Clio 182 v MR2 VVTi

[deadmau5]

I'm looking to buy one of these two within the next few weeks, but cannot make up my mind which to get.

I will be test driving a few of them this weekend, but was hoping I could get an idea of what to expect before I do.

Both car has pros and cons, e.g. Better quality, convertible, RWD for the Toyota, faster, more practical and arguably better handling for the Renault.

Is there a big difference in speed between the two cars? Is either one nicer to drive/better around town? My commute is 20 mins, half motorway half A roads.

Any more input/knowledge anyone can offer?

[v8will]

I think it would be down to having a rag top or not. Totally different class of cars TBH

[rb5230]

very different cars, the clio will be significantly quicker. depends what you want from a car really, do you need or sometimes want 4 seats and a boot? do you want a convertible? is that your shortlist or are you looking for suggestions.

it really depends what you want/need from a car.

[scottee]

I have an MR2 Roadster, and its a barrel of fun. Not exactly practical, with 2 tiny cubby holes behind the seat, and no real space under the front bonnet, but the need for space wasnt the reason why I bought it!

It handles lovely, the roof is simple and can be put and pulled down in literally 2 seconds. If you are looking at early-ish models, it might be worthwhile checking the pre-cats as they can cause all sorts of problems (speaking from personal experience.. new engine).

Apart from that, great little car, might be worthwhile checking our mr2roc.co.uk for some more info.

Edited by scottee on Monday 28th June 12:44

[homerjay]

tis a very strange comparison.

182 all day long for me.

unless i wanted the wind in my hair for a couple of weeks a year.

even then, an MR2 would not be high on my list.

[deadmau5]

My budget is about £5k.

They are the short listed cars, I have also considered MX-5, Megane 225, Leon Cupra, but discounted them for different reasons. I am open to other suggestions though.

I don't need the practicality tbh, I have access to another car if needs be.

[homerjay]

deadmau5 said:

My budget is about £5k.

They are the short listed cars, I have also considered MX-5, Megane 225, Leon Cupra, but discounted them for different reasons. I am open to other suggestions though.

I don't need the practicality tbh, I have access to another car if needs be.

why discount the cupra. now that is a cracking car.

[pembo]

Wow it's not so unusual, my GF has been looking at the same two lately, I reckon she should go for the MR2 with no need for seats or storage but she has a standard Clio at the moment and seems happier to just get a quicker one.

I'm not sure I could just move to the same car but faster, it wouldn't seem like as much of a change to me, she did find a very good value Clio Trophy for sale yesterday though.

If it were me I'd go with the MR2... they just feel better

[RobM77]

Both are really really good cars. I really rate the mk3 MR2, which I prefer to the MZ5 (am I allowed to say that on here?).

I made a similar decision to this about ten years ago, when I chose between a 106 GTi and a Mk1 MR2. The 106 GTi was a stunning car, but ultimately I felt FWD to be too limiting for my tastes. I'd never owned a RWD car at that point, but on the test drive it made so much more sense for a driver's car that I plumped for the MR2 and never once regretted it. The issue now is more complicated, because the Mk3 has even less boot space than the Mk1. Well, it doesn't actually have a boot at all

The four main factors here are:

1) Performance. Is straight line grunt important to you? The Clio will feel much punchier.
2) Practicality. The Clio is a proper four seater with a decent boot, room for a small roof rack etc. Do you need that space?
3) Open top.
4) RWD vs FWD.

This depends on your priorities. Personally, I'd go for the MR2, but then again point 4 above means an awful lot to me, and 1 and 2 less so, whilst 3 is a nice to have. Where do your priorities lie?

Regarding your point about build quality and reliability, I wouldn't worry too much. Whilst Toyota have an excellent reputation (and deservedly so), the Clio is a pretty good car in this respect. Sure, the Megane's reliability is ledendarily bad, but as with a few other manufacturers, Renault's small car, the Clio, is pretty good. I doubt you'd be too bothered by the real world differences in reliability enough to sway your decision, provided you buy a well cared for example.

[deadmau5]

I test drove an MR2 today, it was a 2003 with 86k on the clock. Drove quite nicely, FSH and two previous owners. Two things I completely forgot to ask the dealer when I left were; there was a bag of sand in the front 'boot', would this be to try and add weight over the front wheels? Or something more sinister?

Secondly, there was water sloshing around behind the seats, but it wasn't in the cubby holes. Could it have been water blocked in the slits over the engine, maybe by leaves or something else?

Also, there was a bit of wear on the drivers seat bolster; has anyone had a seat re-covered? Expensive?

[loose cannon]

sills were full of water probably, my m8's mr2 had the same fault, quick poke and out came a few litres of stagnant water

Edited by loose cannon on Wednesday 30th June 19:43

[G_T]

Clio 182. It's faster in the real world and on track, practical and driveable in adverse weather conditions (although less so the cup).

But then again I've never taken to Mid engine configurations. Not unless you have lots of decent weather...

For £5000 I'd be looking for a Clio trophy. Best suspension, best driving position and more likely to hold it's value.

[Chris_VRS]

deadmau5 said:

Secondly, there was water sloshing around behind the seats, but it wasn't in the cubby holes. Could it have been water blocked in the slits over the engine, maybe by leaves or something else?

That could possibly be the drainage channels being blocked for the roof..located behind the 'lockers' behind the seats and also via the side vents...easy to rectify.

I've owned both cars & although very different I'd consider buying another MR2, can't say the same about the 182

MR2 is very impractical but you know that before buying...willing engine, good driving position, superb handling, nice gearbox (2003> 6spd)

182 has an awful driving position, rubbish build quality, quicker in a straight line than an MR2, things fail/fall off at will (maybe I was unlucky), heavy clutch pedal action - not pleasant if sat in traffic regularly!, having owned one I really can't see what all the fuss is about in all honesty.

[RobM77]

deadmau5 said:

I test drove an MR2 today, it was a 2003 with 86k on the clock. Drove quite nicely, FSH and two previous owners. Two things I completely forgot to ask the dealer when I left were; there was a bag of sand in the front 'boot', would this be to try and add weight over the front wheels? Or something more sinister?

Secondly, there was water sloshing around behind the seats, but it wasn't in the cubby holes. Could it have been water blocked in the slits over the engine, maybe by leaves or something else?

Also, there was a bit of wear on the drivers seat bolster; has anyone had a seat re-covered? Expensive?

How odd!

[pbirkett]

Owned a 182 and driven a Mk3 MR2.

Back then speed was important to me, so I preferred the Clio, as it is faster in a straight line (although TBH still not hugely fast in the grand scale of things), but now I'd prefer the MR2. Don't think the Clio handles better, it simple doesn't. Its not fast, but its nippy enough, I got used to the performance of the 182 after a few days anyway, and then what you're left with is a powerful but peaky shopping trolley.

With the MR2, you've got a proper sports car with proper mid engined sports car handling, open top (which IS nice to have especially with the weather like it has been) and although slightly slower, its not dead peaky like the Clio, yes it likes to be revved, but its not essential, also more reliable and more of an event. Probably slightly cheaper to run too. If performance is important to you, I wouldn't really look at either, but if you want a drivers car, the MR2 is definitely better. Think of it as a Japanese, baby Elise and you aren't far wrong.

[rottie102]

For a 5k you can get a decent BMW Z3 which will be a much better car than a Clio or MR2

[nottyash]

I would (and did) get a Civic type R EK9 1600. Then you get one of the best hot hatches on the road, and unlike anything French.........Reliablilty

[irodger]

rottie102 said:

For a 5k you can get a decent BMW Z3 which will be a much better car than a Clio or MR2

Unless you mean a ZM Roadster (and at £5k, I don't think you'd get a good one), I wouldn't agree with this. The Z3 may have BMW build quality, but as far as driving is concerned, it is nowhere near the other two.


For the OP...

Where the MR2 beats the Clio in my mind are:

RWD, mid-engined handling...damp roundabouts equal HUGE grins.
Economy...40mpg, inexpensive to buy parts for ie tyres, brakes etc as everythings fairly small in size and readily available.
Summer top down driving...I live near Glasgow and have had loads (30+) of days with the top down this year so far, with July and August still to come...it makes a big difference to the driving experience.
Looks are a personal thing, but I think it looks better than the Clio, as the 182 just looks like a slightly different normal everyday 1.2. Though this may suit some.
Bodywork...not 100% of Renault's build quality in reecent years but the MR2 won't rust if looked after.

Clio 182 beats the MR2 on the obvious practicality, which you mention doesn't bother you.
On the track or when in 'full on B-road blast' mode. It IS a great handling, fun car for these times, but the other 95% of the time not any better (but not worse) than the MR2. I've driven 172s and a 182 and the 182 is a decent improvement on an already great car.
It is more forgiving than early MR2s, especially in the wet...the roadster can be a bit snappy if tyre choice isn't perfect...(TOYO's T1R is a good choice). Facelift MR2s have revised suspension at the back, larger front anti-roll bar and larger rear tyres to combat this.
Probably rarer than the Roadster if this is a concern.

BTW, £5k will get you a younger model of MR2 with less mileage on it than the one you looked at. Blocked drain holes are common, but can be an indication of a non-enthusiastic owner as most people who look after their MR2 will regularly unblock these. I saw a nice Sable one with red roof and leather with 40k miles for £4500 on trader a few weeks ago.

No-one can make up your mind for you, but I hope this advice helps.

Happy hunting, whatever you choose

[rottie102]

irodger said:

rottie102 said:

For a 5k you can get a decent BMW Z3 which will be a much better car than a Clio or MR2

Unless you mean a ZM Roadster (and at £5k, I don't think you'd get a good one), I wouldn't agree with this. The Z3 may have BMW build quality, but as far as driving is concerned, it is nowhere near the other two.

Have you actually driven one?

[irodger]

rottie102 said:

irodger said:

rottie102 said:

For a 5k you can get a decent BMW Z3 which will be a much better car than a Clio or MR2

Unless you mean a ZM Roadster (and at £5k, I don't think you'd get a good one), I wouldn't agree with this. The Z3 may have BMW build quality, but as far as driving is concerned, it is nowhere near the other two.

Have you actually driven one?

Yes, a 2.2 and a 2.8, although the auto box and 18" wheels with low profile tyres on the 2.8 may have hampered that experience. The 2.2 didn't feel quick, although the speedo wasn't going too slow. I also felt the ride was too slushy for enthusiastic driving and the steering on both was a bit vague. Also felt they crashed about a bit, when the soft suspension should have riden better for normal driving.

Just my opinion though, and I'm no racing driver or motoring journalist, so others will I'm sure have other (better) experiences and opinions.