J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I am torn between a sensible diesel and something fun, fun being a Clio 182 and sensible being a Volvo S60 D5.

I expect the Volvo will be reliable and reasonably economical but I have just done sensible for a while and fancy fun again, the Clio fits the bill but could I rely on it for a 60 mile commute, would it break down and would it drive me mad ?

What do they do mpg wise, I do 30 miles a day round the M60 and my Saab 2.0t does 30-35 would the Clio better that ?

But mainly, do they fall to bits ?

Thinking about 8 grand for a 2 year old with 20k on for the Clio and about the same for the Volvo, bit older, prob 80k up.

simo

had a 182 for 9 months, no probs & a cracking car. Ave fuel was 32mpg with mixed driving 60 miles a day. Hve a look on cliosport, always some available & being a buyers market 8k should be easy i recon for a good one.

Steve vRS

The Clio is great fun.

I've had niggles with mine but it's not let me down yet. The dealers are rubbish though.I average over 35 mpg, apart from track where it is closer to 15

Steve

davyboy

Our is fine, and it's had a harder life than most. I'd say it's done about 250 laps of the ring and has just gone over 30k miles.

It makes the odd creak but they are really good fun.

I got nearly 37mpg on a run to Dover the other week.

jamesbWRXRA

I Owned a clio 182 for 18 months . Great car . You can drive it hard basically every day without any problems . Took mine to the pod ran 11 1/4 miles in one day and still drove home and never had any problems. Easily the best hot hatch on the market.

James

stilover

Interior quality / fitting, is a real pain with the Clio. I had a 172, and it sqeeked & rattled from day one. Glove box never fitted properly, after 9 attempts by the dealer.

Renault Dealers are the biggest bunch of Fcukwits on the planet.

As for the handling, I thought they understeered far too much. Engines are a bit gutless too.
Overall though, they are quite a fun car to throw about. I thrashed mine everywhere and never once got below 30mpg.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Understeery and Gutless ?

That seems to be in contradiction of the gutsy and fine handling car I seem to read about in every magazine, what are you comparing it to ?

stilover

Moved from 106GTI to Clio 172. Biggest mistake, ever. 106GTI handles Waaaayyyy better than the Clio.
Fine, the Clio was faster in a straight line, just, but I just never seemed to really click with it. Like I say, the Clio for me, just understeered far to much.

Gutless engine, and understeer have nothing in common. Engine, when overtaking was quite gutless IMO. While carry speed through corners (nothing to do with gutless engine) and it understeered.

Maybe I just corner faster than most

bluenose172

iTrader: (2)

Don't listen to him J4CKO, becuase he had a bad one, the 172/182 name is mud in his eyes. EVERY thread mentioning the car he is on slating it, banging on about his glovebox!

Can't say my 172 FF(Full Fat) was slow/gutless, recorded a flat 15's 1/4 mile, quicker than most CTR's! Can't say it was particularly bad for understeer, just remember the great fun you could have with the lift off over steer. Never had a problem with my 172 the whole time I had it.

Maybe that's why I've just bought a 172 Cup to complement the S2K, this one is 3 1/2 years old, 27K miles and has NO interior rattles, goes like stink, even more fun than the FF and still returns 35MPG no matter how hard I try.

Best 6K I've ever spent!

Shark Man

I'm not the biggest fan of clios, but they aren't gutless. Well, when compared to CTRs and ITRs or Toyota VVTLis

Hello? Torque? is it me your looking for? Boom, oh there it is....finally, talk about being casually late in the rev range

stilover

Just giving a honest account of my experience. That's what he was asking for wasn't it ???????

Maybe I did get a bad one, probably did going by all the write-up's I've seen, but non the less, if I did get a bad one at least I'm letting him know what a bad one's like.

As for the Glove box? telling the guy that the ******* dealer network can't even fix a p1ssing glovebox, just shows what a useless bunch of fcukwits the dealers are.

Next time anyone asks for an opinion about a car that I've owned that they're thinking about buying, I'll only mention the good points to keep you happy. As we all know, every car is perfect, eh?

Idiot

PS. I did mention that they were still quite fun to throw around, and gave over 30mpg. Maybe you just didn't read that part?

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

delcbr

alright there fella calm down son!!!

Rabid

Go take a look at some owners forums for an idea of Renault 'reliability'. If it's in warranty and dealer visits are no problem go for it.

I was on the cusp of buying a Trophy for my girlfriend but as we spend a lot of our time out of the country we need a car that isn't riddled with serious or niggly faults.

Note most of the 'sticky' topics on this forum are about faults with the car

http://www.cliotrophy.co.uk/

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Hmm, it is quite worrying, I did buy a FIat Coupe and Rover BRM that went **** up, not sure my marriage would survive more car dramas, anyway, the financial light at the end of the tunnel we have been expecting has been turned of for a bit longer so its a bit academic for the time being.

Jonto

I had a 172 Cup.......worse car i have ever owned.

It was gutless, the dealerships are awful, the build quality was terrible, it was slow and fragile.

If anyone slates a 172/182 they get told they had a "bad one" - well from where i am sitting there are alot of bad ones and i have yet to experience a good one in real life.

Be warned !!!!

MadMark

Like several other comments on here - if you get a bad one - they're awful.

My mum still has a Mk1 version of the 172 Sport which handles like a dream (I have kept up with several Elises cross country) is as tight as a drum with zero squeaks and rattles (but the dealers are still crap), but never felt that fast.

My wife used to have a Mk2 172 and that had a completely different handling balance (although it often needed the tracking doing regularly in order to be A1). We sold it as we could no longer put up with the dealers and the interior rattles ....

MM.

JeffJeffers

I've had my 182 for nearly 2 years covering 51k, it has been back to the dealers for 3 things faulty windscreen sensor, rear bearing on drivers side and unable to get a CD out the stereo. Other than that it has been no problem dealers are a little crap, but not too bad. Have never dropped below 32MPG and that's a 50/50 mixture of A roads and motorways.

TARManiAC

Don´t know much about Clio´s but I used to drive a Megane Coupe Williams and a Volvo S60T5. Out of the two I would clearly prefer the Renault in terms of both reliability and fun factor. The Volvo was far to fragile though the Renault was not faultless. At one time during ownership the Volvo went back to where it was born in Gent Belgium to get a cure for 5 og it´s faults. When I got it back none of the faults were fixed AND they had managed to wreck the steering of the car causing the steeringwheel to be out of center when going straight. Be warned!! I won a novice race in the Renault in my first attempt at car racing.

TheJesus

sounds like you were unlucky and got a poor one, and despite what Jonto thinks it does happen more frequently with these cars more than any I know of... you only have to attend an RR day to see this first hand.

If it's half the car the ***** is then your laughing. They should be neutral in the corners, (tyre dependent) and should open up and start to fly with about 10k on them, but some are just dogs from day one.

Monkeybone

had my 172 for 18 months and have done 25k in it, just hitting 60k and no problems yet.

jonc

just to add, I had a 51 reg MKII172 from new. Other than getting the centre section of the exhaust replace under warrenty due to "4k rattle" the car ran faultlessly over the 2 and half years and 24K miles. Had Eibach pro kit springs fitted and was a great drive. I would buy another 172/182.

jonc

..also according to Which? consumer report, Renault Clio is joint second most reliable car..
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/03082006/32...ty-stakes.html

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

of 2 !

Lad at work was saying that they are hard to get comfy in, he is the same build as me, i.e. six feet tall and not wasting away, anyone else care to comment on this, the car that is not love handles.

Daz34

Me too. Would deffo recommend them as they eliminate any noticable understeer whilst keeping the ride civilised.

scpooby

I owned a 51 Clio 172 Mk2 for just over three years and 62,000 miles. It was an amazing car for the money and held its value well come trade in time. The only problem I had was the `centre section of the exhaust`, fixed under warranty. My brother and I have owned some nice cars and for the money the Clio was just perfect.

TheJesus

I'm 6'2 and haven't noticed any problems when sitting in them tbh... you'd have to be quite a broad lad to not fit in one comfortably. If he's not had it long it's probably just the weird driving position he's not used to...

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

He just sat in one and decided it didnt suit him.

Daz34

All modern hot hatches seem to have a high driving position. You soon get used to it though.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Funnily enough he bough a Scoob and lurks on here, are you there Steve ?

Ooh its like a seance.