EP3 Civic Type R to Clio 172/182. Thoughts?
Discussion
As the title says, I'm looking to try and save a bit of cash this year for a pilot's licence so think the CTR will have to go. The obvious replacement for me would be a Clio 172 or 182, I'd prefer a 182 but just wanted to know what your thoughts/opinions are? I was also looking at the possibility of an MX5 but that's my "wild card", if you like.
So, over to you, thanks for any replies in advance
So, over to you, thanks for any replies in advance
I wouldn't expect the Renault to be much, if any, better on fuel. The costs of changing will probably eat up any potential saving, were there any to be had in the first place.
Cue the following:
1) 172/182 owners saying how much better they are to drive than the Civic
2) Someone with a 6 cylinder 3 Series or the like stating how they hate VTEC engines
3) Someone who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about mentioning torque
4) Someone else will be offended at the hint of a Renaulspot being unreliable and will state they did 999,999 miles in one and all that went wrong was an airvent
5) The OP will wish they never asked...
Cue the following:
1) 172/182 owners saying how much better they are to drive than the Civic
2) Someone with a 6 cylinder 3 Series or the like stating how they hate VTEC engines
3) Someone who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about mentioning torque
4) Someone else will be offended at the hint of a Renaulspot being unreliable and will state they did 999,999 miles in one and all that went wrong was an airvent
5) The OP will wish they never asked...
TameRacingDriver said:
You won't save much money doing that change. The Honda may cost a touch more on petrol and insurance but the Clio will make up for it with its poor reliability and build quality.
The mx5 will be the best bet. Cheaper to run than both and more fun to drive. In my experience anyway....
The MX5 is not great on fuel, especially given the weak performance.The mx5 will be the best bet. Cheaper to run than both and more fun to drive. In my experience anyway....
TameRacingDriver said:
Barely worse than the other two though. Not that slow either if you know how to drive. Tyres and other parts are hugely cheaper as is insurance. Much more fun to drive too.
The Clio 172 is exceptionally good on fuel for the performance it gives, plenty of owners manage 40+mpg on a steady run, and even Evo were surprised how good it was in their long term test."knowing how to drive" seems a little irrelevant, presumably you can also know how to drive when driving the Clio or Civic with their significant power advantage?
Fun is purely subjective, I like hot hatches more than a warm convertible.
10 Pence Short said:
Cue the following:
1) 172/182 owners saying how much better they are to drive than the Civic
2) Someone with a 6 cylinder 3 Series or the like stating how they hate VTEC engines
3) Someone who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about mentioning torque
4) Someone else will be offended at the hint of a Renaulspot being unreliable and will state they did 999,999 miles in one and all that went wrong was an airvent
5) The OP will wish they never asked...
Excellent :-) Just what I was thinking. For cheap/fun I'd agree MX5 or MR2 Roadster.1) 172/182 owners saying how much better they are to drive than the Civic
2) Someone with a 6 cylinder 3 Series or the like stating how they hate VTEC engines
3) Someone who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about mentioning torque
4) Someone else will be offended at the hint of a Renaulspot being unreliable and will state they did 999,999 miles in one and all that went wrong was an airvent
5) The OP will wish they never asked...
Mr2Mike said:
The Clio 172 is exceptionally good on fuel for the performance it gives, plenty of owners manage 40+mpg on a steady run, and even Evo were surprised how good it was in their long term test.
"knowing how to drive" seems a little irrelevant, presumably you can also know how to drive when driving the Clio or Civic with their significant power advantage?
Fun is purely subjective, I like hot hatches more than a warm convertible.
40 mpg - yes so they say. Mine on a run would manage that, but that is not the norm. I'm really not sure why this gets repeated. Do they have some kind of magic engine that my 182 did not have where they can hoon and still get 40 MPG? I think not? Also it never gets mentioned that its recommended to run the Clio on 98+ unleaded so it can get within 10 bhp of its quoted power "knowing how to drive" seems a little irrelevant, presumably you can also know how to drive when driving the Clio or Civic with their significant power advantage?
Fun is purely subjective, I like hot hatches more than a warm convertible.
Sure enough I could keep up with most things on the road with the 182. Its performance and grip is not in question. However, I do think they're totally overrated. Nose heavy, twitchy, too refined, crap driving position, poor build quality, an engine thats both gutless at low revs, and coarse sounding at any revs, a spongy drive by wire throttle, etc etc, I could go on.
Fair enough though, you prefer them. Each to their own. I'd rather have a perfectly balanced, light weight, RWD, raw little convertible that can thrill at 60 mph than an overly refined FWD shopping trolley with too much grip to have any fun. I really don't know why they're so raved about.
Anyway, thats my two cents. If you want a FWD car, get an Integra Type-R. Better than both. If not that, go RWD.
Cheers for the replies, obviously the price difference between the 2 cars would help me raise some cash, but I was expecting cheaper running costs from the Clio too to be honest. I see it as a better option than a Focus diesel or something though, I could never have a "boring shed" type car..
Daggers89 said:
Cheers for the replies, obviously the price difference between the 2 cars would help me raise some cash, but I was expecting cheaper running costs from the Clio too to be honest. I see it as a better option than a Focus diesel or something though, I could never have a "boring shed" type car..
Keep the Honda dude, its better than the Clio in every respect except mpg and even that gap isnt big enough to make the difference here.If your serious about saving money by an old banger with a years T&T and run it till it dies.
I had a banger Cistroen Xsara TD for 400 quid all told and drove it till the tax ran out, even crashed it into a yaris and the front end was stoved in, just rearranged the lights and bought a new rad. awesome cheap motoring!!
I had a banger Cistroen Xsara TD for 400 quid all told and drove it till the tax ran out, even crashed it into a yaris and the front end was stoved in, just rearranged the lights and bought a new rad. awesome cheap motoring!!
These ideas just dont work.
The difference in MPG is just not enough.
Even if you chop your car in and walk away with £2000+ in cash (unlikely unless your Type-R is particularly newish/valuable, and/or you buy a cheaper Clio) that can easily be wiped away by a little bit of extra service work here and there, or an MOT fail, or a set of tyres.
An MX5, once the intial purchase is out the way, will be no more economical (circa 30 if you get a good one, many people get less on older rougher ones). And it wil cost no less to run - it will still need tyres, brakes, lots of fresh oil regularly etc. And it will rust.
By all means - buy a different car. But from a Type R - your not going to save MUCH money in a Clio or MX-5. 9Caveat being unless you mega miles, so the MPG difference starts to show).
ETA - If you DO want an MX-5 though (A nice one!) let me know - I fancy an EP3 next, ill trade you!
The difference in MPG is just not enough.
Even if you chop your car in and walk away with £2000+ in cash (unlikely unless your Type-R is particularly newish/valuable, and/or you buy a cheaper Clio) that can easily be wiped away by a little bit of extra service work here and there, or an MOT fail, or a set of tyres.
An MX5, once the intial purchase is out the way, will be no more economical (circa 30 if you get a good one, many people get less on older rougher ones). And it wil cost no less to run - it will still need tyres, brakes, lots of fresh oil regularly etc. And it will rust.
By all means - buy a different car. But from a Type R - your not going to save MUCH money in a Clio or MX-5. 9Caveat being unless you mega miles, so the MPG difference starts to show).
ETA - If you DO want an MX-5 though (A nice one!) let me know - I fancy an EP3 next, ill trade you!
Going right back to the original question. If you are going for a pilots licence, then, the savings going from a CTR to a Clio, will pale into insignificence, and be of no concequence whatsoever.
Forget it, car wise, keep the CTR, a far superior item IMO, if only for the Honda build quality.....oh, and the engine.....oh, and for the ride, and just about everything else versus the Clio. Seriously, find a Clio, park your CTR next to it, and press poke and look, it'll be enough to convince you.
MX5, where the heck, did that come from ??? 2 less seats, cramped, in comparison, about the same mpg, if you want the same performance, and compared to the other two...sloooowww !!!!!
CTR all the way, failing that Pilots drive BMW's.
Forget it, car wise, keep the CTR, a far superior item IMO, if only for the Honda build quality.....oh, and the engine.....oh, and for the ride, and just about everything else versus the Clio. Seriously, find a Clio, park your CTR next to it, and press poke and look, it'll be enough to convince you.
MX5, where the heck, did that come from ??? 2 less seats, cramped, in comparison, about the same mpg, if you want the same performance, and compared to the other two...sloooowww !!!!!
CTR all the way, failing that Pilots drive BMW's.
Cheap fun id go with an MX5, picked my MK2 up for shed money £925 in the end with a few chrome bits all the extras and a hard top. Went with the 1.8s with the LSD and i have to say its never cost me a penny aside having its alignment done when i first got it which id strongly recommend and for hoons out and track days its great fun - not to mention its good on fuel for what it is. Aside that i personally would prefer a 172 as i regard it as more track like mainly due to to the lack of luxuries the 182 comes with such as traction control and i think if you pick up a great 172 again you will have great fun. Just depends on what sort of experience you want from the car...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff