Hi

Ive been searching the internet for a vrs coz its time to sell my clio. Ive seen a few in my prive range but a lot have 100k milage on, this ok? ive heard that they are ver y reliable car. This true?

Ive also noticed when doing insurance quotes that there are 2, 1 2003/2004 and 1 2004/ onwards? is there any difference or is it just the insurance sites?

Cheers

Can't really comment on the engine longevity (I've heard figures of 200,000 - 300,000 miles if maintained properly maintained), but I believe the 2 variants you are seeing is due to the "facelift" that was carried out (square vs round front foglights, etc).

Ive also noticed when doing insurance quotes that there are 2, 1 2003/2004 and 1 2004/ onwards? is there any difference or is it just the insurance sites?

There was a facelift in September 2004 but some of the changes were actually phased in over a period - they didn't all happen at once. I don't see why that should affect the insurance since the changes at that time were cosmetic. There was a more significant change in late 2003 though when the early car's close ratio gearbox was replaced with one where 6th on the old car became approx 5th on the new one. I'd avoid the early car if you want more relaxed cruising - and I suspect the theoretical performance gain with the earlier one is rather ruled out by more frequent gear changing. Corrigendum - I got that wrong - blame the aged memory - see below for update

Edited 16 August, 201015 yr by DRJ

Poor Clio, has it got to go? VRS's have the same 1.9TDI engine as all the cars in the VW/Seat/Audi range but in different states of tune. The different insurance quotes on a VRS are a mystery to me as they are all 130bhp. and a few trim changes don't change much. 100K. miles plus ain't so bad as long as it's serviced correctly. Many owners on Briskoda have tuned / big turbo engines well in excess off 130bhp and have no issues with the the engine, just the clutches and flywheels have a hard time.

Lol. yeah its got to go im afraid, it is on finance, and the running costs are way to high. Its a lovely car to drive though.

The whole reason of changing to a fabia is because i only have about 4grand and it seems the best value for money over any other diesel in the vw group, and looks the nicest.

Ive had a look on autotrader and (if im being stupid, lol) i cant see any 'facelift'. Is it one of those things where if you put 2 together? lol.

So if the gearbox is different does that affect the MPG? Im guessing it would be worse in the earlyer models?

Cheers

There was a facelift in September 2004 but some of the changes were actually phased in over a period - they didn't all happen at once. I don't see why that should affect the insurance since the changes at that time were cosmetic. There was a more significant change in late 2003 though when the early car's close ratio gearbox was replaced with one where 6th on the old car became approx 5th on the new one. I'd avoid the early car if you want more relaxed cruising - and I suspect the theoretical performance gain with the earlier one is rather ruled out by more frequent gear changing.

early box - every gear the same as the revised one except 6th gear which was longer, these car's actually get better mpg on a motorway run as they sit lower in the revs

later box- every gear the same as the early box exept 6th gear which was shorter so has more punch on the motorway rather than downshifting to 5th, you get less mpg on a run as the revs are sitting higher

early box - every gear the same as the revised one except 6th gear which was longer, these car's actually get better mpg on a motorway run as they sit lower in the revs

later box- every gear the same as the early box exept 6th gear which was shorter so has more punch on the motorway rather than downshifting to 5th, you get less mpg on a run as the revs are sitting higher

I'm confused by that response. But I have to confess I remembered incorrectly - apologies - and set out here the correct response:

All the speeds per 1000 revs are different - it's not just the sixth gear that differs.

In fact the bottom three ratios ARE the same but the final drive ratios differ. The top three gear ratios differ too.

Here's the figures per 1000rpm for the early 53 cars:

1 - 6.21 ; 2 - 11.22 ; 3 - 17.69 ; 4 - 25.71 ; 5 - 31.88 ; 6 - 38.03 ;

And here's the figures per 1000rpm for the 04 onwards cars:

1 - 5.67 ; 2 - 10.24 ; 3 - 16.14 ; 4 - 21.88 ; 5 - 27.15 ; 6 - 32.51

So the late cars have the close ratio gearbox and theoretically might accelerate just that bit quicker - and be less economical.

I have a complete Excel spreadsheet setting out everything in detail - but can't upload to this website...

ahhh i see, i've been misled in the past.

i was lead to believe only 6th gear differs....

my box recently shat its shaft, 05 plate, HDS gearbox, got another HDS one to keep the ratio's the same.....

i wonder what box would be quicker, hardly gonna be much in it?

Try these screenshots:

Acording to those is the 04 car got a longer ratio?

Is there any visual differences between the two cars coz i have looked at loads of pics and cant see any. lol

my 04 plate has the longer gear box - only the very early 03/53 plate cars will have the shorter box

rear lights are the main exterior difference

Pre-"face lift" cars had 2 horinzontal sections of clear plastic

on "face lifted" cars these 2 sections were joined together

Other than that......no not really

Edited 17 August, 201015 yr by PastyBoy

so the 53 plates are the slighty quicker ones by the look of that glad mines a 53plate now

so the 53 plates are the slighty quicker ones by the look of that glad mines a 53plate now

lol but the short gearing is countered by having to change gear more! 04 plate FTW!

I wouldn't worry about detailed changes in the VRS range beas they are all more economical than the Clio. Just go put and find the best you can for your money.

lol but the short gearing is countered by having to change gear more! 04 plate FTW!

When your maxed out at 130mph and i over take you up to 152mph then we will chat mwahahaha it will make all those gear changes wort it

Acording to those is the 04 car got a longer ratio?

I'd interpret it as shorter - i.e. at a given speed the later car will be revving more (I got it the wrong way round previously as I've noted)

Is there any visual differences between the two cars coz i have looked at loads of pics and cant see any. lol

No differences whatsoever externally in respect of the gearbox. Remember the gearbox change occurred 9-12 months BEFORE the facelift arrived - and, as I've mentioned recently, the facelift car - most readily identified by the changed rear lights but having certain other differences too (e.g. deleted rear door lock buttons) - was phased in over a period.

Hence my early facelift car didn't have (a) the changed upper dashboard material or ( the price rise - the latter arrived about a month later...

There was then an engine change/modification in late 2005 (?) which initially caused problems but others would have to advise what that involved - certainly the one in my present car doesn't really seem any different...

Note that there is a change on the pre-facelift cars. The earlier ones had a longer vRS badge sourced from the OCTAVIA - it was subsequently shortened to equate with FABIA. However one can't definitely conclude the early gearbox equated with the long vRS badge. It would be very useful if someone could quote the chassis number for the changed gearbox - and any other modifications...

(Edited response when I realised the early picture wasn't a vRS badge?)

Edited 17 August, 201015 yr by DRJ