2012 R.S Clio 200

[greggy50]

Yeah very nice think the extremely clean standard ones will be worth a mint in the future as only a handful left now as boy racers ruined the majority of them

[gez c16b]

It's a real shame

[gez c16b]

Just a picture from Castle Combe, was a brilliant day.

Fitted silvervision indicator bulbs too, gets rid of the orange tango indicators that I hate, car looks a lot fresher now.




Also bought the 'renaultsport' silver steering wheel insert, which is a nice little touch. Just waiting for that to be delivered.

Loving the car, just doing little touches to it now that make all the difference

Gez

[Rosscow]

KarlMac said:

It's grey, bland and thoughtless. Just look at all the touch points like hand brake and gear knob. Aren't these the same as fitted to the boggo models? Clocks look good though. It's a real shame because the outside and seats really look the business.

I love the concept of sporty clios. Always wanted a Williams, adore the V6 and have massive respect for the 172/182. I just couldn't stare at that grey awfulness for my daily commute.

It was one of the reasons I picked the ST over the VXR/Clio/Jap stuff. The interior is a really nice place to sit.

It's opinion. I completely respect your right to disagree.

I agree - not much thought gone into the dash at all.

Nice car though OP!

[chrisp84]

Very nice! I've just looked at the Renault website for prices on a new one £15,795 for one of the greatest hot hatches ever made, brand new with 4 year 100000 mile warranty and four years servicing breakdown etc.....very very tempting and what looks like fantastic value for money!

[TameRacingDriver]

BaronVonVaderham said:

Has anyone got any laptimes or proper data to prove that the 182 is faster than the 200?

The 182 simply is not quicker in any benchmark.

The 200 has a comparable 0-60 time, but dips under the 17 second mark for 0-100 mph - the best I ever saw a 182 manage in a test was 17 flat. The gearbox has closer ratios and the engine revvier so the 200 is a tad quicker in a straight line.

However, on the corners, the 200 will piss all over a 182, FACT.

I've had a 172 and a 182, but the 200 is in another league for its chassis TBH.

OP: Nice car BTW

[BaronVonVaderham]

TameRacingDriver said:

BaronVonVaderham said:

Has anyone got any laptimes or proper data to prove that the 182 is faster than the 200?

The 182 simply is not quicker in any benchmark.

The 200 has a comparable 0-60 time, but dips under the 17 second mark for 0-100 mph - the best I ever saw a 182 manage in a test was 17 flat. The gearbox has closer ratios and the engine revvier so the 200 is a tad quicker in a straight line.

However, on the corners, the 200 will piss all over a 182, FACT.

I've had a 172 and a 182, but the 200 is in another league for its chassis TBH.

OP: Nice car BTW

Exactly what I thought. Was just a bit surprised that the consensus on here seemed to think that the 182 was faster!

[gez c16b]

Thanks for the comments

There's no way the 182 is faster in anyway.

[greggy50]

gez c16b said:

Thanks for the comments

There's no way the 182 is faster in anyway.

Agree the 182 isn't as its too heavy the 172 cup on the other hand...
My friend has a 200 and honestly they naff all in it in a straight line between mine and his (mine had no spare wheel at the time) just depends who ate the most for dinner. Looking the 200 is 166bhp per tonne and the 172 cup 168 bhp per tonne.

However his looks a lot nicer and is a more comfy etc and therefore the better car I would love one for the seats alone love sitting in my mates

But don't underestimate the old 172 cup as said top gear they posted exact same times and fifth gear was apparently fixed according to someone on cliosport who lent their car to them with the 172 actually being faster. I would say in the hands of a very good driver they are basically the same maybe the trophy and 172 cup a tad faster.

However in the hands of average joe would think the 200 would walk it as a lot easier on the limit and a bit more outright grip the older clios are a bit more of a handful I find and that's why I prefer them myself

I think what is good about the 200 however is it has 90% of the fun of the older 172/182 whilst being miles better as a day to day prospect being quieter on the motorway, 6th gear and a better interior etc... just a shame got a bit heavy so they are not as good on fuel as they used too be

[R300will]

greggy50 said:

gez c16b said:

Thanks for the comments

There's no way the 182 is faster in anyway.

Agree the 182 isn't as its too heavy the 172 cup on the other hand...
My friend has a 200 and honestly they naff all in it in a straight line between mine and his (mine had no spare wheel at the time) just depends who ate the most for dinner. Looking the 200 is 166bhp per tonne and the 172 cup 168 bhp per tonne.

However his looks a lot nicer and is a more comfy etc and therefore the better car I would love one for the seats alone love sitting in my mates

But don't underestimate the old 172 cup as said top gear they posted exact same times and fifth gear was apparently fixed according to someone on cliosport who lent their car to them with the 172 actually being faster. I would say in the hands of a very good driver they are basically the same maybe the trophy and 172 cup a tad faster.

However in the hands of average joe would think the 200 would walk it as a lot easier on the limit and a bit more outright grip the older clios are a bit more of a handful I find and that's why I prefer them myself

I think what is good about the 200 however is it has 90% of the fun of the older 172/182 whilst being miles better as a day to day prospect being quieter on the motorway, 6th gear and a better interior etc... just a shame got a bit heavy so they are not as good on fuel as they used too be

Interesting stuff there.

I was looking at these and the 197's for my 21st as well but for me the interior is just terrible and the yellow background in the recaro's made them look dirty.

Such a shame because the engine note is brilliant and the handling's excellent. It's the best hot hatch out there right now for the money i just wish they'd put some effort into the insides of the thing because it's so boringly plastic you'd think it was a 1.2.

Food for thought: If the Suzuki Swift sport had 200bhp it would be top dog.

[greggy50]

Personally see what you mean interior in all the sports is a bit crap but I don't mind the new one at all and personally I like the seats.

On my 172 interior is not amazing pretty cheap plastics but for a 10yr old hatchback to have xenon headlamps, climate control, electric windows and mirrors etc... they did at least come with a lot of kit for a hatchback at the time.

I must admit personally if had the sort of money the Clio 200 demands would pick up a 1yr Meganne 250 for me they are the best looking of the hot hatches and the interior is not bad at all either running my clio into the ground for a couple of years and a 250/265 meganne will probably be the replacement.

Oh and agree with you on the swift sport great little cars I am sure some people supercharge them to around 200bhp not sure on costs but would make them a fantastic little car especially as the old shape are now more sensible money used.

[TameRacingDriver]

The main thing I don't like about the interior of the 200 is the yellow pattern on the seats, most of the rest doesn't look TOO bad.

[BaronVonVaderham]

greggy50 said:

fifth gear was apparently fixed according to someone on cliosport who lent their car to them with the 172 actually being faster

Always struggle to believe this, either it's sour grapes from the owner that the new version is superior OR the car is non-standard with better tyres or similar performance upgrades.

[TameRacingDriver]

BaronVonVaderham said:

Always struggle to believe this, either it's sour grapes from the owner that the new version is superior OR the car is non-standard with better tyres or similar performance upgrades.

It was a rumour that went around on cliosport. Personally, I struggle to believe it (or a lot of things that are written on that forum).

Having owned both a 172 and 182, there were plenty of cars that handled and gripped better. What the Clio was good at was soaking up a bumpy B-road with aplomb. However, in terms of grip and composure, they left a lot to be desired. The Mk3 Clio had a lot of chassis development and IS far superior to the Mk2.

Cars that handled better out of the box included the likes of the Peugeot 106 and 306 GTI, Fiesta ST, Citroen Saxo VTS. It is largely a myth that a Clio 172 will see off all but Ariel Atoms and Caterhams on the twisties In fact there are a lot of cars that will keep up with them.

[deadmau5]

R300will said:

greggy50 said:

gez c16b said:

Thanks for the comments

There's no way the 182 is faster in anyway.

Agree the 182 isn't as its too heavy the 172 cup on the other hand...
My friend has a 200 and honestly they naff all in it in a straight line between mine and his (mine had no spare wheel at the time) just depends who ate the most for dinner. Looking the 200 is 166bhp per tonne and the 172 cup 168 bhp per tonne.

However his looks a lot nicer and is a more comfy etc and therefore the better car I would love one for the seats alone love sitting in my mates

But don't underestimate the old 172 cup as said top gear they posted exact same times and fifth gear was apparently fixed according to someone on cliosport who lent their car to them with the 172 actually being faster. I would say in the hands of a very good driver they are basically the same maybe the trophy and 172 cup a tad faster.

However in the hands of average joe would think the 200 would walk it as a lot easier on the limit and a bit more outright grip the older clios are a bit more of a handful I find and that's why I prefer them myself

I think what is good about the 200 however is it has 90% of the fun of the older 172/182 whilst being miles better as a day to day prospect being quieter on the motorway, 6th gear and a better interior etc... just a shame got a bit heavy so they are not as good on fuel as they used too be

Interesting stuff there.

I was looking at these and the 197's for my 21st as well but for me the interior is just terrible and the yellow background in the recaro's made them look dirty.

Such a shame because the engine note is brilliant and the handling's excellent. It's the best hot hatch out there right now for the money i just wish they'd put some effort into the insides of the thing because it's so boringly plastic you'd think it was a 1.2.


Food for thought: If the Suzuki Swift sport had 200bhp it would be top dog.

You can't have everything! People always slate the interior, but they cost about £16k brand new. Would you rather they saved money on fitting smaller brakes? Thinner, lower quality paint? Cheaper engine materials? Of all the places they would scrimp on, I'm glad that they did it on the interior design. If you're going to compare the interior to the Golf, then yes it will be worse because it's about £7.5k cheaper!

If a Suzuki Swift Sport had 200bhp it would probably cost more than the Clio.

197s don't have yellow Recaros, that's just the 200s.

[deadmau5]

TameRacingDriver said:

BaronVonVaderham said:

Always struggle to believe this, either it's sour grapes from the owner that the new version is superior OR the car is non-standard with better tyres or similar performance upgrades.

It was a rumour that went around on cliosport. Personally, I struggle to believe it (or a lot of things that are written on that forum).

Having owned both a 172 and 182, there were plenty of cars that handled and gripped better. What the Clio was good at was soaking up a bumpy B-road with aplomb. However, in terms of grip and composure, they left a lot to be desired. The Mk3 Clio had a lot of chassis development and IS far superior to the Mk2.

Cars that handled better out of the box included the likes of the Peugeot 106 and 306 GTI, Fiesta ST, Citroen Saxo VTS. It is largely a myth that a Clio 172 will see off all but Ariel Atoms and Caterhams on the twisties In fact there are a lot of cars that will keep up with them.

The only people who say 1*2s are faster are 1*2 owners.

[Ordinary_Chap]

deadmau5 said:

TameRacingDriver said:

BaronVonVaderham said:

Always struggle to believe this, either it's sour grapes from the owner that the new version is superior OR the car is non-standard with better tyres or similar performance upgrades.

It was a rumour that went around on cliosport. Personally, I struggle to believe it (or a lot of things that are written on that forum).

Having owned both a 172 and 182, there were plenty of cars that handled and gripped better. What the Clio was good at was soaking up a bumpy B-road with aplomb. However, in terms of grip and composure, they left a lot to be desired. The Mk3 Clio had a lot of chassis development and IS far superior to the Mk2.

Cars that handled better out of the box included the likes of the Peugeot 106 and 306 GTI, Fiesta ST, Citroen Saxo VTS. It is largely a myth that a Clio 172 will see off all but Ariel Atoms and Caterhams on the twisties In fact there are a lot of cars that will keep up with them.

The only people who say 1*2s are faster are 1*2 owners.

To be honest, I've been in both (but not driven either) and I can see how the 182 could be quicker.

Although to be honest its all fairly academic as its going to be closely tied between the two and in the real world it will come down to who is the best/bravest driver.

[TameRacingDriver]

182s feel quicker as they're a lot lighter and more flimsy, and feel more "on edge".

[Hoygo]

To be honest ph1 172s feel much quicker than they are,not that they aren't quick,but times have moved on a modern warm hatch would walk all over it in pace and on grip levels,172s need some work to be perfect.

Also i concur, the mk2 chassis was the weakest,the mk1 chassis was superb compared to it and talking about the mk3 ,R.S did a great job on the chassis making it one of the best chassis around truly capable for much more.

With a professional driver and both cars properly driven a 200 cup is faster than a 1*2 cup/1*2 around a track,talking for Evo mag tests on Bedford is 3 seconds faster than a 172 cup,1,5 than a Championship LSD Type-R and 1 sec than a mk6 GTI.With a normal driver surely results can differ much.

For me the best Clio R.S driving wise is the Trophy,balanced,mega grip,lots of fun and a proper weapon on B-roads,nothing compares.Id take a 200 cup anytime as an everyday car though.

And my two pence on the Swift Sport,the best little hatchback no doubt,but RSR n'ring who had many of them Stage 3 + (with about 190 hp,cage etc) replaced them all with standard 200 Cups

[R300will]

deadmau5 said:

R300will said:

Interesting stuff there.

I was looking at these and the 197's for my 21st as well but for me the interior is just terrible and the yellow background in the recaro's made them look dirty.

Such a shame because the engine note is brilliant and the handling's excellent. It's the best hot hatch out there right now for the money i just wish they'd put some effort into the insides of the thing because it's so boringly plastic you'd think it was a 1.2.


Food for thought: If the Suzuki Swift sport had 200bhp it would be top dog.

You can't have everything! People always slate the interior, but they cost about £16k brand new. Would you rather they saved money on fitting smaller brakes? Thinner, lower quality paint? Cheaper engine materials? Of all the places they would scrimp on, I'm glad that they did it on the interior design. If you're going to compare the interior to the Golf, then yes it will be worse because it's about £7.5k cheaper!

If a Suzuki Swift Sport had 200bhp it would probably cost more than the Clio.

197s don't have yellow Recaros, that's just the 200s.

The swift sport has a much nicer interior than the 200 and it's about 13K so 3K to get it up to 200bhp sounds about right to me. I think they would still be similarly priced.

Don't forget if you buy one you're going to see the inside of it more than the outside so you want it to be a nice place to be.