Clio 200 MPG?!?!?!

[NOT! gary l]

I don't think the money is the issue with what the OP is saying here, it's all very well saying he should have checked this before buying the car but the way i've read the guy's post's he has, he has quoted book figures for the combined cycle and gets nowhere near it. (which is a common thing with most car's in fairness)

Most car manufacturers these days are able to squeeze more BHP out of new models while also gaining MPG and lowering emissions, Renault are going backwards it seems.

I don't care what the rich folk say, to the average Joe, driving past a petrol station and seeing the price increase every day in fuel is just depressing.

It seems the 200 is trying to punch above it's weight in terms of performance but even older, faster cars are proving more economical and incase you have not yet noticed, even petrolheads are paying more attention to MPG figures whereas before it didn't matter as long as the car went faster than its rival.A fact backed up by the increase in not only diesel owners but also 'whats my mpg?' threads on this site.

The times they r a changing, motorists want more for money these days, other manufacturers are providing it and Renault simply are not. I'd be as miffed as the OP to be honest if i'd spent as much as he has on a Clio when there are other cars for similar price that offer as much performance wise and more in terms of economy.

 

[Martin_172]

one of my hot hatches does 65mpg

 

[Munson]

Roy what do you average in your frs?

The best I managed was 33 but that was driving like Miss Daisy. Motorway would see maybe 35. Normal mixed roads with a bit of a blast here or there tends to return maybe 22/24. Driving it everywhere like a hero will easily see 15 or less. On track I reckon you'd be lucky to get halfway to 10.

So as a general answer I'd say 22 for the driving I do.

 

[twingors]

clio's must be really bad on fuel as my twingo is and thats a 1.6 lol

am getting about 26mpg around town..

 

[twingors]

a guy with a twingo rs got 13mpg on the track... lol

 

[Martin_172]

clio's must be really bad on fuel as my twingo is and thats a 1.6 lol

am getting about 26mpg around town..

k4m's are crap my mrs Dynamique 110 gets low 30's driving like a granny

 

[twingors]

A dont really do alot of miles for it to affect my pocket so i dont really care how much it uses tbh.. doing under 200 miles a week easily..
i get about 230 to a tank. 8.8 gallons.

my local is £117.9:dapprove: most i have ever paid lol and i dont use v-power etc

 

[SteveS Cup]

I just don't agree. Expecting it to be thirsty yes, being as heavy on fuel as commonly known turbo cars no. Even Evo seemed suprised at the low MPG the 200 got on a test. I don't read too many of the magazines but it was on the car of the year shoot out, after which, one of the lads was getting it as a long termer. He had just finished driving it for a week and suprised that he was on xx mpg when he hadn't hammered it.

However, in your reply you mentioned the phrase "fantastic mpg". I just want to highlight in the context of hothatches what it is to me. Very bad fuel economy is in the 20's. Ok, but heavy MPG is 29-32. Reasonable is 33-35. Good is 36+. This is further more on a tank of fuel, not just I've gone out and raped it or just sat on the motorway at 65mpg for 3 hours.

The lowest I've had my 182 on an overall tank is 32. That was a fair amount of stop start and booting. The best I've had is 38 which was following a long motorway journey (These are actual, i.e. I worked them out myself at the pump not from the trip). I know a few people with 200's which I reguarly speak to and have to say I really like the 200 so have a reasonable interest but they tell me that on a run they get 20's. Blimey. I also know someone with an M3 of which he says on a run he can get about 30.

Exactly... Hot Hatches are supposed to be Fun, Chuckable, Nippy, Practical and CHEAP.

I couldn't justify having a 197 / 200 that cost as much to run as an M3 / Evo on petrol (I know servicing etc would be different).

 

[Munson]

Not sure why people are surprised at all. It's a 2.0 NA pulling quite a heavy car (compared to Clio II) and spending most of it's life at 7000rpm. Even on the motorway it's revving its tits off. Comparing it to cars with 400cc less swept capacity (nearly a whole cylinder) that aren't always on boost and don't need to be raped to get them to go anywhere is a little silly IMO.

By all means don't buy one because of it, but that's the nature of the beast. Take away a fuel drinking cylinder and 200kg and you'll be getting better MPG.

I SRS doubt the Clio IV RS will be a 2.0 NA.

 

[Mr Burns]

Munson speaks sense... Also if we're going to keep comparing the mk3 to everything else it's worth remembering just how capable the car is, especially on track. For the average car enthusiast who wants a modern practical car to drive properly and perhaps for the occasional trackday the 197/200 is still good value for money regardless of economy.

 

[MikeCracknell]

Every drop that has been through my 197 is all on here:

http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/352897.html

And after all that, the average on the car over nearly 17k is:

It shows it as litres per 100 Km for some reason, but when logged in it shows MPG.

The best I had was on the A roads in the north of Scotland at 35.7MPG

The worst was 21.7MPG on the autoroute in France lol

 

[MikeCracknell]

Munson speaks sense... Also if we're going to keep comparing the mk3 to everything else it's worth remembering just how capable the car is, especially on track. For the average car enthusiast who wants a modern practical car to drive properly and perhaps for the occasional trackday the 197/200 is still good value for money regardless of economy.

This is the main reason that I don't really post on here - the incredible dislike shown towards people with Mk 3 by some on here!!!

 

[clayton6]

Who cares lol

I average about 25 mpg in my 182 but I'd rather drive it too put a smile on my face than pottering around worrying about filling up again, really don't understand why you'd buy a 2.0L hot hatch and then complain about petrol consumption?!

I'd of bought a DCI if I wanted decent MPG....

 

[UncleGrumpy]

Who cares lol

I average about 25 mpg in my 182 but I'd rather drive it too put a smile on my face than pottering around worrying about filling up again, really don't understand why you'd buy a 2.0L hot hatch and then complain about petrol consumption?!

I'd of bought a DCI if I wanted decent MPG....

^^This - word for word.

 

[Martin_172]

I'd of bought a DCI if I wanted decent MPG....

and loads of torque

 

[The Chubby Pirate]

172/182's cannot be beat for fuel economy, they are so easy on the juice you forget they are hot hatches

My old Phase 1 172 would give me easily 365-400 miles to a tank no problem

 

[Jamie]

I think you're taking my response out of context and reading too much into it.

Sure, I've read the rest of your post and I can see that I have. I think I just developed into my own point, it wasn't all in relation to your post.

Suppose it's the difference between seeing the figures on paper, and seeing money falling out of your pocket. I do think it's mental that it's closer (in mpg) terms to a Porsche etc than other hot-hatches. FFs the new cooper s is quicker in a straight line than a 197/200, but more economical than my 172!

I agree.

MPG really put me off the 197/200s.

It's sort of put me off too.

I wouldn't buy a 197/200 now but in the future I may. However having a 197/200 would force me into a position where I would want two cars. I use or have used my Trophy/172/Williams for everyday commuting which is about 40 miles a day and going from 36mpg to 26mpg or less would mean I'd consider two cars. If I was doing 10 miles a week or using a train to commute it wouldn't bother me (fuel). Then again, that's my personal circumstances. Maybe this is why the 200/197 appeals to folk who don't really commute and city dwellers.

Exactly... Hot Hatches are supposed to be Fun, Chuckable, Nippy, Practical and CHEAP.

I couldn't justify having a 197 / 200 that cost as much to run as an M3 / Evo on petrol (I know servicing etc would be different).

I'm in the same boat as you Steve. If I was spending 15k on a 200, doing a few miles and could afford 20-25mpg on long journeys I'd be having something different. That's how Renault have made me think. The Clio may excel in handaling but overall I may choose something else now.

Developing onto another point which various people have raised and I think it's about perception and expectations. That is, for Renault, I think overall it's a strange move. There had been a sort of constructive obligation/brand built up by Renault with all their fast hatches prior to the 197/200's. They were all fast, cheap and good on fuel. Demonstrated by the Williams, 172 and 182 - that is, this is how I saw it and it maybe different for others or new to Renault consumers.

It's been seen that the build quality has improved but it's a big switch in running costs. Maybe people who have always had Renault Sports were suprised as they had built up that expectation of the above factors and immediatley thought Renault would be ticking the same boxes off again. Obviously, new safety regulations and consumer demands have played a part in adding size and weight but it's just a bit of a shame it's so expensive. I personally didn't think that the new range of Renault Sports would come along producing low 20's to the gallon, I think it's mad and from loads of replies it appears that I'm not alone. Is it honestly impossible to be able to expect a hatch to have the same performance but not produce more mpg. Is it just an old uneconomical engine?

Also, in relation to someone else, they said they don't come on here due to people slagging off the 200/197. I hope that's not due to people like myself who abuse the newer RS's fuel consumption. I think they're great cars, just too costly in fuel.

 

[Louism]

Not sure why people are surprised at all. It's a 2.0 NA pulling quite a heavy car (compared to Clio II) and spending most of it's life at 7000rpm. Even on the motorway it's revving its tits off. Comparing it to cars with 400cc less swept capacity (nearly a whole cylinder) that aren't always on boost and don't need to be raped to get them to go anywhere is a little silly IMO.

By all means don't buy one because of it, but that's the nature of the beast. Take away a fuel drinking cylinder and 200kg and you'll be getting better MPG.

I SRS doubt the Clio IV RS will be a 2.0 NA.

+1

 

[SteveS Cup]

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking the same thing Jamie!

I'm not a tight arse and personally I'm not bothered about petrol as long as I'm getting the performance in return! My TT which was 270bhp got 35mpg on cruise control for an hour at 80mph... normally I'd get 20mpg... but it was quick. My Polo with 300bhp... I hate to think what I got out of that, I just filled it up when I got to 1/4 of a tank!

But how is a Clio doing 0-60 in 6.5 seconds worthy of 20mpg!!?? I'm shocked!

 

[Twingo 1??]

I dont know how u guys afford to run them! I thought my VRS was bad at 38/9 mpg lol

 

[Munson]

I dont know how u guys afford to run them! I thought my VRS was bad at 38/9 mpg lol

Plimsole. Try a tank that takes the best part of £70 and runs out on the way to Waitrose. The Clios offer damn fine economy considering how capable they are :approve:

</mpg_wars>

 

[lbrench]

Plimsole. Try a tank that takes the best part of £70 and runs out on the way to Waitrose. The Clios offer damn fine economy considering how capable they are :approve:

</mpg_wars>

i agree, in comparison with my dads vxr and my step dads golf the clio is a smart car

 

[lbrench]

Plimsole. Try a tank that takes the best part of £70 and runs out on the way to Waitrose. The Clios offer damn fine economy considering how capable they are :approve:

</mpg_wars>

munson can even afford to shop at waitrose! must be doing something right lol

 

[Munson]

Double tap quotes FTW.

 

[Brett]

Suppose it's the difference between seeing the figures on paper, and seeing money falling out of your pocket. I do think it's mental that it's closer (in mpg) terms to a Porsche etc than other hot-hatches. FFs the new cooper s is quicker in a straight line than a 197/200, but more economical than my 172!

Probably why the 200 will be the last N/A RS Clio according to most sources.

 

[Munson]

Yeah there is, in my opinion, literally zero chance that Clio IV RS will be a 2.0 NA. There are simply so many reasons that it has to die that Renault would be stupid to ignore them.

This thread is one good reason. It's a shame really but market demands will go the way of 1.6 turbo. TBH if they can keep it breathing to 7k rpm then it's no bad thing.

 

[Twingo 1??]

Plimsole. Try a tank that takes the best part of £70 and runs out on the way to Waitrose. The Clios offer damn fine economy considering how capable they are :approve:

</mpg_wars>

Dont know how capable thay are as I have never
driven a 200,182 or 172 but most cars are only as
capable as the person driving them!
£70 to fill your tank is that special Waitrose fuel lol

 

[Martin_172]

i think renault should stay with a n/a engine, theirs no need for the mk4 to be any heavier than it is, their is more power to be squeezed and i for one dont like the way turbo FWD cars drive.

 

[tollan172]

moaning about mpg how u think i feel i thought my clio172 was great on fuel compared to my astra vxr which is 1 thirsty b**ch lol

 

[kenny172]

I liked your 172 Tollan, never got a chance to speak to you when I was down your way with Juego

 

[barker22]

im not too sure if renault will make the RS range anything other than n/a. insurance is 1 good reason y. que the thread moaning about how expensive RS insurance is because insurance companies dont like the word 'turbo/super charger' etc.
in an ideal world you would get great performance, mpg, safety, gadgets etc but we just dont live in 1. the frs is pretty sorted but look at the price tag/ insurance group. you cant have everything.

 

[N0ddie]

We've got 1000 miles on the clock of our 200 now. Getting 29.4 mpg.

 

[Louism]

im not too sure if renault will make the RS range anything other than n/a. insurance is 1 good reason y. que the thread moaning about how expensive RS insurance is because insurance companies dont like the word 'turbo/super charger' etc.
in an ideal world you would get great performance, mpg, safety, gadgets etc but we just dont live in 1. the frs is pretty sorted but look at the price tag/ insurance group. you cant have everything.

It costs me the same for a mini JCW as my 200

 

[twingors]

I think renault should turbo the new renaultsport clio whenever its due.. 2011/2012? A 1.6 turbo with 200 bhp would be just as good as 200 N/A BUT would deffo be more tuneable when you got bored of the standard cars power..

like more instance.. 206 gti 180.. been in 1 of them and wasnt that exciting tbh and then was in my m8s thp 175 207 and was a better car all together!! with 5 less bhp STANDARD.. then get it mapped, exhasut and intercooler and its easily 200-230. for like £1000 + mpg would prob be better aswell

Think about it.... Not wanting to start a massive debate here, im only new on here but just throwing my opinion out there lol

 

[MikeLYR27]

Yeah there is, in my opinion, literally zero chance that Clio IV RS will be a 2.0 NA. There are simply so many reasons that it has to die that Renault would be stupid to ignore them.

This thread is one good reason. It's a shame really but market demands will go the way of 1.6 turbo. TBH if they can keep it breathing to 7k rpm then it's no bad thing.

+1! i like turbo cars but everytime i drive an RS it feels so much more fun due to the revyness! I dont no wat the r26's are like but ive heard they fade at 6\6.5k revs! I like the low down punch but can live without it for the fun factor of the RS. Tbh i dont think low down the clios are that bad, my 197 feels wicked ( before it blew lol)! i think renault will get the job done, cant see them failing tbh.

 

[Alan]

Hello, I have had my clio 200 now for 2 weeks and am still running it in (haven't gone above 4000 rpm).

I am getting 26 MPG at best, how is this possible!?

The combined fuel is supposed to be 34.4 so how can I not get close to that driving this slow!

What are you getting?

Fag, expect a poor performing car and lower MPG!!

I've had two RS's from brand new and gave them death since day one..my R27 produced 198.8bhp on the rollers with 12k on the clock then 200.1bhp the year later with 22k on the same rollers.

 

[nth]

Fag, expect a poor performing car and lower MPG!!

I've had two RS's from brand new and gave them death since day one..my R27 produced 198.8bhp on the rollers with 12k on the clock then 200.1bh the year later with 22k on the same rollers.

lol A<3 x

 

[Alan]

172/182's cannot be beat for fuel economy, they are so easy on the juice you forget they are hot hatches

My old Phase 1 172 would give me easily 365-400 miles to a tank no problem

Ma brer's old derv ARSEtra sri rev's to 18 grand..

 

[OLR]

who said the same petrol cost as an M3, they do 18-20mpg driving like a granny.
My old mans slk 350 can't even get above 25mpg with the engine off!!!!
Any were near 30mpg for a close to 200bhp car is fecking good.

Buy a durv if you want 40+mpg and a tractor sound track.

 

[Iain C]

Mpg is the reason I don't have a 197/200. The meggy 225 seems better on fuel and it's a better every day car?