RE: The ?2k Clio 197: Spotted
Discussion
Love those rims mate! Good taste 
As an aside, these are actually remarkably well screwed together. People’s preconceptions of a Renault hot hatch are that it will be a rattle box inside, but they’re actually very solid. I’ve been in a couple and despite the stiff suspension, I never noticed a single rattle or vibration on any road surface. Strong feeling of integrity.
As an aside, these are actually remarkably well screwed together. People’s preconceptions of a Renault hot hatch are that it will be a rattle box inside, but they’re actually very solid. I’ve been in a couple and despite the stiff suspension, I never noticed a single rattle or vibration on any road surface. Strong feeling of integrity.
culpz said:
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.The standard cams are fairly aggressive, which is why they come alive at higher revs but the downside of that is they don’t settle to a smooth idle at the standard revs.
I used RSTuner and flashed the ECU myself, it bumped the idle speed up a couple of hundred rpm, fixed a slight mid range flat spot and raised the rev limit and made it feel like a totally different car.
I suspect the lumpy idle on a 197 is a similar issue and would probably be possible to fix in the same way.
adingley84 said:
Totally agree its a tempting proposition but i think we've all seen the Top Gear episode where the DS3 and 500 Arbath just walk away from it in the mountains. That lack of punch
from lowish torque and higher weight just kills it for me
We own both a 200 Cup and an Abarth 500 and in a straight line the 500 wouldn't see where the Clio went once moving, the whole point of these is keeping the revs high and pushing the engine not trying to pull away with low down torque.from lowish torque and higher weight just kills it for me
Driven a few clio rs over the years and it was a racing blue 182 that overtook me when In was 17 that got me into cars actually. The 6 speed was a good move given the engine. The 182 172 was no different to The 197 or 200 really. Gutless and needed to rev out to the limit to get it moving. Not a bad car other than that with an undeniably good chassis but Renault have always done well with that t bar rear setup. But Honda's fn2 or ep3 was a better choice I rekon. Still needed thrashing but better for it. Other choices at the time were the ford fiesta 150hp with more torque but less top end. In today's world of turbo hatches the 197 will seem very poor indeed and highly unusable day to day. No wonder they downsized and added turbos for torque. That said I had a Clio GT with a 128hp K4M for 3.5 years and it was by far the best car I've ever owned bar the Megane 275. More fun than my E92 m3 or focus st3 mk3.
crosseyedlion said:
Exactly my experience. I had a Clio R.S. 200 with the cup pack and it was horrendous, got rid (at massive cost) after 3 months.
Terrible mapping, ride quality, fuel economy, slow, rubbish ergonomics. It all just smacked of 'that'll do' engineering.
The worst thing was the lack feel at anything less than 8/10ths. Unless you where 'on it' it was infuriating to drive. Unlike my Alfa 145 Cloverleaf(s), Golf Mk2's and pretty much every other hatch I've driven. I even preferred driving my other half at the times corsa 1.2 to the supermarket...and that was terrible.
I think the R.S. Megane was vastly superior.
I’m glad I owned one for 9 months but yes, pretty much the same experience. Needed thrashed to get the best out of it. Probably not the most mature choice for a 40 year old man. I did sell it for £300 less than I paid for it. Terrible mapping, ride quality, fuel economy, slow, rubbish ergonomics. It all just smacked of 'that'll do' engineering.
The worst thing was the lack feel at anything less than 8/10ths. Unless you where 'on it' it was infuriating to drive. Unlike my Alfa 145 Cloverleaf(s), Golf Mk2's and pretty much every other hatch I've driven. I even preferred driving my other half at the times corsa 1.2 to the supermarket...and that was terrible.
I think the R.S. Megane was vastly superior.
crosseyedlion said:
Neith said:
Had one for a year, never again.
The kangarooing constantly when cold was pretty annoying (not considered an issue by Renault) and it was hideously unreliable. It also seemed to drink petrol way more than a 2 litre hot hatch had any right to.
Mine could've admittedly just been an unlucky bad one but it put me off ever buying another.
Fun cars to drive but let down in other areas I think.
Exactly my experience. I had a Clio R.S. 200 with the cup pack and it was horrendous, got rid (at massive cost) after 3 months. The kangarooing constantly when cold was pretty annoying (not considered an issue by Renault) and it was hideously unreliable. It also seemed to drink petrol way more than a 2 litre hot hatch had any right to.
Mine could've admittedly just been an unlucky bad one but it put me off ever buying another.
Fun cars to drive but let down in other areas I think.
Terrible mapping, ride quality, fuel economy, slow, rubbish ergonomics. It all just smacked of 'that'll do' engineering.
The worst thing was the lack feel at anything less than 8/10ths. Unless you where 'on it' it was infuriating to drive. Unlike my Alfa 145 Cloverleaf(s), Golf Mk2's and pretty much every other hatch I've driven. I even preferred driving my other half at the times corsa 1.2 to the supermarket...and that was terrible.
I think the R.S. Megane was vastly superior.
i hated my clio 200 rs ....it felt like it drove differently every time i go in it .....felt cheap ....ball joints failed and cambelt was due for 1600 euros .....got rid last summer thank god ...bought a 118d xdrive ....boring i know but feels like pure quality compared
When I had a 182 FF I test drove these new. Loved the wide arches and new (at that time) seats. But it just lacked the punch and Jack Russell nature of the 182 and after a morning of running it around I was averaging mid 20's mpg.
Got to admit last night I was looking for a liquid yellow 182 but Trophy's seem to be what people are cashing in on.
Got to admit last night I was looking for a liquid yellow 182 but Trophy's seem to be what people are cashing in on.
MikeGoodwin said:
Driven a few clio rs over the years and it was a racing blue 182 that overtook me when In was 17 that got me into cars actually. The 6 speed was a good move given the engine. The 182 172 was no different to The 197 or 200 really. Gutless and needed to rev out to the limit to get it moving. Not a bad car other than that with an undeniably good chassis but Renault have always done well with that t bar rear setup. But Honda's fn2 or ep3 was a better choice I rekon. Still needed thrashing but better for it. Other choices at the time were the ford fiesta 150hp with more torque but less top end. In today's world of turbo hatches the 197 will seem very poor indeed and highly unusable day to day. No wonder they downsized and added turbos for torque. That said I had a Clio GT with a 128hp K4M for 3.5 years and it was by far the best car I've ever owned bar the Megane 275. More fun than my E92 m3 or focus st3 mk3.
I'm not sure i agree with that. On paper, they should be about the same. However, the drive is usually quite different. The extra power of the 197's and 200's doesn't seem to mask the extra weight, so the 172's and 182's do generally feel quicker and a bit more torquey.Again the F4R engine rarely produces the numbers that they should, so this may be why the MK3 models feel like they really need to be revved to get anywhere. The MK2's also don't suffer the bad mid-range flat spot and are also much better on fuel for the performance.
CooperS said:
When I had a 182 FF I test drove these new. Loved the wide arches and new (at that time) seats. But it just lacked the punch and Jack Russell nature of the 182 and after a morning of running it around I was averaging mid 20's mpg.
Got to admit last night I was looking for a liquid yellow 182 but Trophy's seem to be what people are cashing in on.
I'd watch out on the trophies really. They aren't that much better as a car, the dampers they use ran out of stock a few years ago, no parts left and they need more looking after than your usual dampers IIRC. The liquid yellow is an amazing colour on the 182, shame it's so rare, as was the sunflower yellow phase 1 172.Got to admit last night I was looking for a liquid yellow 182 but Trophy's seem to be what people are cashing in on.
I personally never found the lumpyness of the F4R at cold running to be much of an issue. Yes, the throttle response is ridiculous and can cause kangarooing if you're not used to it, but if you're gentle it's OK. Plus, one of the advantages of a big-ish NA petrol engine is that it warms up quickly 
. By the time I'm out of the car park and have waited for the traffic light to turn green, the needle is halfway to the 90 deg mark .
In terms of looks, I think the 197 is probably the best of all Renaultsport Clios (although it does look enormous when parked next to a 1*2). MPG-wise though, it's a bit of a disaster, especially when the older brothers are actually quite good.
. By the time I'm out of the car park and have waited for the traffic light to turn green, the needle is halfway to the 90 deg mark .In terms of looks, I think the 197 is probably the best of all Renaultsport Clios (although it does look enormous when parked next to a 1*2). MPG-wise though, it's a bit of a disaster, especially when the older brothers are actually quite good.
Butter Face said:
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.
Its not actually that hard to get 200hp out of a 2.0 - making it a polished product is. Something Renault never bothered with. It wasn't satisfying to rev really either.
Its all well and good people saying 'its not really a problem when it warms up' - it grates when it feels badly modified every morning and evening on your commute when you've spent around 9k on one (as I did). If your commute is 10 minutes, you can go all week without it ever feeling right. This hasn't been an issue with other cars.
My experience was slightly tainted perhaps coming from an E34 540i - which gave significantly better (on road) performance, similar fuel economy and was more fun when you're not driving like a tool.
Having to stoke the fire in the Clio just to perform a safe opportunistic overtake got very tiring. Out of the more than 50 cars i've owned, it was the only car that made me in a worse mood every time I drove it. It probably feels amazing if you're coming from a small, small engined hatch or something very dull. But they're really not very good anywhere except for a track. (Clio R.S. 200 Cup Pack)
Edited by crosseyedlion on Friday 22 June 11:44
crosseyedlion said:
Butter Face said:
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.
Its not actually that hard to get 200hp out of a 2.0 - making it a polished product is. Something Renault never bothered with. It wasn't satisfying to rev really either.
Its all well and good people saying 'its not really a problem when it warms up' - it grates when it feels badly modified every morning and evening on your commute when you've spent around 9k on one (as I did). If your commute is 10 minutes, you can go all week without it ever feeling right. This hasn't been an issue with other cars.
My experience was slightly tainted perhaps coming from an E34 540i - which gave significantly better (on road) performance, similar fuel economy and was more fun when you're not driving like a tool.
Having to stoke the fire in the Clio just to perform a safe opportunistic overtake got very tiring. Out of the more than 50 cars i've owned, it was the only car that made me in a worse mood every time I drove it. It probably feels amaing if you're coming from a small, small engined hatch or something very dull. But they're really not very good anywhere except for a track. (Clio R.S. 200 Cup Pack)
MikeGoodwin said:
Driven a few clio rs over the years and it was a racing blue 182 that overtook me when In was 17 that got me into cars actually. The 6 speed was a good move given the engine. The 182 172 was no different to The 197 or 200 really. Gutless and needed to rev out to the limit to get it moving. Not a bad car other than that with an undeniably good chassis but Renault have always done well with that t bar rear setup. But Honda's fn2 or ep3 was a better choice I rekon. Still needed thrashing but better for it. Other choices at the time were the ford fiesta 150hp with more torque but less top end. In today's world of turbo hatches the 197 will seem very poor indeed and highly unusable day to day. No wonder they downsized and added turbos for torque. That said I had a Clio GT with a 128hp K4M for 3.5 years and it was by far the best car I've ever owned bar the Megane 275. More fun than my E92 m3 or focus st3 mk3.
You just have to.... change gear.Expecting the renault sport to shoot off while flooring it in 4th @ 40mph is just nonsensical.
crosseyedlion said:
Butter Face said:
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.
Its not actually that hard to get 200hp out of a 2.0 - making it a polished product is. Something Renault never bothered with. It wasn't satisfying to rev really either.
Its all well and good people saying 'its not really a problem when it warms up' - it grates when it feels badly modified every morning and evening on your commute when you've spent around 9k on one (as I did). If your commute is 10 minutes, you can go all week without it ever feeling right. This hasn't been an issue with other cars.
My experience was slightly tainted perhaps coming from an E34 540i - which gave significantly better (on road) performance, similar fuel economy and was more fun when you're not driving like a tool.
Having to stoke the fire in the Clio just to perform a safe opportunistic overtake got very tiring. Out of the more than 50 cars i've owned, it was the only car that made me in a worse mood every time I drove it. It probably feels amazing if you're coming from a small, small engined hatch or something very dull. But they're really not very good anywhere except for a track. (Clio R.S. 200 Cup Pack)
Edited by crosseyedlion on Friday 22 June 11:44
As for the Clio not making 200BHP, Stephen Dobie of EVO magazine put his on a rolling road with 22,000 hard miles under its belt and it made 205HP. Seems fair enough to me! I know a lot of 197s only made around 185HP, according to the forums, but these Renault engines were notorious for needing plenty of miles before loosening up....
I think some of the criticisms on here have been harsh, but I accept that they come from owners and therefore are valid feedback. I guess the Clio 197/200 is a car that needs a proper test drive, on a cold day, preferably, before a commitment is made to purchase! I still fancy one and didn't notice any issues on my test drive!
greenarrow said:
So you came from a big engined V8 saloon with oodles of torque low down (in fact looking at your garage most of your cars have been of the larger engine torque rich variety) and resented the fact that you had to use revs to get your high revving n/a 2 litre car to perform. I am not sure this is necessarily the car's fault!
As for the Clio not making 200BHP, Stephen Dobie of EVO magazine put his on a rolling road with 22,000 hard miles under its belt and it made 205HP. Seems fair enough to me! I know a lot of 197s only made around 185HP, according to the forums, but these Renault engines were notorious for needing plenty of miles before loosening up....
I think some of the criticisms on here have been harsh, but I accept that they come from owners and therefore are valid feedback. I guess the Clio 197/200 is a car that needs a proper test drive, on a cold day, preferably, before a commitment is made to purchase! I still fancy one and didn't notice any issues on my test drive!
I've had far more cars than on my PH Garage, I don't bother keeping it up to date. And the 4.0 M60 BMW V8 is actually an engine you need to rev too - but it sounds nice, and its rewarding. I've had plenty of small engined (2.0 ish) cars - none have had such a poorly engineered powertrain. As for the Clio not making 200BHP, Stephen Dobie of EVO magazine put his on a rolling road with 22,000 hard miles under its belt and it made 205HP. Seems fair enough to me! I know a lot of 197s only made around 185HP, according to the forums, but these Renault engines were notorious for needing plenty of miles before loosening up....
I think some of the criticisms on here have been harsh, but I accept that they come from owners and therefore are valid feedback. I guess the Clio 197/200 is a car that needs a proper test drive, on a cold day, preferably, before a commitment is made to purchase! I still fancy one and didn't notice any issues on my test drive!
Its a car you need to live with for a bit tbh to find out all its foibles. Cruise control button behind the driving seat. Cup holders that mean you have to pour your drink over your hand to lift a cup out etc...
Its just an all round really poorly engineered car. But it looks nice. And its fun on the limit.
dai1983 said:
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.
And that why I'm glad they're dropping to this sort of price point.. Another plus point of the 197/200 is that the Megane F4RT engine and gearbox fits in unlike the 172/182.
- Written while sitting in a mk2 megane with North of 310 bhp, an LSD and the worst electrics known to modern man...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff