2000 Renault Clio Sport 172 from UK and Ireland - Comments

Nothing so far.

This car is fantastic. It is barking mad when you get above 4000+ revs, a bit like a baby Impreza Turbo.

The styling is great, it looks good inside, but that engine... Everyone should have one.

I completely agree with this guy, I have had mine for 7 weeks and I love it to bits...

Best thing that I've done in it so far, had a 3 way race with an M3 and an Evo Merc, kicked both their asses!!!

Quality car!!

Yeah I have to admit a 172 is faster than an M3 (Not!!!)

Did your 172 accidently come with an extra 200bhp and you have clearly managed to shave 2 seconds off your 0-60 time, not to mention add about 40mph to your top end.

The guy before didn't say which M3 he toasted, it could've been the older one - around the 7 seconds mark to 60 so therefore he would have toasted it don't you think? As the Clio 172 does the dash in 6.6, it's the hottest hatch you can buy. So there.

Think before you speak - A road race is not about 0-100km/hr and then on to top speed in a straight line. The "172" is easier to hammer off the line and has excellent in gear acceleration. Here's what I mean:

3 cars: Audi S3 / Subaru WRX 2001 / 172

Pull off and hold the 172 at 1500rpm in first, the WRX and S3 hold station at the same speed to the 172, NOW FLOOR IT > S3 pulls ahead, then the 172, then the WRX. S3 stays ahead till it slots 3rd gear, then 172 pulls a car length ahead leaving the WRX in 3rd place. Positions on the road now - 172 1st, S3 2nd, WRX 3rd..

Positions are held till the WRX hits 170km/hr. And it then overtakes the S3 and starts coming on the 172.

We tried the same on road race with the WRX at 3600rpm (its max torque) in 1st gears (all) and the 172 still jumped ahead. Interesting to note the 172 baulks into 3rd when new (under 1500kms), but the shift loosens after that which makes on road results even more noticable.

The turbo cars had a slightly better advantage when repeating this going up a hill, showing its torque advantage.

These "tests" where done between friends, and repeated by 2 different 172's showing consistency of power between 172's. All cars were standard.

These runs where also done at 2000m above sea level where the naturally aspirated cars lost around 15 % power!

Wait till the 172's clock the required 3000km's (odo) to loosen up.

Ray.

I am buying my 172 on the 17th October and I can't wait. I borrowed a 172 for a day and 'wow' is all I have to say. I used to work for a car company delivering Imprezas, 306's, 106's etc and have never driven a car quite like this one. My brother has a Rover 200 BRM and he keeps up around corners to the point that maybe he could have passed me, but on the straights - hmmm.

I had a head-to-head with a BMW 330ci and I couldn't believe that I actually edged past him! Just goes to show that power-to-weight is important, with the 172 having around 167 bhp per tonne. I was extremely impressed by this little monster and am counting the days!!!

I currently own a VW Scirocco and this will be a serious step up in performance for me, let's hope that the build quality will match my VW.

Are there any good performance mods available for the 172? I would like to possibly change that pea-shooter exhaust for something that proves that it has one, also I heard that the rear bumper can melt slightly from this exhaust set up?

Anyway, that's enough rabbiting from me. See you all on the road after Oct 24th!

Si.

What are you on about? "Hold it at the revs and floor it". Not exactly real world is it?

I have been in both a 172 and a WRX and there is no way a 172 can beat a WRX in a straight line. Just read the flipping specs.

172 0-60 in 6.9 seconds

WRX 0-60 in 5.4 seconds.

I have raced 172's in my Integra Type-R and granted if they take me by surprise and I'm not in the V-TEC zone I lose, but when I'm in the zone I leave them for dust.

The 172 has crap gear ratios as well, anything over a 100mph takes an age.

A 172 is a storming little hatch, but that's where its stays, in the hot hatch arena. Stay out of the way of the big boys.

Hey, I realise that you used to own a Golf GTI before this. Is this the 1.8 turbo? Because I'm moving from an Audi A3 turbo to a Renault Clio Sport and am wondering about other things besides performance such as the smoothness and refinement of the engine.

Is the engine quiet at highway cruising at 100kmph? Does it make excessive noise compared to the 1.8t?

Thanks guys.

Hi there Mr. Integra.

I previously worked for a Subaru garage delivering and preparing new and used Impreza Turbos (amongst others) and the WRX Impreza (new shape) is a good, but not as fast as it says. This new shape has lost the in-yer-face turbo 'push' that the previous model had, and the new one gives a smooth power delivery, and just feels much slower. As for a comparison between the 172 and the new WRX - well I have proved it to myself a good friend, and an owner of a new WRX that my 172 can toast it. A young guy, like myself (I'm 21) was driving the WRX, as we raced around the roundabout that leads onto a slip road and onto a dual carriage way. He was in front, I stayed behind him here until we reached the slip road where I was equal with him all the way until the dual carriage way - as I reached 4th gear (flat out) I realised I was gaining on him, and had to use the outside lane - overtaking him whilst changing gear on the rev limiter at 121 mph, slotted my car into 5th and carried on gaining as my friend waved a friendly 'see ya later' through the passenger window. The WRX driver was NOT impressed! but admitted I beat him fair and square. It just goes to show that power to weight is important as the previous guy was saying and YES the 172 can easily mix it with the 'big boys' - EASY!

It would be interesting to race an Integra Type-R, with it being a smaller engine with only 130 lb/ft of torque. The 2.0 172 doesn't have to be caned to get the most out of it, it has more torque (148 lb/ft) and that's where it counts in acceleration. I reckon the race would be VERY close, and in-gear tests would result in Clio moving ahead first. There is a Top Gear review, directly comparing the 172 and the Integra Type-R (mixing with the big boys?!!! ;-) ) and a Ford Racing Puma. They rated the Clio 172 the best out of all 3. Read the review my friend. Even Vicki Butler's verdict was in high favour of the Clio! Yes the Integra has lots of power, but just not enough torque... so please don't go saying that the 172 isn't good, because it blatently is! I think you'd be mighty embarressed in a race my friend, having probably spent considerably much more money on yours than I have spent on mine (came with 1100 miles, no typo and cost me £11,400, it's the 2001 model in silver but not the new shape).

See you on the dual carriageway - if you dare! :-)

Si.

What are these guys talking about?

Road cars are not for racing on roads. Grow up. It is dangerous.

I have a Clio Sport and I like it. When nobody's looking, I like to thrash it through the gears and it is quick, but the beauty of this car is the balance and handling around corners... I can't get it to miss around a corner.

I wish... the wheels had been 16 instead of 15 and the gear change to 3rd was a bit smoother... otherwise, if you can get one go for it.

Previous: 205 GTi Golf GTi both great fun, but this is better.

Some people do speak some rubbish. I think my point is simply That straight line speed is irrelevent as i`m sure any of you 'drivers' will know. Also Whether its got faster top end on a motorway is a silly exercise too. If you really ejoy driving and really want to find out how good a car it is then take it to country roads or the track. The experience of owning a performance car is about all elements, cornering, braking, accelerating, not just about 'it does 0-60 faster than my mates'. If you haven`t learnt that then you don`t deserve to be driving such fine automobiles.

I use to own a Saxo Vts, they are good cars with quite a kick when needed.

I have just ordered a new Renault clio 172 sports cup and I can't wait. This car is meant to be 90 kg's lighter than the current 172 sports, 16 inch alloys and wider.

The specs are 0-60 in 6.5 seconds and a top speed of 138mph, the current 172 sports does it in 6.9 same top speed. The 0-100mph the New clio 172 Cup is also over 2 seconds quicker than the previous model.

All the extra's have been removed, the leather seats, a/c, zenon lights and ABS which makes it lack the comforts. Who cares as this new 172 cup is a rally car.

Trust me get this car, it is a beast and all the magazines have quoted it as pure power, all the magazines say that it would leave the current 172 sports for dead. All of you think that the current 172 is powerful, what the hell will this one be like then. It is meant to handle a lot better to and is cheaper by over £2000, you can't go wrong.

I agree with the guy who thinks everyone's talking rubbish, if you people think driving up and down to see who hits 60 the quickest determines how good a car is then you guys haven't lived, you need to drive proper cars on proper roads. As a guy who's worked for Renault and driven WRX's and M3's (almost insulting to even include these cars in this comment) I can safely say that the Clio - and I'm talking about the 172 Cup - cannot compete. I know I know 0-60 6.9 blah blah, but please do not have the audacity to mention this car in the same breath as the others. Even if the guy at the top of the page is talking about the old M3 it just shows how long it's taken the Clio to reach these speeds while the new M3 has entered super car territory - now this is a beast!!

I know that the M3's are good cars without a doubt, but can you afford £40,000 mate. The point is that you are getting a good car for £12,995 and even subaru's are £22,000. The point is that the specs for the clio cup are good for the price. I am sure that if we all had the money the M3 would be first choice.

I agree that the Clio cup isn't exactly a super car, but for the value it is best of the rest. It is not isulting mentioning the clio cup with the M3'S because the shape from 4 years ago does 0-60 in 5.5seconds the clio cup is a second off which is not too bad.

But I agree as a friend of mine has a M3 nothing can touch this car.

To the guy that mentioned the M3 as the beast at the bottom of the page I agree, but I work for renault so how do you know what the cup drives like as no one will be test driving it until mid September, apart from the people that test it in magazines who know the figures.

You are right you can't compare this car with the likes of M3'S, but you can compare them to Civic type R's and many other hot hatches. It is not about speed and 0-60 etc..

But we have re-designed it for better handling grip and smooth power. I am very sure that people will be satisfied with the new clio. A friend of mine owns a Subaru and claimed that the normal 172 sports kept up with him all the way and was very suprised with the power from this little hot hatch, even round very sharp bends and hard corners and straight line speeds on motorways, so dont be so sure.

The 172 Sports cup will definately shock quite a few people, but both cars are in different leagues.

I would have said you hit the nail on the head and to a certain extent you did, yes the M3 will cost £40,000 + and yes the Renault will cost £12,000 which just goes to show where the Clio belongs and where the M3 is, you also say for £12,000 you are getting good value, but if you read someones comments above (Mr VTS) he says that it hardly comes with anything at all - don't let these sales people fob you off with "it's a rally car so you don't need ABS...", ABS has proven to be one of the most important safety features in motoring today and if people really think the Clio is so fast then I would suggest they consider adding the ABS as an extra. You've then gone on to compare the Clio with the E36 saying it's only one second behind - there you go again solely concentrating on 0-60 times - did you ever consider the fact that the M3 is limited to 155mph which just goes to show how fast the car really is (remove the limiter and your laughing) whereas the Clio will probably take an age to get to the quoted 138mph (and trust me after 100mph it will take an age), the M3 wasn't designed with the 'hot hatches' in mind, these cars tear some models of Porsche to shreds, so what are you going to tell me next - the Clio can now take Porsche's too? Considering that the M3 can be quicker than them and the Clio is "only 1 sec. behind", so again my point being - don't kid yourself into think that the Clio Cup will keep up with the 'big boys', the Clio is a 'hot hatch' with a 'hot hatch' value so that's where it belongs.