Clio 200 - enough grunt?
Discussion
I am currently driving a 1.7 Puma and thinking of getting a Clio 200 (with cup chassis). Not had the chance to test drive one yet, although I have tested a 197 - however didn't really get chance to open it up on the test drive.
Any comments on the power/torque of the Clio 200? Will it be a fair step up from the Puma or will I be left feeling a bit underwhelmed? I'm not expecting masses of torque or power, but would like a reasonable increase from the Puma.
Cheers
Any comments on the power/torque of the Clio 200? Will it be a fair step up from the Puma or will I be left feeling a bit underwhelmed? I'm not expecting masses of torque or power, but would like a reasonable increase from the Puma.
Cheers
Hi I had a 197 for 8 months! To get the best out of it you have to thrash the nuts out of it. There is a shift light on the dash to help you LOL!
I found this to much to live with and got rid
Nice car for what it is! Good fun but thats about it
I found this to much to live with and got rid
Nice car for what it is! Good fun but thats about it
Edited by GT Kevin on Saturday 3rd April 17:40
There's nothing wrong with the torque levels even in the 197, unless you like driving around such that your revs are always under 2k rpm.
The peak torque in the 200 is the same,and the curves are the same AFAIK as the 197 apart from under 3k.
Put it this way, if you're just driving a typical journey there's enough poke from 2k to not be an issue. If you want to tater it then there's plenty of torque further up.
If you expect to drive it like a turbo (petrol or diesel) by leaving it in a high gear at low revs and then expect it to go like stink then you'll be disappointed. It's an old fashioned high revving n/a petrol engine which no one else seems to like driving anymore.
The peak torque in the 200 is the same,and the curves are the same AFAIK as the 197 apart from under 3k.
Put it this way, if you're just driving a typical journey there's enough poke from 2k to not be an issue. If you want to tater it then there's plenty of torque further up.
If you expect to drive it like a turbo (petrol or diesel) by leaving it in a high gear at low revs and then expect it to go like stink then you'll be disappointed. It's an old fashioned high revving n/a petrol engine which no one else seems to like driving anymore.
You won't be disappointed by the 200. It's the absolute pick of the range (well, the R26R would win by a mile if they were still for sale). I back to backed the 200 Cup, 250Cup and Twingo at Silverstone last week and the Clio is by far the standout of the range. It's an absolute tarmac weapon on road and track and a worthy step up from the Puma (i went from a Puma to a 182). IMHO it's worth going for the Recaros, but opinions are split on FF vs Cup. I'd go for the Cup, but i don't use my car everyday, so could live with the stiffer suspension.
Rs2oo said:
I bought a new 200 - full fat with cup chassis 3 weeks ago. You have to rev it to get it to go like a VVTi Toyota/Honda. Straight line speed is not the point in a 200, its the handling. Once you have the revs up, its a quick car.
Not quite the same as a Honda...TBH, I've driven the 200 on track alongside Rob Barff and had one for 4days on the road and wasn't impressed. The ABS / Stability control is good, but the seats do not hold you, the clutch/brakes have limited feel and the engine doesn't have enough torque, revs and lacks responsiveness...It's awfully uneconomical too, off the circuit I had to drive extremely carefully to get over 38mpg and it's far too stiff for the roads in my opinion.
It's a great car for the money, but I prefer the 172 Cup, 182, Integra Type-R. Though they do have the advantage of less "nannying"...
GTP rpm said:
Rs2oo said:
I bought a new 200 - full fat with cup chassis 3 weeks ago. You have to rev it to get it to go like a VVTi Toyota/Honda. Straight line speed is not the point in a 200, its the handling. Once you have the revs up, its a quick car.
Not quite the same as a Honda...TBH, I've driven the 200 on track alongside Rob Barff and had one for 4days on the road and wasn't impressed. The ABS / Stability control is good, but the seats do not hold you, the clutch/brakes have limited feel and the engine doesn't have enough torque, revs and lacks responsiveness...It's awfully uneconomical too, off the circuit I had to drive extremely carefully to get over 38mpg and it's far too stiff for the roads in my opinion.
It's a great car for the money, but I prefer the 172 Cup, 182, Integra Type-R. Though they do have the advantage of less "nannying"...
Clutch and brakes have plenty of feel, especially for a modern car. Engine is more than torquey enough provided it's in the correct part of the power band if you want to rag it. Mine's got ultra sharp response when it's up to revs, and why would you want much more than 7500-7800rpm when peak power is at 7100rpm?
Why on earth would you expect more than 38mpg? I'm amazed you got that, as I struggle to get over 32 on a cruise.
It's major criticsm is the one thing you;ve missed and that's the lack of feedback from the front end due to the POS electric PAS.
Its actually a good question.
A few years back i had a 182 Trophy and tbh there was just something missing. Sure it handled and stopped well but it just wasnt quite all that. It was in for a service and the dealer lent me an R26 as a courtesy car. It had what the clio had missing - and i think it was simply just that little bit more grunt - so i bought it, there and then.
Things have moved on now to the clio 200 and megane 250 - and without driving either it'd be hard to comment, but i do suspect the same issueif you opted for the clio.
A few years back i had a 182 Trophy and tbh there was just something missing. Sure it handled and stopped well but it just wasnt quite all that. It was in for a service and the dealer lent me an R26 as a courtesy car. It had what the clio had missing - and i think it was simply just that little bit more grunt - so i bought it, there and then.
Things have moved on now to the clio 200 and megane 250 - and without driving either it'd be hard to comment, but i do suspect the same issueif you opted for the clio.
Swervin_Mervin said:
GTP rpm said:
Rs2oo said:
I bought a new 200 - full fat with cup chassis 3 weeks ago. You have to rev it to get it to go like a VVTi Toyota/Honda. Straight line speed is not the point in a 200, its the handling. Once you have the revs up, its a quick car.
Not quite the same as a Honda...TBH, I've driven the 200 on track alongside Rob Barff and had one for 4days on the road and wasn't impressed. The ABS / Stability control is good, but the seats do not hold you, the clutch/brakes have limited feel and the engine doesn't have enough torque, revs and lacks responsiveness...It's awfully uneconomical too, off the circuit I had to drive extremely carefully to get over 38mpg and it's far too stiff for the roads in my opinion.
It's a great car for the money, but I prefer the 172 Cup, 182, Integra Type-R. Though they do have the advantage of less "nannying"...
Clutch and brakes have plenty of feel, especially for a modern car. Engine is more than torquey enough provided it's in the correct part of the power band if you want to rag it. Mine's got ultra sharp response when it's up to revs, and why would you want much more than 7500-7800rpm when peak power is at 7100rpm?
Why on earth would you expect more than 38mpg? I'm amazed you got that, as I struggle to get over 32 on a cruise.
It's major criticsm is the one thing you;ve missed and that's the lack of feedback from the front end due to the POS electric PAS.
For a modern car, I agree the brakes have good responsiveness...but that's like saying "that lady is quite attractive, for a 96year old". The clutch has limited feeling. The 172, 182 and Integra's are the last few cars we ever get, where you get a good feel through the controls for not a lot of money.
The 172, 182 and Integra will allow you to easily get over 40mpg on an enjoyable run. The 200 I tried did only have a couple of thousand miles on it, so perhaps it would free up later in life and allow you to creep over 40mpg?
Granted, the 172's and 182's do not rev over 8000, they tend to have more "pick up" through the gears. I'm not sure on the stats, but having driven a few, the torque to weight ratio, means the earlier RS Clio's didn't need 6 gears! The Honda's revving past 8000 is delicious though and is far more rewarding IMO.
I'm used to getting feedback through computer game/simulator racing. So "digital" steering feels as second nature to me as non-power assisted steering does.
A lot of it is down to opinion, but I love the 172's and 182's...but the 197 and 200 do very little for me. But then they are fairly priced. But driving the Twingo RS, whilst slower, due to using the old 172/182 chassis with Laguna front brakes and Megane rear brakes you instantly get more connectivity with the chassis.
So to conclude, I don't feel the Clio 200 has enough grunt, nor does it provide you with enough giggles in the bends or on the brakes like how the 172's, or 182's did. It should've had the 225 engine IMO.
GTP rpm said:
The Recaro's didn't hold me aswell as the normal Clio seats do. Though, this will be down to your body shape of course!
For a modern car, I agree the brakes have good responsiveness...but that's like saying "that lady is quite attractive, for a 96year old". The clutch has limited feeling. The 172, 182 and Integra's are the last few cars we ever get, where you get a good feel through the controls for not a lot of money.
The 172, 182 and Integra will allow you to easily get over 40mpg on an enjoyable run. The 200 I tried did only have a couple of thousand miles on it, so perhaps it would free up later in life and allow you to creep over 40mpg?
Granted, the 172's and 182's do not rev over 8000, they tend to have more "pick up" through the gears. I'm not sure on the stats, but having driven a few, the torque to weight ratio, means the earlier RS Clio's didn't need 6 gears! The Honda's revving past 8000 is delicious though and is far more rewarding IMO.
I'm used to getting feedback through computer game/simulator racing. So "digital" steering feels as second nature to me as non-power assisted steering does.
A lot of it is down to opinion, but I love the 172's and 182's...but the 197 and 200 do very little for me. But then they are fairly priced. But driving the Twingo RS, whilst slower, due to using the old 172/182 chassis with Laguna front brakes and Megane rear brakes you instantly get more connectivity with the chassis.
So to conclude, I don't feel the Clio 200 has enough grunt, nor does it provide you with enough giggles in the bends or on the brakes like how the 172's, or 182's did. It should've had the 225 engine IMO.
Turbo in a Clio is just wrong I'm afraid. And you will never get close to 40mpg IME, but then it's a near 100bhp/litre NA engine lugging around a relatively heavy car so I wouldn't expect it to. And FWIW I never took to the mk2 Clios at all. I had a few mk1 16v's and to me the way you compare the 172/182 to the 197/200 is exactly the same as when comparing 16v/Williams to 172/182.For a modern car, I agree the brakes have good responsiveness...but that's like saying "that lady is quite attractive, for a 96year old". The clutch has limited feeling. The 172, 182 and Integra's are the last few cars we ever get, where you get a good feel through the controls for not a lot of money.
The 172, 182 and Integra will allow you to easily get over 40mpg on an enjoyable run. The 200 I tried did only have a couple of thousand miles on it, so perhaps it would free up later in life and allow you to creep over 40mpg?
Granted, the 172's and 182's do not rev over 8000, they tend to have more "pick up" through the gears. I'm not sure on the stats, but having driven a few, the torque to weight ratio, means the earlier RS Clio's didn't need 6 gears! The Honda's revving past 8000 is delicious though and is far more rewarding IMO.
I'm used to getting feedback through computer game/simulator racing. So "digital" steering feels as second nature to me as non-power assisted steering does.
A lot of it is down to opinion, but I love the 172's and 182's...but the 197 and 200 do very little for me. But then they are fairly priced. But driving the Twingo RS, whilst slower, due to using the old 172/182 chassis with Laguna front brakes and Megane rear brakes you instantly get more connectivity with the chassis.
So to conclude, I don't feel the Clio 200 has enough grunt, nor does it provide you with enough giggles in the bends or on the brakes like how the 172's, or 182's did. It should've had the 225 engine IMO.
They had less feel on the brakes, much less feedback through the wheel, were less interesting aurally, and just generally much less fun in the chassis department.
What the 197/200 does is move on to a totally different playing pitch. The mk2 felt like a bloated, softened mk1, but with the same inherent characteristics. The mk3 doesn't intend to evolve that further. That said, many of it's "foibles" (as seen by motoring press and most lay people) are remarkably similar to those identified for the mk1 16v. My only gripe remains the non-existent steering feel. It is crucial as well as it fundamentally informs you of how much grip the front end has.
It's a very, very quick car if driven as intended. The way it can change direction without so much as a twitch still amazes me after 2 years of ownership. Don't get me wrong though, it's nowhere near as much fun at sensible speeds as my old 16v, but it's a modern car. Show me any other modern car in the hot hatch sector that has those qualities of old. Weight gain through safety measures and N/A engine tech being affected by restrictions on emissions all play a part. Hence why it's absurd to compare new with old.
I have a 200 & and the other half a Puma; They are totally different cars, but in no way will you be left dissapointed!
The Puma is a very capable little package, but it wouldn't know which way the 200 went when driven hard, in both pace and handling!
Oh, and it's a huge step up from my old 197.
The Puma is a very capable little package, but it wouldn't know which way the 200 went when driven hard, in both pace and handling!
Oh, and it's a huge step up from my old 197.
Edited by SwineFluPirate on Thursday 22 April 16:54
Ok. The standard seats are very supportive but too high, I guess most french are quite short ! I know someone who has a 197 F1 with Recaro seats and they have worn badly even though he is careful. They are also very very high worse than mine in the 200. And, like the Honda Civic, it gets faster the more revs it gets.
I am really enjoying the car. It can be driven round corners and roundabouts at insane speeds, much quicker than anything I have owned including a 2 year old elise 111R (seriously) it does not suffer from ultimate understeer like the elise but when you push it really hard the back can step out of line which if you are quick enough you can get it back on line, personal experience when I ran out of talent
Give it revs and it really flies.
MPG, who cares ? buy a 1.2 boring hatch if thats a worry, not a 200bhp clio
Just think what else you can get brand new with 200 bhp that handles this well for under 15k. I would take pretty much anything on in this car on a proper drivers road, not a straight A road though, my Z4 3.0 is quicker in a straight line and driving fast in a straight line is not very impressive. My mum could do that and she's 73....
I am really enjoying the car. It can be driven round corners and roundabouts at insane speeds, much quicker than anything I have owned including a 2 year old elise 111R (seriously) it does not suffer from ultimate understeer like the elise but when you push it really hard the back can step out of line which if you are quick enough you can get it back on line, personal experience when I ran out of talent
Give it revs and it really flies.MPG, who cares ? buy a 1.2 boring hatch if thats a worry, not a 200bhp clio
Just think what else you can get brand new with 200 bhp that handles this well for under 15k. I would take pretty much anything on in this car on a proper drivers road, not a straight A road though, my Z4 3.0 is quicker in a straight line and driving fast in a straight line is not very impressive. My mum could do that and she's 73....
Edited by Rs2oo on Sunday 25th April 23:50
Rs2oo said:
Ok. The standard seats are very supportive but too high, I guess most french are quite short ! I know someone who has a 197 F1 with Recaro seats and they have worn badly even though he is careful. They are also very very high worse than mine in the 200. And, like the Honda Civic, it gets faster the more revs it gets.
I am really enjoying the car. It can be driven round corners and roundabouts at insane speeds, much quicker than anything I have owned including a 2 year old elise 111R (seriously) it does not suffer from ultimate understeer like the elise but when you push it really hard the back can step out of line which if you are quick enough you can get it back on line, personal experience when I ran out of talent Give it revs and it really flies.
MPG, who cares ? buy a 1.2 boring hatch if thats a worry, not a 200bhp clio
Just think what else you can get brand new with 200 bhp that handles this well for under 15k. I would take pretty much anything on in this car on a proper drivers road, not a straight A road though, my Z4 3.0 is quicker in a straight line and driving fast in a straight line is not very impressive. My mum could do that.
Very much so! I am really enjoying the car. It can be driven round corners and roundabouts at insane speeds, much quicker than anything I have owned including a 2 year old elise 111R (seriously) it does not suffer from ultimate understeer like the elise but when you push it really hard the back can step out of line which if you are quick enough you can get it back on line, personal experience when I ran out of talent
Give it revs and it really flies.MPG, who cares ? buy a 1.2 boring hatch if thats a worry, not a 200bhp clio
Just think what else you can get brand new with 200 bhp that handles this well for under 15k. I would take pretty much anything on in this car on a proper drivers road, not a straight A road though, my Z4 3.0 is quicker in a straight line and driving fast in a straight line is not very impressive. My mum could do that.
What spec is your 200?
Do you frequent Cliosport or Renaultsport.co.uk?
GTP rpm said:
Swervin_Mervin said:
GTP rpm said:
Rs2oo said:
I bought a new 200 - full fat with cup chassis 3 weeks ago. You have to rev it to get it to go like a VVTi Toyota/Honda. Straight line speed is not the point in a 200, its the handling. Once you have the revs up, its a quick car.
Not quite the same as a Honda...TBH, I've driven the 200 on track alongside Rob Barff and had one for 4days on the road and wasn't impressed. The ABS / Stability control is good, but the seats do not hold you, the clutch/brakes have limited feel and the engine doesn't have enough torque, revs and lacks responsiveness...It's awfully uneconomical too, off the circuit I had to drive extremely carefully to get over 38mpg and it's far too stiff for the roads in my opinion.
It's a great car for the money, but I prefer the 172 Cup, 182, Integra Type-R. Though they do have the advantage of less "nannying"...
Clutch and brakes have plenty of feel, especially for a modern car. Engine is more than torquey enough provided it's in the correct part of the power band if you want to rag it. Mine's got ultra sharp response when it's up to revs, and why would you want much more than 7500-7800rpm when peak power is at 7100rpm?
Why on earth would you expect more than 38mpg? I'm amazed you got that, as I struggle to get over 32 on a cruise.
It's major criticsm is the one thing you;ve missed and that's the lack of feedback from the front end due to the POS electric PAS.
For a modern car, I agree the brakes have good responsiveness...but that's like saying "that lady is quite attractive, for a 96year old". The clutch has limited feeling. The 172, 182 and Integra's are the last few cars we ever get, where you get a good feel through the controls for not a lot of money.
The 172, 182 and Integra will allow you to easily get over 40mpg on an enjoyable run. The 200 I tried did only have a couple of thousand miles on it, so perhaps it would free up later in life and allow you to creep over 40mpg?
Granted, the 172's and 182's do not rev over 8000, they tend to have more "pick up" through the gears. I'm not sure on the stats, but having driven a few, the torque to weight ratio, means the earlier RS Clio's didn't need 6 gears! The Honda's revving past 8000 is delicious though and is far more rewarding IMO.
I'm used to getting feedback through computer game/simulator racing. So "digital" steering feels as second nature to me as non-power assisted steering does.
A lot of it is down to opinion, but I love the 172's and 182's...but the 197 and 200 do very little for me. But then they are fairly priced. But driving the Twingo RS, whilst slower, due to using the old 172/182 chassis with Laguna front brakes and Megane rear brakes you instantly get more connectivity with the chassis.
So to conclude, I don't feel the Clio 200 has enough grunt, nor does it provide you with enough giggles in the bends or on the brakes like how the 172's, or 182's did. It should've had the 225 engine IMO.
2. I cannot actually belive you're arguing about 2mpg. It makes NO difference, I don't and most people shouldn't worry about mpg as signular units, they should be looked at in groups of five. 1 mpg is nothing. The wind on any given day can change that.
3. Rewarding? Just because an engine revs high it doesn't make it rewarding, you have done nothing to get this so called 'reward' just by keeping your foot in. If you think revs relate to how rwarding the drive is then I suggest you get a bike.
4. Haven't driven a 200, had a go in the others, and I think its just natural progression. As you will see with nearly any class of car.
SwineFluPirate said:
Rs2oo said:
Ok. The standard seats are very supportive but too high, I guess most french are quite short ! I know someone who has a 197 F1 with Recaro seats and they have worn badly even though he is careful. They are also very very high worse than mine in the 200. And, like the Honda Civic, it gets faster the more revs it gets.
I am really enjoying the car. It can be driven round corners and roundabouts at insane speeds, much quicker than anything I have owned including a 2 year old elise 111R (seriously) it does not suffer from ultimate understeer like the elise but when you push it really hard the back can step out of line which if you are quick enough you can get it back on line, personal experience when I ran out of talent Give it revs and it really flies.
MPG, who cares ? buy a 1.2 boring hatch if thats a worry, not a 200bhp clio
Just think what else you can get brand new with 200 bhp that handles this well for under 15k. I would take pretty much anything on in this car on a proper drivers road, not a straight A road though, my Z4 3.0 is quicker in a straight line and driving fast in a straight line is not very impressive. My mum could do that.
Very much so! I am really enjoying the car. It can be driven round corners and roundabouts at insane speeds, much quicker than anything I have owned including a 2 year old elise 111R (seriously) it does not suffer from ultimate understeer like the elise but when you push it really hard the back can step out of line which if you are quick enough you can get it back on line, personal experience when I ran out of talent
Give it revs and it really flies.MPG, who cares ? buy a 1.2 boring hatch if thats a worry, not a 200bhp clio
Just think what else you can get brand new with 200 bhp that handles this well for under 15k. I would take pretty much anything on in this car on a proper drivers road, not a straight A road though, my Z4 3.0 is quicker in a straight line and driving fast in a straight line is not very impressive. My mum could do that.
What spec is your 200?
Do you frequent Cliosport or Renaultsport.co.uk?
Have joined the Renaultsport.co.uk and posted a hello on the 200 thread. Will do some track days in the very near future.
GTP rpm said:
Swervin_Mervin said:
GTP rpm said:
Rs2oo said:
I bought a new 200 - full fat with cup chassis 3 weeks ago. You have to rev it to get it to go like a VVTi Toyota/Honda. Straight line speed is not the point in a 200, its the handling. Once you have the revs up, its a quick car.
Not quite the same as a Honda...TBH, I've driven the 200 on track alongside Rob Barff and had one for 4days on the road and wasn't impressed. The ABS / Stability control is good, but the seats do not hold you, the clutch/brakes have limited feel and the engine doesn't have enough torque, revs and lacks responsiveness...It's awfully uneconomical too, off the circuit I had to drive extremely carefully to get over 38mpg and it's far too stiff for the roads in my opinion.
It's a great car for the money, but I prefer the 172 Cup, 182, Integra Type-R. Though they do have the advantage of less "nannying"...
Clutch and brakes have plenty of feel, especially for a modern car. Engine is more than torquey enough provided it's in the correct part of the power band if you want to rag it. Mine's got ultra sharp response when it's up to revs, and why would you want much more than 7500-7800rpm when peak power is at 7100rpm?
Why on earth would you expect more than 38mpg? I'm amazed you got that, as I struggle to get over 32 on a cruise.
It's major criticsm is the one thing you;ve missed and that's the lack of feedback from the front end due to the POS electric PAS.
For a modern car, I agree the brakes have good responsiveness...but that's like saying "that lady is quite attractive, for a 96year old". The clutch has limited feeling. The 172, 182 and Integra's are the last few cars we ever get, where you get a good feel through the controls for not a lot of money.
The 172, 182 and Integra will allow you to easily get over 40mpg on an enjoyable run. The 200 I tried did only have a couple of thousand miles on it, so perhaps it would free up later in life and allow you to creep over 40mpg?
Granted, the 172's and 182's do not rev over 8000, they tend to have more "pick up" through the gears. I'm not sure on the stats, but having driven a few, the torque to weight ratio, means the earlier RS Clio's didn't need 6 gears! The Honda's revving past 8000 is delicious though and is far more rewarding IMO.
I'm used to getting feedback through computer game/simulator racing. So "digital" steering feels as second nature to me as non-power assisted steering does.
A lot of it is down to opinion, but I love the 172's and 182's...but the 197 and 200 do very little for me. But then they are fairly priced. But driving the Twingo RS, whilst slower, due to using the old 172/182 chassis with Laguna front brakes and Megane rear brakes you instantly get more connectivity with the chassis.
So to conclude, I don't feel the Clio 200 has enough grunt, nor does it provide you with enough giggles in the bends or on the brakes like how the 172's, or 182's did. It should've had the 225 engine IMO.
To quote - Not enough giggle between the bends. Now this comment has me completely amazed as no doubt pretty much all magazine road testers of the 200. I have owned 100 + cars in 30 years driving from a Scirocco and Golf GTI's, Toyota Supras, Mini Cooper S, Lotus Elise 111R etc etc and when driven properly, this car is outstanding and 10/10 fun, better than anything I have owned. As I have previously mentioned, I would honestly take on most things in my 200 round a twisty track or road barr some non-high production cars like a Caterham etc which are effectively track cars. I have owned (and still have) much quicker point to point cars than this, but this little Clio out-handles the lot. The end
Having borrowed a 200 over the weekend and a 197 in the past as and intended replacement for my 172, i felt the initial pick up in acceleration from both was muted compared to the older Clio sports.
The 172 just feels a bit more raw and more eager. Dont get my wrong its a great car but to me it still lacks something, so for now il be keeping the 172.
The 172 just feels a bit more raw and more eager. Dont get my wrong its a great car but to me it still lacks something, so for now il be keeping the 172.
mckeowan said:
Having borrowed a 200 over the weekend and a 197 in the past as and intended replacement for my 172, i felt the initial pick up in acceleration from both was muted compared to the older Clio sports.
The 172 just feels a bit more raw and more eager. Dont get my wrong its a great car but to me it still lacks something, so for now il be keeping the 172.
I kinda know what you mean but on the Renaultsport forum owners have agreed that the more miles they rack up the better they go. Same as the old Golf GTi 16V. It too about 80k before they really came alive. The 172 just feels a bit more raw and more eager. Dont get my wrong its a great car but to me it still lacks something, so for now il be keeping the 172.
The Renaultsports just love mileage! My 197 got noticably quicker at both 5k, and even more so at 15k!
If you look at the latest Evo magazine, the 200 was quicker than the 172 Cup by 1.5 seconds a lap, and that's considered to be the fastest of the bunch, so it's no slouch by any stretch of the imagination!
If you look at the latest Evo magazine, the 200 was quicker than the 172 Cup by 1.5 seconds a lap, and that's considered to be the fastest of the bunch, so it's no slouch by any stretch of the imagination!
Gassing Station | French Bred | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff