clio 182's

182 would out handle anything else you've listed, and the full fat ones come with climate, cruise, half leather etc. Look for full fat with the cup packs would be my choice. All the toys, and the better handling. Cup spoiler pack is a front splitter and a slightly bigger rear spoiler (won't have that if it's got optional satnav), and cup suspension pack is lower/stiffer suspension, anthractite wheels and should have Exalto tyres (they were part of the pack). They're pretty quick in a straight line too - if you drove it correctly it'd stay with your Beemer at least until triple figures. And they can do 40mpg on a run heh. A 182 Trophy is the best one - they're a little more expensive as they were limited to a run of 500, they have lightweight speedline wheels, Recaros as standard (optional on all the others), AC (climate was an option), different uprated (and I think adjustable) suspension again, they're all a special colour (capsicum red) and they say Trophy on the side skirt, and have a little plaque inside with the number on :) I.D. paint (especially Liquid Yellow) seems to command a premium at advertised prices.

Something along these lines would be my choice if budget didn't allow for a Trophy -

Cups are cheaper because they have less toys/crap interior.

172 Cup is the one to go for, so I'm told. By a 172 Cup owner so dunno how much that counts against the 182 lol

The cost of changing will negate the cheaper insurance and cheaper fuel costs for several years to come.

Change because you want to change, not to save money - because that rarely works.

well it's a bit of both really. BM will be 12 years old by next year so i'll probably change then and i will save with the cheaper servicing, half labour makes a massive difference! plus if i get the clio it's more convient to get serviced and stuff and i do a lot of driving round town these days so be a bit easier and a less of a barge to park. will mis the BM's torque though!

and it is cheaper to insure by almost 200 quid for me! even though the BM and Clio are both group 16 which is weird.

Insurance group has little to do with it these days, IMHO. I guess more people with gp16 BMW's claim than people with gp16 Clios...

You not fancy a Megane 225? I can vouch for the fact they are fast (but can vouch for the fact mine broke down...)

R26 F1 is where it's at ;) 230bhp and an LSD :-p

No, you've got that wrong.

LSD is what the designer was on when he designed that fat-arsed heap of shit.

The 182s feel really torquey though because of the short gearing and lack of weight :)

agreed they look VERY s**te! i'm not massively keen on the new clio really but it's ok and i do like the F1 diffuser. like the old shape 182 clio's though just overlooked them cos there french :)

yeah the lighter car will feel a bit odd i think after the MK2 MR2 and BM as they was both bout 400KG's heavier!

They drive excellently - what do you base your review on?

I quite like the sports one - they've grown on me like the new style Beemers.

You can't really disagree with it looking like a fat-arsed heap of s**te, though, can you?

Doesn't matter how well it drives when it's *that* ugly. And this is coming from someone who finds the Alfa 75 attractive.

Are you sure the surgeons didn't accidently remove your sense of taste when they removed some other bits? :-P

Probably. You know how I feel about 147 GTAs afterall ;) The way I see it, the only way a 147 GTA is a sensible choice is if it's replacing a Clio V6.

Replacing the Clio V6 by a 147 GTA means going from a small, unbustable (mechanicalwise) enjoyabale RWD-car with a non-stressed engine to a somewhat bigger FWD-car with understeer on demand, full of (Italian style) electronics to prevent it scredding its front tires with the engine yearning to blow its head off or its gearbox into bits.

Depreciation? The Clio V6 doesn't know the meaning, Alfa's are synonimous for it.

Driving enjoyment? Fun is not a straight line, the Clio V6 with its tail waggling makes you feel like a racing driver. Any FWD high powered car sliding over its front wheels gives you a lousy driver-reputation.

Let the kind of StevenH fanatasise about the 147 GTA: they will tell you all the joy outrunning your V6 with it but they never are able own them, let alone drive them on anything else than PlayStadion.

Folks who work for their money and drive a performance car, have to watch their pennies because they actually drive, live with them and prefer to have fun instead of being ruined physically or financially in the proces.

Rich folks who don't have to count pennies, eat in fancy Italian restaurants but will not touch the likes of a 147 GTA with a stick.

Me? I do like Alfa's. Worked on, maintained, modded, raced and owned them. They are like passing exams: nice when they are over and done with, the after party is the nicest thing to remember but I am in no envy to start them over. They had models with character but made more than their fair share of cars which Germans nicknamed "Geldvernietigungsmachinen", moneyscredders in your Queen's language.

Alfa for me stays the manufacturer who makes a car and then says: Ok, we have it, now put in some extra bolts on that no mecanic can get to.

Tom De Moor

Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate SteveH, managed to produce the following words of wisdom

You are having a giraffe, or you've never seen a copy of Glass's Guide in your life.

The Clio holds its value significantly better than the 147 GTA.

Mr Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Kettle.

Prices for the V6 seem to have plateued now at about £10k-£12k for a Mk1 and £15k-£19k for a Mk2- which a few exceptional, late examples of the ID coloured ones to be had for £20k+

The real world, rather than the book, which is rarely accurate for oddball cars, says they're both worth similar money on a similar plate, although the Alfa was, I think, cheaper than the Clio to buy new.

Oh, I don't talk media s**te, you only have to look at my opinions of Fords vs Alfas vs VAG to know that.