182/172 clio or ST fiesta ?

David _b

David _b

David _b

Associate
Joined
28 Mar 2004
Posts
2,430
Location
N Ireland
Hi

Im a little tempted to get one of these, if i stay away from the m3 idea. Out of the 2 what is the pro's and con's. Reliability, performance, tuning possibility, costs ? I have drove a 150 fiesta and thought it was quick but nothing out of this world. Then again im on my second 200sx which is now sold and im picking another up in a week but will sell it on again.

But im after a car for keeps now or very soon. Opinions etc welcome
Thanks
 
I'd get the 182. Real piece of kit that. The 2nd cam will almost have you in the passenger seats :p

Fiesta ST... luke warm hatch IMO :/
 
Yeh i had 2 drives in a st. The first one coming from a diesel polo seemed rapid. The second time was coming from a saxo vtr which having only 90bhp still seemed to go very well compared to the st. Obvioulsy the st would be quicker...but not 7 grands worth quicker. I did love the handeling of the st fez tho
 
They are brilliant, but as a few 172 owners on here will attest to, they aren't really much quicker than the aforementioned saxo VTR on the B roads. Top end doesn't come into it, and cornering speed is pretty much like for like. I certainly kept pace with the two of them on the roads we were hammering down :)

Can't really see why you'd go from one extreme (M3) to the other (Small Hatch), but that's your perogative.
 
Ok my take seeing as I have owned a 172 Cup and have been looking for a Fiesta ST here is my take on it.

172 is more raw, considerably more power but more hardcore. I wouldn't have liked to commute in my 172 Cup everyday due to the harsh ride.

The Fiesta ST could be used everyday, has a decent amount of power (quicker than I thought) and I thought it handles well. However, heard reports it doesn't handle that great (my test drive was only short but I was impressed). Much nicer interior.

Personally i'd go for a 182 with the Cup packs. Still think ABS is a neccessity and it certainly caught me out in my 172 Cup.
 
182 with all the extra packs is a nice place to be IMO. ABS, climate control, cruise control... It'll still be a hard ride though...
 
The m3 idea is just me still wanting to play about in cars, so would not be a long term keeper. Would be a mainland car, brought here and drove for a few month to get the m3 ownership thing out of my system them sell for profit. Like the 200sx thing im doing at the minute.

But im tempted to just have a car now thats actually for keeps. The car would not be used for a huge commute. More a fun car. Whats the running costs like ? I would have about 7k to spend by time im ready for it expecially if i get a m3 first and sell it.
 
One was described as the greatest hot hatch ever, the other wasn't :)

Saying that I'd drive both and see which you like best, the Clio is "better" imho but the ford isn't exactly a bad car! I'd be after a racing blue 182 full fat with both cup packs please :)

Also found my 172 quite a bit quicker than a mates vtr down some nice windy roads, vts is another matter though :P

NathanE said:
I'd get the 182. Real piece of kit that. The 2nd cam will almost have you in the passenger seats :p
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with a second cam on the Clios, the cams just come "on" at around 5k giving that kick :) The vvt tech on the engine kicks in very low down and it purely for emissions/smooth idle iirc. It's not like a vtec unit.
 
Last edited:
I have got a 172 and I think its a fantastic car ,you really do need to rev it though to get any serious speed from it (4000rpm + )

Handling wise its incredible, I have thrown it round many tight corners and the tyres didnt even squeel, car is very stable,

The feedback from the car is amazing, you know what each tyre is doing, you have to be a right pleb to loose control in one.

80mph in 5th gear (4000rpm), put your foot down and you can feel the car pushing you back in your seat.. the next thing you know your doing 110mph really easy.

I cant comment on the Feista ST as I havent drove one, but I do think they look funky and the interior is really nice, the stripes are horrid though

Whoever said a VTR would be able to keep up with a 172 on B roads.. are you serious? or are you getting it mixed up with a VTS?

You get used to the harsh ride of the 172/182, its not that bad, but can be quite annoying when you drive on crappy roads

GET THE CLIO!!!!
 
FishThrower said:
Whoever said a VTR would be able to keep up with a 172 on B roads.. are you serious? or are you getting it mixed up with a VTS?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not confusing my old car with a VTS, it was a VTR. And as I said more than a few members of this forum can support my claims :)
 
paradigm said:
No, I'm not confusing my old car with a VTS, it was a VTR. And as I said more than a few members of this forum can support my claims :)
Click to expand...

I simply dont believe that, the Clio drivers must have been crap or your Nigel Mansell
 
FishThrower said:
I have got a 172 and I think its a fantastic car ,you really do need to rev it though to get any serious speed from it (4000rpm + )
Click to expand...

Get your inlet manifold "matched", makes a world of difference imho :)

And I can fully see how a VTR could bother a clio, ok it's never going to trounce it but on a twisty road it's all about how you carry the speed. If you've got bigger balls than the other guy you'll carry more speed through the bends making up for the lack in punch on the exit :P I'd also say that the VTR was nearer th limit than the Clio was in that situation :)
 
FishThrower said:
I simply dont believe that, the Clio drivers must have been crap or your Nigel Mansell
Click to expand...

Careful, Gilly will ban your ass for that ;)

I didn't say I was quicker, just not lagging far behind. Neither of the clio drivers were crap either :)
 
paradigm said:
No, I'm not confusing my old car with a VTS, it was a VTR. And as I said more than a few members of this forum can support my claims :)
Click to expand...

;)

Suppose it depends upon what type of B road, tight twisty B roads would be close. B road with lots of straights then it would be different.

Same with me last weekend with a mate in his st170, twisty not much straights we were evenly matched. When the road went a little straighter it was bye bye me.
 
paradigm said:
Careful, Gilly will ban your ass for that ;)

I didn't say I was quicker, just not lagging far behind. Neither of the clio drivers were crap either :)
Click to expand...
That's the trouble with 'performance' cars. The motoring press will have us believe that there is a world of difference between the various options in the various classes. In the real world, on real roads, the differences are negligible. This applies from the hot hatches of this thread to the current crop of insane supercars.

My advice? Drive all the 'hot hatches' you can afford and buy which ever you like best. Don't rely on some hack, or an internet message board, to tell you how to spend your hard-earned.
 
Citroen Saxo 1.6i VTR

1587cc
4 cylinders
Power: 90bhp
Top Speed: 116mph
0-60: 9.9s
36mpg
iG 7


Renault Clio 172 Cup (what Gilly drives iirc)

1998cc
4 cylinders
172bhp
138mph top speed
0-60 : 6.7s
34mpg
iG 16



I don't care what you say, there's no match between them. The Clio is reknown for it's amazing handling abilitys. I used to *waste* VTR's on the straights and certainly on the bends, but myself get wasted by 172's.


Sorry mate, but there's a bloody big difference between a VTR and a 172/182!
 
Ev0 said:
Nothing to do with a second cam on the Clios, the cams just come "on" at around 5k giving that kick :) The vvt tech on the engine kicks in very low down and it purely for emissions/smooth idle iirc. It's not like a vtec unit.
Click to expand...
Shrug :) *Something* happens around 5k... I just assumed it was the 2nd cam doing it :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom