RE: Shed of the Week: Renaultsport Clio 182

[Gio G]

I really loved my little 182 when I had for around 1 year, Very reliable..

G

[1O6Rallye]

I absolutely adore my 172, however I'm not sure that reliable would be the word to describe it!

Safety briefing at a track day I recently attended went thus "In the unlikely event of something coming detached from your car... Are there any Clio's here today?" *Several hands raise* "Okay, WHEN something comes detached from your car..."

Also, in the last week my gearbox did this whilst gently pulling out of a garden center:



Oh, and the ABS once packed up at the Nurburgring causing me to almost have a huge accident.

Still love it

[MikeGoodwin]

I'd buy one with the view to replacing all the bushings on the car that said there's nowt you can do about the JC5 gearbox. Even with something like a CAE it's still crap. Also the engines just feel fked me me these days. Same with the updated F4R in the 197. Driven loads over the years and they have just got worse and worse l.

Laughable that these will become a collector's classic. Same goes for the 182 trophy. I'd rather have a 172 with some decent coilovers than a Sachs equipped clio.

[sgtBerbatov]

That fish is incredible.

[Alex_225]

I have owned a couple of these RS Clios albeit the near identical 172. One I had from new and one I bought another at ten years old.

First car was brilliant, I was 21 and it was pleasantly good on fuel (32mpg), well spec'd with leather/alcantar, climate control etc. and just great fun to drive.

The second I picked up with just under 50k on the clock, was cosmetically a bit rough so I had that sorted, had some changes made under the bonnet so it was running a genuine 185bhp (often these are under 182bhp).

I will say that despite owning more powerful cars before and since, both 172s I had were reliable and provided some of the most fun motoring I've experienced. If I had the space, I'd have another in a heartbeat.

[Turbobanana]

greenarrow said:

So where are all the whingers this week who were last week calling for an end to SOTY?!

Weird isn't it?

On paper, cheap French car of average build quality + highly strung nature + many owners + a few years of enthusiastic driving = run away!

I guess it just goes to show the high regard in which these are held...

[kellyt]

Alex_225 said:

I have owned a couple of these RS Clios albeit the near identical 172. One I had from new and one I bought another at ten years old.

First car was brilliant, I was 21 and it was pleasantly good on fuel (32mpg), well spec'd with leather/alcantar, climate control etc. and just great fun to drive.

The second I picked up with just under 50k on the clock, was cosmetically a bit rough so I had that sorted, had some changes made under the bonnet so it was running a genuine 185bhp (often these are under 182bhp).

I will say that despite owning more powerful cars before and since, both 172s I had were reliable and provided some of the most fun motoring I've experienced. If I had the space, I'd have another in a heartbeat.

They're underrated, in the same way the Clio Williams is overrated. We had the Clio Williams and it was a real turkey. Slow, deadly handling, noisy and yet everyone would say, "Oh, a Clio Williams, that much be amazing!" Yeah, amazingly crap. A Pug 106 Rallye almost beat it in a straight race.

[drewos]

kellyt said:

They're underrated, in the same way the Clio Williams is overrated. We had the Clio Williams and it was a real turkey. Slow, deadly handling, noisy and yet everyone would say, "Oh, a Clio Williams, that much be amazing!" Yeah, amazingly crap. A Pug 106 Rallye almost beat it in a straight race.

You can get bad ones though - I used to work in a Renault/Nissan garage and some of the sheddy 172/182's that came in part-ex were awful. If they've not been maintained properly, neglected or on ditch finders they are horrible to drive but the difference between one of those and an example that has been looked after is night & day.

[8IKERDAVE]

These are great little cars. I had a 172 for a while but unfortunately I bought a lemon so was always fixing it. However when working, it was a great piece of kit and certainly brought out the hooligan in me. I found it difficult to see a NSL sign and refrain from dropping into 2nd and redlining through the box.

[bangerhoarder]

Bought one (a 172) with a year's ticket it on for £350 a couple of years back. Sold it for £650. Whoops. It was a little peach too, small rusted area where there was a dent to rear arch. Felt quick, but I preferred my Puma to actually drive. Would buy another though, without hesitation.

[Deep Thought]

alorotom said:

Oooooh yes please and I’m stunned the steering wheel rubbers aren’t destroyed!

Easy replaced if they are / were

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Steering-Wheel-Rubber-R...f:0

[Jon_S_Rally]

Had a 172 Cup for around four years. Probably my favourite of all the cars I've owned. Did 40k in mine (was on 110k when I got it) and it was incredibly reliable. I replaced all the bushes but, otherwise, it barely had anything done to it. You won't get a more fun car for the money. Mine did the commute, track days, B-road blasts. It was well-serviced but driven hard, but just seemed to lap it up.

I've had much more modern, much faster cars, but I miss the Clio every day.

[lyonspride]

The engines in these suffered from catastrophic bottom end failures...... It started with a rumble and less than 10'000 mile later was f**ked.

[Rawhide]

I've had three of these cars. I'm now on a low mileage mint RS200 which is a keeper. It's the only car I've ever come back to.

I would recommend buying an AA parts and labour warranty for these cars as it was really cheap and when I had a valve drop I was able to source a second hand engine myself and have it fitted for just about the warranty limit price of around £500.

I did spend a bit more on clutches, pumps etc as the engine was out.

They are not super reliable but they are strong where it matters and super cheap to repair!

[mikeyr]

Purchased one of these for £820 in 2015 - had had a recent belt change too!

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Kept it for 18 months; had a lot of niggly bits by the end but because I bought it for serious shed money only real money I spent on it went on new tyres. Sold it as a project for about a grand.

Things I vaguely remember:

• Dampness quickly solved by poke around the drainholes in the sill.
• Steering wheel melts - unpleasant
• Exhaust too heavy for the brackets, common issue
• Electrical gremlins - cruise control was intermittent, other switches needed replacing
• Interior hardwearing (and looked nice enough)
• Quick little thing, engine noise not great but plenty of poke
• Small (which is my case is a benefit) although had issues with big feet and close pedals
• Fun!

Just MOT checked it online and my old one has passed with no advisories recently so that's great - new owner has obviously taken a lot of pride in restoring it back to glory.

I'd have one again but as they get rarer I'd really only like a mint one - and prices of those aren't going to get any cheaper. Even when I sold it a couple of years ago prices were starting to divide between ratty ones and good 'uns. Didn't seem to be much of a middle ground (price wise)

[Salamura]

lyonspride said:

The engines in these suffered from catastrophic bottom end failures...... It started with a rumble and less than 10'000 mile later was f**ked.

Not sure where you're getting that from. The bottom ends on the F4R have never been known as a problematic item. The bearings are sized to deal with the loading of the much more highly rated F4Rt (about 50% more power and higher peak cylinder pressures compared to the F4R), so they are appropriately sized (unlike a BMW S85, for example), and if maintained properly with regular oil changes, they are bulletproof. The only weak link(if you can call it that) of those engine is the requirement to change belts and dephasers relatively frequently, and the crank sensor. Otherwise, they're quite robust.

[Alex_225]

kellyt said:

Alex_225 said:

I have owned a couple of these RS Clios albeit the near identical 172. One I had from new and one I bought another at ten years old.

First car was brilliant, I was 21 and it was pleasantly good on fuel (32mpg), well spec'd with leather/alcantar, climate control etc. and just great fun to drive.

The second I picked up with just under 50k on the clock, was cosmetically a bit rough so I had that sorted, had some changes made under the bonnet so it was running a genuine 185bhp (often these are under 182bhp).

I will say that despite owning more powerful cars before and since, both 172s I had were reliable and provided some of the most fun motoring I've experienced. If I had the space, I'd have another in a heartbeat.

They're underrated, in the same way the Clio Williams is overrated. We had the Clio Williams and it was a real turkey. Slow, deadly handling, noisy and yet everyone would say, "Oh, a Clio Williams, that much be amazing!" Yeah, amazingly crap. A Pug 106 Rallye almost beat it in a straight race.

My first car was a MKI Clio albeit a 1.2 so nothing special. I adored it but it was my first car so that's inevitable. I do love the look and status of the Williams but I do suspect the later RS Clios trounce it in every aspect of performance.

I must admit, back in 2003 the 172 was somewhat unknown. The later 182 models hit people's radars far more and with more stand out colours (racing blue/inferno) being offered they were that bit more loud. My silver 172 was subtle and to most other drivers, 'just another Clio'.

Even among petrolheads back then it was an unknown quantity. I recall taking a mate for a drive in mine, he owned a Rev 2 MR2 and seemed really surprised when he stated, 'This handles really well'.

[u04pww2]

kellyt said:

Alex_225 said:

I have owned a couple of these RS Clios albeit the near identical 172. One I had from new and one I bought another at ten years old.

First car was brilliant, I was 21 and it was pleasantly good on fuel (32mpg), well spec'd with leather/alcantar, climate control etc. and just great fun to drive.

The second I picked up with just under 50k on the clock, was cosmetically a bit rough so I had that sorted, had some changes made under the bonnet so it was running a genuine 185bhp (often these are under 182bhp).

I will say that despite owning more powerful cars before and since, both 172s I had were reliable and provided some of the most fun motoring I've experienced. If I had the space, I'd have another in a heartbeat.

They're underrated, in the same way the Clio Williams is overrated. We had the Clio Williams and it was a real turkey. Slow, deadly handling, noisy and yet everyone would say, "Oh, a Clio Williams, that much be amazing!" Yeah, amazingly crap. A Pug 106 Rallye almost beat it in a straight race.

Would have to disagree, the Williams is probably the most fun car i've driven, handling was just perfect and for only having 150hp it seemed faster than it should have been, you must have had a duffer with a noisy exhaust.

[Test driver]

Over rated disposable crap cars usually driven by chavs. The end.

[kellyt]

u04pww2 said:

Would have to disagree, the Williams is probably the most fun car i've driven, handling was just perfect and for only having 150hp it seemed faster than it should have been, you must have had a duffer with a noisy exhaust.

Well I have to say it was owned from brand new. Services and maintained properly.

It was simply garbage.