Probein

Been browsing pistonheads for possible cheaper alternatives to me scoob (just out of interest really), and notice Clio 172's are incredibly, incredibly cheap. You can pick them up with 20-30k on the clock for about 5-6k! And these are the Cup versions, which apparently hit 60 in 6.7 secs? That seems pretty damn cheap for a car that would give nearly all other hot hatches a run for their money.

I looked at 182's too, which are really nice looking, but they're quite a bit more expensive (and having checked Parkers price guide, the Cup version of the 172 is actually faster in a straight line than the 182??).

Anyway, just thought I'd post to see what peoples thoughts are on 172's/182's!

Daz34

Fabulous little cars. If you get a good one

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I test drove one and was all ready to buy one, however I really didnt like it, very gutless low down and not that exciting once it got going, I suspect you dont get its full character on a five mile drive but when I drive a Scoob I love it from the minute I get behind the wheel, I think its turbo's which make any N/A car feel flat even if they are pretty powerful, its like the bottom half of the rev range is non existent.

I had a 150 bhp Saab 9-3 at the time and that felt faster, I was very dissapointed.

I think they get rave reviews off those who are going up the ranks from say a Saxo VTR, wheras I had been used to Fiat Coupe turbos, Volvo T5's, Turbo Saabs.

The driving position was poor, with the seat far enough back the gear stick was too far away. The handling seemed ok but I cant see why it is held in such regard, didnt seem any better than a well sorted MK2 Golf GTI.

Scuttled back to Saab ownership, which isnt perfect but with 288 lbs/ft it never feels short of grunt.

I suppose that at the end of the day, its a small cheap hatchback with a relatively powerful engine that punches above its weight but dont expect miracles.

Shark Man

Good motors....once sorted

Exhausts made from cheap metal, therefore drop off unless its and aftermarket system

CV gaiters and anything else made of rubber is low quality, therfore split and perish. No big issue, but a shock on low mile car thats not really that old that fails it's MOT.

Gearbox; mainly snycro on 3rd. I'm sure this partly driver related (lack of mechanical sympathy). But non the less they suffer.

Clutch can go a bit dicky too, which doesn't help.

Retarder unit (!?) as the in variable valve timing unit can go up the spout. Most notable by a horendous top-end rattle at idle.

Hesitation from cold on early triangle headlamp models. Something to do with ECU map.


Not to forget the Trim rattles and usual Renault electical glitches. Other than that, once they are sorted, they are great. With a decent decat exhaust, flowed inlet manifold and a remap they will see 190bhp no problem. And sorts out the huge mid range flat spots they suffer as standard.

superscoobx

iv got a 182 as my daily driver and its ok, not great on fuel and i do drive it steady. but the interior is nice, its easy to drive and does go well when needed. Mine hesitates when its cold but iv not had any of the other problem's.

The tyres seem to wear quick too and it was expensive to replace the mich's that are on it, only 16's too.

Im thinking about choping mine in for a M3 cab this summer if i can find a nice one for under £20k.

in my opinion mate, pay the little bit extra and get a 182, you get the twin exhaust, and some other bits that make it look better. but no spare wheel!

stringostar

had a 172, a couple of years ago and they are awesome machines... very very quick, and stick like mud to the road. i felt more comfy launching it into corners than i do the scoob. very good on fuel, 35 mpg i was gettin...

best part is the little switch on the accelerator, which is a race mode, and when pressed, by passes the redline and topps out at 7000 instead of 6300.

bad points.. pedals are off set, but if you can get used to it, your on for a winner..

try the 172 cup. no abs or mod cons in that. even quicker car!

robby

I test drove a 172 cup a few years ago and thought it was like sitting in a metro - cheap looking seats, very basic and lots of road noise due to being lightweight (less sound deadening, thinner glass, etc) which meant you could hear every stone thrown up.
I then went out in a 172 sport which had xenons, leather/ alacantra seats, climate, spare wheel(alloy), cd changer, etc and bought that
for every day driving the cup didn't make sense for the 1/2 second 0-60 difference but i guess it would if you were using it on a track?

A few weeks ago i took a 182 out for a test drive but after having more modern comforts i opted for a new shape clio instead - slower, more economical, etc - guess i got old overnight

stringostar

my 172 had all the lather and alcantara, plus the digi climate control. shame i got rid.

make sure u get the mk 2 172, not the first batch they made. they are crap!

subaruturbo_18

tell you what, i got a lift home in my mates 182 cup, hes had a few bits done to it, has just over 200bhp, it really has some grunt and felt very responsive. im sure its a fast car, but i test drove one before deciding to get my scoob, but it just felt strange driving it.the seating position diddnt feel sporty. it was too high. but thats just a personal opinion i guess

Daz34

You mean the faster Mk1 with better bits like an aluminium bonnet?

Norman Dog

iTrader: (1)

I VERY nearly bought the Clio 182 instead of the Scoob, still like them but what put me off was 1.) It's French. 2.) It's a car for girls

A 182 will still give a Standard WRX a good run for it's money, believe me

RJT

I had a 172 a year ago.Sometimes i wish i still had it.Wouldn't rule out owning another,Only thing that annoyed me was the front suspenion used to bang under hard acceleration and so many times Renault had it in to sort it and never did.But managed to sort it out my self in the end by fitting 2 spacers on top of the top mount.Got them from yozzasport.

Heres a pic

stringostar

the mk 1 i test drove before a bought the mk 2 was awful. didnt feel as fast, lot more body roll, didnt have the climate control, and the front end didnt look as sweet. the one thing it did have, same as any other 172 or 182, is the engine. an absolutely fab piece of kit... very very free revving, keeps going to the limiter, the power bands are fantastic, esp at 4500 rpm, and they can take a lot of punishment. i think renault cracked this one spot on, but as an earlier comment said, the seatin position was bad. but that was overcome by the smiles you got when driving it.

172 gets my vote!

rob878

stringostar

you must have drove a bag of nails. i had a mk1 172 did nearly 50k in it, reliable fast lowered on eibach springs with a cliosport hidden exhaust. loved every minute of it handled well and surprised many other cars. But then again there is always the fact no one likes admitting were suckered into buying a newer car that offered no extra performance advantages

stringostar

it musta been a bag of nails! i never bought it anyway! i bought the mk 2.. personally they looked better at the front and had a lot better alloys! only thing with the mk 1's were the renualt sport embossed front seats. apart from that, i loved the mk 2! the new one hasnt grown on me yet, but i do like the megane 225. people say french cars are crap. i disagree, apart from ****oren! saxos etc i dont like. but pugs and rens are good. build quality can be cheap, but like i said earlier, then engines, esp the rens, are bloody marvellous

rob878

I'd agree with you about the engines there, i moved onto a meg 225, fast and great fun, the only downside, is i had 4 new injectors a new ecu and new front calipers after they seized and i flew straight out a junction and across the road ( 6 out of eight pistons seized). Still as fast as the VXR and ST and gave better mpg. If i didn't rack up 20k a year i would still have it.

rossyboy

iTrader: (8)

FWIW I let our Mk 2 "02" 172 with 23k miles go for £5k last August. We had it for just over 4 years.

If you're buying one old enough, make sure its had the 5 year cambelt done. Its an engine out job and £600+. Ours was due, which softened the blow on the price a little.

The reason we sold was due to a quote from the other half "I usually run my cars into the ground". Given the lack of reliability from renault, I wasn't about to let that happen hence the new Honda power.

Fantastic driving cars, just a pity they are built by Renault. Ours did nothing to improve their reputation.

Poster above mentioned rubber degradation. Both sides CV boots popped off, which may have been due to the poor turning circle. Resulted in alloys thick with grease

Another poster mentioned thin exhausts. Ours literally fell in half after just 2 years.

Auto xenons lasted a few months................ then never worked again.

Auto wipers were a joke

Someone mentioned dodgy clutches. Ours decided to start slipping at about 15k. Miraculously cured itself after a while though

Sometimes when in neutral it absolutely reved its **** off, as in 4-5k rpm for no apparant reason. Other times you put your foot to the floor and nothing happened. Truly dangerous.

stringostar

mine had a clutch in at 18000 miles, under warranty. they had it a week at the dealership. very good service etc, but they had never done a clutch on a 172 before. had to ship it in from france. said it failed due to release springs failing. thats an engine out job too. would have cost me 1300 quid!

never had probs with exhaust or CV boots, and i had it for 18 months, and it did live a hard life. only thing was front tyres, which it chewed for the fun.

renault build is crap, but overall the car was very easy to drive. i sold mine for 6200, and that was 3 years ago.

Shark Man

No its not. Engine stays in situ, just remove the top mount.


Unless its a main dealers....(kerching )

Brun

I get to drive my Mothers 02 172 quite often. To me, they do feel gutless until it gets in the cam zone at 5k. Having driven a Scoob for 6 years and now an Elise, it feels nervous on anything but a straight flat road. Build quality is fine imo and there are planty of comforts. I may take my Mothers off her hands when she wants rid and i might learn to appreciate it's handling

GlesgaKiss

I was considering buying a 172 cup before I opted for my subaru...

Really fun and easy car to drive, great handling FWD car, but I was put off by just about everyone telling me they were unreliable.

Martin-STI

Well STI gone and in its place I bought this to use on track days.....



Just running in at Oulton Park

davyboy

Did 30k miles in our including about 350 laps of the ring.

Had to have a new alternator just when the warrenty ran out.

Apart from brakes and wheel bearings it was a great car, good fun.

Managed to lap the ring pretty quickly even on cheapo tyres.

wrx9181

iTrader: (2)

they a right laugh my wife s got a cup 182 in racing blue
very tidy good fun car and doesnt fart fuel out the exhaust like my scoob even when booted so cheep running costs though tax higher than an st etc
had a brand new 197 f1 clio lent to us by dealer as her car in for service and it was poo looks good but doesnt seem to give any grin factor unlike her cup she couldnt wait to get her car back

Jonto

I had a 172 Cup. Worse car i have ever owned. Unreliable and gutless.

Fantom

Well happy with my 172. Hardly had any trouble in the year I've owned it.
You definitely have to sort the seats out. I found them very uncomfortable, and far too high. I did have the cv boot fall off once but I just had it put back on.
No other problems and I find it great to drive. Uses half as much petrol as my Impreza did.

Here's what I did to the seats:



Regards
Steve

GenericUser

They are great cars, problem is they are very variable as people have said. Also likely to have been well thrashed by the previous owner.

I think the key is find a gently used one if possible and avoid main dealers.

Fantom

I dont understand the gutless comments. I know its not that quick when in low revs but if you want to drive quick then use the revs!! You can change down!

Chrisn01

I used to have a 182 before my scooby and no way are they gutless and they handle the nuts. You just have to drive it right and keep the revs high. I supprised quiet a few scoobys whilst I had it and it and mine was only running at 197BHP. Heres a pic of it:

Shark Man

Thing is, they do have low down torque. So gutless is the wrong word.

Well, a hell of lot more than anything with VTEC (except NSX ) or with a Turbo caught off-boost.

So, progressive torque curve would be a better description.

And I'm not the biggest fan of them, certainly when they are new and thus costly. But now they are bargain bucket price (with focus on the bucket ) They are alot of poke for little cash, so alot of the the irks are forgivable.

Lightweight too (in orginal 172 and 172 Cup form); something very lacking in most fast cars.