RE: PH buying guide: Clio 172/182
Discussion
scholesy said:
I have had a 182, it was ok, went well, gearbox wasn't the nicest to be honest, cornered slightly better than my ep3 I had later, however I preferred the way the ep3 handled. I found the 182 tail happy under hard braking and quite unforgiving on the limit. Aside from that, build quality was bad, my car was 4 years old, and the exhaust snapped, dropping it down and destroying the very expensive cat too. Apparently it is a common fault, but I wasn't aware at the time and that (and the upcoming cambelt change and 4 new tyres) was the final straw and led to it being traded in. I dare say the 172 is a better proposition as a cheap performance shed. However if you are thinking of the 182, for the money they cost, look at the ep3, which in my opinion is a better package - with a cam chain to boot, so you avoid one of the major pitfalls of 172/182 buying. Cambelts are not cheap no matter where you go, and many owners sell their cars before the cambelt is due (like I traded mine in.
The fact it was a bit lairy was the attraction. But they were adjustable and friendly, not scary. It is a FWD for christ's sake, you don't need to be Lewis Hamilton to drive one! The cambelt issue isn't a big one, at their age now, independents are the obvious choice and much cheaper.Had a 172 a while back and enjoyed it immensely. About a year ago i rented Track Club's 182 a couple of times and it was a hoot; oversteer on demand! Great fun.
The new polo gti has 178 bhp and more torque; hardly "30% down on power". The fiesta st only has 148 bhp but is tuneable to nearly 200.
Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
The fact is french cars are cheap for a reason; they are vastly inferior. Market forces dictate pricing and depreciation. Some die hard (retarded) french car fans like roadrunner cant see the wood for the trees.
Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
The fact is french cars are cheap for a reason; they are vastly inferior. Market forces dictate pricing and depreciation. Some die hard (retarded) french car fans like roadrunner cant see the wood for the trees.
Edited by VR46 on Sunday 3rd June 18:10
VR46 said:
The new polo gti has 178 bhp and more torque; hardly "30% down on power". The fiesta st only has 148 bhp but is tuneable to nearly 200.
Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
I'd take the Fiesta or Polo over the Clio every time. I find it funny how some people bang on about manufactures facts & figures, as if that's everything. Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
VR46 said:
The new polo gti has 178 bhp and more torque; hardly "30% down on power". The fiesta st only has 148 bhp but is tuneable to nearly 200.
Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
New Polo GTI is irrelevant, it's about 8x the price if not more! So yes, the equivalent Polo is 30% down on power as it has 125bhp.Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
What do you mean tunable? A Clio is tunable to well over 300bhp but it will cost a small fortune. To get 50bhp from a Fiesta ST will cost about £5000 (throttle bodies, cams and other expensive NA tuning items) so its totally pointless to say that.
Not sure where your truth it to be honest. Both are slower cars out of the box.
By the way, I don't mind if you prefer to have either car, that's your choice.
VR46 said:
The new polo gti has 178 bhp and more torque; hardly "30% down on power". The fiesta st only has 148 bhp but is tuneable to nearly 200.
Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
The fact is french cars are cheap for a reason; they are vastly inferior. Market forces dictate pricing and depreciation. Some die hard (retarded) french car fans like roadrunner cant see the wood for the trees.
Mr.Troll we are comparing a 2004 Clio R.S (182/ph2 172),and a 1998 Clio R.S (172),which correspond to the 2000 Polo GTI 125 hp and to 2004 Polo GTI 148 hp, which are much much slower than a Clio R.S in every way.Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
The fact is french cars are cheap for a reason; they are vastly inferior. Market forces dictate pricing and depreciation. Some die hard (retarded) french car fans like roadrunner cant see the wood for the trees.
Edited by VR46 on Sunday 3rd June 18:10
The Guide is about the Clio 2 R.S not 3 (the 200),if you gonna compare the new Polo GTI with the "GT3 of hot hatches" do it on another thread.
And the reliability of a 2000 and 2004 Polo GTI (the latter is better) is shocking no better than a Clio,so don't talk s
t.I can't comment on Fiesta ST because i know nothing,but regarding speed/laptimes a Twingo R.S keeps up,a Clio 182 is 4-5 sec faster on every track.If you don't like french cars do us a favor and don't comment your usual s
te anymore. FFS!VR46 said:
I've owned a 306gti personally and had many french crapheaps thru work (one of which was a clio). Every french car on the company fleet has been unreliable! The boss buys french as he gets nearly 50% off list price for bulk buys.
It would help if you didn't call them crap heaps, then everyone wouldn't call you a troll.Renaultsport cars are known to be more reliable than the normal cars they are based off. Part of this is that a lot of the car is different to the original and that they are built in Dieppe, a completely different factory just for Renaultsport models. Because they build fewer cars I believe they can take the time to build them without rushing.
Hoygo said:
VR46 said:
The new polo gti has 178 bhp and more torque; hardly "30% down on power". The fiesta st only has 148 bhp but is tuneable to nearly 200.
Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
The fact is french cars are cheap for a reason; they are vastly inferior. Market forces dictate pricing and depreciation. Some die hard (retarded) french car fans like roadrunner cant see the wood for the trees.
Mr.Troll we are comparing a 2004 Clio R.S (182/ph2 172),and a 1998 Clio R.S (172),which correspond to the 2000 Polo GTI 125 hp and to 2004 Polo GTI 148 hp, which are much much slower than a Clio R.S in every way.Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
The fact is french cars are cheap for a reason; they are vastly inferior. Market forces dictate pricing and depreciation. Some die hard (retarded) french car fans like roadrunner cant see the wood for the trees.
Edited by VR46 on Sunday 3rd June 18:10
The Guide is about the Clio 2 R.S not 3 (the 200),if you gonna compare the new Polo GTI with the "GT3 of hot hatches" do it on another thread.
And the reliability of a 2000 and 2004 Polo GTI (the latter is better) is shocking no better than a Clio,so don't talk s
t.I can't comment on Fiesta ST because i know nothing,but regarding speed/laptimes a Twingo R.S keeps up,a Clio 182 is 4-5 sec faster on every track.If you don't like french cars do us a favor and don't comment your usual s
te anymore. FFS!My point exactly.
VR46 said:
I've owned a 306gti personally and had many french crapheaps thru work (one of which was a clio). Every french car on the company fleet has been unreliable! The boss buys french as he gets nearly 50% off list price for bulk buys.
The more you post the more unpopular you are making yourself on here. VR46 said:
The new polo gti has 178 bhp and more torque; hardly "30% down on power". The fiesta st only has 148 bhp but is tuneable to nearly 200.
Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
The fact is french cars are cheap for a reason; they are vastly inferior. Market forces dictate pricing and depreciation. Some die hard (retarded) french car fans like roadrunner cant see the wood for the trees.
Wow awesome, compare a brand new car, to one thats about 8x the price. Good one. even the brand new one will be no faster.Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
The fact is french cars are cheap for a reason; they are vastly inferior. Market forces dictate pricing and depreciation. Some die hard (retarded) french car fans like roadrunner cant see the wood for the trees.
Edited by VR46 on Sunday 3rd June 18:10
Fiesta ST has 150bhp and weighs more. Tuning is irrelevent, the vast majority of the population don't mod cars.
The fiesta is in the warm hatch group with Swift sports, and the like, the 172+ are hot hatches.
Jog on Troll.
Hoygo said:
VR46 said:
The new polo gti has 178 bhp and more torque; hardly "30% down on power". The fiesta st only has 148 bhp but is tuneable to nearly 200.
Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
The fact is french cars are cheap for a reason; they are vastly inferior. Market forces dictate pricing and depreciation. Some die hard (retarded) french car fans like roadrunner cant see the wood for the trees.
Mr.Troll we are comparing a 2004 Clio R.S (182/ph2 172),and a 1998 Clio R.S (172),which correspond to the 2000 Polo GTI 125 hp and to 2004 Polo GTI 148 hp, which are much much slower than a Clio R.S in every way.Both are far more reliable and much better built. Does stating the truth albeit anti french crap make me a troll?
The fact is french cars are cheap for a reason; they are vastly inferior. Market forces dictate pricing and depreciation. Some die hard (retarded) french car fans like roadrunner cant see the wood for the trees.
Edited by VR46 on Sunday 3rd June 18:10
The Guide is about the Clio 2 R.S not 3 (the 200),if you gonna compare the new Polo GTI with the "GT3 of hot hatches" do it on another thread.
And the reliability of a 2000 and 2004 Polo GTI (the latter is better) is shocking no better than a Clio,so don't talk s
t.I can't comment on Fiesta ST because i know nothing,but regarding speed/laptimes a Twingo R.S keeps up,a Clio 182 is 4-5 sec faster on every track.If you don't like french cars do us a favor and don't comment your usual s
te anymore. FFS!Without a doubt the Clio is the faster & superior handling car. For me the Clio wouldn't be satisfying enough to have as just a trach car, & as an everyday car I think there are better options.
Also, not sure why the Renault being a French car is relevant? Didnt realise the manufacturers country of origin really matters. After all, many "German" cars are made all over the world.......even Mexico so I believe. And several of these very reliable Japanese cars are built here in sunny Blighty.
To get slightly back on topic...
Owned my 172 for a year next week and found it to be surprisingly reliable. I bought it knowing full well that it might be an unreliable shed but having had actual experience of French cars and found them to be bullet proof I wasn't too worried. Actual experience, not "my mate had a Laguna and it was rubbish..." here say bullst.
In the year I've had it I've done two trackdays. 16,000 miles and used it for my commute into central London, motorway cruising packed to the roof with crap, moving house and plenty of "just nipping to the shop for some fags" type excursions. To me the whole point of a hot hatch is that it should be used every day, in every weather for everything. It's never, ever failed. Nothing has fallen off, it never uses any oil and the only thing that broke was a rear wheel bearing that cost me £100 for a pair of disc's/bearing and an hour and a half of time. It's even suprisingly comfy and holds it's own on track even with a complete lemon at the wheel.
I also had a Peugeot 306. Mine did 25k a year with absolutely no failures at all. On the other hand I owned a Fiesta briefly (bought blind drunk for the cost of a soggy b&h in a pub but that's beside the point) and it was unreliable, rusty, smelly, nothing worked and I got so cross with it I took it apart with an axe and sold the bits. Therefore all Fords are crap.
Owned my 172 for a year next week and found it to be surprisingly reliable. I bought it knowing full well that it might be an unreliable shed but having had actual experience of French cars and found them to be bullet proof I wasn't too worried. Actual experience, not "my mate had a Laguna and it was rubbish..." here say bulls
t.In the year I've had it I've done two trackdays. 16,000 miles and used it for my commute into central London, motorway cruising packed to the roof with crap, moving house and plenty of "just nipping to the shop for some fags" type excursions. To me the whole point of a hot hatch is that it should be used every day, in every weather for everything. It's never, ever failed. Nothing has fallen off, it never uses any oil and the only thing that broke was a rear wheel bearing that cost me £100 for a pair of disc's/bearing and an hour and a half of time. It's even suprisingly comfy and holds it's own on track even with a complete lemon at the wheel.
I also had a Peugeot 306. Mine did 25k a year with absolutely no failures at all. On the other hand I owned a Fiesta briefly (bought blind drunk for the cost of a soggy b&h in a pub but that's beside the point) and it was unreliable, rusty, smelly, nothing worked and I got so cross with it I took it apart with an axe and sold the bits. Therefore all Fords are crap.
thewheelman said:
The Clio is rather notorious for having reliability issues, & a pretty cheap & basic interior. Both the Ford & VW of a similar era were of better build quality & generally more reliable than the Clio.
Without a doubt the Clio is the faster & superior handling car. For me the Clio wouldn't be satisfying enough to have as just a trach car, & as an everyday car I think there are better options.
Also, not sure why the Renault being a French car is relevant? Didnt realise the manufacturers country of origin really matters. After all, many "German" cars are made all over the world.......even Mexico so I believe. And several of these very reliable Japanese cars are built here in sunny Blighty.
Yes the Clio 182/172 ph2 mostly do have some issues,but you can be lucky sometimes to get an issue free one (iirc Trophys are the most reliable of the bunch),i own a ph1 172 and has been so tough and reliable considering is a 14 year old car,interior doesn't bother me and have used it for 3 years as an everyday car without a problem.Ph1 172s regarding owner experiences are the most reliable R.S Clios among ph2/182s ,totally issue free if mantained/serviced well.Without a doubt the Clio is the faster & superior handling car. For me the Clio wouldn't be satisfying enough to have as just a trach car, & as an everyday car I think there are better options.
Also, not sure why the Renault being a French car is relevant? Didnt realise the manufacturers country of origin really matters. After all, many "German" cars are made all over the world.......even Mexico so I believe. And several of these very reliable Japanese cars are built here in sunny Blighty.
I am an VW fan and have owned 4x Golf GTI's (and own a tdi mk4), and Polo GTI's of that era are really the worst example you can take regarding reliability,worse than a R.S Clio imo based on their owners experiences.
As i said i know nothing about Fords so can't comment.
+1,for me doesn't matter as well,the troll was raving about this French car thing,and the BMW M5 was made in France as well,the stereotype against French manufacturers should stop.
StoatInACoat said:
To get slightly back on topic...
Owned my 172 for a year next week and found it to be surprisingly reliable. I bought it knowing full well that it might be an unreliable shed but having had actual experience of French cars and found them to be bullet proof I wasn't too worried. Actual experience, not "my mate had a Laguna and it was rubbish..." here say bullst.
In the year I've had it I've done two trackdays. 16,000 miles and used it for my commute into central London, motorway cruising packed to the roof with crap, moving house and plenty of "just nipping to the shop for some fags" type excursions. To me the whole point of a hot hatch is that it should be used every day, in every weather for everything. It's never, ever failed. Nothing has fallen off, it never uses any oil and the only thing that broke was a rear wheel bearing that cost me £100 for a pair of disc's/bearing and an hour and a half of time. It's even suprisingly comfy and holds it's own on track even with a complete lemon at the wheel.
I also had a Peugeot 306. Mine did 25k a year with absolutely no failures at all. On the other hand I owned a Fiesta briefly (bought blind drunk for the cost of a soggy b&h in a pub but that's beside the point) and it was unreliable, rusty, smelly, nothing worked and I got so cross with it I took it apart with an axe and sold the bits. Therefore all Fords are crap.
Therefore all Fords are crap. Owned my 172 for a year next week and found it to be surprisingly reliable. I bought it knowing full well that it might be an unreliable shed but having had actual experience of French cars and found them to be bullet proof I wasn't too worried. Actual experience, not "my mate had a Laguna and it was rubbish..." here say bulls
t.In the year I've had it I've done two trackdays. 16,000 miles and used it for my commute into central London, motorway cruising packed to the roof with crap, moving house and plenty of "just nipping to the shop for some fags" type excursions. To me the whole point of a hot hatch is that it should be used every day, in every weather for everything. It's never, ever failed. Nothing has fallen off, it never uses any oil and the only thing that broke was a rear wheel bearing that cost me £100 for a pair of disc's/bearing and an hour and a half of time. It's even suprisingly comfy and holds it's own on track even with a complete lemon at the wheel.
I also had a Peugeot 306. Mine did 25k a year with absolutely no failures at all. On the other hand I owned a Fiesta briefly (bought blind drunk for the cost of a soggy b&h in a pub but that's beside the point) and it was unreliable, rusty, smelly, nothing worked and I got so cross with it I took it apart with an axe and sold the bits. Therefore all Fords are crap.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Love the sarcasm.
My motoring career developed through owning all the hot Clios - a 16V, Williams, 172, 197 and V6.
Related to this thread, I had a Moncaco Blue Phase 2 172 (02 reg); bought at almost 3 years old in 2005. I probably should have kept it longer, as it was an overwhelmingly sensible and low-cost hot hatch.
I think the original invoice was for just over £11k for an import bought through a car supermarket. As a Phase 2 172, it had massses of spec including a 6-CD stacker, cruise control, xenons and half leather / alcantara interior. I never got more than 28-30mpg on a real long term average basis, although I did manage to see an indicated 44mpg on a long trip once. Servicing was peanuts and it was really well-suited to my needs at the time.
I sold it on a whim in a private sale part exchange for the second of my two Fiat Coupe 20V Turbos (this one was running FMIC, hyrbid turbo, aquamist, standalone ECU, decat turbo-back exhaust, LE skirts, coilovers etc etc). The Coupe completely blew the 172 into the weeds in a straight line and was intoxicating with its noise and presence, but was a very expensive beast to run and led to me going cold turkey on performance cars for a year afterwards!
It will come as no surprise to read that I ended this gap in my performance motoring in a brand new Clio 197, in 2007. The moral of the story is that you just can't beat a Renaultsport Clio for good value performance motoring...and, unfortunately, that Renault don't nowadays offer a convincing 5-door to rival VAG for people with 2 children like me!
Related to this thread, I had a Moncaco Blue Phase 2 172 (02 reg); bought at almost 3 years old in 2005. I probably should have kept it longer, as it was an overwhelmingly sensible and low-cost hot hatch.
I think the original invoice was for just over £11k for an import bought through a car supermarket. As a Phase 2 172, it had massses of spec including a 6-CD stacker, cruise control, xenons and half leather / alcantara interior. I never got more than 28-30mpg on a real long term average basis, although I did manage to see an indicated 44mpg on a long trip once. Servicing was peanuts and it was really well-suited to my needs at the time.
I sold it on a whim in a private sale part exchange for the second of my two Fiat Coupe 20V Turbos (this one was running FMIC, hyrbid turbo, aquamist, standalone ECU, decat turbo-back exhaust, LE skirts, coilovers etc etc). The Coupe completely blew the 172 into the weeds in a straight line and was intoxicating with its noise and presence, but was a very expensive beast to run and led to me going cold turkey on performance cars for a year afterwards!
It will come as no surprise to read that I ended this gap in my performance motoring in a brand new Clio 197, in 2007. The moral of the story is that you just can't beat a Renaultsport Clio for good value performance motoring...and, unfortunately, that Renault don't nowadays offer a convincing 5-door to rival VAG for people with 2 children like me!
Nurburgsingh said:
I've just had a call from the owner of the trophy in the video telling me it's for sale... Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff