RE: Shed of the Week: Renaultsport Clio 182

[madmatteo]

J4CKO said:

Anyone gone from a Clio 172/182 to a Fiesta ST, interested in the comparison, the Fiesta is sort of the nearest similar package nowadays, I know there is a Clio stlll but its bigger and more expensive, plus its an auto, like the Fiesta, these were everywhere, Motorpoint were knocking them out for like 12 grand and they sold really well, rare to see a sporty Clio now, or I dont notice them.

I did this albeit the Fiesta ST did not follow directly after my Clio 182 as there was a Megane R26 in-between.

What I would say though is that you are right, the Fiesta felt immediately familiar to me after picking it up as I really do think it continues the ethos of the Clio 172/182s i.e. Small, light, nimble, fun, relatively cheap to buy and run plus even economical.

My family went through loads of the 172s and 182s over the years (dad worked for Renault during this period) - in fact the only one I think we didn't ever have was the 182 Trophy. However, the Fiesta, like the Clio, was a car that always felt fun to drive. It also encouraged you to push it on windy roads as it was so predictable, just like the Clio.

Neither are that fast but they are fast enough in most circumstances. Both handle well but you don't have to be going ballistic for it to feel fun.

To me, the Megane R26 which sat between the Clio and Fiesta was a great car but nowhere near as much fun. Also, the Golf R and Leon Cupra 300 which have followed are much the same - better dailies perhaps and much faster in a straight line but just not all that exciting.

I would have a 182 or a mk7 Fiesta ST again if either could deal with the growing family. However, I think both are just too small for this really and it makes either hard to justify them at present - a shame really but those without such worries would enjoy either as both are great.

[howardhughes]

Salamura said:

Wow, so insightful! Thank you for your invaluable contribution to the thread and your objective, and clearly very well informed. opinion.

Sometimes you don't need 'War & Peace' to describe your opinion on a car.
He's made his point clear and simple.

[Test driver]

Why be concise when several paragraphs of biased drivel will do instead?

[leonintegra36]

Be warned, these cars make you drive everywhere at a million miles an hour. White stripes attract challengers from all comers. Just enough power to be deemed that 'pesky clio'.

[greenarrow]

madmatteo said:

J4CKO said:

Anyone gone from a Clio 172/182 to a Fiesta ST, interested in the comparison, the Fiesta is sort of the nearest similar package nowadays, I know there is a Clio stlll but its bigger and more expensive, plus its an auto, like the Fiesta, these were everywhere, Motorpoint were knocking them out for like 12 grand and they sold really well, rare to see a sporty Clio now, or I dont notice them.

I did this albeit the Fiesta ST did not follow directly after my Clio 182 as there was a Megane R26 in-between.

What I would say though is that you are right, the Fiesta felt immediately familiar to me after picking it up as I really do think it continues the ethos of the Clio 172/182s i.e. Small, light, nimble, fun, relatively cheap to buy and run plus even economical.

My family went through loads of the 172s and 182s over the years (dad worked for Renault during this period) - in fact the only one I think we didn't ever have was the 182 Trophy. However, the Fiesta, like the Clio, was a car that always felt fun to drive. It also encouraged you to push it on windy roads as it was so predictable, just like the Clio.

Neither are that fast but they are fast enough in most circumstances. Both handle well but you don't have to be going ballistic for it to feel fun.

To me, the Megane R26 which sat between the Clio and Fiesta was a great car but nowhere near as much fun. Also, the Golf R and Leon Cupra 300 which have followed are much the same - better dailies perhaps and much faster in a straight line but just not all that exciting.

I would have a 182 or a mk7 Fiesta ST again if either could deal with the growing family. However, I think both are just too small for this really and it makes either hard to justify them at present - a shame really but those without such worries would enjoy either as both are great.

Very interesting feedback - for someone with a Mk6 ST and pondering when to upgrade for a Mk7 or something similar.

BTW if you don't mind me asking how big is your "growing family". If more than 2 kids fair enough, but I only ask because my wife ran a 205 GTI for 11 years whilst our two daughters went from babies to teenagers and now has a Mk6 ST, which she finds is more than adequate. Three of us are close to 6 foot now the other one a few inches behind and we easily complete journeys in it, mainly when we go to the pub and I fancy a beer!! Obviously a Fiesta ST would be tight as an only car, but unless you have three or more kids, I fail to see why it couldn't be a decent second car for kid and family duties.....

[greenarrow]

dufunk said:

So their about 10 bhp down on the factory figure bit disappointing from a 2 litre with vvt even for the time.

Quite normal for n/a engines, The later 197 was even worse wasn't it? 180-185BHP I've seen as being the average for those. Also going further back, I recall that many 1.9 205 GTIs were only making around 120BHP.

[MarkH1987]

I've never driven a one myself but I've heard good things about them. Would make a decent, fun, pretty quick little shed for someone. Like with all cars at this price though, it's finding a good one that isn't knackered.

[MachoManRandySavage]

Had my FF 182 cup for coming up to 10 years now and still love it. The mrs is saying it’s time for something else but I point blank refuse to sell it - I know I would miss it too much and want another, but then really struggle to find another in similar condition (mine’s on 65k). I have thought several times about replacing it with a Trophy but simply can’t let go of mine. So here’s to the next 10 years....

[Fermit and Sarah]

I had a 172 Cup for 4 years, and loved it. I only had to sell it due to finances getting tight at the time, and I was so sad to see it being driven off. It was my P&J, and a very tidy well kept example when I had it. I didn't find it reliable mind, and bills were always higher than I expected. For what it is it was fast (it would see off Type R's, Cooper S's, although I couldn't see off an Astra VXR one time!)
and a LOT of fun when the conditions were out, and you were in the mood.
The only thing I wish I had done to it were putting a stainless exhaust on it.

Would have another, but I'd worry I'd be disappointed, and that it would not be up to the standard that mine was.

LX52 WJM, just in case one of you owns it, it's still alive!

[kellyt]

Track_Cit said:

I don't doubt your experience but I am surpised by this, when you say garbage how do you mean? In terms of reliabilty or it's performance / handling etc.

My pal had one and it was great. Fast and fun, what's not to like!

Edited by Track_Cit on Friday 16th November 13:59

All of the above:-

Handling - it swapped ends with very little provocation, including being comprehensively out gripped by a Mondeo when it 'let go'.
Performance - if was only barely quicker than a 2.0 Laguna in a straight line.
Reliability - the electrics self destructed after 4 years old, with the alarm doing a first class impression of Clarkson's Ford GT at 4 hour intervals. It appeared to be unfixable by the dealer.

It was an awful car and our biggest car disappointment to be honest. I'm not anti Renault. Love the new Alpine, used to be a fan of Lagunas, the 5 GT Raider is a truly excellent car. But, the Williams was rubbish. The Clio 16v was a better car in every way. Lighter, handled genuinely well and was only marginally slower. The Williams is an 'image' car, it managed to convince the car scene it was something it never was.

[rallycross]

kellyt said:

All of the above:-

Handling - it swapped ends with very little provocation, including being comprehensively out gripped by a Mondeo when it 'let go'.
Performance - if was only barely quicker than a 2.0 Laguna in a straight line.
Reliability - the electrics self destructed after 4 years old, with the alarm doing a first class impression of Clarkson's Ford GT at 4 hour intervals. It appeared to be unfixable by the dealer.

It was an awful car and our biggest car disappointment to be honest. I'm not anti Renault. Love the new Alpine, used to be a fan of Lagunas, the 5 GT Raider is a truly excellent car. But, the Williams was rubbish. The Clio 16v was a better car in every way. Lighter, handled genuinely well and was only marginally slower. The Williams is an 'image' car, it managed to convince the car scene it was something it never was.

We are all entitled to our own view but rarely have I read such a load of cobblers as that, that's quite an achievement to come up with such a load of nonsense. And yes, I have owned an original Clio 16v, plus a Williams 3, plus several 172/182 cups (plus most of the best older hot hatches).
Drive a good example of a Clio Williams and you will see why its still regarded as the ultimate old school hot hatch.

[kellyt]

rallycross said:

We are all entitled to our own view but rarely have I read such a load of cobblers as that, that's quite an achievement to come up with such a load of nonsense. And yes, I have owned an original Clio 16v, plus a Williams 3, plus several 172/182 cups (plus most of the best older hot hatches).
Drive a good example of a Clio Williams and you will see why its still regarded as the ultimate old school hot hatch.

As you are entitled to yours, and indeed I feel very much the same about your opinion.

Oh, and I also know two other pertrolheads with precisely the same experience as myself on the Williams.

"Ultimate old school hatch." That is complete nonsense.

Edited by kellyt on Sunday 18th November 12:38

[F4R]

kellyt said:

All of the above:-

Handling - it swapped ends with very little provocation, including being comprehensively out gripped by a Mondeo when it 'let go'.
Performance - if was only barely quicker than a 2.0 Laguna in a straight line.
Reliability - the electrics self destructed after 4 years old, with the alarm doing a first class impression of Clarkson's Ford GT at 4 hour intervals. It appeared to be unfixable by the dealer.

It was an awful car and our biggest car disappointment to be honest. I'm not anti Renault. Love the new Alpine, used to be a fan of Lagunas, the 5 GT Raider is a truly excellent car. But, the Williams was rubbish. The Clio 16v was a better car in every way. Lighter, handled genuinely well and was only marginally slower. The Williams is an 'image' car, it managed to convince the car scene it was something it never was.

From reading the above, it sounds like your car needed to be repaired, or you simply didn't know how to drive the it properly.

Handling: They don't swap ends easily unless you've either lifted off mid corner, have crap/old tyres, or knackered rear shocks. These were the only reasons you were outgripped by a Mondeo.

Performance: A Clio 182 would easily beat a 2.0 Laguna in a straight line.

Reliability: Faulty electrics are not a common fault on these cars. Your experience could happen to any car but it's certainly not usual on a Clio 182.

The Clio 172 and Williams are two of the best hot hatches ever made. But they are drivers cars; not for people that think Lagunas and Mondeos are drivers cars.

[u04pww2]

kellyt said:

Track_Cit said:

I don't doubt your experience but I am surpised by this, when you say garbage how do you mean? In terms of reliabilty or it's performance / handling etc.

My pal had one and it was great. Fast and fun, what's not to like!

Edited by Track_Cit on Friday 16th November 13:59

All of the above:-

Handling - it swapped ends with very little provocation, including being comprehensively out gripped by a Mondeo when it 'let go'.
Performance - if was only barely quicker than a 2.0 Laguna in a straight line.
Reliability - the electrics self destructed after 4 years old, with the alarm doing a first class impression of Clarkson's Ford GT at 4 hour intervals. It appeared to be unfixable by the dealer.



It was an awful car and our biggest car disappointment to be honest. I'm not anti Renault. Love the new Alpine, used to be a fan of Lagunas, the 5 GT Raider is a truly excellent car. But, the Williams was rubbish. The Clio 16v was a better car in every way. Lighter, handled genuinely well and was only marginally slower. The Williams is an 'image' car, it managed to convince the car scene it was something it never was.

Thats funny, Evo drove one not long ago and said the quite the opposite.

"what really makes the Williams an icon is that even now, in 2017, it’s able to accelerate, brake, turn and corner at a level that’s genuinely not far off the current crop of supermini tearaways. For a 24-year-old car, that’s exceptional. In 1993 it must have been a thing of wonder."

You definitely had a duffer i think.

[Track_Cit]

^ that's my thinking too. I'm no expert but i'm sure most articles i've read heavily praise the Williams as a 'great', and it's the platform upon which all of the RS hot hatches that followed were based on. Strange! Of course it could be that you just didn't enjoy driving it which is perfectly acceptable too I suppose, and coupled with mechanical and electrical issues i'm not surprised you fell out of love with it.

RE; my 'burn up' comment, I was being glib, but essentially what I am saying is a 172 cup is as quick as the newish ST (or at least mine seems to be) *head scratch* Although it's old AF, the 2L N/A lump coupled with a lightweight body seems to be a great mix. Mine goes like stink.

[s m]

Track_Cit said:

RE; my 'burn up' comment, I was being glib, but essentially what I am saying is a 172 cup is as quick as the newish ST (or at least mine seems to be) *head scratch* Although it's old AF, the 2L N/A lump coupled with a lightweight body seems to be a great mix. Mine goes like stink.

Not too much a surprise I guess though - the 172 Cup and 182 were quite similar in performance terms in timed road tests I’ve seen ( 0.1 seconds to a ton, 1 mph difference in VMAX etc ). The 182 about a 100kg heavier but a pokier lump.

Then if you compare a 182 to a new ST they’re very similar power to weight ratios, the ST needing 2 changes to hit 60 and the 182 only one gearchabge

Clio 182




Fiesta ST 1.5 3-pot

[BRR]

I loved my 172, fancy another next year to be used purely as a track car. Mine did break quite a lot considering how well it was looked after, though none of the issues were too serious

[hondansx]

It's great to see them on track days, but it's a shame to see so many cars being ripped apart just so people can feel more like racing drivers.

Of course, this will mean eventually prices will go up, as genuinely original cars are pretty rare!

Fantastic cars. I have a 182 Trophy sitting alongside supercars and the Clio is the only one I'd never sell.

[downhillmalins]

Have a 172 Cup as a budget track car, doing a vid series on YT for anyone interested (link in profile).

Absolutely love the car, so much fun and so much potential. Anyone considering getting one, just do it. Bang for buck these are unbeatable

[lawrencec]

Recently purchased a 172 in my fleet bought it as spares or repairs as the water pump failed

I have always wanted to try one and now firmly attached to it so cant see it going anywhere its great for country roads its probably not worth the money ive put into it but it does bring a smile to my face every time I drive it