Clio Sport 172/182 - short shelf life?

Clio Sport 172/182 - short shelf life?

Author
Discussion

GregMac

Original Poster:

247 posts

150 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
After driving classics for the past year, I'm now looking at the possibility of taking on a modern to retain my no claims bonus (they cant be used in conjunction with a classic policy, apparently)

I'm looking for something relatively cheap, smart and quick, and a 172 or 182 seems to fit the bill. I'd be looking at spending £2-3k, and there seem plenty of decent cars for sale.. But they all seem to be getting moved on around the 70,000 mile mark. I realise that cambelt changes are important, but should I be concerned jumping into a well maintained car at that sort of mileage?

I guess what I'm driving at is there are very few high mileage cars for sale. Is this because they're all broken, or because they'd be worth so little to sell on their owners just keep them? Any help would be great, cheers guys.

dabofoppo

684 posts

172 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
Mine is on 92k and seems to be fine. Iirc the cambelt change is expensive and people might want to to sell before its due. Great cars though.

HTP99

22,632 posts

141 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
Great cars and reliable if serviced correctly and looked after, just make sure the cambelt is, or has been, done at 72k or 5 years.

FRA53R

1,077 posts

169 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
They're great! But yeah the cambelt is pretty expensive, think £400. Going to be my next expense along with a clutch on mine. Making sure that they've been well maintained is as important with any car, other than that they're pretty cheap to run and will give you loads of fun smile

anonymous-user

55 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
You need to look after them but they are great. Some of them are complete lemons though and have everything go wrong with them. Mine is a decent one, its on 95k miles and hasn't had a lot of work. Look at my garage entry for it for a list of work done.

A lot of high mileage ones are for sale because they are 9/10 year old cars. That's <10000 miles per year...

J4CKO

41,680 posts

201 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
I had wanted one for ages and finally got round to getting one, had decided it was the car for me but I test drove one and didn't see what the fuss was about, still love the look of them and still feel I perhaps didn't give it chance or drove a bad example, I so wanted to like it.

chris182

4,166 posts

154 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
Mine is a 54 plate with 53k on it and has been absolutely faultless apart from a broken coil spring. Still drives like a brand new car (better than most).

There are a lot of chav specials on the market though, avoid ones which have been messed with and buy and original spec car. Renaultsport know a lot more than a random council estate dweller about how to make a car handle.

John D.

17,961 posts

210 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
Reckon its a much to do with the ownership demographic and that the cambelt is due at 72k. A lot of young lads don't want to pay it.

The gearboxes are a weak point. Mine failed and so did a mates on our respective 172. Sold mine after on around 70k as it happens. Apart from that it was mechanically very reliable.

Thinking of getting a 182 for similar reasons myself. Don't really need a car but a run-about would be handy particularly for the winter months and I'd like to keep my NCB going whilst I save for something I really want. So it may as well be something quick/fun/cheap-ish to run.

Edited by John D. on Tuesday 11th December 18:50

KM666

1,757 posts

184 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
My old mans ph:quick is on 188k, there was a guy who did mega miles on a trophey used to turn up at smeatharpe airfield, i'm sure that was on over 200k.

The dephaser pulley is almost as important as the belt changes. There are alot of poor examples even at that money about.

My dads one wasnt without fault, it had low compression on cyl 3 after 170k and as a result was slightly down on power, 159bhp dyno'd against a factory claimed 170ps (168bhp?). It got a fresher engine/gearbox put in. The old engine is being rebuilt, very slowly, by him.
The old gearbox has just been rebuilt after 170k on the road, not that anything was really wrong with it, it just wasn't perfect.
The current engine (a proven 172bhp on 68k) will hopefully end up donated to me (or i'll buy it off him) when the old engine has been rebuilt to more power.

The whole thing was done mostly because he wanted to do something big like change an engine, and as I was on my mechanics course at the time it was something to do together over the winter, not so much out of necessity.

It was also an excuse for him to buy a Subaru.

Edited by KM666 on Tuesday 11th December 22:41

ajb85

1,122 posts

143 months

Tuesday 11th December 2012
quotequote all
A pal has recently bought an 02 172 after an E46 325i, RX-8 and Honda S2000 and is totally smitten with it. For the money, you can't really beat it. Not really a hot hatch sort of guy myself, but with this kind of budget the Clio is what I'd go out and buy.

They tend not to shake, creak and rattle unlike standard Clios of the same vintage with largish miles, the Renault Sports are of a much better build and made elsewhere, I believe.

GrumpyTwig

3,354 posts

158 months

Wednesday 12th December 2012
quotequote all
ajb85 said:
A pal has recently bought an 02 172 after an E46 325i, RX-8 and Honda S2000 and is totally smitten with it. For the money, you can't really beat it. Not really a hot hatch sort of guy myself, but with this kind of budget the Clio is what I'd go out and buy.

They tend not to shake, creak and rattle unlike standard Clios of the same vintage with largish miles, the Renault Sports are of a much better build and made elsewhere, I believe.
Seperate factory, slightly better standards.

As above have heard of them doing relativly high mileage, would expect one to do 150k at least but sadly a lot end up in the hands of people who don't maintain them properly. Cambelts then snap and that's that.

The older ones are very fun though.

MagicalTrevor

6,476 posts

230 months

Wednesday 12th December 2012
quotequote all
The engines in them are actually solid and easily achieve high mileage. Mine is on 119k and is still going strong, just the usual little bits that have needed replacing along the way, like on any car!

As has been said, they should have had the belts changed and some of the older ones should have been done twice now.

I love mine btw and I'll never sell it

boobles

15,241 posts

216 months

Wednesday 12th December 2012
quotequote all
70K is nothing at all on a car with service history.

At the end of the day the mileage shouldn't matter so long as it's been looked after. I know of some cars with 20k on the clock & plagued with problems.

chili1

411 posts

238 months

Wednesday 12th December 2012
quotequote all
I bought my 53 Clio 172 when it was 1 year old with 9k on the clock. Ran it for 4 years (30k miles). Only things I replaced were rear exhaust (cheaper for aftermarket s/steel than Renault mild steel)tyres and brake pads/discs.
Had cambelt and all pulleys,tensioners etc changed at 5 years old (40k miles) - cost about £400 at local indy Renault specialist. Wish I hadn't bothered as I sold it a fortnight later.

That Clio never missed a beat. Ok, it rattled now and again around the dash, but went and handled very well.

LuS1fer

41,154 posts

246 months

Wednesday 12th December 2012
quotequote all
I went looking at Clios 172/182s with a firm intent on buying one but the more I looked at them, the more astonishingly flimsy they appeared (and I've owned an R5 GT Turbo in the past so do understand the concept of flimsy) so just couldn't bring myself to buy one. I bought a less powerful Fiesta ST which is hardly an icon in quality construction but way ahead of the Renault. The HID headlamps always looked cloudy too and they are not cheap. Most of the ones I saw didn't even have a CD player which sort of dates them.

Didn't I also read on here very recently that even changing the plugs takes a few hours?

Best thing is to go and look at a few and go from there.

GregMac

Original Poster:

247 posts

150 months

Wednesday 12th December 2012
quotequote all
Thanks for all the replies chaps, much appreciated. Given me a lot to go on!

james_gt3rs

4,816 posts

192 months

Wednesday 12th December 2012
quotequote all
doogz said:
The Crack Fox said:
Briefly ran a 182 some years ago, hateful heap of crud, my advice = avoid.
This. Had one for 6 months before I got rid of it. Bought it in a hurry because I needed a car after mine was stolen, and we were in the middle of moving house.

Never got what all the hype was about, possibly the worst car I've ever bought. GroundEffect feels the same way about the one he had, think his was a 172.
TameRacingDriver didn't have a good experience with his either.

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

AGK

1,602 posts

156 months

Wednesday 12th December 2012
quotequote all
Great fun to drive, even better on the track.

As for shifting them at 70, the belts are expensive and a lot of people who look for them won't buy unless the belts have been done by a well known specialist.

Factor in the dephaser and you could easily pay £600 for a belt change. Most folk will think that isn't worth it on a 2k car.

If I were looking I would consider one without the belts and get it done as soon as I got it.

Quite a few mates have 172's well over 100k and are daily's that are tracked at every opportunity.

MagicalTrevor

6,476 posts

230 months

Wednesday 12th December 2012
quotequote all
james_gt3rs said:
TameRacingDriver didn't have a good experience with his either.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
To be fair, it was fairly clear that it was ropey from the start! There are too many that have been abused due to their low cost and fairly high performance. They're so cheap that people get in the mindset that paying £500 to fix a £1000 car isn't economically viable. I can understand that to an extent although not the attitude I've taken with mine... not it's previous owners.

Unfortunately, there are more bad ones than good ones IMO.

james_gt3rs

4,816 posts

192 months

Wednesday 12th December 2012
quotequote all
True, but it still cost him a fortune to keep running.