I don't see how ANY of those reasons make it shite ?
It handles well, it's quick, and it's (very) cheap. It's got masses of
standard equipment (including HIDs). It's an excellent buy !
I can't think of a single better hot-hatch for the money ?
I'd rather a Leon Cupra-R or an Astra Coupe Turbo if I were buying a used
hot-hatch myself, but both cost a bunch more than the Clio.
Civic Type-R is about the best of the lot if you can put up with the
terrible engine, but for some stupid reason, aircon is an optional extra -
so it may be a struggle to find a used car.
If you've got 20k to spend, then the Astra VXR or the Golf GTi would be the
places to put it - but you'd have to have some sort of overpowering brain
defect to waste twenty grand on a new shopping cart with a mere ~200bhp and
You could pick up a late M5, or a very-nearly-new WRX STi, or a Skyline GTR,
or a nearly-new Evo, or any number of HUGELY more capable cars for the same
I've seen an ST220 take a Clio 182 on the straights and twisties...then was
outdone by a Focus RS.
The Clio mustn't have been trying too hard, unless of course it was in
excess of 139 mph :)
Max speed (mph)
Clio 182 Cup
Max speed (mph)
3am, dry empty roads. It was coming off a roundabout, 40mph in second, along
a dual carriage way of approx 1.5 miles long, avg speed about 130-140.
(hitting 150 at a point). There was then a roundabout, a sharp bend and
another roundabout, at which point we (in the ST220) had to retire to go
We were taking a right at the last roundabout and the Clio was coming round
the last bend.
Er, so what you're saying is that the ST220 has a higher top-speed than the
Clio. Well duh.
The Clio would absolutely *annihilate* the ST220 on your average bendy road
/ race track / drag race / anything !
Performance above 130mph is not performance.
If you're under the impression that the ST220 is quick, then you're living
in a dream world :)
You said an ST220 was quicker round a track than a Clio 182 - that was
frankly a comedy statement of crap :)
His point about the CTR engine was that its revvy and gutless below about
5.5krpm - which is true. It must get quite annoying on a daily basis having
no low down grunt what so ever.
The reason the Clio gets to 60 0.4 of a sec quicker than the Mondeo is due
to a 450KG weight defecit. The first second or so is where the Clio will
shift. From a rolling start (say 15mph) the Mondeo would be off and at 100
quicker than the Clio. The Mondeo is also an handles incredibly well.
When it fires over 1200KG to 60 in 6.6 seconds? Saying that only 2000rpm of
the rev band is useful is panties. OK it develops it's 200PS @ 7400rpm, but
it must have a decent whack lower down than that.
I'll stand by my statements until I'm proved otherwise. Danke.
You're not wrong - the ST220 is one lardy bastard, especially given it's
mediocre power output.
In any case, what does 0-60 have to do with anything ? It's merely a measure
of standing-start traction, and has nothing to do with real-world
I say again : "Er, so what you're saying is that the ST220 has a higher
top-speed than the
Clio. Well duh."
Who gives a monkey whether it's faster over 100mph ? I don't know if you've
ever actually driven on any real roads, but if you had, you'd see the
opportunities for sustained 100mph+ are few and far between. The Clio would
have no problems at all keeping up with the ST220 on an average A to B jaunt
Er, not compared to the tin-box Clio !
What about when it fires over 1200Kg to 60 in 6.6 seconds ?
It does have no low down grunt what so ever. The end.
It does, compared to a boggo 2.0 NA engine.
But compared to a nice 2.0 forced induction lump, or some larger-capacity
V6, or a high-powered-diesel lump, it's got the pulling power of a wasp with
it's nads trapped in a vice. And funnily enough, it does a rather good
impression of one too !
Go ahead. I shall do the same.
By the way, you are aware that the ST200 costs approximately TWICE as much
as the Clio ?
in slurred : >>> If you're under the impression that the ST220 is quick, then you're
Well, yeah, but it was Nom, doing his popular scared-of-revs old geezer
act. The civic engine isn't gutless at low revs at all - it's a very
tractable and fairly torquey 2.0 NA lump, which just happens to be able to
rev like a bastard. It has as much low down grunt as any other 16v 2.0 NA
Well, yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you about preferring a turbo, just
with the statements that the type R lump is gutless shite. It produces
over 75% of the torque of the stock Ti lump (rising to 85% at peak),
which isn't bad, and does so right across the rev range from just above
tickover to 7000+rpm, which is very good.
A lot of people buying hot hatches want something which is fundamentally
sensible, but which can be quick and fun when you want it to, and the
civic does that. The engine _would_ be better if it was turbo'd, but as
it is it isn't a bad compromise, and nowhere near as bad as yours and
Dan's comments would suggest.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.