1996 Renault Clio Reviews - Page 4 of 10

1996 Renault Clio RT 1.4 petrol from UK and Ireland

Model year1996
Year of manufacture1996
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 1.4 petrol Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired70000 miles
Most recent distance89000 miles
Previous carNissan Sunny

Summary:

Great runner in a smart looking package

Faults:

Rear wheel bearing and alternator went this year, but apart from service stuff, this car has been a gem.

Strange leak from around the interior light console.

My son had a 1.2 and the difference is immense. The RT 1.4 is a much more sure-footed animal.

I am thinking of putting it on blocks and re-furbing it over the winter.

General Comments:

Lovely driver, wider tyres make a big difference to performance.

Fuel consumption is poor around town, but OK on the open road.

A bit ordinary inside.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 11th October, 2008

1996 Renault Clio 16v 1.8 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1996
First year of ownership2007
Most recent year of ownership2007
Engine and transmission 1.8 Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.8 / 10
Distance when acquired125000 miles
Most recent distance130000 miles
Previous carFord Focus

Summary:

Nippy, Raucous and Fun

Faults:

Nothing has went wrong with the car apart from the handbrake snapping, but that was easily fixed for £17.

Just a couple of faults when I bought it, such as the oil temp gauge does not work and heater fan stops working sometimes.

The fan problem I have fixed just a burnt out plug.

General Comments:

I am very happy with the car a few niggles when I bought it, but other than that it his has been fine.

I paid £1180 for it which I thought was a good price for one of the last ones made.

It came with a good service history and you can tell by how smooth the engine is and indeed how quiet it is.

Obviously Renaults are known for their unreliability and this model is no exception from the experiences I have heard. What I think is very important with the Valver is that you get one which has been serviced well with as little owners as possible. I have one and it is makes a big difference, they are out there so be patient.

My car is lowered by 40mm which is more than enough as the ride is rock hard, pot holes and other road deficiencies make for uncomfortable driving.

It has leather interior which is spot on, I am told everytime someone is in the car how comfortable the leather is. I would certainly recommend adding this to you specifications when looking for Valver!

The interior is not as bad as you would think if you have only seen pictures on websites. I was concerned that it would look too grey and dull, but together with the leather and the black dash top it does not look so bad.

With the flared arches and the bonnet scoop the car looks how it drives, raucous and very able. The car gets looks everywhere it goes, the ladies love it, if that is important to you ;)

Handling is the part of the car you appreciate more than anything else, with mine being lowered there is no problems with cornering. The car stays solid and tight no matter what camber of road on any tight corner.

Brakes are up to the job, probably a little to small for most people who like good brakes on thier car, but will be no hassle buying uprated discs and pads for optimum performance.

Renault seem to do well at producing engines that for their capacity provide decent bhp and this one is no exception. 137 from a 1.8 16v is good considering 1.8 engines from the likes of Vauxhall and Ford produce 115bhp.

I am no young boy racer and I am really a Ford man having previously owned an Escort RS Turbo a couple of other escorts and a Focus, so I will offer a honest view on its performance.

Honestly the engine is great, but it is not as quick and fast as most people make out. 140 MPH is ludicrous in this car for one the doors would probably blow out, even at 100mph it can feel unstable. 0-60 comes in at 8.5 seconds on a flat road, I would say the performance is about the same as the RS Turbo. The good thing with the engine is how revvy it is, pulling well in all gears right to the limiter. Saxo VTS and 106 GTI's are more than a match for the clio so dont buy one if it is to beat them cos you will be dissapointed. I dont like saxos but the 106 GTI is a great little car as my sister has one, it out performs the Valver both in handling and performance. None of these however looks better than the Valver and for me overall it comes out on top.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 5th March, 2007

12th Mar 2007, 09:51

Valver is just what owners of the 1.8 16v Clio call their cars. Valver in relation to 16V V=Valve=Valver.

4th Apr 2007, 09:50

Yeah mate is near enough, only got a Filter and a backbox, I'm no where near beating VTS's and Gti's. Pay day its getting serviced and soon a de-cat see if that helps.

Average review marks: 7.0 / 10, based on 33 reviews