| Model year | 2002 |
| Year of manufacture | 2002 |
| First year of ownership | 2003 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2005 |
| Engine and transmission | Automatic |
| Performance marks | 8 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 6 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 9 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 3 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 10 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
7.2 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 1300 kilometres |
| Most recent distance | 45000 kilometres |
| Previous car | Holden Commodore |
Summary:
I love my car, it's cute, classy and comfortable
Faults:
It's been pretty damn good, it was recalled recently, but it wasn't a big deal. When we first got it the airbag light kept coming on, but otherwise it's been fine.
General Comments:
I LOVE MY CAR. It's well appointed, comfy, cute, it picks up so quickly we get 9.2 l/100KM on premium unleaded which is great and it's flexible in seating.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 8th December, 2005
| Model year | 2003 |
| Year of manufacture | 2003 |
| First year of ownership | 2004 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2004 |
| Engine and transmission | 1.4 DOHC Automatic |
| Performance marks | 7 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 8 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 8 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 8 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 10 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
8.2 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 12000 kilometres |
| Most recent distance | 23000 kilometres |
| Previous car | Mitsubishi Lancer |
Summary:
Great little city car very cheap to run
Faults:
A Squeaky seat, new coil under warranty along with computer chip with the auto caused gear change problem.
General Comments:
Great little town car and goes well on the highway also.
Very cheap on fuel even around town and on long trips.
Looks great and goes well for a 1.4 lt.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 22nd November, 2005
| Model year | 2002 |
| Year of manufacture | 2002 |
| First year of ownership | 2004 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2004 |
| Engine and transmission | 2.0 16v Manual |
| Performance marks | 9 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 8 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 8 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 7 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
8.0 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 34000 kilometres |
| Most recent distance | 37000 kilometres |
| Previous car | Honda Civic |
Summary:
A Honey that Handles!
Faults:
A minor issue with an electrical connection under the front passenger seat (Left side). There is a loose wire (s) in the connector causing the airbag warning lamp to alight.
General Comments:
This car has me smiling every time I drive! I cannot believe just how fantastic a drive it is. I seem to find myself making excuses to go for a drive now or taking the long way home.
The engine is a cracker. It purrs and has even more potential than the car comes with in standard form. I have upgraded mine with a "Powerchip" ECU remap and it makes the honey even sweeter.
The cabin is a really comfy place to be. The seats are not overly plush, but have great support and are comfortable over distance.
The steering is pinpoint accurate and the handling is progressive, sporty and gives you bags of feedback.
It is really a gem and I cannot praise the people at Renault more highly for building a true drivers car without cutting corners. For the money it is a league above the competition IMHO.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know
Review Date: 16th September, 2004
| Year of manufacture | 2002 |
| First year of ownership | 2004 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2004 |
| Engine and transmission | 2.0 Manual |
| Performance marks | 9 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 9 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 10 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 5 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 8 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
8.2 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 15000 kilometres |
| Most recent distance | 19000 kilometres |
| Previous car | Nissan Silvia |
Summary:
Go Kart on speed with style
Faults:
Nothing in particular wrong, rough idle & a few rattles, air bag light service light warning. Most dealers play or are dumb need to find a good one.
General Comments:
The car is great value for money. Drove the others in its class, Pug Gti 180, Corolla sportivo, Ford Focus only the Pug came close. neither of the others have the comfort & quality of the Renault. Look at the list of standard features. great performance for an n/a motor although lacks the turbo rush also doesn't have the lag or high maintenance. Loves to be revved & very responsive all round. great handling superb suspension & tyre package..
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know
Review Date: 11th May, 2004
| Year of manufacture | 2001 |
| First year of ownership | 2001 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2003 |
| Engine and transmission | 2.0 petrol Manual |
| Performance marks | 6 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 10 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 10 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 9 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
8.8 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 0 kilometres |
| Most recent distance | 23500 kilometres |
| Previous car | Mitsubishi Lancer |
Summary:
The perfect blend of style, sophistication and silky smooth power delivery
Faults:
The car is running as smoothly as the first day I purchased it.
General Comments:
This is a car that considering it's rather small dimensions can show other manufacturers how to get the right balance of comfort, class and performance.
I am impressed with it's overall fit and finish and enjoy the perfect detailing the brushed alloy dash, pedals and gear knob and the snug velor seats provied for the keen driver.
Perhaps my expectations of the overall performance of the Clio was to high, because to me a small two door hatch with a rather large two litre engine sounds like a match made in heaven. On reflection, and after more time behind the wheel you do understand why the car offers class leading performance.
But my previous Lancer 1.8 GSR turbo, was although less refined, offered more space and a lot more accessible power.
The Clio Sport is great, but personally I feel it falls short behind the Japanese N/A engines such as the Vtec and Mivec motors.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 15th January, 2003
How can you say that? What you are saying is the complete opposite of what actually is. Turbo cars, especially Japanese 2.0 4 cylinder turbo cars like EVO's and Scoobies have much more low down torque, it's the cars like the 172 and vtecs which have to be revved to high heaven to get anything out of them.
And " Japanese 4 cylinder turbos are garbage". When you have a 2.0 172 N/A that can produce 400 bhp from the factory, then you can say turbos are garbage.
I didn't say All Japanese turbo 4's are rubbish. I said all Japanese **NON** turbo 4's are rubbish. Like Honda's N/A, no torque below 6000rpm, VTEC engines. Or Toyota's no torque below 7000rpm 2ZZ-GE.
By the way, no Japanese 4-cylinder engine has ever produced 400bhp from the factory, turbo or N/A. The most powerful 4-cyl they've made is in the current STi, at 296bhp. If you're referring to the EVO FQ400 that is NOT a factory Japanese car. It is modified by a dealer network in the UK - it starts out with 276bhp. And that thing is ultra slow if caught out of boost, it takes the no power to high revs thing to a new level. Watch the Top Gear test where from 30mph in 5th it loses to a 1.6L Fiat Estate thing. The best bit about it is that its not factory stock Mitsubishi, it's a UK dealer special... so your argument is null and void.