RE: PH Blog: Clio is the unsung hero

[Rs2oo]

LewisR said:

Perhaps I should have tabled the E46 M3, which would have positively obliterated this tin-pot shopping car and I've just seen that 500bhp E60 M5s are coming in at around £15k too but the E39 M5 is perfectly capable enough in its own right, so I'll stick to my guns.

A FWD 4-cylinder, transverse-engined hatchback a "proper drivers' car?" (I'll add the apostrophe for you) What planet are you on? If that was THE configuartion for ultimate handling, then every Formula One car would be built like that but no, they're all RWD. A FWD car will always be a performance compromise; the front tyres have to steer and put the power down, leading to understeer whereas RWD cars use the fronts to steer and the rears to drive.

You've stated that the shopping car will run rings round an E39 M5 yet that claim is totally unsubstantiated. You then criticise my posts for not being factual. Facts here we come:

The Clio may have won award after award but they come with a massive caveat i.e. shopping car.

As for running rings round the M5:
Nordschleife*
8:48.00 - Clio (time for Renault Clio III Sport)
8:28.00 - E39 M5 (even the E34 M5 is 8:34.00)

TopGear Track
1:33.8 - Clio
1:27.0 - E39 M5

Max Speed*:
149mph - Clio
155mph - E39 M5 (limited) ( >180mph unlimited )

Acceleration:
0-100 km/h*
5.8s - Clio
5.1s - E39 M5

0-100mph*
16.1s - Clio
11.2s - E39 M5

0-200kph*
32.6s - Clio
16.9s - E39 M5

Power/weight ratio*
192 bhp/tonne - Clio
220 bhp/tonne - E39 M5


This Clio seems a bit limp-wristed if you've got £16k for a sports car. It'll get you all manner of Lotus Elises, VX220 Turbos, E36/E46 M3s, E34/E39/E60 M5s but if you want something that'll get you to ASDA just before they close, then stick with the Clio.

• Source Fastestlaps.com [can't be 100% sure about lap times as the Clio seems to come in many guises in an around 197-200 bhp.]

Unless you drive one of these cars you cannot comment on them with any authority. Comparing a 200 BHP car with another car which has 400 or 500 BHP is ridiculous and pointless. Of course it will be faster on tracks like the TG Track and the Nordschleife, come on ! These tracks suit cars with big power! You totally miss the point of these cars. I have owned over 100 cars. I've had a 460 BHP Twin Turbo Supra which would leave supercars standing in a straight line but on a challenging track or twisty road wouldn't stay with the Clio. Recently, I had a 2005 Elise S which was a great car but I have more fun in the Clio and that's what driving is all about.

For the record, the Clio you quoted for was a 2007 197, different power gearing and chassis but didn't it do well on a very fast circuit designed for high powered cars. Let's see what it beat on it's way to Asda. A BMW M3 EVO RWD, SLK 55 AMG with RWD, Porsche Carrera RWD, Esprit Turbo RWD, Porsche Boxster RWD all great Drivers cars with RWD and all cars I would gladly own and can easily afford to buy but I spent my money on a Clio and it is one of the best and fun cars I have ever owned.

Edited by Rs2oo on Friday 27th April 00:43

[LewisR]

The original PH article was about the Clio being ragged around the Nürburgring and so that was the original basis for the discussion.

However, driving pleasure, on a day-to-day basis IS what it is all about for most of us and the whole experince of the M5, even in a traffic jam, would be far more rewarding to me than in a Clio (or any other hot hatch for that matter, although I like the sound of the I-5 in the RS Focus Mk2). Equally, sitting so low in an Elise or VX220 is itself an experince to be enjoyed even at slower speeds and the steering is laughably direct.

[Rs2oo]

In a traffic jam I would rather be in a BMW than the Clio ! When I bought it, I still had my Z4 which was very quick but if I got out of the Z4 then drove the Clio it made the Z4 feel like an 80' s saloon. All the cars you mention are great cars and I have to say, so too is the Clio.

Edited by Rs2oo on Friday 27th April 00:44

[vescaegg]

LewisR said:

The original PH article was about the Clio being ragged around the Nürburgring and so that was the original basis for the discussion.

However, driving pleasure, on a day-to-day basis IS what it is all about for most of us and the whole experince of the M5, even in a traffic jam, would be far more rewarding to me than in a Clio (or any other hot hatch for that matter, although I like the sound of the I-5 in the RS Focus Mk2). Equally, sitting so low in an Elise or VX220 is itself an experince to be enjoyed even at slower speeds and the steering is laughably direct.

You can have a lot more fun in an every day situation (and speed) in the clio then you can with an M5. For every day driving pleasure, the M5 cannot compete in my opinion due to the instant ban speeds you need to be going to feel any kind of thrill.

[900T-R]

LewisR said:

A FWD 4-cylinder, transverse-engined hatchback a "proper drivers' car?" (I'll add the apostrophe for you)

Not less so than a 1.8 ton barge, I'd humbly submit.

[warren182]

How can anyone compare a hot hatch to an e39 M5? One is a cheap everyday car that happens to be fantastic fun. The other has much, much, much higher daily running costs, and would prove potentially ruinous if something big went bang.

Apples v oranges.

[LewisR]

warren182 said:

How can anyone compare a hot hatch to an e39 M5? One is a cheap everyday car that happens to be fantastic fun. The other has much, much, much higher daily running costs, and would prove potentially ruinous if something big went bang.

Apples v oranges.

It's quite easy to compare the two cars; I just did! The M5 is cheaper to buy, faster in all areas that I can get information on, will hold its value better and is a far, far better engineered car. There are at least two guys where I work that have them as daily drivers (I think that they're grads. as well !!) However, I subsequently offered a few cars also with better performance than the Clio which seem to me to be a better financial proposition i.e. Elise & VX220 and probably an E46 M3.

[900T-R]

It's all bks, anyway.

If you wanted to build an out-and-out performance car starting with a clean sheet of paper, you would not start from a FWD hatchback or a big executive barge. Granted.

Thing is, when people far more experienced and capable behind the wheel than this humble automotive hack have driven actual cars back to back, and say the humble FWD hatchback and the big barge are actually as good or better to drive than the majority of purpose-designed performance cars, I will sit up and listen (especially when my own experiences point in the same way).

And in a way, it makes sense - start with a car that's built in tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands rather than double or triple figures, and you can assume all the basics are covered leaving the small group of petrolhead engineers working on such projects with the dynamic development and the haptics of driver/machine interface (and making sure the design and marketing departments do not fk things up). If a similar small team is to build a car from scratch, a lot of their attention is being diverted to fulfilling legal requirements, making sure the thing doesn't fall into a pile of bits after a couple of miles, designing a shape that doesn't revolt punters when they see it, making sure the supplier bills are paid and something is left in the kitty litter for paying their own salaries, et cetera.

It's swings and roundabouts really - there are compromises and sacrifices to be made either way.

There's really no telling from a basic mechanical configuration how good a car will be from a driving perspective - firstly, you're missing that vital other component in the equation (the driver him/herself, even among driving enthusiasts ever single one of us is looking for different things and 'bonding' with different blends of attributes) and secondly, Porsche has been proving how far you can get from a 'fatally' flawed configuration for over half a century now...

Choose your personal weapon, drive it, love it, wear it out, repair it, tune it to your specific requirements, then drive it some more... Who cares what someone else thinks you should drive?

[deadmau5]

LewisR said:

warren182 said:

How can anyone compare a hot hatch to an e39 M5? One is a cheap everyday car that happens to be fantastic fun. The other has much, much, much higher daily running costs, and would prove potentially ruinous if something big went bang.

Apples v oranges.

It's quite easy to compare the two cars; I just did! The M5 is cheaper to buy, faster in all areas that I can get information on, will hold its value better and is a far, far better engineered car. There are at least two guys where I work that have them as daily drivers (I think that they're grads. as well !!) However, I subsequently offered a few cars also with better performance than the Clio which seem to me to be a better financial proposition i.e. Elise & VX220 and probably an E46 M3.

Have you ever been in a VX220? They have a never ending source of rattles, and a very inefficient heater. Must be great fun in January on an icy road. No a long term daily driver.
M5 - Cheaper to buy, faster. Triple the running costs of the Clio? Double the insurance?
Clio - comes with 4 years servicing and warranty. The running costs are tax and fuel.

You have clearly never driven a Cliosport and you are letting your snobby attitude cloud your judgement.

[LewisR]

deadmau5 said:

LewisR said:

warren182 said:

How can anyone compare a hot hatch to an e39 M5? One is a cheap everyday car that happens to be fantastic fun. The other has much, much, much higher daily running costs, and would prove potentially ruinous if something big went bang.

Apples v oranges.

It's quite easy to compare the two cars; I just did! The M5 is cheaper to buy, faster in all areas that I can get information on, will hold its value better and is a far, far better engineered car. There are at least two guys where I work that have them as daily drivers (I think that they're grads. as well !!) However, I subsequently offered a few cars also with better performance than the Clio which seem to me to be a better financial proposition i.e. Elise & VX220 and probably an E46 M3.

Have you ever been in a VX220? They have a never ending source of rattles, and a very inefficient heater. Must be great fun in January on an icy road. No a long term daily driver.
M5 - Cheaper to buy, faster. Triple the running costs of the Clio? Double the insurance?
Clio - comes with 4 years servicing and warranty. The running costs are tax and fuel.

You have clearly never driven a Cliosport and you are letting your snobby attitude cloud your judgement.

No, I have never been in a VX220 (probably sat in one at one point). I have, however, owned an S2 Elise for 2 1/2 years and had that as my only car for about 2 of those years. We took it to Germany twice... wearing ear plugs. Yes, the heaters are as good as useless and there isn't that much luggage space. The VX220 Turbo would still rinse the Clio round the track, which is what the car was being judged on in this article in the first place. Now more & more caveats are being brought in: cost of insurance, fuel, heater efficiency, NVH etc. it'll be "I'll need to get 6 planks of 4x2 in the back" next. As I said, IMO, depreciation will counter against lower running costs.

My judgement isn't clouded and I don't have any snobby attitude (there are a few interesting cars I'd like to own, which are positively pedestrian). Hatchbacks are great for interior space against exterior dimensions. Transversly driving the front wheels however, as I have stated, compromises handling, regardless of grip and induces torque-steer. It is not the starting point for a great sports car.

I will, however, agree with 900T-R

900T-R said:

Choose your personal weapon, drive it, love it, wear it out, repair it, tune it to your specific requirements, then drive it some more... Who cares what someone else thinks you should drive?

[deadmau5]

LewisR said:

deadmau5 said:

LewisR said:

warren182 said:

How can anyone compare a hot hatch to an e39 M5? One is a cheap everyday car that happens to be fantastic fun. The other has much, much, much higher daily running costs, and would prove potentially ruinous if something big went bang.

Apples v oranges.

It's quite easy to compare the two cars; I just did! The M5 is cheaper to buy, faster in all areas that I can get information on, will hold its value better and is a far, far better engineered car. There are at least two guys where I work that have them as daily drivers (I think that they're grads. as well !!) However, I subsequently offered a few cars also with better performance than the Clio which seem to me to be a better financial proposition i.e. Elise & VX220 and probably an E46 M3.

Have you ever been in a VX220? They have a never ending source of rattles, and a very inefficient heater. Must be great fun in January on an icy road. No a long term daily driver.
M5 - Cheaper to buy, faster. Triple the running costs of the Clio? Double the insurance?
Clio - comes with 4 years servicing and warranty. The running costs are tax and fuel.

You have clearly never driven a Cliosport and you are letting your snobby attitude cloud your judgement.

No, I have never been in a VX220 (probably sat in one at one point). I have, however, owned an S2 Elise for 2 1/2 years and had that as my only car for about 2 of those years. We took it to Germany twice... wearing ear plugs. Yes, the heaters are as good as useless and there isn't that much luggage space. The VX220 Turbo would still rinse the Clio round the track, which is what the car was being judged on in this article in the first place. Now more & more caveats are being brought in: cost of insurance, fuel, heater efficiency, NVH etc. it'll be "I'll need to get 6 planks of 4x2 in the back" next. As I said, IMO, depreciation will counter against lower running costs.

My judgement isn't clouded and I don't have any snobby attitude (there are a few interesting cars I'd like to own, which are positively pedestrian). Hatchbacks are great for interior space against exterior dimensions. Transversly driving the front wheels however, as I have stated, compromises handling, regardless of grip and induces torque-steer. It is not the starting point for a great sports car.

I will, however, agree with 900T-R

900T-R said:

Choose your personal weapon, drive it, love it, wear it out, repair it, tune it to your specific requirements, then drive it some more... Who cares what someone else thinks you should drive?

I owned an MR2 Mk3 for nearly two years and found it to not be as much fun as my Clio. Whilst the MR2 isn't exactly rapid, it's still much lauded mid-engined RWD car with an LSD. I also found the MR2 was more keen to understeer (and oversteer), but on the whole not as much fun to drive quickly as the Clio.

[Rs2oo]

One reason why I bought the Clio was after watching the Autocar clip Renaultsport Clio v Focus RS, the Clio chasing the 300BHP Ford. One simply cant ignore the likes of Steve Sutcliffe who is so respected in his field, a very accomplished motoring journalist. His and virtually all the motoring press worldwide can't be wrong ! Apart from the idiot James May who does not like it. the article is saying the Clio is the GT3 of hot hatches, it's not about comparing it with 500 BHP saloons or a mid engined Lotus Elise. The article states what probably 99% of motoring journalists and owners know, the Clio is very special, end of.

[LewisR]

Rs2oo said:

One reason why I bought the Clio was after watching the Autocar clip Renaultsport Clio v Focus RS, the Clio chasing the 300BHP Ford. One simply cant ignore the likes of Steve Sutcliffe who is so respected in his field, a very accomplished motoring journalist. His and virtually all the motoring press worldwide can't be wrong ! Apart from the idiot James May who does not like it. the article is saying the Clio is the GT3 of hot hatches, it's not about comparing it with 500 BHP saloons or a mid engined Lotus Elise. The article states what probably 99% of motoring journalists and owners know, the Clio is very special, end of.

The article may well say that the Clio is the GT3 of hot hatches. It's still a hot hatch and my point is that FWD hot hatches fundamentally don't make good sports cars because the engine is in the wrong way round and it's driving the wrong set of wheels; just ask any vehicle dynamicist, whose judgement I'd put over and above any journalist. If people are happy driving these sort of cars then so be it.

[900T-R]

LewisR said:

The article may well say that the Clio is the GT3 of hot hatches. It's still a hot hatch and my point is that FWD hot hatches fundamentally don't make good sports cars because the engine is in the wrong way round and it's driving the wrong set of wheels; just ask any vehicle dynamicist, whose judgement I'd put over and above any journalist. If people are happy driving these sort of cars then so be it.

Yep, and cars with their engines slung out behind the rear axle line fundamentally don't ma... oh, hang on...

[DanDC5]

[Swervin_Mervin]

Comparing new vs old cars always gives me a chuckle. I bet the guys that sign the models off and set pricing have a real hard time when someone at the back of the room pipes up with "but hang on, you can get a 10yr old M5 for that sort of money"!

[Rs2oo]

Swervin_Mervin said:

Comparing new vs old cars always gives me a chuckle. I bet the guys that sign the models off and set pricing have a real hard time when someone at the back of the room pipes up with "but hang on, you can get a 10yr old M5 for that sort of money"!

Only if they are out on day release with their carer

[Temple]

Pistonhead forums - the only place a Clio 200 would be compared to an old M5...

The amount of rwd snobbery on this forum is ridiculous.

[LewisR]

900T-R said:

LewisR said:

The article may well say that the Clio is the GT3 of hot hatches. It's still a hot hatch and my point is that FWD hot hatches fundamentally don't make good sports cars because the engine is in the wrong way round and it's driving the wrong set of wheels; just ask any vehicle dynamicist, whose judgement I'd put over and above any journalist. If people are happy driving these sort of cars then so be it.

Yep, and cars with their engines slung out behind the rear axle line fundamentally don't ma... oh, hang on...

Hang on what? They don't handle but they do sell, so Porsche keep making it. If I may quote Evo magazine "~ Porsche has spent 45 evolutionary years trying to make the over-engineered Beetle handle properly and all it’s really done is gradually bleed the character out of it. The 911 still understeers in the wet and has a heavy arse." whereas, in comparison, of the mid-engined car: "The Cayman’s chassis delivers a more accurate, predictable and manageable balance". TopGear compared the 911 against the Evora "So the Evora has the best suspension and handling kinematics by far"

Rs2oo said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

Comparing new vs old cars always gives me a chuckle. I bet the guys that sign the models off and set pricing have a real hard time when someone at the back of the room pipes up with "but hang on, you can get a 10yr old M5 for that sort of money"!

Only if they are out on day release with their carer

Utterly, utterly ridiculous. Brand new Proton or 2nd-hand Focus? Brand new Perodua or 2nd-hand Fiesta? It is a total mugs' game buying new. For most private buyers, it's about what they can get for their money.

The Elise I bought in '05 was just under £10k. What would that have bought me new?

[deadmau5]

'And, in the 200 Cup, the temptation is ever present – not because of the engine alone (improved though it is) but because of the workload it gives what should now be regarded as a simply sublime chassis. All right, the ride is very firm, but in a good way: no harshness or jarring but an almost Elise-like poise that combines extremely precise control with a nuggety suppleness. Just as with the Mégane R26.R, it feels special within the first few hundred metres.' - from Evo.

Comparing a FWD shopping car to an purpose built car like the Elise? Are they mad...? No, they are journalists with a balanced viewpoint, an open mind and and an appreciation for all types of car.

And FYI, for my £8k I got a truly immaculate car with FRSH, 48k, 1 owner from new and 12 months warranty

Edited by deadmau5 on Saturday 28th April 22:30