Golf GTi or Clio 182 runabout.
15 November 2013, 11:11 AM
#1
Golf GTi or Clio 182 runabout.
Just looking into cheap fun runabouts and have narrowed it down to the above. 2000-2002 Golf GTi or 2004 Clio 182.
They are both priced at around £1300 and 80k on the clock. Also both come with at least 6 months mot and tax.
What would you go for?
They are both priced at around £1300 and 80k on the clock. Also both come with at least 6 months mot and tax.
What would you go for?
15 November 2013, 11:49 AM
#2
that Clio is cheap. Normally around 2-2500 for a half decent one
I am a couple of months into 182 ownership. A great car, so much fun round the corners
My Mrs has an A3 2.0T (the Audi Golf GTI equivilent albeit a 08 model) Its a great car and the engine is fantastic. Obviously more refined than the Clio. I would say the more mileage you do er on the the Golf, if it literally is a weekend car (as mine is) go for the Clio
I am a couple of months into 182 ownership. A great car, so much fun round the corners
My Mrs has an A3 2.0T (the Audi Golf GTI equivilent albeit a 08 model) Its a great car and the engine is fantastic. Obviously more refined than the Clio. I would say the more mileage you do er on the the Golf, if it literally is a weekend car (as mine is) go for the Clio
15 November 2013, 11:53 AM
#3
Yeah the guy wants a quick sale.
The car would be more for motorway miles, to and from work. I know they achieve roughly the same mpg (which doesn't both me). Just wonder if the Clio May be a little snug for a motorway miler?
The car would be more for motorway miles, to and from work. I know they achieve roughly the same mpg (which doesn't both me). Just wonder if the Clio May be a little snug for a motorway miler?
Last edited by Kedlestone; 15 November 2013 at 11:55 AM.
15 November 2013, 01:51 PM
#5
Golf is teh sensible option, but I'd plump for the Clio: As the MK4 Golf GTi doesn't deserve the GTi badge. Maybe if it was the 180bhp version (2002 onwards IIRC) or a Golf V5, but even then its slow and lardy compared to the Clio.
Problem with Clios is finding a good one. Lots of nails out there needing money spent on them. Although, not as good on the motorway asthe engine's pretty buzzy at high speed, and if it has a performance backbox - which most do as the original system will have rotted and fallen apart by now, the drone will give you a headache.
Problem with Clios is finding a good one. Lots of nails out there needing money spent on them. Although, not as good on the motorway asthe engine's pretty buzzy at high speed, and if it has a performance backbox - which most do as the original system will have rotted and fallen apart by now, the drone will give you a headache.
Trending Topics
15 November 2013, 09:01 PM
#8
Well the Clio would be faster than the Golf and would probably handle better too. But the engine only really comes alive 5.5k revs upwards and you need to make sure that the cambelt has been changed... It's every 5 years or 36k miles - you have to lift and tilt the engine to do it which is a pain in the a*se. Still it'll have cruise, xenons etc
15 November 2013, 10:33 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: on sunny ibiza ocean beach
Posts: 5,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the Clio would be faster than the Golf and would probably handle better too. But the engine only really comes alive 5.5k revs upwards and you need to make sure that the cambelt has been changed... It's every 5 years or 36k miles - you have to lift and tilt the engine to do it which is a pain in the a*se. Still it'll have cruise, xenons etc
clio heavy clutch got to drive like a **** to get any performance nah golfs are so refined compared to a clio better motorway car btw ive not got one ive got a mundeo fully loaded im happy
16 November 2013, 01:15 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 November 2013, 08:14 AM
#11
I wouldn't say the Clio is that gutless. It still Is a 2.0 engine in a 1000kg chassis with a close ratio box: it perform exactly as such (unlike VTEC Honda ) and happily bumbles along in top gear at 40mph where the golf will bog down and labour.
Clutch is a proper man's clutch. Takes me back to when cars actually had proper feel to controls rather than the over assisted stuff made for the weak. Plus it stops you abusing it as your more likely to put in neutral rather than ride it at red lights: which is the main cause for it to wears out and can make it even heavier.
Although I have driven Golfs with heavier clutches. This is due to the release mechanism being shagged from day to day abuse ( riding the clutch too much ). But when new they are feather light (ish)
Oh yeah; cambelt. If the Clio had been done on the cheap or by a novice. 70% chance the timing will be out. They will still run ok as the ECU and dephaser masks it. But obviously they suffer performance wise - flat spots in the lower rev range being one symptom.
Clutch is a proper man's clutch. Takes me back to when cars actually had proper feel to controls rather than the over assisted stuff made for the weak. Plus it stops you abusing it as your more likely to put in neutral rather than ride it at red lights: which is the main cause for it to wears out and can make it even heavier.
Although I have driven Golfs with heavier clutches. This is due to the release mechanism being shagged from day to day abuse ( riding the clutch too much ). But when new they are feather light (ish)
Oh yeah; cambelt. If the Clio had been done on the cheap or by a novice. 70% chance the timing will be out. They will still run ok as the ECU and dephaser masks it. But obviously they suffer performance wise - flat spots in the lower rev range being one symptom.
Last edited by ALi-B; 16 November 2013 at 08:25 AM.
16 November 2013, 09:26 AM
#12
We've had very little bother with ours, although I wasn't too impressed with the 197 a while back, as you probably remember.
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showt...ne-for-you-lot
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showt...ne-for-you-lot
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post