197's/200's really that bad on fuel

[jamievt]

as above been looking at getting another clio seen a few nice 182's but ive also seen a few nice 197's and 200's for a couple k more just wondering what are they like to drive which is the best of the 2 or infact 3 and are they as bad on fuel as some people say?
many thanks

 

[R-Sport.]

The best model on the 197 is the R27-

They are great cars, you just have to have your eyes open- Gearbox / steering & brakes are the weak points- ( plus recaro wear)

If you get a 197 try & get spec-
Cup pack
Climate

Projector lights-


As above with the 200s.
S

 

[glenn_adam_doble]

as above, they are not as good on fuel as 182 but its marginal, id say a small price to pay in exchange for what you gain with a MK3

 

[r0ss172]

I think when people say they arent that great on fuel, its because people are comparing them to 1*2's. 1*2's are better on fuel and are pretty much exactly the same performance wise.

 

[jamievt]

well in my old cup i got 35mpg with a heavy foot few threads i see poeple say they struggle to get mid 20's at best

 

[Jordi17]

Same as any car, drive it hard the mpg will go down. 30/31 on average is easily done.

 

[truupR]

the problem is normally the driver. I've got the 197 f1 and could get 'decent' mpg if i could stop driving like a tit on the dual carriageways at midnight -_- I will admit though, there's so many cars out there that have a megaton more power for the same mpg..

 

[CabinFever]

Yes. Hope that helps.

 

[rja cup]

For me they are bad on fuel as my 197 cup was thirstier than my old 300bhp mk1 Focus RS and that was whether driving around town or on the motorway - it did my head in so much I got rid of the 197 and got a 172 cup again. I couldn't justify the mpg figures for the performance when you can have a 172 averaging low 40s on a run compared to low 30s in a 197.

 

[Clio-Ell]

I feel they lack performance for the MPG return compared to other cars at similar pace.

 

[.GAZ.]

I get 50mpg in my track Cup when I drive it to Knockhill. The 197/200's are faaaar too thirsty. I don't mind thirsty cars if they warrant it but they take the piss. Bearing in mind I had a Mk5 R32 and I've got a 3.0i X5 now.

 

[Sir_Dave]

I was getting 28mpg out of my 197 Cup. Which was 1mpg more than the e46 M3 that i had before & the same as my mk5 R32. My GP is averaging 34.

So yes, the mpg is rubbish.

 

[Matt W]

No. Hope that helps.

 

[cliokid182]

I get an average of 29 mpg in my 182 I dont know how you guys get 40mpg, on a run I can get 35 at best!!

 

[Knuckles]

28.5mpg I'm getting ATM. I can see between 30-34 if I drive nicely though

 

[Paul4d]

I normally average between 27-31mpg.

 

[SnapMonkey]

I normally average between 27-31mpg.

I had 27mpg rock solid, 31mpg on a 150mile run.

 

[Matt W]

These threads always confuse me.

The mx5 I had, always averaged 28 and was very slow yet no-one complains about those?

​

 

[Knuckles]

Rwd > mpg

 

[Paul4d]

Yea its all good saying an m3 gets the same mpg but im sure an m3 is alot more expensive to run as a daily.

 

[.GAZ.]

I get an average of 29 mpg in my 182 I dont know how you guys get 40mpg, on a run I can get 35 at best!!

Mine only weighs 900kg.

​

 

[GW200]

I filled my 200 up this morning with BP ultimate, came to just over £76 (it was in the red). I then drove from Kent to Shropshire to buy a pair of cup hubs and shafts for my 182 and then drove to Silverstone to watch some Clio action. I was being SUPER conservitave with my driving and on the motorway I was doing no more than 78mph, but the majority of the time I was chilling at 72mph using cruise control. The BEST mpg it returned me was 35.2!

As I left Silverstone, I had covered 359 miles and used 8.4g of fuel from when I left home and the range on the trip was 80 miles till I ran out. I had to fill up at that point as that would be enough to get me home because it was over 100 miles.

All in all I wasn't too impressed with the consumption!

 

[N0ddie]

Lifetime average on our 200 is 31.5 mpg.

 

[Ed.200]

Average 30 over the last 6000 miles or so. can get 36 mpg at 65 mph on cruise.
People always comapre the 200 to a 172 / 182, but at the end of the day they are very different cars, the 200 is a much nicer place to be, but it depends what driving you do. If you drive it on the back roads occasionally and enjoy what the car is for, then the slight lack of mpg makes up for it imo

 

[rs 1an]

I drive mine like a baby and it shows 28.6mpg but i leave the climate on all the time never seen 30 ever

 

[Mr Burns]

Like the Civic Type-R, they're not terrible on fuel but for a sub 200bhp normally aspirated car they do seem to drink way too much juice.

 

[jamievt]

my main thing is the loss in mpg over the 182 worth it for the gains you get owned a 197/200 i.e people dont moan about there m3's evo's ect shocking mpg because there beats my sounds of it the 197 isnt that much better if at all than the 182

 

[Mr Burns]

It all depends what you value most in a car dude.

The biggest letdown with the 197 for me personally was the gearbox, it's awful. Despite being the replacement for the 182 the 197 feels very different, so maybe you should find someone who owns one locally and have a proper blast in it.

 

[Brett]

It's the performance to mpg that upsets people I think. I used to hammer my 182 around and get about 32 mpg.

For a sub 30 mpg car I'd want either boost or more than 4 cylinders.

My MX5 was terrible on fuel and it was slow, as somebody mentioned above. That was a car designed in the late 80's though and not 2009.

 

[marshall878]

These threads
' annoy me.

If fuel consumption is an issue you are looking at the wrong cars.

Try.....www.priusownersclub.com

 

[The Chubby Pirate]

I've said it before but the reason they (the 197/200) are regarded so poorly on fuel is because of how closely its compared to the 1*2 which is great on fuel - and the same pace LOL.

 

[Paul4d]

Strange thing is that someone i know told me he gets 30mpg out of his 172. If i wanted mega mpgz i would of got a german diesel.

 

[plymcl172]

when you compare them to a 1*2- yes they are shocking on fuel!

 

[Matt W]

when you compare them to a 1*2- yes they are shocking on fuel!

34mpg to 30mpg. Hardly going to bankrupt me

 

[plymcl172]

to the OP do we really need another MPG thread?

 

[jamievt]

this isnt a mpg thread on a single car its a comparison of 3 variations of the clio and if the loss in mpg is worth the gain in performance im not arsed about mpg as long as the car is worth it buy sounds of it 197/200 arent

 

[Matt W]

It 100% is IMO.

 

[Mr Burns]

Just try one dude. I loved mine but I'll admit that the gearbox felt awful, it felt like trying to stir Lego bricks with a stick.

 

[Saul]

My old 197 struggled with 29+ MPG with mixed driving

 

[Thrust-Rated]

Get a 200. I like them
The F1 team 197 is a great specced car though.

I don't think the mpg is a massive issue really.