New Ph2 Clio 172

[Aused]

Just came from an NA MX5, wanting something more modern and a bit more practical. Always knew the RS Clios were a bit special and must say I certainly haven't been dissappointed yet. Great, great engine, nice and torquey with a couple of kicks further up the rev range. Certainly as fast as my former Focus ST225 and handling much more what I want. I have heard a lot of bad things said about them regarding build quality and reliability so am mentally budgeting for that, but at the moment there is no sign at all of these issues. Few photos below, it needs a wash so sorry about that.

Edited by Aused on Thursday 1st July 12:13

[jostgo]

Looks lovely in black on the anthracite Turinis.

You will probably find you wont have any problems with it - older Renault's were unreliable yes, but they certainly have improved. A lot of the criticism appears to come from people who have experienced a problematic Renault in the past, and not tried one again recently. They really are much better!

[150bhp]

I had a 172 a couple of years back which i loved but parts are VERY expensive. Looks like you've dodged one big expense going by the exhaust on your car.
Looks good mate.

[soad]

Looks very good - fun to be had for sure.

[Porkie]

Wow. Great looking car!

I've had a little 172cup for 3 months now...

TOTALLY in love with the little thing.

SOOOOOOOOO much fun on track. Took it out to Ring along with my F430 few months back and GENUINELY had more fun hooning the Clio on the track. (Fez was nice pose though )

Amazing little things. ENJOY! here is pic of mine on monday at Bedford.... yours looks much beter though

[anonymous-user]

Very nice!

I'm planning on buying a 172 once I'm 21 (insurance reasons), I cant wait!

[kik1.6se]

Looks good, nice colour and the wheels look great. I really want a set of them.

I've had mine 6 months now and have put 8k miles on it in that time. Mines done 80k now and it still feels tight and responsive, rev's nicely through the rev range. I've had a few of the typical faults, warn engine mount, exhaust mounts were getting knackered, broken seat cable, noisy AC sensor, but they have all been simple fixes and not expensive.

The Clio sport club is very useful for 'How to' guides and well worth joining.

Edited by kik1.6se on Thursday 1st July 20:44

[rb5230]

looks very nice in black with those speedline wheels.

it is certainly not as fast as a focus st if you had one though (well very close to 60 but after that the focus is in another league), perhaps it just feels it.

less planted but more chuckable i expect though, which makes for a lot of fun.

[Aused]

rb5230 said:

it is certainly not as fast as a focus st if you had one though (well very close to 60 but after that the focus is in another league), perhaps it just feels it.

rb5230, you have a nice impreza so well done on that. My car history is at the following link where you will see my ST or XR5 as they're called here.

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

As for your claims about the focus being "in another league" EVO has the clio 172 cup with 0-60 in 6.5 and the focus 6.7, for 0-100 it is 17.7 for the clio to 16.3 for the focus. Hardly "a different league". As someone who has owned both, i am telling you the clio is as fast as the focus in daily use.

The focus, in my opinion is a one trick pony, great engine no doubt, but outside grand touring duties it was pretty dull. On a twisty road the clio driver would confidently and steadily draw away.

[rb5230]

Aused said:

rb5230 said:

it is certainly not as fast as a focus st if you had one though (well very close to 60 but after that the focus is in another league), perhaps it just feels it.

As for your claims about the focus being "in another league" EVO has the clio 172 cup with 0-60 in 6.5 and the focus 6.7, for 0-100 it is 17.7 for the clio to 16.3 for the focus. Hardly "a different league". As someone who has owned both, i am telling you the clio is as fast as the focus in daily use.

The focus, in my opinion is a one trick pony, great engine no doubt, but outside grand touring duties it was pretty dull. On a twisty road the clio driver would confidently and steadily draw away.

well like i said to 60 they are very close, then to 100 the focus is drawing a decent lead of a second as you say and as the speed increases the focus just leaves the clio, also in gear acceleration times will show a huge gap in performance. i have played with a friend in his 182 and there is a substantial difference when the speeds get high.

and i actually found the focus very playful for a car of such size with the rear end being very playful, so hardly a 1 trick pony especially considering how much more refined and how much of a nicer place the interior is to be. also on a twisty road the focus was faster than my mates clio down to it being more planted and just obviously more powerful.

i like the renaultsport clios and am not rubbishing them, i was just saying the focus is faster 100% in every road situation than a 182. now on a very small track i think it would be a different matter as the focus is much less set up for track and therefore is softer sprung and much heavier and i think after a couple of laps the brakes would be feeling the heat a bit and a lighter car is much easier to drive on a tight track. now apart from the last bit about track work (as neither of us ended up attending a track day in said cars) this is all just from real world experience of comparing the cars.

[aswqaswq]

How the hell can you compare a Focus ST to the 172 you need to compare it against Fiesta ST and Corsa VXR people who compare this to the Asbo are insane and theres a Clip on Youtube about the new Clio sport and trying to compare it against the Focus RS completely pointless and you need to compare that sort of car to the Astra VXR and Megane R26R

[angryorangefocus]

aswqaswq said:

How the hell can you compare a Focus ST to the 172 you need to compare it against Fiesta ST and Corsa VXR people who compare this to the Asbo are insane and theres a Clip on Youtube about the new Clio sport and trying to compare it against the Focus RS completely pointless and you need to compare that sort of car to the Astra VXR and Megane R26R

from a focus st owner do hush up! clios are cracking cars and having been in a few can see what he means about them feeling just as fast

[aswqaswq]

angryorangefocus said:

aswqaswq said:

How the hell can you compare a Focus ST to the 172 you need to compare it against Fiesta ST and Corsa VXR people who compare this to the Asbo are insane and theres a Clip on Youtube about the new Clio sport and trying to compare it against the Focus RS completely pointless and you need to compare that sort of car to the Astra VXR and Megane R26R

from a focus st owner do hush up! clios are cracking cars and having been in a few can see what he means about them feeling just as fast

yet another moron dosnt no how different these cars are. get real

[angryorangefocus]

what do you drive?

[Aused]

rb5230 said:

Aused said:

rb5230 said:

it is certainly not as fast as a focus st if you had one though (well very close to 60 but after that the focus is in another league), perhaps it just feels it.

As for your claims about the focus being "in another league" EVO has the clio 172 cup with 0-60 in 6.5 and the focus 6.7, for 0-100 it is 17.7 for the clio to 16.3 for the focus. Hardly "a different league". As someone who has owned both, i am telling you the clio is as fast as the focus in daily use.

The focus, in my opinion is a one trick pony, great engine no doubt, but outside grand touring duties it was pretty dull. On a twisty road the clio driver would confidently and steadily draw away.

well like i said to 60 they are very close, then to 100 the focus is drawing a decent lead of a second as you say and as the speed increases the focus just leaves the clio, also in gear acceleration times will show a huge gap in performance. i have played with a friend in his 182 and there is a substantial difference when the speeds get high.

and i actually found the focus very playful for a car of such size with the rear end being very playful, so hardly a 1 trick pony especially considering how much more refined and how much of a nicer place the interior is to be. also on a twisty road the focus was faster than my mates clio down to it being more planted and just obviously more powerful.

i like the renaultsport clios and am not rubbishing them, i was just saying the focus is faster 100% in every road situation than a 182. now on a very small track i think it would be a different matter as the focus is much less set up for track and therefore is softer sprung and much heavier and i think after a couple of laps the brakes would be feeling the heat a bit and a lighter car is much easier to drive on a tight track. now apart from the last bit about track work (as neither of us ended up attending a track day in said cars) this is all just from real world experience of comparing the cars.

I am not rubbishing the ST, it is a good performance car with lots of tuning potential, I used to own one so it impressed me enough at one point to buy one, and I have already said it has a great engine and with the amount of torque a 2.5 litre 5-cylinder turbo engine puts out once on boost, there would be something wrong if the rolling in-gear times weren't in its favour (although i'd be interested in your definition of a "huge gap"). But there is more to it than that. The clio has better steering feel, better change of direction (having owned 2 MX5s, including my last car, I won't be challenged on these points) and better brakes. it also finds far better traction than the focus could. The focus usually just felt heavy, which of course it is.

EVO lap times around Bedford West Circuit have the clio 182 with a time of 1:33.10 with a peak speed of 96mph, the ST has a time of 1:33.90 with a peak of 99mph. The ST has the higher top speed, but its not the deciding factor.

Now i never said the clio was faster than the ST, but I am saying again, as someone who has OWNED both cars, that the clio 172 is AS FAST in real world situations (i.e. not driving straight roads at 120mph or doing 6th gear pulls from 1000rpm) as a focus ST. Comments that the ST "is faster 100% of the time in every road situation" or performance wise they are "not in the same league" just have no basis.

Incidently, I also prefer overall the interior of the clio. I had the full leather recaro interior in my ST and that part was fantastic but I found the rest of it less impressive, more creaky over camber changes and bumps (flexing body?), the plastics average quality (mine was a 2007 LS, the LV is certainly much nicer), the trip computer no where near as good, gearchange not as good (more progressive clutch though), pedals not well spaced or weighted for heel-toe changes (very annoying) and the switch layout less user friendly. The sony stereo was good though and I did like the instrument lighting. The focus was awful on fuel too, where I was lucky to see 11-12L/100km in the focus with general use, the clio easily returns around 8-9L/100km.

All said, I am one happy clio 172 owner, ex focus ST owner.

[nobodyknows]

getting back on track I have had my 172 Cup for a few months now, done a few hillclimbs in it & absolutely love it! Not very comfortable but on short journeys it always puts a grin on my face!

[rb5230]

Aused said:

Incidently, I also prefer overall the interior of the clio. I had the full leather recaro interior in my ST and that part was fantastic but I found the rest of it less impressive,

well for a start you are quoting times for a 182 with 10 bhp more than your 172, and as i said on track i would expect the clio to be better, on the move on motorways etc though there is a gulf in performance whether you choose to believe it or not.

and this statement above kind of makes me think that you have a very, ermm.... interesting idea of what a nice interior is. the clios really do have one of the worst interiors of any car that age.

[ManOpener]

rb5230 said:

Aused said:

Incidently, I also prefer overall the interior of the clio. I had the full leather recaro interior in my ST and that part was fantastic but I found the rest of it less impressive,

and this statement above kind of makes me think that you have a very, ermm.... interesting idea of what a nice interior is. the clios really do have one of the worst interiors of any car that age.

The ST interior is pretty dreary. I preferred the sea of plastic in my Mk4 Golf to be fair. Even the Mk1 Focus interior is better!

Edited by ManOpener on Monday 5th July 13:33

[rb5230]

ManOpener said:

The ST interior is pretty dreary. Even the Mk1 Focus interior is better!

well that is a view contrary to EVERY magazine road test feature EVER done. seriously i think you need glasses. anyone car to get a couple of pictures up of the 2? it is like a night and day difference. if i had a scanner available i would post up a few magazine features about them.

[ManOpener]

rb5230 said:

ManOpener said:

The ST interior is pretty dreary. Even the Mk1 Focus interior is better!

well that is a view contrary to EVERY magazine road test feature EVER done. seriously i think you need glasses. anyone car to get a couple of pictures up of the 2? it is like a night and day difference. if i had a scanner available i would post up a few magazine features about them.

I own a Mk1, a good mate has an ST. The Mk1 interior might be a bit gimmicky and odd but it's not a sea of dull grey punctuated with scratchy very fake aluminium paint, unlike the ST's interior. Plus the radio on the ST looks _SO_ stupid.