172 to rs200

[thermal-penguin]

Possibly thinking of trading my 172 in and getting a rs200 cup, Would have to have the cup chassis, just wondering how many of you guys and gals have done this and if you think it is worth it or not!

How many pros does the rs200 have over the 172? any cons to changing to a rs200?

Just want to hear some opinions before I go spending the big bucks!

Cheers

​Craig

 

[Knuckles]

Gez will be along shortly, he's made this change iirc and highly rates the 200

ive not driven a 172 so my opinion on mk2/mk3 will be biased... But they are epic cars bar the mpg

 

[klem]

I had a 172 cup before I bought the r27.

197 doesnt feel any faster but it does feel more special. Build quality is better and it feels tighter/more planted.

Ive not had the 197 around a track yet but I suspect it'll be faster and/or easier to drive faster. The chassis inspires a lot of confidence.

.. and before anyone s***s themselves, my 172 cup had a full suspension refresh.

The fuel economy isn't as good. Averaged about 40 in the 172, get around 30 in 197.

 

[Martin_172]

I made the swap, 200 is better in every way IMO apart from fuel consumption.

of course IMO, although if you look at my profile im now back in a ph2 172! bang for buck of course the 172 is miles better value but that depends on your situation, a year ago I could afford to spank that sort of cash on a car!

EDIT: the 172 has a better Stereo lol

EDIT 2: the 172 has better headlights

 

[Emma.]

I have a 172 cup the other half has a 200 with the cup packs.

Mine feels quicker and is a lot more fun but is a little unrefined.

The 200 is pretty comfortable, doesn't feel as fast or as much fun but is a far better place to be for just normal driving.

I will always pick my Cup over his 200 especially for track days, but mine is modded for thing like that (coilovers, better brakes, harness and seats etc). In standard form the 200 is an awesome track day car, but my preference is the 172.

 

[Matt W]

Had a 172 cup and now a 200.

The 200 is much better for day to day driving, no stress about jumping in it and doing a trip abroad whereas I'd be panicking about the 172 falling apart (which it did most days)

 

[gez 172]

Do it! Best thing I ever did.

200 is better in every way. Apart from the mpg being a little less, but it's hardly noticable. The mpg really depends on how you drive. I'm averaging 35mpg at the moment.


people saying the 172/182 is more value for money. Surely it's going to be when the 172 is 10 years older? The 197/200 will be better value for money when they loose more money.

i don't think I could go back to a 172 now. I like the delivery and higher rpm engine.

the car gives me so much more confidence, it's so planted and well balanced.

 

[Advikaz]

I love 172 cups I really do, but as an every day car the 200 is far better for what I use it for.

 

[Chip-mk1]

I love 172 cups I really do, but as an every day car the 200 is far better for what I use it for.

172 cup is a silly choice for a daily IMHO, its just a downgrade on the normal 172 from that point of view, cup only makes sense if its main focus is track, who wants to be driving around daily in 2013 in a car with no aircon for example?

200 is a nicer car than a 172, but the economy is more different than it really should be IMHO, so it depends how much of an issue that is to the individual, personally if I am getting M3 economy out of a clio, I want M3 performance, and the 200 doesnt deliver that.

 

[Advikaz]

172 cup is a silly choice for a daily IMHO, its just a downgrade on the normal 172 from that point of view, cup only makes sense if its main focus is track, who wants to be driving around daily in 2013 in a car with no aircon for example?

200 is a nicer car than a 172, but the economy is more different than it really should be IMHO, so it depends how much of an issue that is to the individual, personally if I am getting M3 economy out of a clio, I want M3 performance, and the 200 doesnt deliver that.

I'd love to see how accurate the MPG is on the 200's tho, because IMO the MPG doesn't stack up to the range I get to a tank. I have a feeling it reads worse than it is, not sure by how much tho.

 

[Chip-mk1]

I'd love to see how accurate the MPG is on the 200's tho, because IMO the MPG doesn't stack up to the range I get to a tank. I have a feeling it reads worse than it is, not sure by how much tho.

A lot of mk2 seem to have the opposite issue, where it says 44mpg, but then when you check at the pump its more like 40 for example.
Still good on fuel though.

 

[Matt W]

Calculated figures:

35mpg from the 172 cup

32mpg from the 200

Hardly going to bankrupt me TBH. The 200 always under-reads what it's actually getting.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Calculated figures:

35mpg from the 172 cup

32mpg from the 200

Hardly going to bankrupt me TBH. The 200 always under-reads what it's actually getting.

The experience of people I know is you generally can get 40mpg out of a 172 on a bit of a run, but nearer to 30mpg in a 197/200 doing the same trip.

So a bit bigger disparity than you seem to have there, but obviously it is so dependent on driving style etc.

 

[Martin_172]

I found 10mpg difference on a Clio 3 and that's not just 172 vs 200 that's DCi100 VS DCi106 too

 

[JCC]

People talk about the fuel consumption in the 200, yes it is quite heavy on fuel, but to be fair so are all it's rivals of the same age.

 

[Advikaz]

People talk about the fuel consumption in the 200, yes it is quite heavy on fuel, but to be fair so are all it's rivals of the same age.

Yep Corsa VXR is pony on boost.

 

[Christopher]

200's are awesome. You won't look back.

 

[gez 172]

All this fuel talk and saying how bad it it, and it's people saying it who don't even own a 197/200?

M3 economy???? Lol.

Im currently averaging 35 mpg, and can get 400 miles out of a tank.

I'll do CS a favour and even do a thread on the weekend seen as I'm doing a 500 mile trip this weekend.

​Show you how good they actually are on fuel

 

[Chip-mk1]

M3 economy???? Lol.

M3 will do over 30mpg on a run, even at quite a quick cruise, so it is comparable TBH to what most people i know are getting from their 197/200

Im currently averaging 35 mpg, and can get 400 miles out of a tank.

I'll do CS a favour and even do a thread on the weekend seen as I'm doing a 500 mile trip this weekend.

​Show you how good they actually are on fuel

Im sure if you sit slow enough you can get 40mpg, we have had 50mpg out of our 172 by driving in a very economy focussed way and keeping speed down.

 

[gez 172]

I actually need to get to the place I'm going.


​So granny driving will not be used

 

[Inequality Street]

if I am getting M3 economy out of a clio, I want M3 performance, and the 200 doesnt deliver that.

Nothing against you, but I really dislike this arguement.

I get around 24MPG in my 200, I'm 100% sure if I drove an M3 the way I drive my Clio, I wouldn't be seeing 24MPG in it. Not to mention the servicing costs, annual maintanance, cost of replacement parts etc etc. The M3 would be more expensive all round. I could drive my Clio and achieve 30+MPG if I wanted, but I'd rather not, I wouldn't enjoy it as much. Much like I'm sure someone could drive a 182 and get 20MPG if they fancy it.

End of the day, if the OP is considering buying a revvy, bumpy hot hatch, I doubt MPG is one of the factors that comes into buying.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Nothing against you, but I really dislike this arguement.

I get around 24MPG in my 200, I'm 100% sure if I drove an M3 the way I drive my Clio, I wouldn't be seeing 24MPG in it.

I bet if you matched the speeds you would get very very similar economy, m3's are only thirsty when you boot it and to keep with a clio 200 you dont need to boot it much.

Not to mention the servicing costs, annual maintanance, cost of replacement parts etc etc. The M3 would be more expensive all round. I could drive my Clio and achieve 30+MPG if I wanted, but I'd rather not, I wouldn't enjoy it as much. Much like I'm sure someone could drive a 182 and get 20MPG if they fancy it.

End of the day, if the OP is considering buying a revvy, bumpy hot hatch, I doubt MPG is one of the factors that comes into buying.

TBH if you drive many miles a year, then with fuel priced the way it is now, I think mpg always has to be a factor, in fact if a 197 did 45mpg I would buy one tomorrow for commuting as it would then be a good option but at 30mpg or so it isnt. (I do 600 ish miles most weeks, so 60 litres instead of 90 litres is a big difference to me personally, 50 quid a week more on fuel would be half a dozen less trackdays a year which matters more to me)

 

[gez 172]

an M3 isn't that great tbh... May have straight line power.

 

[Chip-mk1]

an M3 isn't that great tbh... May have straight line power.

Its the handling that is their trump card IMHO although the straight line pace is good too.

 

[Advikaz]

an M3 isn't that great tbh... May have straight line power.

I've driven most M3's over the years & can honestly say I don't understand the hype.

 

[J.B.]

172 cup is a silly choice for a daily IMHO, its just a downgrade on the normal 172 from that point of view, cup only makes sense if its main focus is track, who wants to be driving around daily in 2013 in a car with no aircon for example?

I'd agree if we actually got hot summers. I just open the window if I want a bit of air. I drive mine daily - love it.

 

[Chip-mk1]

I'd agree if we actually got hot summers. I just open the window if I want a bit of air. I drive mine daily - love it.

Depends where you live, stuck in city centre traffic the sun can be pretty unpleasant and the smell from opening the window can too, I would sooner use aircon given the choice, which with a cup and a non cup at the same money, makes a non cup a better daily to me personally. Although a DCi with aircon is even better, lol.

 

[J.B.]

Depends where you live, stuck in city centre traffic the sun can be pretty unpleasant and the smell from opening the window can too, I would sooner use aircon given the choice, which with a cup and a non cup at the same money, makes a non cup a better daily to me personally. Although a DCi with aircon is even better, lol.

City centre with an RS clio - now that really is a case of buying the wrong car!

 

[Chip-mk1]

City centre with an RS clio - now that really is a case of buying the wrong car!

Lol, tbh I find the standard 172 quite pleasant, the clutch is light, the engine is quite torquey, comfy seats, aircon, easy to park.

They arent a terrible city car?

 

[LiamR172]

Who buys a performance car for mpg, seriously?

Buy a derv if you want more mpg!

 

[Chip-mk1]

Who buys a performance car for mpg, seriously?

People who like driving fast on trackdays etc but cant afford to insure a second car is probably the main group of people?
My mrs has an Rs2+197 cams clio RS as a daily driver, and she also uses it as a trackday hack and we do all our ring trips in it.
We care about mpg and performance from it in roughly equal measures!

Buy a derv if you want more mpg!

Not fun on trackdays then IMHO

 

[RDH]

City centre with an RS clio - now that really is a case of buying the wrong car!

Why? It is a shopping car with a big engine, not an Aventador.

Are the 200's really that bad on fuel? I can get 27/28 all day long if I try, 30 if I drive like a saint.

 

[Knuckles]

Why? It is a shopping car with a big engine, not an Aventador.

Are the 200's really that bad on fuel? I can get 27/28 all day long if I try, 30 if I drive like a saint.

i get 29.5ish day to day... 34ish when i drive like miss daisy

 

[klem]

My wife drives the 197 8 miles per day in morning traffic and averages 28-30 mpg.

Not great but certainly not a deal breaker for me.

 

[Chip-mk1]

My wife drives the 197 8 miles per day in morning traffic and averages 28-30 mpg.

Not great but certainly not a deal breaker for me.

Thats as good as I would expect from a 172 in traffic TBH.

 

[Inequality Street]

I bet if you matched the speeds you would get very very similar economy, m3's are only thirsty when you boot it and to keep with a clio 200 you dont need to boot it much.




TBH if you drive many miles a year, then with fuel priced the way it is now, I think mpg always has to be a factor, in fact if a 197 did 45mpg I would buy one tomorrow for commuting as it would then be a good option but at 30mpg or so it isnt. (I do 600 ish miles most weeks, so 60 litres instead of 90 litres is a big difference to me personally, 50 quid a week more on fuel would be half a dozen less trackdays a year which matters more to me)

Fair point, hadn't looked at it like that.

 

[gez 172]

i get 29.5ish day to day... 34ish when i drive like miss daisy

What mileage are you on? I don't have to drive like a saint to see 33-35. Just a normal 60-70 mph B road driving? Hills etc

if I drive like miss daisy I'm up on 37-38

 

[thermal-penguin]

Tbh I'm not fussed about fuel costs really cause my weekly commute consist of about 20 miles! And I have the use of cars we are selling at my garage.

more interested in performance difference between the 172 and 200!

Looking at the comments above everyone seems to think its a good upgrade! So think it is going to happen soon tbh

On the topic of the m3 tho we have a few customers in the garage that own then and the running costs (not talking mpg) but general repairs and maintenance are just silly! So I would much rather have a small hot hatch than an m3 everyday of the week! Personal opinion tho of course!

 

[Knuckles]

What mileage are you on? I don't have to drive like a saint to see 33-35. Just a normal 60-70 mph B road driving? Hills etc


if I drive like miss daisy I'm up on 37-38

20 miles each way on a Monday, 11 miles each way the rest of the week.

i find, to get consistent high mpg I have to drive silly slow for 10 or so miles so the computer will set itself and think its economical, then it'll stay around 34mpg for a while before settling at 29.5.

​i only ever see 37/38 when I'm slowing down to a stop from 70 lol

I think my car has the later box, 3.5k at 70

 

[klem]

Thats as good as I would expect from a 172 in traffic TBH.

Yeh I was surprised to be honest.

I find the "mid range" mpg to be comparable to the 172. The biggest limitation is that on a run it tops out at 35 (38 driving like a fossil). In the 172 cup I could easily reach 45 driving normally.

when pressed the 197 dips down to 14-15ish whereas I couldn't get the 172 below 19 on the track...