RE: PH buying guide: Clio 172/182
Discussion
I have been reading this thread with interest and remain disappointed that it has been dragged down by people arguing over the alternatives to these versions of clio sport. Surely the choice of hot hatches available is a good thing…
Anyway, on a brighter note I owned a full fat clio 182 with both cup packs for over two and half years and it was fantastic. I must, however, confess to being slightly biased as my household has had all variants of the modern clio sport except for the Trophy.
Ultimately, this is a great car which can now be purchased for phenomenal value. On a good B road it is a truly exceptional car and simply devours them. It is correct that either the 172 or 182 are going to struggle against modern turbocharged variants in a straight line but will more than hold their own on the twisties.
Both the 172 and 182 in standard form could do with more a voice but, personally, I found the sound they made reasonable with a great little induction noise in the first few gears. The other niggle is the standard brakes which I often found to be inadequate. As such, uprated pads should be considered as they transform the car. Save for that, I think these cars are good as they are and excessive modifications seem to go against the Renaultsport ethos.
I have seen that some people have mentioned alternatives such as the Fiesta ST and Civic Type R. Both of these cars are good (particularly the Civic) and, if you are interested in a hot hatch, you should be trying these too. Personally I went for the Clio as it represented better value and, in the 25,000 miles I had it, it never let me down.
The build quality is questionable but this reflects more on the cabin materials and the odd squeak rattle as opposed to actual unreliability as my clio and the others owned in the family (5 separate models) never ever let us down. If you buy a good one which has been looked after then they can be utterly dependable.
For those that may be interested in the economy of these cars I found that around town I would get around 27/28 mpg average but this would rise to mid to high 30s on long runs. It was not an “economical” car as such but could perform adequately on a run.
I eventually chose to replace mine with a Megane 230 F1, which was a great car and a definite step up in terms of pace and outright handling but, surprisingly, it lacked the raw nature of the old 182.
For those of you that are “open minded” these cars are well worth giving a try. I personally am seriously considering scaling back down to a 182 (as still not convinced by 197 or 200) as it represents a fantastic compromise between fun and economy.
Anyway, on a brighter note I owned a full fat clio 182 with both cup packs for over two and half years and it was fantastic. I must, however, confess to being slightly biased as my household has had all variants of the modern clio sport except for the Trophy.
Ultimately, this is a great car which can now be purchased for phenomenal value. On a good B road it is a truly exceptional car and simply devours them. It is correct that either the 172 or 182 are going to struggle against modern turbocharged variants in a straight line but will more than hold their own on the twisties.
Both the 172 and 182 in standard form could do with more a voice but, personally, I found the sound they made reasonable with a great little induction noise in the first few gears. The other niggle is the standard brakes which I often found to be inadequate. As such, uprated pads should be considered as they transform the car. Save for that, I think these cars are good as they are and excessive modifications seem to go against the Renaultsport ethos.
I have seen that some people have mentioned alternatives such as the Fiesta ST and Civic Type R. Both of these cars are good (particularly the Civic) and, if you are interested in a hot hatch, you should be trying these too. Personally I went for the Clio as it represented better value and, in the 25,000 miles I had it, it never let me down.
The build quality is questionable but this reflects more on the cabin materials and the odd squeak rattle as opposed to actual unreliability as my clio and the others owned in the family (5 separate models) never ever let us down. If you buy a good one which has been looked after then they can be utterly dependable.
For those that may be interested in the economy of these cars I found that around town I would get around 27/28 mpg average but this would rise to mid to high 30s on long runs. It was not an “economical” car as such but could perform adequately on a run.
I eventually chose to replace mine with a Megane 230 F1, which was a great car and a definite step up in terms of pace and outright handling but, surprisingly, it lacked the raw nature of the old 182.
For those of you that are “open minded” these cars are well worth giving a try. I personally am seriously considering scaling back down to a 182 (as still not convinced by 197 or 200) as it represents a fantastic compromise between fun and economy.
Having owned an Alfa 146, a UK Turbo Impreza, UK STI, 335i and Lotus Exige, I can honestly say that my 182 Cup was the most fun car I have ever owned.
What I find most interesting are the comments about build quality. These are fantastic drivers cars and if you want good build quality to accompany the package you will have to spend an awful lot.
What I find most interesting are the comments about build quality. These are fantastic drivers cars and if you want good build quality to accompany the package you will have to spend an awful lot.
I picked up a '53 plate 172 last October for £500 with a failed power steering pump. Thinking a quick turnaround, make a bit of cash.
Still have it
The induction roar with a big filter on....oh my god. What a delightful noise. Brilliant little cars, I suspect mine will become a long termer next to the 9 and 21.
Still have it
The induction roar with a big filter on....oh my god. What a delightful noise. Brilliant little cars, I suspect mine will become a long termer next to the 9 and 21.
Sir_Dave said:
Unreliable ('55 plate Trophy on original engine, box & clutch):
No fun:
Boring:
Shed:
Best car ive ever owned (had a 182 cup, 172 cup, this is the 2nd 182 Trophy) and various other things if you check my profile ... in March i had to decide whether to sell my e46 M3 or the Trophy, the M3 didnt stand a chance.
FairPlay to that man! Over 180k in a Clio sport! Must ask, do you miss the power of the M3?No fun:
Boring:
Shed:
Best car ive ever owned (had a 182 cup, 172 cup, this is the 2nd 182 Trophy) and various other things if you check my profile ... in March i had to decide whether to sell my e46 M3 or the Trophy, the M3 didnt stand a chance.
thewheelman said:
FairPlay to that man! Over 180k in a Clio sport! Must ask, do you miss the power of the M3?
Not really, in fact most of the reason for selling it was that it was simply too fast/capable for UK roads. By the time your having fun/pushing it you're either going to lose your licence, make a very large hole in the scenery, or if you're unfortunate, both.Clio is great fun at relatively sensible speeds!!
I do miss the noise of the M3 though. That rasp
Polarbert said:
I don't know which Clio sport you've owned, but I've had mine for over six years and can count the number of faults its had on one hand. Engine temperature sensor and the heater matrix. That's it.
You've certainly had more luck than I did with mine, Rob.I had a 54 plate 182 from 59k-80k miles and had lots of minor problems plus a few major ones including the original exhaust dropping to bits and having to replace the cat.
However I still loved the car, it was great to drive and did 34MPG over 20k miles which isn't bad considering the performance and that I didn't exactly hang around
rgt16v said:
I had a phase 2 172 a couple of years ago and it actually disappointed me on the whole. I'd heard great things about them but sadly I didn't enjoy it. I found the power delivery far too peaky - it only started to pull right at the very top of the rev range, and didn't feel very quick below it, the clutch was heavier than any other car I've owned, I didn't find the driving position comfortable, and the steering didn't have as much feedback as I'd have liked. The only things that impressed me were the handling, which was really good, and the economy. I replaced it with a mk1 mx5 and I wasn't disappointed at all. Perhaps the other Renault Sport Clio variants were better but I wouldn't buy another.
That was my impression as well, was about to buy one as it fitted the bill, nine grand in my pocket and off I toddled to a performance car delear in Warrington who had a nice blue one in stock with low miles, as fairly certain I would have it but the test drive was a let down, like you say, peaky and didnt feel that fast, after my turbo Saab it just felt anaemic and that was only 150 (on paper) bhp, the gear stick was in the wrong place, it was a bit flimsy but I was prepared for that, I was not wowed by the handling either but a few bends with a dealer sat next to me are probably not a fair test either.I think, being fair, coming from a turbo car is a little unfair as the midrange kind of spoils you and I reckon that given time I would have come to appreciate its ability and adjust my driving but it just didnt grab me, bought another Saab in the end which didnt wow me that much either but I needed to get something by then.
I think they probably make more of an impression when you are coming up from another N/A Hot Hatch like a Saxo VTR or something.
Still love the look of them though.
Porkie said:
I did a Sachs uprated one in less than 3000miles and 8 months!
They were pretty hard miles I dont mind admitting!
Just out of interest Porkie, but as i assume that most of your miles are track based, do you heel & toe on downshifts? If not, that might be the route of your problem. Cheesy gearbox & clutch needs all the help it can get They were pretty hard miles I dont mind admitting!
J4CKO - i think you need to take one for a proper drive, they come alive once grabbed by the scruff of the neck. Bit like an M3, bit heavy, not massively exciting & lacklustre at low revs, but stick 5k on the rev counter and things get a little more interesting ...
Heres a few of mine at yet another trackday (Llandow) last Thursday
Brilliant car, simply brilliant.
Although looking at those photos i need to raise the rear suspension by 10mm or so.
Edited by Sir_Dave on Tuesday 12th June 17:37
I Owned a great example of the 172 phase 1 exclusive. Full service history. receipts for everything Great performance / handling. Cheap on fuel and was a hoot to drive around the back roads. Got rid of it after six months because it was breaking once a month. Brake master cylinder was first to go. Then 2 abs rings. then coil packs.
Maybe i was just unlucky with the faults but it was fun when it worked.
Maybe i was just unlucky with the faults but it was fun when it worked.
Sir_Dave said:
J4CKO - i think you need to take one for a proper drive, they come alive once grabbed by the scruff of the neck. Bit like an M3, bit heavy, not massively exciting & lacklustre at low revs, but stick 5k on the rev counter and things get a little more interesting ...
Brilliant car, simply brilliant.
Exactly this. The harder you push, the bigger the reward. You need some serious brave-pills to push the limits though as it almost defies belief sometimes.Brilliant car, simply brilliant.
The 172 is my slowest performance car, all the others are Turbo'd and 2 of them are powered by the massively torque-y 2.0 8v Turbo Renault J-Series where I have over 200lb/ft before 3000 rpm.....despite this I don't find the 172 lacks pace for what it is once you really start giving it some stick.
Sir_Dave said:
Just out of interest Porkie, but as i assume that most of your miles are track based, do you heel & toe on downshifts? If not, that might be the route of your problem. Cheesy gearbox & clutch needs all the help it can get
95% of the miles are track based yes. I try heel and toe Dave.... but probably 50% of the time I dont in all honesty. It was impossible for a while as the throttle pedal was too low from when the ITB's were fitted. Mark fish has sorted that now....Also dont forget... I just take my Clio to trackdays and leave it there with keys in it for anyone and everyone to drive including some REAL numpty track virgin mates and family members and also very experienced but brutal and mechanically unsympathetic trackday wannabe heros (I put myself in that group as well!) so its no surprise really its eaten 2 clutches.
The Gearbox is crunching into 4th now as well at high revs.... so thats next I guess!
Edited by Porkie on Wednesday 13th June 10:52
I never felt the 172 was a slow car. I've owned some reasonably brisk cars including MR2 Turbos, Integra Type-Rs and E36 328s and the Clio still feels like a rapid little car to me, despite on paper being at least 25 bhp down on even the slowest of those. Then again I'm very used to driving NA cars, you basically just have to hold on to the gears and don't be afraid to give them some revs.
My last car was an early 1.8 MX5 so it feels like a little rocket compared with that.
Then again, with all of say 165 - 170 bhp, I suppose a Clio barely qualifies as a warm hatch these days
My last car was an early 1.8 MX5 so it feels like a little rocket compared with that.
Then again, with all of say 165 - 170 bhp, I suppose a Clio barely qualifies as a warm hatch these days
Sir_Dave said:
Porkie said:
I did a Sachs uprated one in less than 3000miles and 8 months!
They were pretty hard miles I dont mind admitting!
Just out of interest Porkie, but as i assume that most of your miles are track based, do you heel & toe on downshifts? If not, that might be the route of your problem. Cheesy gearbox & clutch needs all the help it can get They were pretty hard miles I dont mind admitting!
J4CKO - i think you need to take one for a proper drive, they come alive once grabbed by the scruff of the neck. Bit like an M3, bit heavy, not massively exciting & lacklustre at low revs, but stick 5k on the rev counter and things get a little more interesting ...
Heres a few of mine at yet another trackday (Llandow) last Thursday
Brilliant car, simply brilliant.
Although looking at those photos i need to raise the rear suspension by 10mm or so.
Edited by Sir_Dave on Tuesday 12th June 17:37
Might give one another go one day but I think (hope) my future involves more well aged Pork, saying that, have three sons and eventually as they start driving, pass, prove themselves and get a bit older, who know what they will have for me to pay for and have a go of.
I felt the way you did about the 182, never really gelled with it. I've now got a Phase 1 172 and its somehow more fun than the 182, feels a bit more raw (yet still civilised enough for the daily drive), and thats with my stupid rock hard suspension and oversized wheels which I'm pretty sure spoil it somewhat (I'm working on it!!)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff