RE: Renaultsport Clio 200 Cup vs Ford Fiesta ST
Discussion
The fact of this and various other recent tests with the RS Clio 200 Cup and more modern opposition is that the Clio continually wins on the major fact that counts - how it drives! I can only agree, a true Hot Hatch legend the like of which we have not seen since and not likely to see again!
Andy20vt said:
I can't possibly think what on earth would be going through someones mind to make them sign up for a brand new (probably leased) Fiesta ST when for around £6-7k you can purchase outright a late year, well looked after, low mileage, Renault Sport Clio 200 Cup with 12 months warranty from a Renault main dealer?
Yeah, because everyone wants a nine year old Renault, why not get a 2002 182 instead ?I looked at these as I do like them but the interior is a bit ropey, just not sure for a little bit more handling prowess (which is subjective anyway) I would be bothered putting up with it the rest of the time, the old ST is more than enough fun for me, and possibly a better comparison price wise. Most of the time you arent at 10/10ths, most of the time is a very basic old Renault Clio.
Onehp said:
Apologies if I repeat myself in picking this up, but I really don't understand this criticism. It must be psychological, as if three cylinders ain't enough. Seen to the bare numbers, displacement is down an incredible 6,25% for the same output. I think a few years of engine development covers that. Assuming they didn't manage to make the engine more power efficient, physics tells us boost must be up roughly 12,5%.
Assume it was a 2l. Then with the same specific output it would be 265bhp. Does anybody worry about boost on such an engine? No, because others run 270, 280,290,300,310,320,340, 360 and 380hp. Neither should anyone on the Fiesta ST...
I hear the numbers and power defence for these small engines (not that they need defending, they're engines..). The reality is they're laggy and usually attached to big bAssume it was a 2l. Then with the same specific output it would be 265bhp. Does anybody worry about boost on such an engine? No, because others run 270, 280,290,300,310,320,340, 360 and 380hp. Neither should anyone on the Fiesta ST...
d flywheels to make the thing driveable. There isn't a replacement of displacement when it comes to petrol powered engines... It's just companies chasing emissions figures. I bought a 3 cylinder fiesta a few years ago and had the 170bhp tune put on it. I thought it'll sound great and be quite boosty and old school turbo in its delivery. The reality is low red-line, a nothing noise and less responsiveness than a diesel van. I know this is a different engine and it'll doubtless be better, but as soon as you go back to n/a you realise how much we've given up. New car engines are almost universally worse. Power is a passing thing - the next car is always more powerful. A great engine is always great though.
Why would anyone want a Clio 200 Cup ?
The full fat version with the Cup chassis is the way to go ( and that is spartan enough anyway).
Recaros are OK and they do look nice but they do wear on the outer bolster.
Someone asked why there aren't many 200s for sale ?
They're all off the road with knackered 'boxes. They are made of chocolate.
Having said that, they are sweet handling things and given the right road they will live with much more expensive machinery.
The full fat version with the Cup chassis is the way to go ( and that is spartan enough anyway).
Recaros are OK and they do look nice but they do wear on the outer bolster.
Someone asked why there aren't many 200s for sale ?
They're all off the road with knackered 'boxes. They are made of chocolate.
Having said that, they are sweet handling things and given the right road they will live with much more expensive machinery.
JMF894 said:
Would love a drive of the clio but I could never live with that dash as a daily. Also, wasn't one criticism of the clio being that the driving position was a little high?
It is but at the same time that same position allows you to see the corners of the car and position the car (in combination with the brilliant front end) very precisely where you need it.It certainly wasn't on my list of gripes with it.
That pretty much went exactly as I expected. Former Cup owner 182 and 197 and for me the 197 was just too extreme in some areas for a road car. The press seemed to think the mods too make it the 200 made it much better but for a road car the 197 was dynamite in the bends, and in isolation it feels plenty fast enough. What I didn't like was the gearing (even shorter on the 200) which was ridiculous (nearly 4000 rpm in 6th at 70!) lack of low down torque and the cabin. I thought the 182 was better pitched as a daily - better ride, better on the motorway, 15% better on fuel. Still think they look fantastic (197) and as a 2nd or 3rd car for fun only I'd have one over the ST all day long but new cars cover so many bases nowadays they give you 90 % of the fun are faster , much more economical, more comfortable and ask very few compromises from the owner.
Mackofthejungle said:
I hear the numbers and power defence for these small engines (not that they need defending, they're engines..). The reality is they're laggy and usually attached to big bd flywheels to make the thing driveable. There isn't a replacement of displacement when it comes to petrol powered engines... It's just companies chasing emissions figures.
I bought a 3 cylinder fiesta a few years ago and had the 170bhp tune put on it. I thought it'll sound great and be quite boosty and old school turbo in its delivery. The reality is low red-line, a nothing noise and less responsiveness than a diesel van. I know this is a different engine and it'll doubtless be better, but as soon as you go back to n/a you realise how much we've given up. New car engines are almost universally worse. Power is a passing thing - the next car is always more powerful. A great engine is always great though.
Not sure what you're after, you wanted old school, boosty delivery, and you got terrible response which is about the same thing, no? Basically you didn't understand that a tune doesn't change either the noise, or the flywheel, or the size of the turbo, meaning the latter has to work much harder and its limitations define the engine response even more.d flywheels to make the thing driveable. There isn't a replacement of displacement when it comes to petrol powered engines... It's just companies chasing emissions figures. I bought a 3 cylinder fiesta a few years ago and had the 170bhp tune put on it. I thought it'll sound great and be quite boosty and old school turbo in its delivery. The reality is low red-line, a nothing noise and less responsiveness than a diesel van. I know this is a different engine and it'll doubtless be better, but as soon as you go back to n/a you realise how much we've given up. New car engines are almost universally worse. Power is a passing thing - the next car is always more powerful. A great engine is always great though.
Anyway, I was just being somewhat critical to someone dismissing the new engine that went from 1.6 to 1.5 displacement and is more suspicious of that than a warrantied tune of said 1.6 to 215hp...
Then just say you don't like 3-cylinders or, in your case, modern turbo engines (that generally have massively better response than old ones) and be done with it. To each their...
Edited by Onehp on Saturday 22 December 17:41
Onehp said:
Not sure what you're after, you wanted old school, boosty delivery, and you got terrible response which is about the same thing, no? Basically you didn't understand that a tune doesn't change either the noise, or the flywheel, or the size of the turbo, meaning the latter has to work much harder and its limitations define the engine response even more.
Anyway, I was just being somewhat critical to someone dismissing the new engine that went from 1.6 to 1.5 displacement and is more suspicious of that than a warrantied tune of said 1.6 to 215hp...
Then just say you don't like 3-cylinders or, in your case, modern turbo engines (that generally have massively better response than old ones) and be done with it. To each their...
this thread just reiterates to me that we're at the end of combustion engines.Anyway, I was just being somewhat critical to someone dismissing the new engine that went from 1.6 to 1.5 displacement and is more suspicious of that than a warrantied tune of said 1.6 to 215hp...
Then just say you don't like 3-cylinders or, in your case, modern turbo engines (that generally have massively better response than old ones) and be done with it. To each their...
Edited by Onehp on Saturday 22 December 17:41
nasp at its best is just the best. responsive, great sound and all the way to 7.5k (at least)
turbos give great power & torque hikes. but often lag and fall away at higher revs
but the normal development cycles of both are curtailed by legislation and onset of ev.
Go Mazda, the last hurrah for nasp petrol.
JMF894 said:
Would love a drive of the clio but I could never live with that dash as a daily. Also, wasn't one criticism of the clio being that the driving position was a little high?
I thought just this about the dash but having taken the plunge on a 200 Cup and having the wheel retrimmwd and the carbon pack it’s not actually that bad - the Recaros are beautiful and again I’ve had my drivers seat lowered on custom brackets which was cheap and easy and makes a massive massive diffeeence. I have climate control, Bluetooth and keyless entry - it does just fine
Took my e61 M5 for a blast last night (it’s currently tucked away for winter) and obviously it was ridiculously quick compared to the Clio but a lot less confidence inspiring on a wet December night.
As the last line says - I happily get up at stupid o’clock to take the Clio out and it never disappoints.
+ the Akrapovic makes every journey sound like a rally stage!!!
Edited by MrTouring on Saturday 22 December 20:03
Edited by MrTouring on Saturday 22 December 20:04
Edited by MrTouring on Saturday 22 December 20:07
Owned a Clio 200 Cup, the chassis, the handling and the brakes were very special.
Not so special were the engine and the gearbox.
Drove a colleague's previous model Fiesta ST and it felt mostly similar, pointy and stiff, while the turbo made it more muscular but also introduced quite a bit of torque-steer.
I'm a bit done with FWD because of that feeling.
Not so special were the engine and the gearbox.
Drove a colleague's previous model Fiesta ST and it felt mostly similar, pointy and stiff, while the turbo made it more muscular but also introduced quite a bit of torque-steer.
I'm a bit done with FWD because of that feeling.
J4CKO said:
Yeah, because everyone wants a nine year old Renault, why not get a 2002 182 instead ?
I looked at these as I do like them but the interior is a bit ropey, just not sure for a little bit more handling prowess (which is subjective anyway) I would be bothered putting up with it the rest of the time, the old ST is more than enough fun for me, and possibly a better comparison price wise. Most of the time you arent at 10/10ths, most of the time is a very basic old Renault Clio.
(Pendant mode) because a 2002 182 doesn't exist. I looked at these as I do like them but the interior is a bit ropey, just not sure for a little bit more handling prowess (which is subjective anyway) I would be bothered putting up with it the rest of the time, the old ST is more than enough fun for me, and possibly a better comparison price wise. Most of the time you arent at 10/10ths, most of the time is a very basic old Renault Clio.
The 182 didn't come out until 2004 so a 2002 would be a 172
LukeSi said:
J4CKO said:
Yeah, because everyone wants a nine year old Renault, why not get a 2002 182 instead ?
I looked at these as I do like them but the interior is a bit ropey, just not sure for a little bit more handling prowess (which is subjective anyway) I would be bothered putting up with it the rest of the time, the old ST is more than enough fun for me, and possibly a better comparison price wise. Most of the time you arent at 10/10ths, most of the time is a very basic old Renault Clio.
(Pendant mode) because a 2002 182 doesn't exist. I looked at these as I do like them but the interior is a bit ropey, just not sure for a little bit more handling prowess (which is subjective anyway) I would be bothered putting up with it the rest of the time, the old ST is more than enough fun for me, and possibly a better comparison price wise. Most of the time you arent at 10/10ths, most of the time is a very basic old Renault Clio.
The 182 didn't come out until 2004 so a 2002 would be a 172
I owned a lovely red full fat 200 with the Cup chassis, a great car .... when driving it at least at 9/10ths of its performance.
The interior (apart from the fab Recaro seats) was basic and fuel consumption not great.
But on the right road, it was an epic drive.
On the M62 into Manchester (where the undulations/subsidence are/were) I vividly remember it bouncing me out of my seat it was so firm!!
I’ve an ST-3 coming in March with the Performace Pack, happy to give up that last few % of flat out performance for the extra comforts and all round usability.
It may never reach the 200’s absolute peak, but for more of the time, and on more everyday roads, I expect it will be a ‘better’ car ..... it certainly fared very well at ECOTY 2018.
The interior (apart from the fab Recaro seats) was basic and fuel consumption not great.
But on the right road, it was an epic drive.
On the M62 into Manchester (where the undulations/subsidence are/were) I vividly remember it bouncing me out of my seat it was so firm!!
I’ve an ST-3 coming in March with the Performace Pack, happy to give up that last few % of flat out performance for the extra comforts and all round usability.
It may never reach the 200’s absolute peak, but for more of the time, and on more everyday roads, I expect it will be a ‘better’ car ..... it certainly fared very well at ECOTY 2018.
alock said:
LB14 said:
I’ve an ST-3 coming in March with the Performace Pack....
Can I ask when you ordered it and how confident you are of the date given? I'm thinking of ordering one and if I do would like it to arrive at the end of April.I’m very confident of the delivery date - when I ordered, the dealer initially said 20 weeks, but that was likely to come down as the supply issue they had with the ST-3 alloys had been sorted.
Had an email on Friday to confirm everything on track for March delivery. Have gone Performance Pack, LED lights, B+O stereo, Pano roof and 5 door in Performance Blue, so quite a high spec. Roll on March
323ti said:
Owned a Clio 200 Cup, the chassis, the handling and the brakes were very special.
Not so special were the engine and the gearbox.
Drove a colleague's previous model Fiesta ST and it felt mostly similar, pointy and stiff, while the turbo made it more muscular but also introduced quite a bit of torque-steer.
I'm a bit done with FWD because of that feeling.
Agree, unsurprising when you remember the engine was initially introduced in the late 90's and early 2000's. Really felt a bit strangled up top despite reving there quite happily. My gearbox stopped going into gear and luckily replace in warranty but that was the start of my downfall with Renaults that means it'll be very unlikely I'll own another as my main car.Not so special were the engine and the gearbox.
Drove a colleague's previous model Fiesta ST and it felt mostly similar, pointy and stiff, while the turbo made it more muscular but also introduced quite a bit of torque-steer.
I'm a bit done with FWD because of that feeling.
Loved the chassis, even the big brother Megane's chassis wasn't on par with the Clio's.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff