. The 172 lump thrives on revs  If you need to pull 8000rpm to overtake I suggest you need to work on your technique.
|
|
|
Mastodon2
5,734 posts
34 months
|
John D. said: The 172 lump thrives on revs If you need to pull 8000rpm to overtake I suggest you need to work on your technique. It does indeed thrive on revs but it doesn't quite have the searing top end of the Honda engine. FWIW, I like the RS Clios, I test drove a 182 before getting my Civic Type R and while the engine is decent and the handling is good, the unusual, high driving position along with obvious cheap parts (melting gear knobs and steering wheels being one of them) put me off. While I know you can replace these things with better items, it just didn't bode all that well for me. After driving the Civic I knew straight away I'd be taking that over the Clio, it felt better screwed together, a nicer place to sit, sounded miles better and was just more rewarding to drive fast. Not saying I would never own an RS Clio (or Megane for that matter) as they obviously had their strengths, but I wouldnt go back down to a Clio unless I was looking to save some money for whatever reason. Driving either car through deep water is a bad idea though. The Civic Type R is a top notch hot hatch, but it's not a boat.
|
|
|
Sump
1,580 posts
36 months
|
Civic over the 172 for me anyday. The 172 was just weird. It was good yet utterly s t at the same time. That's the only way I could put it.
|
|
|
John D.
9,552 posts
78 months
|
Mastodon2 said: It does indeed thrive on revs but it doesn't quite have the searing top end of the Honda engine. FWIW, I like the RS Clios, I test drove a 182 before getting my Civic Type R and while the engine is decent and the handling is good, the unusual, high driving position along with obvious cheap parts (melting gear knobs and steering wheels being one of them) put me off. While I know you can replace these things with better items, it just didn't bode all that well for me. After driving the Civic I knew straight away I'd be taking that over the Clio, it felt better screwed together, a nicer place to sit, sounded miles better and was just more rewarding to drive fast.
Not saying I would never own an RS Clio (or Megane for that matter) as they obviously had their strengths, but I wouldnt go back down to a Clio unless I was looking to save some money for whatever reason.
Driving either car through deep water is a bad idea though. The Civic Type R is a top notch hot hatch, but it's not a boat. Sure the v-tec is even more rev happy. That wasn't my point. Saying you can't overtake in an RS Clio is just complete BS.
|
|
|
Sidewindow
224 posts
92 months
|
I've had both, EP3 Civic Type-R and 2 Clio 182 Cups. Both fun in their own way, the Clio engine is a peach, just not quite as good as the Civic engine. Clio steering and chassis plus Honda engine and gearbox for me please!
|
|
|
Hoygo
658 posts
30 months
|
Still the fanboys going strong on this,even C.H criticised the ep3 for it's steering and other stuff and its more than true for a lot of people who have driven them,the engine/gearbox is better in the civic and surely it was in the category with the Megane/Golf/focus and clio was not meant to be its competitor.
Engine and gearbox need tweaking in the 172 but surely are not far of the civic and not as bad as people say,and have been vastly improved in next gen Clio R.Ss.
If you prefer the civic over the clio thats right its your opinion,but do not make up stuff without driving the car or say other bs which clearly are proven wrong by experience/owners or by properly driving the car .
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,573 posts
86 months
|
Hoygo said: Still the fanboys going strong on this,even C.H criticised the ep3 for it's steering and other stuff and its more than true for a lot of people who have driven them,the engine/gearbox is better in the civic and surely it was in the category with the Megane/Golf/focus and clio was not meant to be its competitor.
Engine and gearbox need tweaking in the 172 but surely are not far of the civic and not as bad as people say,and have been vastly improved in next gen Clio R.Ss.
If you prefer the civic over the clio thats right its your opinion,but do not make up stuff without driving the car or say other bs which clearly are proven wrong by experience/owners or by properly driving the car . English, motherf ker! Do you speak it!?
|
|
|
firman
1,376 posts
62 months
|
10 Pence Short said: Hoygo said: Still the fanboys going strong on this,even C.H criticised the ep3 for it's steering and other stuff and its more than true for a lot of people who have driven them,the engine/gearbox is better in the civic and surely it was in the category with the Megane/Golf/focus and clio was not meant to be its competitor.
Engine and gearbox need tweaking in the 172 but surely are not far of the civic and not as bad as people say,and have been vastly improved in next gen Clio R.Ss.
If you prefer the civic over the clio thats right its your opinion,but do not make up stuff without driving the car or say other bs which clearly are proven wrong by experience/owners or by properly driving the car . English, motherf ker! Do you speak it!?  That is all
|
|
|
Sump
1,580 posts
36 months
|
10 Pence Short said: Hoygo said: Still the fanboys going strong on this,even C.H criticised the ep3 for it's steering and other stuff and its more than true for a lot of people who have driven them,the engine/gearbox is better in the civic and surely it was in the category with the Megane/Golf/focus and clio was not meant to be its competitor.
Engine and gearbox need tweaking in the 172 but surely are not far of the civic and not as bad as people say,and have been vastly improved in next gen Clio R.Ss.
If you prefer the civic over the clio thats right its your opinion,but do not make up stuff without driving the car or say other bs which clearly are proven wrong by experience/owners or by properly driving the car . English, motherf ker! Do you speak it!? Where did you learn it? In prison?  But yes, hoygo, wtf are you on about?
|
|
|
kambites
32,864 posts
90 months
|
I suspect that just the flooded interior would write the car off, even without the engine damage.
|
|
|
Biscuit Bus
159 posts
34 months
|
My tuppence....
Had a Clio 182 with cup packs, then an EP3, then a Clio 197. Clio was good fun to chuck about but rubbish seats and steering wheel; surprisingly economical though. I missed it when I changed it for the Honda. I had more issues, though admittedly still minor, with my Honda than my 182. The Honda does have a better drivetrain though.
The 197 was a good mix of both cars tbh and are cheap now........
|
|
|
rohrl
3,708 posts
14 months
|
kambites said: I suspect that just the flooded interior would write the car off, even without the engine damage. This is true. The insurers had to pay out a shedload on parked cars a few years ago when there floods in Carlisle, York, Worcester and Gloucester all within a year or so. Once you get silty water all in the electrics and you need a full new interior it's game over for anything other than very expensive exotica.
|
|
|
NHK244V
1,631 posts
41 months
|
billy939 said: So the other day, May 1st, I was driving my EP3 Type-R back from work and I came across a flooded part of the backroad/lane I drive home from work on. I went through the flood the day before when it was slightly smaller and I survived...... Long story short, it was deeper this time, it was a 2ft deep flood and my car took in water, hydrolocked and I got stuck, the interior was flooded up to the seats, and a fire engine had to drag me out. Unsurprisingly the car was in need of a new engine so i'm now awaiting for it to be assessed by the insurance, so I can see if they write it off, im pretty sure they will. Basically: Am I a bit of a t t for trying to take the car through it? Am I right in thinking that Fully Comp insurance should cover this? And is a Clio 172 Cup a pretty good replacement? Am I a bit of a t t for trying to take the car through it? yep sorry Am I right in thinking that Fully Comp insurance should cover this? most will And is a Clio 172 Cup a pretty good replacement? have to say no 
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,903 posts
114 months
|
rohrl said: This is true. The insurers had to pay out a shedload on parked cars a few years ago when there floods in Carlisle, York, Worcester and Gloucester all within a year or so.
Once you get silty water all in the electrics and you need a full new interior it's game over for anything other than very expensive exotica. Apart from that, if the water has sewerage in it (it usually does) they have to be written off and the car is supposed to be destroyed.
|
|
|
swifthobo
834 posts
39 months
|
John D. said: The 172 lump thrives on revs If you need to pull 8000rpm to overtake I suggest you need to work on your technique. Thats what I mean if you need a decent turn of speed for overtaking for instance you have to ring a 172's neck, It needs to be at or over 5k to actually come to life and all the power comes at once and before you know it you have to change gear just my personal opinion and preference but I am probably just to used to my car with fruity cams. but the 172 chassis is awesome!
|
|
