Clio 197
- Thread starter Ev0
- Start date
, with all this electrical gubbins god knows how they would manage that!
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,158
Trickle said:
Can't remember the exact weight of my 172 but they arn't that much heavier.
mrk1@1 said:
The onset of middle age can strike at any time and much younger than you might think! Would suggest asking the volvo dealer if they could recommend a gynecologist for an early testicular cancer screening whilst you are at it. My friend does discounts for Volvo customers afaik.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,158
Trickle said:
LOL: Already had an S60 for a while this year. Tweed Cap for the win tbh
cymatty said:Yes but the 147 gta is a steaming pile of poop in the handling department, which is the clios strongest point.
No need to over-exagerate. Still got 4 stars in EVO and in a group test they preferred it to the Focus RS. So its not that bad
Besides, like I pointed out before, there would not be that much of a weight difference between the 2 different engines.
As far as I'm aware the Meggy225 engine isn't the same as the one's found in RS-Clio's & I don't know of any conversions. I imagine it's more cost-effective to bolt-your-own-turbo to a Clio if you wanted to hit 225 bhp.
In the article between the 147GTA & Focus RS, they were using the 'aggressive LSD' tweaked press-cars from Ford. If they re-ran the test using production examples, the RS would wipe the floor, easily. I even believe it would give there favourite hatch - Golf GTI a beatiing...
In the article between the 147GTA & Focus RS, they were using the 'aggressive LSD' tweaked press-cars from Ford. If they re-ran the test using production examples, the RS would wipe the floor, easily. I even believe it would give there favourite hatch - Golf GTI a beatiing...
Ive been in the 1.4 and 1.6 version of this clio, cant say i was impressed. Not as powerful as the previous clio, the 1.4 was very limp in comparison to the one ma dads got, the 1.6 a bit better but still felt heavy and bloated.
It is a bigger car, but not by much, and for the price tags, its worth paying the little extra for the megane.
It is a bigger car, but not by much, and for the price tags, its worth paying the little extra for the megane.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,158
Parkers review of the 197 here http://www.parkers.co.uk/choosing/carreviews/review.aspx?model_id=1515
136 mph top speed and with six gears is poor. Fuel economy is down to 31 mpg which is poor.
Looks like the 172/182 imo although now a bit dated was the better car.
Pretty dissapointed tbh, although I would like to test drive one it just seems to be falling in an area of its own. Somewhere between the Fiesta St and the Leon FR/Cupra, Octavia VRs
136 mph top speed and with six gears is poor. Fuel economy is down to 31 mpg which is poor.
Looks like the 172/182 imo although now a bit dated was the better car.
Pretty dissapointed tbh, although I would like to test drive one it just seems to be falling in an area of its own. Somewhere between the Fiesta St and the Leon FR/Cupra, Octavia VRs
Last edited:
Coco said:
The Clio and the Megane both use iterations of the same F4R engine which is avaliable in different Renaults in about 4 or 5 different states of tune from around 130hp to 225hp.
There are turbo conversions avaliable for the 172/182 engine but your looking to be spending around £4k on it.
Apparently the 225 engine will fit the clio, its the gearbox that won't.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 3,312
the megane 225's are growing on me actually! totally off topic, anyone on here got one?
Evo, now they have their own scales, are weighing cars like they are supposed to be weighed under recent (last 5 years or so) EU guidelines.Ev0 said:
Which is with 69?Kg driver and 90% full fuel tank. So modern manufacturers - mainstream at least - recent car weights are likely to be by this method and are not likely comparable with quotes pre 2000.
And anyone who thinks the old clio was <1000Kg is smoking gange.