Still doing the rounds on the wife's next car and have arranged test drives of both of these on Saturday from a local dealer. The Clio is the previous one not the new one but wondered what to look for and people's comments/experiences. I've driven them both before but welcome owner comments.
Clio 200 Cup & Megane 265?
- Thread starter Housey
- Start date
Won't teach you how to suck eggs with how they both drive so will let you know about the more boring aspects. Haven't actually owned the 265 or 200 but have extensive experience of both and their very close relations.
As purely a road car the Megane is the one to have and ticks more boxes imo, pretty much because its turbocharged, newer and slightly larger, whilst the 200 was a vast improvement calibration wise over the 197 its still borderline tedious at town and motorway revs/speeds. I found my r26r far more pleasant even at lower speeds than in either of my 197s.
The interior of the 200 cup is rather spartan too and you do start to miss some of the toys you get in the Megane (or even the full fat 200).
I'd probably say that the Clio is actually better for rear passengers than the Megane because of the body styles.
Running costs are very very similar, fuel economy is pretty much the same, as is the tax and servicing. Megane has more expensive tyres though with its larger alloys (18s or 19s).
Can't think of too much more right now off the top of my heads but if you have any specific questions then fire away.
In theory the 200 is the one to have as its more 'fun' and more your typical petrol head hot hatch - but the megane is really very capable and has more boggo car upsides vs the Clio.
As purely a road car the Megane is the one to have and ticks more boxes imo, pretty much because its turbocharged, newer and slightly larger, whilst the 200 was a vast improvement calibration wise over the 197 its still borderline tedious at town and motorway revs/speeds. I found my r26r far more pleasant even at lower speeds than in either of my 197s.
The interior of the 200 cup is rather spartan too and you do start to miss some of the toys you get in the Megane (or even the full fat 200).
I'd probably say that the Clio is actually better for rear passengers than the Megane because of the body styles.
Running costs are very very similar, fuel economy is pretty much the same, as is the tax and servicing. Megane has more expensive tyres though with its larger alloys (18s or 19s).
Can't think of too much more right now off the top of my heads but if you have any specific questions then fire away.
In theory the 200 is the one to have as its more 'fun' and more your typical petrol head hot hatch - but the megane is really very capable and has more boggo car upsides vs the Clio.
They are 2nd hand with around 6k on the clock at Cannock Renault. They have a few Clios but its the newest one and they have a nice colour and spec 265 with 19s in 2 door form in a nice grey metallic. Clio is 14k and Megane is 22k which seems good as it seems well loaded but I don't know much about residuals. My concern with the Clio is it will lose most due to the new one.
What differs between say a 2012 and 2008 Clio cup?
What differs between say a 2012 and 2008 Clio cup?
I'd be very tempted to say I think the Megane will actually lose more, there are 2010 meganes at the 13-14k mark so would imagine a 12k ballpark wouldn't be far off the mark for part ex, so potentially 10k drop in 2 years! Even the very oldest 197s, which are 2006 are about 5k+.
Fundamentally there isnt a lot of difference between a 2008 (197) and 2012 (200) Clio cup but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. There are cosmetic changes to the front and rear bumpers/lights, interior is marginally different with different dials and colours, biggest changes are underneath with stiffer suspension and quicker steering (even cup vs cup, let alone the regular one) and a slightly revised engine which gives far better low-mid range performance. All added together it gives a far better rounded performance package.
Fundamentally there isnt a lot of difference between a 2008 (197) and 2012 (200) Clio cup but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. There are cosmetic changes to the front and rear bumpers/lights, interior is marginally different with different dials and colours, biggest changes are underneath with stiffer suspension and quicker steering (even cup vs cup, let alone the regular one) and a slightly revised engine which gives far better low-mid range performance. All added together it gives a far better rounded performance package.
I have never bought cars on what class they fit in, that's for What Car readers. We walk in to a showroom and look at the cars that take our fancy. This is why my wife has had little cars, big cars, 2 seat cars, hot hatches, diesels etc.
Fair enough. I personally would just go for the Megane then due to the extra power and nicer interior! I also think the current RS Megane is one of, if not the best looking hot hatches on the market. The Clio 200....not so much. I have driven the 200, but not the Megane and to be honest the 200 didn't 'feel' fast compared to turbo charged hatches I have owned (Focus ST and Octy VRS). It did handle well though.
Last edited:
I think nice is a subjective, both looks pretty **** if Im honest, but trying to look past that. Don't like the clocks on the Megane, seem to lean away from the driver and small buttons and lots of plastic. Ergonomics by Stevie Wonder.
Ive driven both too and neither felt fast, but then I'm used to fast cars. I drove the Clio around Oulton too, think it was the 197 one and it felt gutless. However, they are sweet to handle and fun on the road and my wife with power means lots of nice points on her licence. She had her Golf GTi 6 weeks and she got 2 speeding fines!
I would be going for the Megane over the Clio if I was in your position. Running costs I *think* would be similar, apart from consumables, don't think there would be much difference in fuel consumption(?), Megane obviously has the more practical element of a bigger boot, easier to get into the back (I've tried both, the Megane had more space).
The only let down with the Megane was that it felt very dark inside. I wasn't overly keen on that, but may not be an issue for you.
The only let down with the Megane was that it felt very dark inside. I wasn't overly keen on that, but may not be an issue for you.
My sister might be selling a 2010 rs265 shortly housey, owned from newin that yellow.
It will be a 250 if it's that age.
We test drove both, if briefly today. It always amazes me how cheaper car dealers always seem less willing to let you have a proper run, with their test routes etc, but to be fair we didn't have a lot time and the young sales guy was very attentive and efficient, so no concerns there.
Megane 265
Not a great road car in my humble opinion and I know what the magazines say about them. I drove the 250 one previously, but this was my first run in the 265 version which was running the Cup chassis. Too stiff when the road gets rough, steering is not very feelsome, gearbox was slushy and the torque steer was very apparent to the extent where on a bumpy road it corrupted the handling. Not really impressed to be honest, no point going into chapter and verse but didn't really do the job I expected. Smooth Welsh mountain side and I'm sure it would be great fun but as a car to do mostly road work to and from an office, nah, to compromised. Next!
Clio 200 Cup
Loved it. Instantly felt more at home than the Megane, still a bit too stiff due to Cup but simply more fun. Power didn't corrupt the steering, it's less and is more linear and steering and gearbox both work better. Pedals are lovely positioned for heel toe work and though the seat didn't go low enough for me, it did feel more sorted on the road than the Megane on the route we took which surprised me. Not sure where the wife is at on the Clio, she loved the look of it and was happy with the interior too but we now need to make some decisions.
Have to say I really liked the Clio, better than I remember it around Oulton (that was a 197 one I think) and great fun.
Megane 265
Not a great road car in my humble opinion and I know what the magazines say about them. I drove the 250 one previously, but this was my first run in the 265 version which was running the Cup chassis. Too stiff when the road gets rough, steering is not very feelsome, gearbox was slushy and the torque steer was very apparent to the extent where on a bumpy road it corrupted the handling. Not really impressed to be honest, no point going into chapter and verse but didn't really do the job I expected. Smooth Welsh mountain side and I'm sure it would be great fun but as a car to do mostly road work to and from an office, nah, to compromised. Next!
Clio 200 Cup
Loved it. Instantly felt more at home than the Megane, still a bit too stiff due to Cup but simply more fun. Power didn't corrupt the steering, it's less and is more linear and steering and gearbox both work better. Pedals are lovely positioned for heel toe work and though the seat didn't go low enough for me, it did feel more sorted on the road than the Megane on the route we took which surprised me. Not sure where the wife is at on the Clio, she loved the look of it and was happy with the interior too but we now need to make some decisions.
Have to say I really liked the Clio, better than I remember it around Oulton (that was a 197 one I think) and great fun.
Surprised to hear this, most magazines praised the Megane 265 for not having any torque steer and would then criticise the Astra VXR GTC for having a hint of torque steer.
Its scary that after 3 generations they STILL make the Clio's seats to high
Was the 200 an actual Cup, or a Cup Chassis'd normal one?
Not sure what the difference is? It has Cup chassis I know that.
It most certainly has torque steer.