My trusty Renaultsport Clio 172 has made it to..

[ge0rge]

200k and has had nothing more than standard consumable items/regular servicing keeping her going. I did have the clutch replaced, not because it was slipping but because the spring had broke and it was excessively heavy to depress..

A real testament to these French hot hatches, i'm not sure if many could report this sort of mileage or indeed, concur about its reliability. But mine has never missed a beat and still pulls strong today, a thorn in mr 2.0 tdi's side !

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/24/0qg1.jpg/

Here's to the next X miles... I'm actually kinda hoping she breaks soon giving me justification to get a new motor .

[Hoygo]

That's very impressive,they have very strong engines,once again shows these cars are reliable if maintained right,i keep my ph1 172 because it's maintained well and over 120k i can hardly find an unmolested one if a sell it,i know another 172 with over 200k miles still on the original clutch and has not had a simple life at all,great cars.

[C2james]

thats pretty good, my clio 197 is on 90K now.

[GrumpyTwig]

That's good going, I do wonder if the added weight and therefore load on the newer cars might mean they don't manage such high mileage.

Well done on a no doubt well maintained car though.

[exgtt]

Congrats, the clutches in these are strong! How is the gearbox doing, do you change the box oil frequently?

[ge0rge]

Cheers !
Gearbox is fine, a bit slack but its always been like that tbh.

[Technomatt]

Nice engines for wear and high mileage durability is the old FART.

Renault hung in a bit too long with it in the Clio RS though and should have made the leap to the more efficient 1.6 Turbo years ago from the underpowered and juicy F4RT.

Regarding the extra chassis weight on the later applications of the engine, about 100kg extra in the 197/200 will have no real effect on engine life. Most of the engine wear will be due to other factors.

[GrumpyTwig]

Technomatt said:

Nice engines for wear and high mileage durability is the old FART.

Renault hung in a bit too long with it in the Clio RS though and should have made the leap to the more efficient 1.6 Turbo years ago from the underpowered and juicy F4RT.

Regarding the extra chassis weight on the later applications of the engine, about 100kg extra in the 197/200 will have no real effect on engine life. Most of the engine wear will be due to other factors.

The Clio engine is just an F4R. The T or t is the give away btw that it's not NA

[exgtt]

Any of the Clio sports would have been amazing with the f4rt from the factory, the f4r did a good job in the 1*2/197 though IMO.

[Technomatt]

GrumpyTwig said:

The Clio engine is just an F4R. The T or t is the give away btw that it's not NA

I know, it's been a good lump in both the Clio and Megane in various guises for years.

[Technomatt]

exgtt said:

Any of the Clio sports would have been amazing with the f4rt from the factory, the f4r did a good job in the 1*2/197 though IMO.

Or if they had dropped in something like the new efficient RS Clio 1.6 Turbo motor.

[exgtt]

I'm getting 34mpg in my 172 cup, I'm pleased with that. Been thrashed mercilessly for 110k miles too and the engine laps it up. Still on original box/clutch/driveshafts/engine.

[ge0rge]

I get 43 mpg on the way to work all week, then when im having fun - 26-33. Not bad id say.

[exgtt]

Have you had it mapped? I used the rs tuner, whilst it didn't add much peak power, it has really beefed up and smoothed the midrange. I've swapped maps back to standard a few times and the car felt broke on the standard map. Well worth it.

[RCBRG]

i dont believe it. french cars are rubbish, unreliable and you'd have to be completely mad to consider buying one

200k is great going, if my 172 is still going in another 125k miles, i'll be pretty chuffed (and quite amazed too i reckon!)

[ge0rge]

exgtt said:

Have you had it mapped? I used the rs tuner, whilst it didn't add much peak power, it has really beefed up and smoothed the midrange. I've swapped maps back to standard a few times and the car felt broke on the standard map. Well worth it.

No running standard map, i dont think its worth pumping a few hundred into something to smooth it all out really(maybe 180k ago i should have investigated it ), i plan to get a new car in 6 or so months and hope the clio lasts the winter

Edited by ge0rge on Sunday 18th August 20:57

[matt1269]

Technomatt said:

Or if they had dropped in something like the new efficient RS Clio 1.6 Turbo motor.

I wouldn't have bought my 200 if it had a silly 1.6 turbo engine in it.
This might be news to you, but some people don't care about MPGeeeees and prefer NA over boosted.

[ge0rge]

matt1269 said:

I wouldn't have bought my 200 if it had a silly 1.6 turbo engine in it.
This might be news to you, but some people don't care about MPGeeeees and prefer NA over boosted.

Does the 1.6 give massive difference in terms of mpg over the 2.0 then?

[matt1269]

ge0rge said:

Does the 1.6 give massive difference in terms of mpg over the 2.0 then?

I don't know of anyone that actually has one yet!

[GrumpyTwig]

ge0rge said:

matt1269 said:

I wouldn't have bought my 200 if it had a silly 1.6 turbo engine in it.
This might be news to you, but some people don't care about MPGeeeees and prefer NA over boosted.

Does the 1.6 give massive difference in terms of mpg over the 2.0 then?

40mpg combined in the Juke, quick google gives 44mpg combined for the Clio. I'd guess real word 35? I know a couple people with them but I don't think there is or will be many on the road.

The old F4r in the 200 got high 20's for most, mine sat around 24mpg as it was mostly urban use. Much lower than on the 1*2s due to extra weight, though they actually had a similar power to weight ration despite it.