Renault Clio 2.0 16V Renaultsport 197

[Biccaroo]

Does anybody know how these compare to the 172 and 182? In all their various guises (i.e. Cup, Trophy...)

[chris182]

Everything I've heard suggests the following about the 197 compared to the 172/182:

• Much thirstier
• Heavier
• Bigger
• Slightly better brakes
• Closer ratio 6 speed box but slightly lower power/weight and torque/weight ratio means engine has to be thrashed even harder to make decent progress

I own a 182 but have never driven a 197, this is just what I have gathered from spending too much time on the interweb. Having seen the 197/200 in the metal though I was amazed by the size of the thing, absolutly huge compared to the 182. Seems in a whole diffferent size class.

[HonestIago]

I've been a passenger in a 197 and own a Trophy so can comment. In short a 197 is heavier, thirstier and arguably not as much fun as a 172/182 but interior is far better and whole car feels more solid. Performance similar. Its a better daily prospect though has awfully short gearing IIRC.

[RenesisEvo]

HonestIago said:

Its a better daily prospect though has awfully short gearing IIRC.

Indeed they do make a fair bit of noise on the motorway, I believe the 182/172 are even worse (shorter top gear). Also be aware of weak gearboxes - my friend's 197 has already got a knackered 4th in less than 40k, and he doesn't hammer the car either.

[HonestIago]

RenesisEvo said:

HonestIago said:

Its a better daily prospect though has awfully short gearing IIRC.

Indeed they do make a fair bit of noise on the motorway, I believe the 182/172 are even worse (shorter top gear). Also be aware of weak gearboxes - my friend's 197 has already got a knackered 4th in less than 40k, and he doesn't hammer the car either.

No the 6th gear in the 197 R27 I was in was definitely shorter than my top. Trophy does just under 3.5k revs @70mph I think which isn't too bad.

EDIT: My uncle's 59 plate 200 (which I've driven extensively) already has a crunch on 3rd/4th gears after c.17k miles and has not been hammered either!

Edited by HonestIago on Tuesday 15th May 22:42

Edited by HonestIago on Tuesday 15th May 22:43

[Biccaroo]

chris182 said:

Everything I've heard suggests the following about the 197 compared to the 172/182:

• Much thirstier
• Heavier
• Bigger
• Slightly better brakes
• Closer ratio 6 speed box but slightly lower power/weight and torque/weight ratio means engine has to be thrashed even harder to make decent progress

I own a 182 but have never driven a 197, this is just what I have gathered from spending too much time on the interweb. Having seen the 197/200 in the metal though I was amazed by the size of the thing, absolutly huge compared to the 182. Seems in a whole diffferent size class.

I see. So, initial impressions are that it's been compromised by safety regulations really. So many cars seem to be getting bigger than their predecessors these days. It's a shame but I understand the reasons. Okay, well I know that the 182 is quite a legendary car in its own right so perhaps I'd be better off avoiding the 197!

[ikonic]

^^^^

the ratios actually got updated after the R27 model to make it more easy to live with on the motorway. Any Cup or model after Mar 08 should have the updated ratios.


I owned an R27 for a year and 18k miles.


In short, it was superb. Great fun when you wanted it to be, but also a lot better built and more comfortable than my flaky old 172. Arguably less fun I'd agree; but I'd wager the 197 was quicker around a track (even if it didn't feel it) due to its extra composure. That's my 2 cents anyway after a few trackdays at Oulton.


Oh, and nothing fell off or broke during my time with it.

[Biccaroo]

HonestIago said:

No the 6th gear in the 197 R27 I was in was definitely shorter than my top. Trophy does just under 3.5k revs @70mph I think which isn't too bad.

EDIT: My uncle's 59 plate 200 (which I've driven extensively) already has a crunch on 3rd/4th gears after c.17k!

Edited by HonestIago on Tuesday 15th May 22:42

You see, this is why I've always tried to avoid Renault's. They are quite poorly constructed. It's such a shame because nobody can build hot hatches like the French. If only they were stronger. Issues like this put me off ever buying a Renault, no matter how incredible the performance is.

[HonestIago]

Biccaroo said:

HonestIago said:

No the 6th gear in the 197 R27 I was in was definitely shorter than my top. Trophy does just under 3.5k revs @70mph I think which isn't too bad.

EDIT: My uncle's 59 plate 200 (which I've driven extensively) already has a crunch on 3rd/4th gears after c.17k!

Edited by HonestIago on Tuesday 15th May 22:42

You see, this is why I've always tried to avoid Renault's. They are quite poorly constructed. It's such a shame because nobody can build hot hatches like the French. If only they were stronger. Issues like this put me off ever buying a Renault, no matter how incredible the performance is.

Agree its a shame as the 172/182 gearboxes are very robust as far as I'm aware. Don't know why it went wrong on later cars.

[roystinho]

I've owned a Clio Trophy, a Clio 200, and now have a Phase 1 Clio 172.

In essence the second post sums it up. Though I must say that though the earlier cars are fore fun, you can make faster progress in the Mk3 (197/200) over a B road blast, better brakes and flatter cornering.

If it's an everyday car, definitely go for a 197. Much nicer place to be on the mundane trips. Get one with a cup chassis would be my advice for when you want a bit of hoonage as the non-cupped roll a bit too much for my liking.

If it's a fun car, I'd definitely go for a Mk2, probably a Trophy. Loads of fun, superb handling, consumables are a lot cheaper (you can ever fit 15'' wheels if you want). I've only gone back to a Phase one as it's going to be a track car and also an exercise to save up for something a bit more mad (Clio V6, M3, 1M etc depending how well the saving goes)

Good luck with your search.

Oh and by the way, on my 4th Renultsport and nothing major has gone wrong on any of them

[Biccaroo]

roystinho said:

I've owned a Clio Trophy, a Clio 200, and now have a Phase 1 Clio 172.

In essence the second post sums it up. Though I must say that though the earlier cars are fore fun, you can make faster progress in the Mk3 (197/200) over a B road blast, better brakes and flatter cornering.

If it's an everyday car, definitely go for a 197. Much nicer place to be on the mundane trips. Get one with a cup chassis would be my advice for when you want a bit of hoonage as the non-cupped roll a bit too much for my liking.

If it's a fun car, I'd definitely go for a Mk2, probably a Trophy. Loads of fun, superb handling, consumables are a lot cheaper (you can ever fit 15'' wheels if you want). I've only gone back to a Phase one as it's going to be a track car and also an exercise to save up for something a bit more mad (Clio V6, M3, 1M etc depending how well the saving goes)

Good luck with your search.

Oh and by the way, on my 4th Renultsport and nothing major has gone wrong on any of them

Thanks for this. A friend of mine owns a 182 Cup. The only problem he's ever had was with the gear stick cover. The plastic clip that held it in place snapped off (they're quite flimsy) and so you could see into the tunnel. I get the feeling that it's a case of getting lucky with the reliability of a Renault!

[nottyash]

I test drove one when they first came out.
I had a Skoda Fabia VRS Diesel which I had remapped at the time, and it felt no where near as fast
My wife actually said "Put your foot down" I replied "I have". She said it was rubbish
So straight line performance its just like any other high revving variable cam engine,You have to rev it, but even then it wasnt balistic. However it cornered remakably well, was a reasonably nice place to sit, and I thought it looked great.
You have to remember it was only £12000 brand new on the net at the time, and local dealers wanted well over £14000, so it was a bargain.
I think now there a few nice ones under £6k its not a bad buy, so long as its reliable... being a Renault.