Hi

I absolutely love my Renaultsport Clio 172 but i'm thinking that it might be time to change to something that me and the missus can perhaps go on holiday + visit friends and family in without; 1) deafening oursleves 2) bankrupting ourselves. However, I also want something that is still going to make me smile on the backroads. Although I'm pretty sure that everyone on here will say the vRS is a good little car I am worried that it will feel a lot less focused than the clio and - please don't take this the wrong way - may not be as much fun? In standard form the figures suggest it would be quite a bit slower than the clio so i'm wondering whether this was actually true and whether mods for the vRS are worth it? If anyone on here has owned both these cars I'd be really interested to hear from them.

Ta!

Edited 23 February, 201016 yr by MrBlacky

An unmodified 1.9 litre 8 valve turbo diesel vRS is (officially) 2 seconds slower 0-60 than the 16 valve normally aspirated 2 litre 172 and has a lower top speed too. However, the vRS does have more torque (a full 110 nM more in fact!) and so you may well find that accelarating 'feels' quicker than it does in the 172 - when the turbo kicks in, the torque shoves you back into your seat like a hammer blow and it feels awesome! My car ain't modified in any way but I find it a lot of fun to drive. I have never driven a 172, but from looking at reviews, they appear to handle very well, something which the unmodified vRS lacks slightly. However, as you say, you wish to go on holiday without deafening yourself and ruining your wallet too - I'd suggest that the Fabia is a much more capable motorway cruiser which will be quieter and cheaper to run and insure too. I'd also suggest that it might be better built and more reliable?! To answer your question, my vRS never fails to make me smile on the backroads, but I do feel that a 172 might make me smile a bit more if it handles better.

Edited 23 February, 201016 yr by Big Mikey

hey welcome to the forum.

theres the obvious big change in reponse going from a 2.0 16v to the PD130 but personally i love the power delivery, i wouldnt ever get a petrol because of the torque and agreeing with BigMikey about when the turbo spools - me lurrrves it :p

mine has coilies and 17's and it handles corners rather well!

although i have heard clios 172/182's are one of the best handling hatchbacks around but i havnt ever been in one to compare. find one at a dealer and have a test drive if you havnt already. iknow you cant drive it how you like but you can atleast get some sort of feel to it!

Edited 23 February, 201016 yr by benh199

I'm guessing you're thinking along these lines......The big diesel lump makes for a heavy front end, which makes the handling poor in comparison to the clio. The brakes are not as good. It's a skoda.

The stock 130bhp 230lb/ft can be upped to 160/290 easily with a remap. Mine is 179/334 on a custom stg 1 remap for £300. Upgraded front brake pads can be had for £50. RARB can be had for approx £130, and a front strut brace for £100ish.

So for not much money you can make the car much faster in a straight line, go round corners a bit better, and improve the feel of the brakes. Spirited driving will still give you 45-48mpg. These will make the car great fun, and it's at its best on b roads, where you will surprise much more expensive cars some of the time

That said, the handling is always going to be restricted by the big diesel lump, and you're going to have to make some compromises if you're coming from the clio.

I'm guessing you're thinking along these lines......The big diesel lump makes for a heavy front end, which makes the handling poor in comparison to the clio. The brakes are not as good. It's a skoda.

The stock 130bhp 230lb/ft can be upped to 160/290 easily with a remap. Mine is 179/334 on a custom stg 1 remap for £300. Upgraded front brake pads can be had for £50. RARB can be had for approx £130, and a front strut brace for £100ish.

So for not much money you can make the car much faster in a straight line, go round corners a bit better, and improve the feel of the brakes. Spirited driving will still give you 45-48mpg. These will make the car great fun, and it's at its best on b roads, where you will surprise much more expensive cars some of the time

That said, the handling is always going to be restricted by the big diesel lump, and you're going to have to make some compromises if you're coming from the clio.

This is a very fair assessment, imho. I use my VRS for the daily motorway grind which is all about the torque and the mpg. I take the Lupo on the back roads...

The Fabia vRS does 2 things very well;

1. It's staggeringly economical

2. It has incredible feeling in-gear accelleration - note the word feeling!

It doesn't really handle, the ride is as soft as a pillow and they are very expensive second-hand. That said, I love them and you'll find the build quality a revelation after a French car.

Have you considered a PD160 Ibiza instead?

Hello and welcome to the Forum

In standard form the Fabia may not handle the twisty stuff as well as the Clio, but you can help by changing the springs and shocks or fitting coil-overs, I have been told a Rear Anti-Roll bar helps as well.

The Furby vRS is a warm/hot hatch with 130 BHP (normally produces more on a RR) and can be mapped to get more, that gets 45-50mpg. It is quiet at motorway speeds (only doing about 2,000 rpm at 70) and kind to you pocket in terms of fuel. A full tank (£40-£50) lasts 350-450 miles.

Edited 23 February, 201016 yr by Jim H

i had a clio 172 before my furby..ive only had my furby for 5 months and at first i was slightly disapointed as you say the clio accelerates better and well handling is amazing on the clio....but since fitting my coilovers id say the handling has changed dramatically and now its alot better.

plus 47mpg always makes me happy. space and build quality is alot better.

only downside i see atm is 1st and 2nd gear is over a little quick and the seats arnt as supportive. i will be remapping it within the next month so im sure itl be a totally different animal then

ill let you know if you still havent decided by then!

andrew

Why not have both we do Well clio 182 ff with both cup packs.

How to compare hmm. Well Furby gets an extra 100 miles from the same size tank. Suspension is softer which is good and bad. What I mean is yes in the clio you can feel the bumps/potholes but give the fabia a decent bump/pothole and the dampers can't cope and it turns crashy were the clio will just deal with it. Steering is soft and a little short on feel. The fabia hasn't got that much more room in the back but it does have extra doors which do help alot for the passengers. Bootspace is slightly bigger.

So yes the fabia is more of a family car which in turn makes it less of a drivers car but dont get me wrong it can still put a smile on your face. Would say change the standard 288 brakes to 312's just to improve pedal feel. Also jabba rear anti roll bar does help change the balance of the car. Wouldn't be too bothered about a remap I dont miss mine. Also as they are second hand replace the front rear wishbone/console bushes to the ones of the ibiza cupra.

Hope that helps.

I have owned both for 4 years each. It really depends what you want from a car, and everyone is different, but in my opinion the vRS is a far better "car" than the 172. We all know its not as quick, but as mentioned before, it "feels" quicker. To me, it feels a lot quicker. I remember worrying quite a lot when i owned the 172 as there constantly things going wrong with it. I'm not saying the vRS has been ultra reliable, but it feels like its screwed together better. Also, I have been treated well by Skoda dealerships when things have gone wrong, whereas Renault were ... ummm ... not very good at all. After 4 years I still love my vRS, whereas with the 172, if i'm honest i couldn't wait to get rid of it. I never once regretted trading it in for a vRS. Having said all that, there will be people who have owned both cars and have the opposite opinion to mine. I would suggest you test drive one and see what you think about the effortless in gear acceleration, as this for me is the main reason i loved the car from day one and still do now. It's also the main reason i think that the vRS is more fun than the 172. However, if you absolutely love your 172, maybe you dont think the same way i do - a test drive is the only way to find out.

Perhaps as wja96 has said an Ibiza PD160 is worth a look.............

I'm guessing you're thinking along these lines......The big diesel lump makes for a heavy front end, which makes the handling poor in comparison to the clio. The brakes are not as good. It's a skoda.

The stock 130bhp 230lb/ft can be upped to 160/290 easily with a remap. Mine is 179/334 on a custom stg 1 remap for £300. Upgraded front brake pads can be had for £50. RARB can be had for approx £130, and a front strut brace for £100ish.

So for not much money you can make the car much faster in a straight line, go round corners a bit better, and improve the feel of the brakes. Spirited driving will still give you 45-48mpg. These will make the car great fun, and it's at its best on b roads, where you will surprise much more expensive cars some of the time

That said, the handling is always going to be restricted by the big diesel lump, and you're going to have to make some compromises if you're coming from the clio.

:wonder:

If you could afford both cars then do it. I've Just bought a Clio Cup purely for trackdays and running around locally. As others say the VRS is is more of family car with some comfort , a reasonable turn of speed and good economy. To get it somewhere near Clio handling and sharpness a lot of money would be leaving your pocket. If I had to have just one car I would go with the VRS everytime.

Oops sorry, for the pedants amongst us , that should be £65 for the strut brace.

Yes, I have to say I'm getting tired of Warwick Hunt living up to his username. Oh, and the use of the little girl laughing at you smilie - that hacks me off too. Eventually, people just stop trying to be helpful.

The Skoda 0-60 figures are a tad consevative: Autocar timed a standard car at 8.2 sec for the 0-60 but it is the in gear shove that really defines the Fabia VRS. Honest opinion from me is that you will not be satified with the handling coming from a Clio Cup. The car is wallowy and prone to understeer and it is the biggest disappointment that I have with the car, especially coming from a Peugeot 106 which had awesome handling like your Renault.

It is a quality well built car but forget it if you are a back road charger without some suspension mods.

Just a quick input on economy, My college has a 1.0l Saxo and drives the same 30mile round trip to work everyday, I have been with him and he drives (and admits) 58-60mph as he believes its more economical and it takes him 25-30 mins on a 5:30am run costing him £20 a week.

I on the other hand with my standard vrs, Will not disclose my speed for legal reasons but it takes me between 10 and 15 mins on the same run using also only £20 a week in fuel.

Thats all really not relevant apart from how economical it is lol!!

I remember driving a Clio (182) at the same time I test drove the vRS, I thought the Clio was a cracking car, it had loads of character and great fun but ultimately felt I needed to rev the nuts off it to make progress whereas the vRS was a bit more laid back and costs peanuts to run. I also worried a lot about the vRS performance "on paper" but in real life although you do feel like you're driving an old tractor off the lights, for everything else the torque is devastating, in gear acceleration where it really matters (change of speed limit, motorway, coming off roundabouts) is what the vRS is about. After about two years of driving I can honestly say I've been well impressed with the number of cars I can either shake off or keep up with (in a straight line when already moving I should add!!!) particularly since the remap.

As others have said it won't feel as sure footed on twisty roads, or in the wet, and I have always felt mine feels like driving in a metal bathtub - crashy and noisy. But for the money and low running costs I think it's a good car. But definitely don't judge it by the official 0-60 time.

The Skoda 0-60 figures are a tad consevative: Autocar timed a standard car at 8.2 sec for the 0-60 but it is the in gear shove that really defines the Fabia VRS.[/Quote]

Skoda's figure is for 0-100km/h, which is 62.something mph, not 60. I think it's also worth bearing in mind that the 'official' 0-60 tmes are measured with two 80kg people in the car, so it will be faster again if there is just the driver in it. And, the quoted figure has to almost be a worst case scenario. On a cool summer morning the car will be faster than on a damp winter morning. And of course the thing that really trashes the 0-60 time is the short second gear, so you need to select third and re-engage the clutch to get to 60mph.

The car 'feels' fast because it pushes you forward, but it's actually not as quick as it feels. The feeling falls off after about 3500rpm (when the torque diminishes) but it's still accellerating all the way to red line. Most people believe their 'butt dyno' and change up too early. That's something you'd never do in a comparatively low torque petrol like a Clio or a Peugeot 106.

Honest opinion from me is that you will not be satified with the handling coming from a Clio Cup. The car is wallowy and prone to understeer and it is the biggest disappointment that I have with the car, especially coming from a Peugeot 106 which had awesome handling like your Renault.

It is a quality well built car but forget it if you are a back road charger without some suspension mods.

I agree 99%. I do think that even with suspension mods (I have Eibachs and FSDs with the JabbaSport RARB and a thicker FARB (not a strut brace)) and it still handles poorly compared to almost anything modern and hot-hatchy and I think that's entirely to do with the car being set up for poor Eastern European roads and the weight of the big diesel engine in the front. SEAT have a much better handling car in the Ibiza Cupra, but the ride will shake your fillings out. It's a much more hardcore car, much more like the Clio Cup.

Edited 24 February, 201016 yr by wja96

I had a Clio 182 and loved it, could get brilliant fuel consumption out it if driven sensibly. Could easily see 80 miles to £10 of petrol and it got me from Bristol to my house on less than one tank which was a 375 mile trip and the fuel light wasn't on when I turned it off

The fabia will never be as good a handler as the 182 IMO even though mines is on coil overs I find it just a bit too high sided. The Clio is still one of my favorite cars I've owned. But I couldn't go back to one after the fabia. Build quality is alot better, but mines is running badly just now for reasons I don't know. Seeing as little as 40 miles to £10 of diesel or 75 max if driven sensibly. Mines isn't standard though and is in dire need of a service

It's just a comfy practical cruiser which I'd find hard to part with. It's too much fun, no one expects a thing from them even in standard form mines was right behind a mk4 golf r32. Now it's mapped etc I've kept half a car length infront of a focus ST and side by side with a mk5 golf gti

Mercs BMWs etc are all easy pickings to annoy lol. And that's what makes me love my fabia so much, it's so under estimated by everyone and in all honesty even with mines having problems right now I still couldn't be without it. It makes me smile and laugh too much which is something my 182 never really done as everyone knew it was a 182

I can't comment too much on the Clio Cup, but I will agree with what others are saying about the handlinf of the vRS. I went from a Fiesta Zetec S (Mk 4 me thinks 99-02?) to my Fabia, and I don't feel as confident chucking it into corners as I did with my Fiesta. The response through the steering wheel seems a little vague at times. On the other hand, although I have to take the corners a little slower in the vRS, it more than makes up for it with the acceleration on the straights between!

However, I have to admit that when driving a 60 mile journey back from visiting the GF the Fabia still manages to put a massive smile on my face! If it isn't the oodles of torque available and the feeling of the turbo boost, then it's looking at the average mpg when I arrive!

My Fabia is completely standard (to my knowledge), and it certainly feels a lot quicker than the Fiesta, even though the 0-60 times are similar. I find the ride much more comfortable and the seats far more supportive.

Two criticisms of the Fabia, one, I wish it had some kind of adjustable lumbar back support, and two, it's beginning to bug me that mine often freezes up on the inside of the windscreen, and yes, I realise there are fixes on the forum for that, but I simply haven't got round to it yet!

All in all, I love the Fabia. Best and worst mpg figures are 38 for spirited driving, and 65 for a real go slow. I've owned the Fabia for 6 months, still continuing to enjoy it, and think it'll be with me for a while to come! I also considered the Ibiza Cupra (160), which might be more in your league or to your liking, but I decided against it on insurance and initial outlay reasons. Also I think that might have been a big jump for me, so maybe one of those next for myself ;-) Go test drive one and see what you think!

Hope that helps,

Bezzy

I owned a 172 for about 18months before changing it for a Fabia VRS.Got to say although i loved the clio for the noise when you took it upto high revs and the handling,the Fabia wins for me.Ive had mine remapped so its 169bhp but has twice as much torque than the 172 at 295lbs.Build quality is obviously a plus for the Fab,clio used to drive me insane rattling all the bloody time.Mpg obviously being a diesel,i get 45-48 mpg on short journeys.Down side ive found is the boring dash,god wish they had spent a little more time designing that and the seats.There comfortable,but after having half leather in the 172 just cloth especially in winter isnt the best.Oh forgot,insurance and tax!!Just got 12months tax £125.00 that is 6months on the sport.I did have a chavy kid try to race me in a sport poor kid couldnt get close.

Down side ive found is the boring dash,god wish they had spent a little more time designing that and the seats.

I must be in a minority of one as I like the dash - functional and no nonsense. Agree with you on the seats - although not aesthetically pleasing they're at least comfortable.

Wow!

Thanks so much to everyone who's posted, it's all been really good advice. I think the main thing that's common to all responses is that moving to a vRS from a 172 will be a comprimise, but one that definitely has many positives. My main concern is still the handling, which I really appreciate in the Clio so perhaps I might check out a Cupra TDI too. Are they massively different to the FR TDIs? - I assume these are more like the vRS. On first glance the SEATs seem rarer and (therefore?) more expensive than the vRS so there might be a comprimise there too!

I'll defintely be getting one of these cars, so I'll report back on testdrives etc.

Thanks guys

The FR has a much stiffer set up than the vRS for certain, having driven both back to back over several thousands of miles.

I still think the vRS is the better package overall though.