Do you recommend new clio v6 ?
18 November 2004, 10:32 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dr Evo
Looks great. Very poor performance for the money. Not that quick at all.
a classic case of all show and no go
plenty of comment on here about the V6, have a search
The main(only) things in its favour are the looks and the sound
18 November 2004, 12:50 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Surferk
Posts: 2,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
half a second to 60 and 8 mph on the top end are not worth up to £12,000 over a 172/182.
It's not how fast you go, it's how you go fast!!!
Mk1 is susposed to be a bit of a handful, Mk11 is apparently lots better.
Trending Topics
18 November 2004, 01:06 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mark Champion
It's not how fast you go, it's how you go fast!!!
Mk1 is susposed to be a bit of a handful, Mk11 is apparently lots better.
Mk1 is susposed to be a bit of a handful, Mk11 is apparently lots better.
Would you recommend it? Yeah, looks a right laugh and good styling!
Is it worth the money? Not a chance!
18 November 2004, 01:11 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Midlands
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not worth the money........especially when you find out how much it depreciates in a years time!
Body panels and spare parts etc cost a fortune.
Great looking car though, a real head turner and sounds awesome.
Body panels and spare parts etc cost a fortune.
Great looking car though, a real head turner and sounds awesome.
18 November 2004, 06:12 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Spec C - 12.5 @ 110(340/350)
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They'll be going for about 20K this summer(MKII's). 0-62 - 5.8 and 155mph is hardly slow for 20K is it? The V6 sound is just amazing!!
18 November 2004, 09:52 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll find a few opinions on it here :
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349397
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=328194
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349397
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=328194
18 November 2004, 10:14 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Just far enough from sunny Liverpool
Posts: 6,963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No idea on value for money, nor have I driven either mk1 or 2 on the road, but I have driven them both on track.
Mk1 V6 was very twitchy and rather unpredictable, the Mk2 is an awful lot better. It's great fun in the wet if you're 110% committed, but if you lose concentration for just a second it'll kick you in the nuts.
To be honest, wet or dry, I set quicker laps in a 172 Cup. The V6 is visually awesome, I love it, but feel a lot safer pressing on in a 172 / 182.
Mk1 V6 was very twitchy and rather unpredictable, the Mk2 is an awful lot better. It's great fun in the wet if you're 110% committed, but if you lose concentration for just a second it'll kick you in the nuts.
To be honest, wet or dry, I set quicker laps in a 172 Cup. The V6 is visually awesome, I love it, but feel a lot safer pressing on in a 172 / 182.
21 November 2004, 02:29 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when clarkson drove it i remember him saying that in his top 10 garage he would have one of these
performance may dont be mindblowing compared to the 182, but it certainly is rare on the road.
its not all about performance as it had great looks and sound
performance may dont be mindblowing compared to the 182, but it certainly is rare on the road.
its not all about performance as it had great looks and sound
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post