Running costs of a V6 Clio
Discussion
Very tempted to look around for a V6 Clio, but I have a 20k a year commute to work.
I'm therefore trying to get an idea of what the running costs of one are likely to be.
Would a sensible commute be able to better 30mpg from one?
Do they have a particular appetite for anything? tyres? oil? suspension?
Are mechanical parts off the shelf renault? Lots of Laguna at the back isn't there?
Are there any particular reliability / service things to watch out for? Belt interval? Clutch life?
Any stories (better from owners or ex owners) about this car, good and bad, would be appreciated.
I'm therefore trying to get an idea of what the running costs of one are likely to be.
Would a sensible commute be able to better 30mpg from one?
Do they have a particular appetite for anything? tyres? oil? suspension?
Are mechanical parts off the shelf renault? Lots of Laguna at the back isn't there?
Are there any particular reliability / service things to watch out for? Belt interval? Clutch life?
Any stories (better from owners or ex owners) about this car, good and bad, would be appreciated.
I had one of the first new ones in 2002 after a 3 year wait, and had it for about 6000 miles. Never bettered 22mpg because of the lovely sound it makes at high revs!. And you have to drive it to get any performance out of it.
Servicing is due every 12000 miles or 12 months. BIG
service due at 72000 miles, or more likely for most examples, 5 years. This involves new timing belt and plugs. The engine needs to come out to do this 
The Clio V6 is essentially the same engine as is found in the Espace V6. You always change the water pump at this service, as that'll cause the same damage as throwing a cambelt if that goes - and they do! You might also want to take a look at the clutch whilst the engines out.
Other than that nasty, you're quite right, nothing to unusual in the mechanics.
Servicing is due every 12000 miles or 12 months. BIG
service due at 72000 miles, or more likely for most examples, 5 years. This involves new timing belt and plugs. The engine needs to come out to do this The Clio V6 is essentially the same engine as is found in the Espace V6. You always change the water pump at this service, as that'll cause the same damage as throwing a cambelt if that goes - and they do! You might also want to take a look at the clutch whilst the engines out.
Other than that nasty, you're quite right, nothing to unusual in the mechanics.
i have a 255 V6 its not the cheapest commute but not totally horrendous on average with a bit of quick driving and some steady trips to work (60-70mph)i get 25mpg. services are every 12,000 miles or two years which ever comes first reasonably priced until as said above it needs a cambelt then your looking at about £1000.00.
standard tyres are about £700 for a set of michys but there are others and i have been fitting a full set that cost me £300 and are still very capable tyres.
parts can be had from renault and some parts can be bought elsewhere such as discs and pads for more sensible money ie: EBC pads for about £80 instead of £200.
no probs with oil usage etc but if you like traffic light grand prixs or dumping the clutch at high revs you will rip the clutch out in no time as the car has huge grip at the back.
bit of footage from cadwell following my brothers 182 had to lift of on the straights so i could stay behind and get some vid of his car.
www.trackaction-online.co.uk/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/150/cat/500/ppuser/4
standard tyres are about £700 for a set of michys but there are others and i have been fitting a full set that cost me £300 and are still very capable tyres.
parts can be had from renault and some parts can be bought elsewhere such as discs and pads for more sensible money ie: EBC pads for about £80 instead of £200.
no probs with oil usage etc but if you like traffic light grand prixs or dumping the clutch at high revs you will rip the clutch out in no time as the car has huge grip at the back.
bit of footage from cadwell following my brothers 182 had to lift of on the straights so i could stay behind and get some vid of his car.
www.trackaction-online.co.uk/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/150/cat/500/ppuser/4
Just read the old buying guide for these in a back issue of Evo.
The fuel economy is pretty appauling for a small, light (ish) car with a low specific output isn't it. With only 230bhp (mk1) hauling less than 1400kg, I would have thought I should be able to commute at 30mpg easy. My 300bhp M3 weighed more and would average 28-30 during commuter miles.
Why is the clio so poor at this? Low 20's is pathetic in all honesty. Are they really that bad?
The fuel economy is pretty appauling for a small, light (ish) car with a low specific output isn't it. With only 230bhp (mk1) hauling less than 1400kg, I would have thought I should be able to commute at 30mpg easy. My 300bhp M3 weighed more and would average 28-30 during commuter miles.
Why is the clio so poor at this? Low 20's is pathetic in all honesty. Are they really that bad?
mat205125 said:
Just read the old buying guide for these in a back issue of Evo.
The fuel economy is pretty appauling for a small, light (ish) car with a low specific output isn't it. With only 230bhp (mk1) hauling less than 1400kg, I would have thought I should be able to commute at 30mpg easy. My 300bhp M3 weighed more and would average 28-30 during commuter miles.
Why is the clio so poor at this? Low 20's is pathetic in all honesty. Are they really that bad?
The fuel economy is pretty appauling for a small, light (ish) car with a low specific output isn't it. With only 230bhp (mk1) hauling less than 1400kg, I would have thought I should be able to commute at 30mpg easy. My 300bhp M3 weighed more and would average 28-30 during commuter miles.
Why is the clio so poor at this? Low 20's is pathetic in all honesty. Are they really that bad?
Yup.
They are hugely flawed, yet inexplicably appealling. Why is that?
i think its just that i am trying to talk real world i have seen 34mpg from my 255hp mk2 and can manage to do 30mpg if i take it steady but as a sensible average i would say 25mpg is about right.
on evo they had an M3 as a run about and there figures for a months motoring in an M3 are.
MPG this month: 24.9
on evo they had an M3 as a run about and there figures for a months motoring in an M3 are.
MPG this month: 24.9
stoneyV6 said:
i think its just that i am trying to talk real world i have seen 34mpg from my 255hp mk2 and can manage to do 30mpg if i take it steady but as a sensible average i would say 25mpg is about right.
on evo they had an M3 as a run about and there figures for a months motoring in an M3 are.
MPG this month: 24.9
on evo they had an M3 as a run about and there figures for a months motoring in an M3 are.
MPG this month: 24.9
I ran both a V6 and then an M3 in EVO. Average over a year or so's ownership was I think 19ish mpg for the Clio and around 25mpg for the BMW (over a shorter period). Ridiculous really given the M3 was the more powerful AND heavier car. I have a MK2 V6 as a runabout at the mo. Not very fast, ok(ish) handling but I love it more than my 997GT3 - go figure!
Edited by Pugsey on Tuesday 22 May 08:23
interesting results,,, evo again had a clio V6 mk1 long term test vehicle so I would imagine similar driver and roads and tested in a similar manner and they achieved as an average over the month.
Clio V6-MPG this month: 22.5
M3 - mpg this month 24.9
so certainly the M3 is better but not by such a huge margin and as I said from the start the V6 is not the cheapest commuter slow`ish certainly in the wrong hands.
love the M3 all of them got a BM myself but i just enjoy the V6 more.
Clio V6-MPG this month: 22.5
M3 - mpg this month 24.9
so certainly the M3 is better but not by such a huge margin and as I said from the start the V6 is not the cheapest commuter slow`ish certainly in the wrong hands.
love the M3 all of them got a BM myself but i just enjoy the V6 more.
stoneyV6 said:
interesting results,,, evo again had a clio V6 mk1 long term test vehicle so I would imagine similar driver and roads and tested in a similar manner and they achieved as an average over the month.
Clio V6-MPG this month: 22.5
M3 - mpg this month 24.9
so certainly the M3 is better but not by such a huge margin and as I said from the start the V6 is not the cheapest commuter slow`ish certainly in the wrong hands.
love the M3 all of them got a BM myself but i just enjoy the V6 more.
Clio V6-MPG this month: 22.5
M3 - mpg this month 24.9
so certainly the M3 is better but not by such a huge margin and as I said from the start the V6 is not the cheapest commuter slow`ish certainly in the wrong hands.
love the M3 all of them got a BM myself but i just enjoy the V6 more.
Yep - same driver (and owner) for both cars - me. That was just one month. As I posted earlier average over total ownership periods for both cars was approx. Clio 19mpg, BM 25mpg. As also posted the Clio really isn't that quick, but still in some ways my favourite amongst the various cars I've owned.
Edited by Pugsey on Saturday 19th May 18:00
Edited by Pugsey on Saturday 19th May 18:01
evo`s tests were long term over many months that is just one month many more the same. i prefer to use there figures as they seem to be more realistic and are nearer to the results i have found over two years of ownership.
as i said in the wrong hands it can seem slow i have had my vee on track and have yet to come across another vee driven quickly. seems the car does attract rather alot of posers who can only manage the straight line thing and from that draw the wrong conclusion.
M3 over 8 months mpg = 24.7mpg
clio v6 over 12 months mpg = 23.5mpg
as tested by evo so i assume a reasonably fair and honest test and the gap dont seem to big to me.
as i said in the wrong hands it can seem slow i have had my vee on track and have yet to come across another vee driven quickly. seems the car does attract rather alot of posers who can only manage the straight line thing and from that draw the wrong conclusion.
M3 over 8 months mpg = 24.7mpg
clio v6 over 12 months mpg = 23.5mpg
as tested by evo so i assume a reasonably fair and honest test and the gap dont seem to big to me.
Edited by stoneyV6 on Saturday 19th May 18:32
stoneyV6 said:
evo`s tests were long term over many months that is just one month many more the same. i prefer to use there figures as they seem to be more realistic and are nearer to the results i have found over two years of ownership.
as i said in the wrong hands it can seem slow i have had my vee on track and have yet to come across another vee driven quickly. seems the car does attract rather alot of posers who can only manage the straight line thing and from that draw the wrong conclusion.
M3 over 8 months mpg = 24.7mpg
clio v6 over 12 months mpg = 23.5mpg
as tested by evo so i assume a reasonably fair and honest test and the gap dont seem to big to me.
as i said in the wrong hands it can seem slow i have had my vee on track and have yet to come across another vee driven quickly. seems the car does attract rather alot of posers who can only manage the straight line thing and from that draw the wrong conclusion.
M3 over 8 months mpg = 24.7mpg
clio v6 over 12 months mpg = 23.5mpg
as tested by evo so i assume a reasonably fair and honest test and the gap dont seem to big to me.
Edited by stoneyV6 on Saturday 19th May 18:32
err, it was my V6 MK1 in the EVO Longtermers section and my M3. and I don't remember the MK1 achieving that average fig. over the year. Mind you my memory is crap - I'll have to dig out the 'End of Term Report'. Maybe that's the MK2 fig - EVO also had one of those on the fleet after my car. I've taken both versions to their limits on track (currently have a MK2) and whilst certainly not slow neither are they particularly quick. Lap times are about on a par with a Clio Trophy in fact. However I repeat that even including my 997GT3 the ClioV6 remains one of my favourite cars. Oh and for what it's worth my MK2 has so far averaged 21mpg over two months and 2000 mixed miles.
PS. Right, I've dug out the Longtermers 'End of Term Report' that I wrote (issue 054 April 03) on my MK1 which records an average mpg over 16 months of 21.9 so it looks as if you are quoting the MK2 end of term and that does look like an improvement over the old car. I can't find the issue at the mo. but we back to backed my car with a Clio Cup racer and a 172 Sport at Bedford and the sequential gearboxed racer cleared off leaving my MK1 two tenths faster than the 172. The MK1 really did have 'challenging' handling (but fun) and whilst still not top notch things have certainly improved with the MK2. Still not as quick as the current crop of really hot hatches however. Whatever the ultimate mpg figs are IMO they're terrible when you consider that the much more powerful, faster and heavier M3 betters them. Even my old 997S was no worse for heavens sake! However the Clio somehow gets under your skin in such a way as to make this matter not one jot.
Edited by Pugsey on Saturday 19th May 19:26
errr,,i think you will find its your memory even a mk1 did better than 19mpg very odd that you cant remember that.
again quicker than a trophy on track, but the trophy is a quick car on track also not slow`ish. its limits your limits who knows and tbh i dont really care in its range the car is quick`ish not slow`ish.
also i would rather drive the clio much more fun but then i dont change cars like shoes i buy what i know i want and tend to keep them.
again quicker than a trophy on track, but the trophy is a quick car on track also not slow`ish. its limits your limits who knows and tbh i dont really care in its range the car is quick`ish not slow`ish.
also i would rather drive the clio much more fun but then i dont change cars like shoes i buy what i know i want and tend to keep them.
stoneyV6 said:
errr,,i think you will find its your memory even a mk1 did better than 19mpg very odd that you cant remember that.
again quicker than a trophy on track, but the trophy is a quick car on track also not slow`ish. its limits your limits who knows and tbh i dont really care in its range the car is quick`ish not slow`ish.
also i would rather drive the clio much more fun but then i dont change cars like shoes i buy what i know i want and tend to keep them.
again quicker than a trophy on track, but the trophy is a quick car on track also not slow`ish. its limits your limits who knows and tbh i dont really care in its range the car is quick`ish not slow`ish.
also i would rather drive the clio much more fun but then i dont change cars like shoes i buy what i know i want and tend to keep them.
Sorry mate see my PS added while you were typing. BTW times at Bedford achieved by top Clio racer.
so there you go not 19 nor as someone posted earlier is the BMW achieving 28-30 so suddenly just as I had said the gap aint so big is it in all honesty.
now I could have told you from the begining that the bm would be better because its a more up to date engine and I would guess its aero dynamics are some what better.
now as for its abilities I was talking about the mk2 which went out of production in 2005 and at the time for the money seemed as capable as any hot hatch on the market. so if one does beat it by a micro second per lap does that make it slow`ish I think not these and many of the top hot hatches are not slow`ish.
on the commute in a mk2 driving at legal speeds up to 70mph i can easily achieve 28 - 30mpg,, can and have i did not make the claim because as i said its not real world.
now I could have told you from the begining that the bm would be better because its a more up to date engine and I would guess its aero dynamics are some what better.
now as for its abilities I was talking about the mk2 which went out of production in 2005 and at the time for the money seemed as capable as any hot hatch on the market. so if one does beat it by a micro second per lap does that make it slow`ish I think not these and many of the top hot hatches are not slow`ish.
on the commute in a mk2 driving at legal speeds up to 70mph i can easily achieve 28 - 30mpg,, can and have i did not make the claim because as i said its not real world.
stoneyV6 said:
so there you go not 19 nor as someone posted earlier is the BMW achieving 28-30 so suddenly just as I had said the gap aint so big is it in all honesty.
now I could have told you from the begining that the bm would be better because its a more up to date engine and I would guess its aero dynamics are some what better.
now as for its abilities I was talking about the mk2 which went out of production in 2005 and at the time for the money seemed as capable as any hot hatch on the market. so if one does beat it by a micro second per lap does that make it slow`ish I think not these and many of the top hot hatches are not slow`ish.
on the commute in a mk2 driving at legal speeds up to 70mph i can easily achieve 28 - 30mpg,, can and have i did not make the claim because as i said its not real world.
now I could have told you from the begining that the bm would be better because its a more up to date engine and I would guess its aero dynamics are some what better.
now as for its abilities I was talking about the mk2 which went out of production in 2005 and at the time for the money seemed as capable as any hot hatch on the market. so if one does beat it by a micro second per lap does that make it slow`ish I think not these and many of the top hot hatches are not slow`ish.
on the commute in a mk2 driving at legal speeds up to 70mph i can easily achieve 28 - 30mpg,, can and have i did not make the claim because as i said its not real world.
Yes you're quite right I was wrong in remembering that the fuel consumption of a car I owned over four years ago was "19ish" rather than the correct 21.9mpg. Despite going to the trouble of double checking and immediately highlighting this monstrous crime I'm sure I still deserve birching! In trying to come up with some info. for both you and the original poster I seem to have touched a nerve with you for some reason and ended up on the recieving end of a fair bit of sarcasm. Keep on enjoying what I have repeatedly said is a great little car.
Final comment for original poster re reliabilty, my MK1 got soundly thrashed for 16 months as EVO Longtermers do and was utterly reliable. Only had the MK2 a short while but that's behaving itself too! EVO's MK2 Longtermer proved very reliable as well.
Edited by Pugsey on Saturday 19th May 20:35
now come on pugsey thats just not nice or fair i cam promise you that you have not touched a nerve and that all i tried to do was post the truth and be honest and give a fair reflextion of the v6.
i suppose to expect you to correct your figures and give the clio a chance in a more reasonable manor was just to much to ask maybe its that you have an axe to grind.
anyway sorry if its all been a little to upsetting for you and you feel you must take the football home,, i promise i wont loose any sleep.
as i said in reply to the original post the clio is not the cheapest commute but it is a dam fine car.
"Yes you're quite right " i know i am but if i was wrong i would have been a big enough man to say so in the proper manner, and as someone who reckons he knows about these cars so should you.
also how is it your very quick to say the V6 does not return an average of 25 but can only manage 19 (which we know by your own data is wrong) but say nothing when the BMW is said to make 30 but in reality only makes 24.7 (again your data).
does make me wonder at the accuracy of evo reports when the facts (your own data) are so quickly twisted around in order to try make a point then when beaten by your own data you throw the toys out of the pram like a screaming 2 year old.
i suppose to expect you to correct your figures and give the clio a chance in a more reasonable manor was just to much to ask maybe its that you have an axe to grind.
anyway sorry if its all been a little to upsetting for you and you feel you must take the football home,, i promise i wont loose any sleep.
as i said in reply to the original post the clio is not the cheapest commute but it is a dam fine car.
"Yes you're quite right " i know i am but if i was wrong i would have been a big enough man to say so in the proper manner, and as someone who reckons he knows about these cars so should you.
also how is it your very quick to say the V6 does not return an average of 25 but can only manage 19 (which we know by your own data is wrong) but say nothing when the BMW is said to make 30 but in reality only makes 24.7 (again your data).
does make me wonder at the accuracy of evo reports when the facts (your own data) are so quickly twisted around in order to try make a point then when beaten by your own data you throw the toys out of the pram like a screaming 2 year old.
Edited by stoneyV6 on Saturday 19th May 21:09
Edited by stoneyV6 on Sunday 20th May 09:39
stoneyV6 said:
now come on pugsey thats just not nice or fair i cam promise you that you have not touched a nerve and that all i tried to do was post the truth and be honest and give a fair reflextion of the v6.
i suppose to expect you to correct your figures and give the clio a chance in a more reasonable manor was just to much to ask maybe its that you have an axe to grind.
anyway sorry if its all been a little to upsetting for you and you feel you must take the football home,, i promise i wont loose any sleep.
as i said in reply to the original post the clio is not the cheapest commute but it is a dam fine car.
"Yes you're quite right " i know i am but if i was wrong i would have been a big enough man to say so in the proper manner, and as someone who reckons he knows about these cars so should you.
also how is it your very quick to say the V6 does not return an average of 25 but can only manage 19 (which we know by your own data is wrong) but say nothing when the BMW is said to make 30 but in reality only makes 24.7 (again your data).
does make me wonder at the accuracy of evo reports when the facts (your own data) are so quickly twisted around in order to try make a point then when beaten by your own data you throw the toys out of the pram like a screaming 2 year old.
i suppose to expect you to correct your figures and give the clio a chance in a more reasonable manor was just to much to ask maybe its that you have an axe to grind.
anyway sorry if its all been a little to upsetting for you and you feel you must take the football home,, i promise i wont loose any sleep.
as i said in reply to the original post the clio is not the cheapest commute but it is a dam fine car.
"Yes you're quite right " i know i am but if i was wrong i would have been a big enough man to say so in the proper manner, and as someone who reckons he knows about these cars so should you.
also how is it your very quick to say the V6 does not return an average of 25 but can only manage 19 (which we know by your own data is wrong) but say nothing when the BMW is said to make 30 but in reality only makes 24.7 (again your data).
does make me wonder at the accuracy of evo reports when the facts (your own data) are so quickly twisted around in order to try make a point then when beaten by your own data you throw the toys out of the pram like a screaming 2 year old.
Edited by stoneyV6 on Saturday 19th May 21:09
Edited by stoneyV6 on Sunday 20th May 09:39
Again why the sarcasm? As soon as I could I checked my facts, even dug out my old Longterm report and very happily highlighted the huge difference between my poor old memory of figs (which in my first post I made very clear were 'from memory') from four years ago - "19ish mpg." - and the correct fig. 21.9mpg. I also highlighted the correct data re. the M3's consumption - not that I made the 30mpg claim anyway. I think I've talked about the Clio in a very reasonable manner. I've made it clear I absolutely love them - I've gone out and bought another despite already owning what some people would see as 'better' cars. Despite my affection for them I can however see their faults and poor fuel consumption is IMO one of them along with poor (MK1)to improved but still not brilliant (MK2) handling and only average performance for a £26k car compared with other cars in or below that price bracket in 2005. At £17k or so secondhand the MK2 is a blinding buy for it's presence and rarity value alone. It's also immense fun and whatever other cars come and go I'm hanging on to mine.
Any old how, I'm sure others reading our exchange will draw their own conclusions as to whether I have been fair and honest - if they've managed to stay awake!
Edited by Pugsey on Sunday 20th May 10:05
oh here we go your point was lost on your own data so now you try and twist it all around rather than be fair and honest.
funny how you quote the mk1 figures wrong consistently till I drag them out into the open funny how you spot instantly that I quote the mk2 figures and you know to the decimal point yet say nothing about the claimed 30mpg from an M3.
why as someone who should know better were you so quick to post inaccurate data I don't normally quote figures from mags I know why now.
pugsey just be fair and honest and stop trying to pick a fight with me.
funny how you quote the mk1 figures wrong consistently till I drag them out into the open funny how you spot instantly that I quote the mk2 figures and you know to the decimal point yet say nothing about the claimed 30mpg from an M3.
why as someone who should know better were you so quick to post inaccurate data I don't normally quote figures from mags I know why now.
pugsey just be fair and honest and stop trying to pick a fight with me.
stoneyV6 said:
oh here we go your point was lost on your own data so now you try and twist it all around rather than be fair and honest.
funny how you quote the mk1 figures wrong consistently till I drag them out into the open funny how you spot instantly that I quote the mk2 figures and you know to the decimal point yet say nothing about the claimed 30mpg from an M3.
why as someone who should know better were you so quick to post inaccurate data I don't normally quote figures from mags I know why now.
pugsey just be fair and honest and stop trying to pick a fight with me.
funny how you quote the mk1 figures wrong consistently till I drag them out into the open funny how you spot instantly that I quote the mk2 figures and you know to the decimal point yet say nothing about the claimed 30mpg from an M3.
why as someone who should know better were you so quick to post inaccurate data I don't normally quote figures from mags I know why now.
pugsey just be fair and honest and stop trying to pick a fight with me.
Think you must have been reading posts other than mine mate to be frank. Sorry you're so upset although I don't understand why. The sun's out and I'm off for a blatt. Bye.
Gassing Station | French Bred | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff