Best hot hatch upto £3500??
10 January 2007, 05:35 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I have said, I have read that many owner (some on here) have had major reliability issues with the clio.
10 January 2007, 05:49 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had two and they were great......... If you buy any car of that era, especially a highly strained hot hatch it's going to have had a hard life. Then you pays your money, you takes your chance
10 January 2007, 05:55 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 16v mk3 has 150bhp (usually more - Mine was RR'd at 162bhp) and 133lb/ft of power that's much more accessible than the mk2. The mk2 had about 134bhp but the torque was a lot less.
0-60 is 7.9-8.3s depending on where you look and until the mk5 came along, it had the highest top speed on all Golf GTis.
The build quality is very good - I speak from having one for three years, and Dad having one for four (Mum had one for two years) - NO problems at all in all three.
Handling is good if you learn to use grip - It lets go much later than a mk2.
Sure it's not as nimble as the mk2 but stick some decent Konis on it and you're amost there.
It's also quieter, much safer and more secure (my mk2 got repeatedly done over, my mk3 never had a problem with deadlocks) and more "modern"
Our family has had Golfs from the 7th mk1 GTi in the UK right up to my R32 and everything in between.
The mk3 16v was the easiest to live with, the most comfortable and cheapest to run.
The mk2 is good but it's overrated and so everyone jumps on the bandwagon and agrees.
Test a mk3 and see what you think, don't go by people who lift text from mag reviews.
Last edited by Matteeboy; 10 January 2007 at 06:10 PM.
10 January 2007, 06:31 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ph1 172 all the way, i had one for 3 years and thay are great, sold it for 2995 last yr with 80k and fsh. i really doubt that any of the above could match one of these. Still think they stop better than my sti
10 January 2007, 06:59 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing major, infact nothing at all. the build quality is a bit of a weakness, you have to get used to rattles but on this budget i guess its not a issue. Performance varys betwen cars, some feel like they dont want to rev and others do, i drove mine in the red everywhere and it never missed a beat. The ph1 is defo the rawest, lightest second to the cup and stick a set of eibachs on it the best! imo! Also geared slightly higher than the ph2 so bigger top end. I saw 150 in mine (down a hill) but never once did it leave me wanting more power
Last edited by philis; 11 January 2007 at 09:04 PM.
10 January 2007, 08:35 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: I want a Spec C!
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'd have the pug i think, but a 172 would deffo be in serious consideration as well, a few of both for the money you want to pay on Autotrader as well 
Last edited by scoobysmiff; 10 January 2007 at 08:50 PM.
10 January 2007, 08:55 PM
#73
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: south cumbria
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evo mag did a test some time back on the cars mentioned and the GTI 6 wins with the Clio second. The Pug GTI 6 won over I think on a more complete chassis and engine?
10 January 2007, 10:29 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Yeovil
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a williams 2 for a year used as a daily drive - absolute mental little car - only had one balljoint go in the year I had it!! Spent nothing else on it!!! £3.5k will get a good un!!
Bought the williams over the 306gti6!!! Drive one and u will see!!!
Wot about civic vti? 167bhp meant to be cracking motors
Good luck
Davy b
Bought the williams over the 306gti6!!! Drive one and u will see!!!
Wot about civic vti? 167bhp meant to be cracking motors
Good luck
Davy b
10 January 2007, 11:05 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Yeovil
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look up a couple of posts mate
Williams are brilliant motors but yes the arches are a bit of a weak point!! (mine had rust both sides!)
.: Williams Clio :: Welcome To The UK Williamsclio Owners Club :. brilliant site plus very friendly/helpfull members - will be good ones on there for sale as well.
cheers
Davy b
Williams are brilliant motors but yes the arches are a bit of a weak point!! (mine had rust both sides!)
.: Williams Clio :: Welcome To The UK Williamsclio Owners Club :. brilliant site plus very friendly/helpfull members - will be good ones on there for sale as well.
cheers
Davy b
10 January 2007, 11:43 PM
#80
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think its going to be a cross between the clio 172 and gti-6.
Just a bit worried about the renaults reliability. Then again, if its anything like their F1 cars......
Just a bit worried about the renaults reliability. Then again, if its anything like their F1 cars......
10 January 2007, 11:53 PM
#82
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Lancs, UK
Posts: 1,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the most unreliable car I've ever owned was a Clio 172 Cup, I bought it from new, after 9 months, 8k miles and more trips back into the dealer than I can remember, I sold it as I was fed up.
don't get me wrong, when it was working it was a superb car, quick, fun, handled superbly, but I got a lemon I'm afraid and I'm not the only one
conversely, my mate had a 172 as a company car, did 110k miles in 4 years, it was essentially fault free other than a couple of little bits & bobs, so they aint all bad
both my 306's were much more reliable though, even though they were older cars
don't get me wrong, when it was working it was a superb car, quick, fun, handled superbly, but I got a lemon I'm afraid and I'm not the only one
conversely, my mate had a 172 as a company car, did 110k miles in 4 years, it was essentially fault free other than a couple of little bits & bobs, so they aint all bad
both my 306's were much more reliable though, even though they were older cars
11 January 2007, 12:46 AM
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Swansea (south wales)
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im with misterAdam, starlet turbo. (and major coincidence mine is for sale for around that price, with a few performance mods) Very quick little car. Not chavvy at all.
11 January 2007, 08:07 AM
#84
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Infractions - Scoobynet's version of the "scamera" van
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at all - I had both.
The 16v mk3 has 150bhp (usually more - Mine was RR'd at 162bhp) and 133lb/ft of power that's much more accessible than the mk2. The mk2 had about 134bhp but the torque was a lot less.
0-60 is 7.9-8.3s depending on where you look and until the mk5 came along, it had the highest top speed on all Golf GTis.
The build quality is very good - I speak from having one for three years, and Dad having one for four (Mum had one for two years) - NO problems at all in all three.
Handling is good if you learn to use grip - It lets go much later than a mk2.
Sure it's not as nimble as the mk2 but stick some decent Konis on it and you're amost there.
It's also quieter, much safer and more secure (my mk2 got repeatedly done over, my mk3 never had a problem with deadlocks) and more "modern"
Our family has had Golfs from the 7th mk1 GTi in the UK right up to my R32 and everything in between.
The mk3 16v was the easiest to live with, the most comfortable and cheapest to run.
The mk2 is good but it's overrated and so everyone jumps on the bandwagon and agrees.
Test a mk3 and see what you think, don't go by people who lift text from mag reviews.
The 16v mk3 has 150bhp (usually more - Mine was RR'd at 162bhp) and 133lb/ft of power that's much more accessible than the mk2. The mk2 had about 134bhp but the torque was a lot less.
0-60 is 7.9-8.3s depending on where you look and until the mk5 came along, it had the highest top speed on all Golf GTis.
The build quality is very good - I speak from having one for three years, and Dad having one for four (Mum had one for two years) - NO problems at all in all three.
Handling is good if you learn to use grip - It lets go much later than a mk2.
Sure it's not as nimble as the mk2 but stick some decent Konis on it and you're amost there.
It's also quieter, much safer and more secure (my mk2 got repeatedly done over, my mk3 never had a problem with deadlocks) and more "modern"
Our family has had Golfs from the 7th mk1 GTi in the UK right up to my R32 and everything in between.
The mk3 16v was the easiest to live with, the most comfortable and cheapest to run.
The mk2 is good but it's overrated and so everyone jumps on the bandwagon and agrees.
Test a mk3 and see what you think, don't go by people who lift text from mag reviews.
I'm not - i'm going by experience
And I stand by the fact that the 8v mk3 gti was a dog, and the 16v mk3 was a slightly quicker dog.
There is no way on this planet that the mk3 16v was a better car than the mk2 16v
Power to weight much better on the mk2
Smoother engine which was more willing to rev on the Mk2
Better, more adjustable handling on the mk2
Nicer steering on the mk2
Later mk2's on the bigger BBS wheels had as much outright grip as well.
The big bumper Mk2's were arguably better looking.
We had loads of mk2s and mk3s at work when they were new on short term leases, so i've driven a few of both.
VW lost the plot with the Mk3 - it was never a "Gti", more a badge engineering job (like the mk4)
11 January 2007, 08:23 AM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: house in a street on the earth
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not - i'm going by experience
And I stand by the fact that the 8v mk3 gti was a dog, and the 16v mk3 was a slightly quicker dog.
There is no way on this planet that the mk3 16v was a better car than the mk2 16v
Power to weight much better on the mk2
Smoother engine which was more willing to rev on the Mk2
Better, more adjustable handling on the mk2
Nicer steering on the mk2
Later mk2's on the bigger BBS wheels had as much outright grip as well.
The big bumper Mk2's were arguably better looking.
We had loads of mk2s and mk3s at work when they were new on short term leases, so i've driven a few of both.
VW lost the plot with the Mk3 - it was never a "Gti", more a badge engineering job (like the mk4)
And I stand by the fact that the 8v mk3 gti was a dog, and the 16v mk3 was a slightly quicker dog.
There is no way on this planet that the mk3 16v was a better car than the mk2 16v
Power to weight much better on the mk2
Smoother engine which was more willing to rev on the Mk2
Better, more adjustable handling on the mk2
Nicer steering on the mk2
Later mk2's on the bigger BBS wheels had as much outright grip as well.
The big bumper Mk2's were arguably better looking.
We had loads of mk2s and mk3s at work when they were new on short term leases, so i've driven a few of both.
VW lost the plot with the Mk3 - it was never a "Gti", more a badge engineering job (like the mk4)
And to correct the other poster, the MK II GTI had 134 bhp after it was fitted with a cat., The earlier ones, up to about 1989 were pre-cat and had 139 bhp and a nicer and fatter torque curve. Coming from that to a MKIII GTI was chalk and cheese - especially as I seem to recall one version of the MKIII GTI had a 115 bhp engine. Pathetic really.
All in all, MKII were far better. The later models with the big bumpers are hard to get hold of but look great. I actually owned a pre big bumper MK II GTI 16v in white and it was one of the few good looking white cars. A basic dashboard that actually looked cool because of it's simplicity. Great handling, nice torque and a lovely engine all in all. MK II's win every time for me.
11 January 2007, 08:35 AM
#86
BANNED
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW you mention 'Dad'- your ******* 'Dad' isn't mine, so try calling him 'my Dad' you fcukstick.
I don't agree that the MKII is overrated. It's still one of the best cars that VW ever made and with the right spec is still a very useable car that compares well with the modern stuff. It also has attributes many modern cars don't-character and 'fun factor'. It also doesn't depreciate- in fact a well looked after car bought at the right price may well appreciate. There aren't many cars you can say that about.
11 January 2007, 08:39 AM
#87
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feel free not to post the sort of comments which can easily be construed as trolling. Your 'hard up' comment serves little purpose other than to cause trouble. People buy all sorts of cars for all sorts different reasons.
Suggest you keep your comments to the point/on topic in future
Suggest you keep your comments to the point/on topic in future
11 January 2007, 08:47 AM
#88
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is sad to see how Torpid is always so angry.
Bet he was a right bundle of laughs at the Christmas party.
Bet he was a right bundle of laughs at the Christmas party.
11 January 2007, 08:53 AM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok gentlemen, step aside and let someone with some common sense answer this question .
On the whole hot hatches hold their value very well. Therefore a £3,500 one is going to be either old or leggy. Now, neither of these things is a problem in itself provided that the car has been looked after. However, once we reach the realms of this kind of price we risk ending up with a multi-owner heap that hasn't been looked after. Now I know you can get the car thoroughly inspected and that just about everyone on this site is an internationally renowned mechanic, but there is still a strong chance you are going to end up with a car that is going to cost a lot of maintain relative to its initial purchase price. So, why not look at a more mainstream car that has a good chassis and sufficient performance. Yes, it won't be as much fun as a real hot hatch, but with your circumstances as they currently are I suspect you do not need the grief of an unreliable vehicle.
Good luck, you seem like a genuine hard working bloke. I hope it all works out.
. On the whole hot hatches hold their value very well. Therefore a £3,500 one is going to be either old or leggy. Now, neither of these things is a problem in itself provided that the car has been looked after. However, once we reach the realms of this kind of price we risk ending up with a multi-owner heap that hasn't been looked after. Now I know you can get the car thoroughly inspected and that just about everyone on this site is an internationally renowned mechanic, but there is still a strong chance you are going to end up with a car that is going to cost a lot of maintain relative to its initial purchase price. So, why not look at a more mainstream car that has a good chassis and sufficient performance. Yes, it won't be as much fun as a real hot hatch, but with your circumstances as they currently are I suspect you do not need the grief of an unreliable vehicle.
Good luck, you seem like a genuine hard working bloke. I hope it all works out.
11 January 2007, 08:54 AM
#90
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts