DELETED_96987

[TW]Fox;19533287 said:
You seemed to be implying though that the Fiesta was the higher spec car, which it's not.
Click to expand...

Each car has features that the others don't have.

Personally I find the Fiesta to be nicer insider (and outside), that nice factor has little to do with more toys, its more to do with preception (subjective). Plus, I'd take leather seats over Zeon anyway.
 
I think in some respects the Fiesta ST is a slightly better car - in terms of looks and interior. The interior in the Clio 172/182 is a little dull. However, it makes up for it in terms of performance I'd say, and you get a lot of it for what you pay.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Each car has features that the others don't have.

Personally I find the Fiesta to be nicer insider (and outside), that nice factor has little to do with more toys, its more to do with preception (subjective). Plus, I'd take leather seats over Zeon anyway.
Click to expand...

Zeon? And the Clio doesnt have boggo cloth seats either does it? I thought it had half leather/alcantara seats or something? They are hardly a poor relation to the seats used in the Fiesta - infact arguably they could be said to be better as the leather Ford uses is not particularly nice.

I get the impression you don't really seem to know an awful lot about these cars. Which is fine - but then you go on to form opinions based on.. well, I don't even know what?
 
[TW]Fox;19533349 said:
Zeon? And the Clio doesnt have boggo cloth seats either does it? I thought it had half leather/alcantara seats or something? They are hardly a poor relation to the seats used in the Fiesta - infact arguably they could be said to be better as the leather Ford uses is not particularly nice.

I get the impression you don't really seem to know an awful lot about these cars. Which is fine - but then you go on to form opinions based on.. well, I don't even know what?
Click to expand...

You know I meant Xenons....sigh.

Do you like to pick an argument every day or something?

Bottomline is that I find the Clio dull looking inside and out. It could do 0-60 in 2 seconds and corners at 200mph and I would still pass and take the Fiesta given the choice.

Hell, the Clio could have the interior of a Jag and I still wouldn't take one. Because I dont like how it looks on the outside and it would still be French.

That is my opinion. Call it irrational, because it is.

Besides, a LOT OF people, even Clio owners here have agreed that the Fiesta is nicer inside. Why don't you argue with them? Why quote only just me?
 
Because you are the one arguing that the Clio shouldn't be considered because you dont like how it looks and it 'is French'.

Arguing about what car somebody else should buy based almost entirely on subjective factors like that is nonsensical and I'm as entitled to point this out as you are to say it in the first place.

The way some people are posting in this thread is as if the Clio is like a 1981 Renault 5 inside and the Fiesta is trimmed like a Rolls Royce.

In reality both are small, cheap hatchbacks and built like small cheap hatchbacks. None of them offer actual luxury. The Clio is better handling, more fun to drive, faster and better equipped. The Fiesta is slightly better built but lets not get carried away with this because in the grand scheme of things it's still a cheap small town car inside.

None of these cars are well built. If you are going to drive around in a cheap plastic hatchback then you might as well go for the one thats an absolute laugh to throw around unless something particularly appeals to you about the Fiesta :) It's nowhere near as cut and dried as you think it is.
 
Yes but you're basing that on previous ownership experience rather than simply saying 'I don't like French cars'.
 
Depends what he has heard about them though?

Take anything you can buy these days, lets say for arguments sake, a suspension kit as we're in the motors forum. If you read comments from people who have bought this kit which say how rubbish it is, handling wise, etc then your going to listen surely? Ok you may not have experienced the kit yourself but if you've got friends saying bad things about it, your not exactly going to just ignore them and buy one anyway?

I've never driven a French car. Yet because my mate had a 1.2 Clio, I presume that they all have awful interiors and fall apart because his did (obviously I know his could be a one off but I'm trying to make a point). Now if I had the choice of two cars, one being French, I'd find myself thinking what could go wrong.
 
Last edited:
This is also a fair point, however in this instance there's people defending and rating the thing in question rather than everyone slating it.
 
Yes but that depends on what you want from the car though.

The points being raised in this thread are that it's a great handling car which is also rather quick, both of which it does better than the ST, that's 100% clear.

However in Raymond Lin's case, the stories/facts he has heard may have nothing to do with the above points. The power and handling has nothing to do with how the electrics work, which material the body panels are made from (I don't like plastic front wings but that's my personal opinion), etc which going by this thread, it appears are the clios' bad points.

Bringing back my earlier point, people could say the suspension kit is amazing and transforms the car... but it will only last a year before the springs snap or it rusts and falls apart. Would you still buy the item?

If someone had said he wouldn't buy the clio because it was named 'clio' then that would worth the discussion/argument :p

Every thread about the Fiesta ST which has been posted ends up becoming a ST vs. Clio slagging match and I don't understand why. One is an older hot hatch which is a rawer driving experience, the other is a newer, more comfortable & better put together (to a degree, they are both cheap cars at the end of the day) warm hatch. If you want pace and handling, go with the Clio. If you want a nicer all round package then go with the ST.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;19533460 said:
Because you are the one arguing that the Clio shouldn't be considered because you dont like how it looks and it 'is French'.

Arguing about what car somebody else should buy based almost entirely on subjective factors like that is nonsensical and I'm as entitled to point this out as you are to say it in the first place.

The way some people are posting in this thread is as if the Clio is like a 1981 Renault 5 inside and the Fiesta is trimmed like a Rolls Royce.

In reality both are small, cheap hatchbacks and built like small cheap hatchbacks. None of them offer actual luxury. The Clio is better handling, more fun to drive, faster and better equipped. The Fiesta is slightly better built but lets not get carried away with this because in the grand scheme of things it's still a cheap small town car inside.

None of these cars are well built. If you are going to drive around in a cheap plastic hatchback then you might as well go for the one thats an absolute laugh to throw around unless something particularly appeals to you about the Fiesta :) It's nowhere near as cut and dried as you think it is.
Click to expand...

I think we have just had our annual agreement, although i wouldn't class the 182 as well spec'd, aircon, electric mirrors and thats about it :p The interior is pretty plasticy, but its all solid. Seats are lovely but rather uncomfortable. Like i said earlier though, drive the ST, then the clio 182, and anyone will see they are leagues apart from driving experience.
 
JamesM said:
Bringing back my earlier point, people could say the suspension kit is amazing and transforms the car... but it will only last a year before the springs snap or it rusts and falls apart. Would you still buy the item?
Click to expand...

Oh of course not, however my point is that there's plenty of arguments for the thing in question in this instance :)
 
Maccy said:
Oh of course not, however my point is that there's plenty of arguments for the thing in question in this instance :)
Click to expand...

Is that regarding just the interior or the ride comfort as well? Or other things?

I've never been in a 172/182 but the ride with my standard ST was quite harsh IMO. Maybe that's because I came from the C30 straight into an ST but it was very firm but I can't compare that to the clio.

Even if you knew nothing about either cars, if you just spent 5 mins searching for interior images of both cars, you'd see the interior is nicer in the ST.

Note I may drive an ST but I like both cars :p
 
JamesM said:
I've never driven a French car. Yet because my mate had a 1.2 Clio, I presume that they all have awful interiors and fall apart because his did (obviously I know his could be a one off but I'm trying to make a point). Now if I had the choice of two cars, one being French, I'd find myself thinking what could go wrong.
Click to expand...


Well, I have driven a Pug 208 for 2 days in Scotland back in April. It wasn't bad inside, it was slow because it was a 1.2L or something but, it was nice, it was comfortable, but would I buy one? Nope.

When I was growing up my dad had a Renault 16 or something, it had a full leather interior, alloy wheels etc but it was soooo unreliable. Getting into that car and getting my stuff frmo home to uni was a lottery as to whether it would break down on the motorway or not.

Like i said in a previous post, some people I know got food poisoning as a child and since they would never touch chicken. The thought of eating chicken makes their stomach turn. Some people once get stupidly sick on a certain spirit and would never drink that drink again. This is a similar thing here

Is it rational to apply that logic of 1 bad experience to every French car made? Probably not.

Will I take that risk and buy a French car? No. Not where there are all the other cars out there. I would take a bit of performance loss and get the ST any day on that point alone.

Why do you think I got a Yaris? Reputation of reliablity.
 
Maccy said:
Ah, perhaps you missed my earlier post? - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=19533314&postcount=82
Click to expand...

I missed that! We're pretty much on the same wavelength then as that's how I place both cars too. The prices of 172/182's now are very tempting and if wanted a hot hatch then I would be looking at either of those, while keeping the ST as my daily. I've always been a Ford man which is why I ended up getting the ST but I'll admit I didn't look that closely at the Clios when making my choice.

Raymond Lin said:
Well, I have driven a Pug 208 for 2 days in Scotland back in April. It wasn't bad inside, it was slow because it was a 1.2L or something but, it was nice, it was comfortable, but would I buy one? Nope.

When I was growing up my dad had a Renault 16 or something, it had a full leather interior, alloy wheels etc but it was soooo unreliable. Getting into that car and getting my stuff frmo home to uni was a lottery as to whether it would break down on the motorway or not.

Like i said in a previous post, some people I know got food poisoning as a child and since they would never touch chicken. The thought of eating chicken makes their stomach turn. Some people once get stupidly sick on a certain spirit and would never drink that drink again. This is a similar thing here

Is it rational to apply that logic of 1 bad experience to every French car made? Probably not.

Will I take that risk and buy a French car? No. Not where there are all the other cars out there. I would take a bit of performance loss and get the ST any day on that point alone.

Why do you think I got a Yaris? Reputation of reliablity.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point and glad you confirmed what I said :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom