Clio 172/182 as a competition car?

[Batfink]

avenger286 said:

OK have you looked at Twingo 133's?
Small, lightweight, agile, cheap and most of all a bit different! Engines are not known to go wrong they were also the basis of the clio S1600 cars plenty of bits if you know where to look (rear end is 172). Good coil overs are hard to find but obviously rear is easy fronts are the problem. Brakes are 172 pads and mk3 laguna calipers and are fantastic front and 172 rear.
I have had mine for 5 years no issues apart from wear and tear. Currently just finishing off turning it into a rally car. Engine running cams and full exhaust system with 165ish bhp.
Hope this gas given you something else to think about.

The Chassis is basically the same as the Clio but I dont think you gain anything from using it. Front Pads are different to the Clio too but not as common or cheap. Its a newer car though so that can be good on wear and tear though most Clio parts are still relatively easy to get.
Pretty much everything needing to be developed for the Clio has been so I'd go with that.

[Vocal Minority]

I can only speak from personal experience

My hill climb championship (Midland Championship, under 2 litre) this year went

1). Pug 106
2). Clio 172
3). The same 106
4). Pug 205
5). My fat arsed RX8

the rest of the class contained some MX5s, a broadly standard 182 and a few other bits and bobs that came and went. MX5 and French hot hatches are de rigeur. The top 3 cars are a cut above mine. I am distinctly best of the rest (as in not remotely close!).

Decent drivers and well sorted and invested in cars - which you'll get everywhere.

but what it shows is small, light and sorted chassis like those are great foundations.

[Batfink]

The 106 and Saxo are certainly the lightest and nimblest but finding a good shell is another matter. They rust in rather important areas such as the inner wing around the strut mounts.