RE: The ?2k Clio 197: Spotted

[greenarrow]

This article makes me ponder another question...

For £2K would you have this clio or an early EP3 with similar or higher miles. If in fact you can still get a decent EP3 for £2K. I was looking 2 years ago for an EP3 as a second car/toy, didn't get one and now I cant find one for under about £2.5K. However thanks to the likes of Modern Classics magazine, EP3 prices are rising! They bang on about them every other month it seems, whereas the 197 is off their radar for now....

I think its an interesting one. The EP3 is faster, better engine note etc, but the Clio is a whole gen newer and I suspect faster on a twisty road... Not sure which one I'd pick tbh....

• EDIT. Autotrader has 2 EP3s in the UK right now for £2K or below.... 7 for under £2.5K excl CAT Ds....**u

Edited by greenarrow on Thursday 21st June 11:36

[horsemeatscandal]

Butter Face said:

In the corners on that video, the Clio 200 is as fast as the RS, obivously on any kind of straight road, the RS will walk away, as it did.

Wouldn't call it staged at all.

Okay, been a while since I watched it. Like I say, wouldn’t expect the Clio to be as fast as the Focus.

Was so close to buying one of these last year, part of me still wishes I had.

[Paddymcc]

Sold my clio 197 after a couple of years ownership last month. Quite enjoying ringing it out to the red line and the handling was also good. Sold with 66k miles and recent service for 3k but needed a bit of paint work to cure some lacquer peel. Also made a decent noise as standard for a 4 cyl engine. Standard seats and suspension were also pretty comfortable and the interior wasnt too badly put together.

One thing that annoyed my though was the lack of low down grunt. My route to work would take in some countryside hills and when you would turn into them in second gear it was quite comical how it would lethargically rev from 2500 up to 3500 and then start to move.

Id say thats the reason many have gearbox synchro problems from people being in the wrong gear and banging them into a lower ratio to get the thing moving.

They also werent the best suited to motorway revving quite high at 70mph.

[WCZ]

snowen250 said:

I had one of these from nearly new for a couple of years so feel I can comment!

Plus:
Fun, yes a 182 is probably a bit quicker, but on a twisty road these are great fun!
Seats - mine had Recaros. Great, comfy and held you in nicely.

Negatives:
Fuel - on a motorway I once saw 40mpg. Normally sat around 30 ish - pushing on mid 20s.
tyres - Jesus wept. Every other bloody month. Hit a pot hole and bang. New front tyre. With the state of our current roads it would certainly put me off
Reliability - well, mine was ok....ish. but as it approached the end of warranty stuff was starting to fail, warning lights coming and going etc...

Would I have another? Yes.

I test drove a cooper S and a 500 before I bought this, and while both seemed quicker in a straight-line the Clio was just more fun. And that one plus of FUN, does outweigh all the negatives. Not a bad little car really. Especially in proper Cup form with no A/C and a bit lighter

the brakes are much better on these than the 182's also

[Kenny Powers]

Excellent cars. In my opinion they’re slightly let-down by a gruffness to the motor’s top end, and a rather agricultural gear change. But there isn’t much that would leave one behind on a winding country road. Machinery with twice the power wouldn’t show one of these a clean pair of heels around any of the lanes where I live

[Butter Face]

greenarrow said:

This article makes me ponder another question...

For £2K would you have this clio or an early EP3 with similar or higher miles. If in fact you can still get a decent EP3 for £2K. I was looking 2 years ago for an EP3 as a second car/toy, didn't get one and now I cant find one for under about £2.5K. However thanks to the likes of Modern Classics magazine, EP3 prices are rising! They bang on about them every other month it seems, whereas the 197 is off their radar for now....

I think its an interesting one. The EP3 is faster, better engine note etc, but the Clio is a whole gen newer and I suspect faster on a twisty road... Not sure which one I'd pick tbh....

• EDIT. Autotrader has 2 EP3s in the UK right now for £2K or below.... 7 for under £2.5K excl CAT Ds....**u

Edited by greenarrow on Thursday 21st June 11:36

I bought the EP3 as I prefer the car. 197's are great but the EP3 does the high revving NA hothatch thing better IMO (then I stuck a Supercharger on )

[Rob.043]

My low end torque improved a bit and the flat spot disappeared when I removed the Milltek exhaust and refitted a standard one.

MPG has been over 30 with mixed driving so far. The computer reads several MPG lower that what is achieved. 36 is the best so far, which for the use it has is very similar to the mk2 Octavia VRS it replaced.

I didn't feel like sliding any other car on every journey, so it can be forgiven much!

[Kenny Powers]

I do agree than the EP3 Civic Type R has a massively superior engine and drivetrain but, for me, the wooden steering lets down the overall driving experience. Choosing between the two I would pick the Honda, but the Clio is extremely worthy of consideration.

[AmosMoses]

I bought one around this time last year, a high mile but well cared for 197 F1 with the Recaros.

I love the thing! have been on track 3 times and plan to do more soon as this car an only really be appreciated on track.

The handling on the cup chassis is epic, you have real adjustability and can provoke slight to full lift off oversteer.

If you want to learn to drive fwd fast these are the one.

However on the road first thing in the morning its grumpy, juddery and generally hates you for 15 minutes.

I changed the gearbox oil in mine recently and its helped with the poor manners from cold and it feels much slicker on track.

I am considering moving it on for something with a little more poke, but the NA engine is a hoot and would be a shame to go to a turbo Megane.

To me its like the GT3 version of a hot hatch.

[TrivsTom]

Previous girlfriend’s stepdad had a 197 f1 edition. Drove it (briefly), nice cars. Got back into my 172 I had at the time and it felt like a classic Mini in comparison but the 172 was a LOT nicer to drive.

Certainly wouldn’t turn my nose up at a 197 though. Plus, 133k is nothing on an f4r, many people take them way over 200k with regular servicing.

[Shiv_P]

The gearbox issues have put me off one of these

[AmosMoses]

Shiv_P said:

The gearbox issues have put me off one of these

They really aren't that bad, you just need mechanical sympathy.

Changing to race spec oil and going from 1st to 3rd when its really cold helps massively.

[Zombie]

Reading the comments so far, the consensus seems to be that the Clio is too slow on account of having a high reving NA engine with "only" 200bhp (or thereabouts)...

I have a solution. Stick a Honda badge on it.

[crosseyedlion]

Zombie said:

Reading the comments so far, the consensus seems to be that the Clio is too slow on account of having a high reving NA engine with "only" 200bhp (or thereabouts)...

I have a solution. Stick a Honda badge on it.

From what I remember, Honda's are still pleasant to drive below 4krpm. The Clio kangaroos and bogs down.

I had one, with 2 passengers I had trouble with a 4.0 Jeep Grand Cherokee at the lights. Later that week a D5 Volvo S60 proved hard to keep up with.

It was a terrible engine, Alfa's 2.0ts on the other hand a joy, and felt faster.

[dai1983]

The jumpiness is due to the ECU controlling the amount of fuel for a certain time period when the engine is cold. Think its something to do with emissions and also does my head in on my 172.

Another plus point of the 197/200 is that the Megane F4RT engine and gearbox fits in unlike the 172/182.

[Jon_S_Rally]

A friend of mine has one of these and I have a 172 Cup. I have driven his 197 and there is no denying that it does lack a little bit of the 'get-up-and-go' feel of the older cars, by nature of it being a bit heavier. That being said, as a daily proposition, it is a much nicer place to be. It just feels a bit more solid and, having traveled to the Nurburgring in it earlier in the year, it was actually quite pleasant for what is quite a small car. The only real problem with it was fuel consumption, which is quite high compared to the 1*2. To be expected with near 200bhp and short gearing though. In terms of handling, I really like them. They feel a bit more well-planted than a 1*2 and do appear to cover ground just as quickly. I saw one racing in a series for production spec Clios and it had no problem keeping pace with the rest of the field, which were all 172s.

I think some of the criticism leveled at them is a bit unfair to be honest. Is a 200 Cup better? Well, probably, yes. Is the average buyer really going to notice that on the road? Does he have the same finely tuned driving senses as motoring journalists seem to all claim they have? Unlikely. With these slipping into the sub-£2k bracket, I think they make a great buy. EP3s are getting more expensive and don't steer as well, the Fiesta ST is under-powered by comparison, which makes the Clio look like a steal.

Very much on my list for my next cheap toy.

[Butter Face]

crosseyedlion said:

It was a terrible engine

Probably a tadge too far there!

The 197 mapping was not brilliant, as said the cold starts were quite funny and could make even a pro driver look a bit stupid kangarooing down the road The 200 mapping was much better but still not spot on.

The engine itself lacked the charisma of the K20 EP3 engine but it was clean revving and performed as well as you can expect a 200(ish) bhp NA engine to.

[Jon_S_Rally]

Apparently a remap makes the engine a lot better doesn't it? Hardly an expensive way to fix a relatively minor niggle in what is, for the most part, a good car.

[culpz]

Jon_S_Rally said:

Apparently a remap makes the engine a lot better doesn't it? Hardly an expensive way to fix a relatively minor niggle in what is, for the most part, a good car.

I know it sorts out the flat-spot and smooths out the power band a bit more. I don't believe it does anything to the cold-start issues though. Obviously, you do get a few more bhp too, but the F4R engine is not known to give out great results when dyno'd, in reference to it's supposed power output, generally.

But, yeah, calling it a st engine is pretty unfair really. It just needs to be worked for the performance, which is part of the charm. Some prefer the EP3 as a package, but i'm sure that engine can be equally frustrating. I believe the gearboxes on those can be fragile and they also have quite a sitff clutch.

Both are great cars though. If you like N/A engines, there's alot to enjoy!

[D7Cup]

Have mine (R27) since 2011, absolutely love it and the fact that it's NA is a win for me, even with all the drawbacks (lack of torque low end, mpg etc)

I've been around the continent 7 times (lining up for another one this year) amongst much more expensive metal and it just hangs up in there very decently bless it.

To get something more fun I'd have to part with a disproportional amount of cash which is not in sync with my man maths so the Clio is staying

Here is from a recent trip in Snowdonia;

DSC00650 by YiannisR27, on Flickr