ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Mazda MX5 1.8
Re: lol... non RS clios heaps of sh*t!
this is just the point! it doesnt matter what car uve got or what others think of it but if it puts a smile on ur face then its worth it
justinRT said:still manages to put a smile on my face!
this is just the point! it doesnt matter what car uve got or what others think of it but if it puts a smile on ur face then its worth it
MKIII 138
Re: lol... non RS clios heaps of sh*t!
its too true ^^ a 1.2 can do the same, all you need is coilovers and some sort of induction/exhaust for fun noises and your away. i dont race others, private driving is the thrill to me, i even sold my 172 to get an older 172cup as i wanted even more fun, it was little to do with the power.
clio__chris said:
its too true ^^ a 1.2 can do the same, all you need is coilovers and some sort of induction/exhaust for fun noises and your away. i dont race others, private driving is the thrill to me, i even sold my 172 to get an older 172cup as i wanted even more fun, it was little to do with the power.
Re: lol... non RS clios heaps of sh*t!
I owned a 1.2 16V Dynamique for a few years, then owned a 172 Cup as well, then eventually sold the 1.2 and still have the Cup to this day.
I would never call the 1.2 a crap car by any stretch of the imagination. It handled beautifully, was reasonably nippy compared to most standard 1.2 supermini's, and even looked pretty spot on imo.
Stepping between the two was always interesting, when I was in the 1.2 I missed the mad acceleration and better feel from the handling of the Cup, but when I was in the Cup I strangely missed something about the 1.2. The Cup will hit illegal speeds by the time you've got to third gear, so if you are driving with any sort of regards for license, yourself and other road users you are always easing off a matter of seconds after you've just got going on a straight road. The 1.2 however, I would build up to 60 and try to hang on to every MPH I could around the corners, it was so entertaining and challenging to try and keep the speed through corners.
Eventually my finances will dry up when the mortgage comes along, I wouldn't hesitate in going back to a 1.2 or 1.4 16V. I've had a couple since I started driving (always owned Clio's), put one beyond 120k with no problems and managed 80k overall in them over 5 years without a single breakdown or issue.
I love my Cup and would miss it massively when it eventually goes one day, but I certainly don't think any less of my days in the smaller engined Clio's, don't mistake fast for fun.
As an aside I was a passenger in clio_chris' 1.6 at the Airfield last year, it moves plenty quick enough for British roads and looks/sounds spot on too.
I owned a 1.2 16V Dynamique for a few years, then owned a 172 Cup as well, then eventually sold the 1.2 and still have the Cup to this day.
I would never call the 1.2 a crap car by any stretch of the imagination. It handled beautifully, was reasonably nippy compared to most standard 1.2 supermini's, and even looked pretty spot on imo.
Stepping between the two was always interesting, when I was in the 1.2 I missed the mad acceleration and better feel from the handling of the Cup, but when I was in the Cup I strangely missed something about the 1.2. The Cup will hit illegal speeds by the time you've got to third gear, so if you are driving with any sort of regards for license, yourself and other road users you are always easing off a matter of seconds after you've just got going on a straight road. The 1.2 however, I would build up to 60 and try to hang on to every MPH I could around the corners, it was so entertaining and challenging to try and keep the speed through corners.
Eventually my finances will dry up when the mortgage comes along, I wouldn't hesitate in going back to a 1.2 or 1.4 16V. I've had a couple since I started driving (always owned Clio's), put one beyond 120k with no problems and managed 80k overall in them over 5 years without a single breakdown or issue.
I love my Cup and would miss it massively when it eventually goes one day, but I certainly don't think any less of my days in the smaller engined Clio's, don't mistake fast for fun.
As an aside I was a passenger in clio_chris' 1.6 at the Airfield last year, it moves plenty quick enough for British roads and looks/sounds spot on too.
Last edited:
Mazda MX5 1.8
well ive never tested the 0-60 so i wouldnt have a clue
50mpg is for sure and easily achievable on mine
50mpg is for sure and easily achievable on mine
MKIII 138
ukaskew im with you on that, ive bought a home and an musing about a DCI 100 and selling my cup. i know when ive got 125hp and 180lbft + some lowering and 65mpg + grp 5 insurance and no points on my licence i wont regret it every day (just every other lol)
your right though, lets say you roll out of a junction in the cup a 10mph you have 50more before the limit is up and they pass in under 5 secs. its really hard to keep at 60mph in a car so light it just floats up there all the time
your right though, lets say you roll out of a junction in the cup a 10mph you have 50more before the limit is up and they pass in under 5 secs. its really hard to keep at 60mph in a car so light it just floats up there all the time
Clio Dynamique 1.6 16v
Re: lol... non RS clios heaps of sh*t!
Yea Im loving my 1.6 clio atm, moving from a 1.0 polo to that feels quality! By the time I can afford a 182 theyl prob be other cars about aswell....like the new honda civic type r - as seen on firth gear the other night
Yea Im loving my 1.6 clio atm, moving from a 1.0 polo to that feels quality! By the time I can afford a 182 theyl prob be other cars about aswell....like the new honda civic type r - as seen on firth gear the other night
i've got a 1.2 and been in a 2 litre model. theirs no argument if performance is what your after the non rs models are never going to be the best choice.
if you want a car to get you from A to B with cheap running costs and without drawing much attention you would hate a 172/82.
it's about what you want from your car. and remember 9/10 clios out their are non rs models as most people want them for their cheap running costs.
I think the topic made a pretty obvious point in terms of performance their miles apart but compare your 1.2 clios to your 1.2 corsa' s and punto's etc thats what their designed to compete against.
the smaller engined clio's don't feel slow(the roads are not a racetrack to most people) they have good brakes and they handle pretty well for a comfy car.
Renault make two litres to give people the choice if they want a fast car they can have one just like they make diesels for people who want extra fuel economy. Their designed for two different markets so i don't see the point in comparing them. The choice is their so if you don't like your 1.4 save up and get an RS model!
if you want a car to get you from A to B with cheap running costs and without drawing much attention you would hate a 172/82.
it's about what you want from your car. and remember 9/10 clios out their are non rs models as most people want them for their cheap running costs.
I think the topic made a pretty obvious point in terms of performance their miles apart but compare your 1.2 clios to your 1.2 corsa' s and punto's etc thats what their designed to compete against.
the smaller engined clio's don't feel slow(the roads are not a racetrack to most people) they have good brakes and they handle pretty well for a comfy car.
Renault make two litres to give people the choice if they want a fast car they can have one just like they make diesels for people who want extra fuel economy. Their designed for two different markets so i don't see the point in comparing them. The choice is their so if you don't like your 1.4 save up and get an RS model!
Nissan 350Z
I noticed when I was driving around in the mk3 courtesy car (a DCI) that unless you were really going for it in the RS, the mk3 was actually faster! Obviously when you rev them both out, the RS was so much quicker it was funny, but day to day on the road, the DCI felt nice and punchy and could cover ground very quickly. I'd imagine a Mk2 with decent suspension, the DCI 100 engine chipped to 130 would absolutely muller an RS unless you were driving the RS like Michael Shumacher!
TBH, I could put up with a car like this. My Fabia vRS was the same, very effortlessly fast, even if not as outright fast as the RS. Its just a pity that car didnt really handle.
TBH, I could put up with a car like this. My Fabia vRS was the same, very effortlessly fast, even if not as outright fast as the RS. Its just a pity that car didnt really handle.
Well mines not a 172 beater (Ive tried!) but Im yt to be outcornered by one! When it comes down to it its the same chassis. Im quite happy with mine, could do with more power though!
Martin_172
ClioSport Club Member
id like more power from mine for overtaking and long straights but the bit i love about it is down a backroad on a nice sunny day i dont have to drive it on the limit and fly round corners to have fun, ist just a really enjoyable car to drive and the induction kit makes it a lot more fun to drop a gear or take it to the redline
Nissan 350Z
The smaller engined clios have one advantage in their favour actually, that nobody seems to have mentioned: The engine is lighter, so the car isnt as nose heavy.
A lot of people used to say the 1.6 GTI Pug 205 was a better handler than the 1.9 for this reason, and some also used to say the same about the 8v Golf versus the 16 valver (in that particular case I believe the engine was around 30 kg heavier than the 8v lump).
A lot of people used to say the 1.6 GTI Pug 205 was a better handler than the 1.9 for this reason, and some also used to say the same about the 8v Golf versus the 16 valver (in that particular case I believe the engine was around 30 kg heavier than the 8v lump).
