http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/video-renault-clio-rs-200-turbo-vs-toyota-gt86

I don't follow George?

I guess he means it's a small, fast automatic hatchback, but a notch or two above the vRS in terms of performance, handling etc.

I guess he means it's a small, fast automatic hatchback, but a notch or two above the vRS in terms of performance, handling etc.

Oh I see. There will be plenty that beat the vrs in terms of performance and handling. Not really any need to start a new thread for each

We will need to see if Performance is actually better,

handling might be better, but thats not hard to do..

Grapo,

Some here are looking for Replacements for their vRS or waiting for a mk3.

that could be long enough of a wait.

Well this does not use oil (yet, or maybe never) and reportedly handles quite well.

Comes only with an Autobox, 5 door and from a very similar asking price for the basic one.

*Title was not for taking literally really, just so that the Mods might allow it to stay here.*

I pay no attention to road tester that do not like Autos, or think interesting handling in the dry is good but never mention what it may be like in the wet.

it would have been good if he showed manual changes with the stick in the Clio. IMO

&

compared a GT 86 or BRZ with the Autobox and paddles, not just a manual..

Mention of a 5 door 4/5 seater,

compared to a 3 door, 2 + 2 small ones was missed out i think

george

He had two major reasons for why the 86 is "better" than the Clio.

1. It had a manual gearbox. That is, of course, a personal choice, and many prefer a manual, and since the Clio isn't available with one, then of course it "lost" on that score.

2. It slid around more. Why that makes it more "fun" I'm not sure, unless once again it's personal choice. Since the 86 is said to be using the same tyres as the Prius does, is it any wonder that the back end will actually slide despite the relatively modest power for a RWD vehicle?

Maybe Renault should put crappier tyres on the Clio to make it more fun?

Edited 22 March, 201313 yr by OzFabia

That clio is UUGGGLLLYY even more so than the rear of the fabia

The GT86 though - i saw the concept soft top at the Geneva autoshow a couple of weeks back... that thing was NICE! cant really say its a fair comparison to the fabia, but in general was a stunning looking motor.

This thread may be better on general car forum area. It has nothing to do with the Fabia.

It is in the 'General Car Chat' section, 'Turbo cars can now sound good.'

that is where i spotted it and pinched it from.

Then retitled the post to what i wanted,

then posted here.

Sorry it bothers you so much.

Report the post and the Mods can move it for you, or re-title it.

george

At £3k more than the rrp of a fabia vrs I think it's too expensive. Especially as the fabia vrs is vat free currently.

May as well buy a year old golf gti with dsg.

I'll stick with me Skoda thanks

Duplicating threads already on the forum? Whatever next

How about paying £12 to contribute to the forum upkeep and maybe they will make you a Moderator.

I said sorry to you for my duplicate Post,

now i will get my coat , sleek off and commit Hari Kari.

george

Wouldn't need to pay 12 quid to upkeep the forum and move threads about if people didn't start duplicate threads .

Anyway, Clio rs has less torque than a Fabia vrs? Rubbish French plastic car (etc etc )

The Clio might interest me,it's improved from the old Clio in that it's got a turbo ,so more torque,four doors and the dual clutch gearbox and better handling than the Fabia.

Against is the possible worst build quality and the assumption that it will have less interior and boot space than the Fabia.

Tbh I think I will look next to the class above and the current Focus St looks good for my needs.It's more money but Fords are always heavily discounted and £17/18k should buy one new enough...not auto ,so I'd have to think hard about that one.

As I said in another post I like the car with reservations.

There is a massive difference between 250Nm (MK2 vRS) and 180nM - ask people who gained that with remaps/mods!

I do not hink I will be trading vRS in for eother of them

I'd go for the new hachi-roku everytime after driving one. I was skeptical about did it have enough power but I never felt it needed more. Handling is pin sharp.

The Clio might interest me,it's improved from the old Clio in that it's got a turbo ,so more torque,four doors and the dual clutch gearbox and better handling than the Fabia.

Against is the possible worst build quality and the assumption that it will have less interior and boot space than the Fabia.

Tbh I think I will look next to the class above and the current Focus St looks good for my needs.It's more money but Fords are always heavily discounted and £17/18k should buy one new enough...not auto ,so I'd have to think hard about that one.

I'd disagree in regards to build quality. Granted they are two different things but I think they go hand in hand really.

See this link and model reliability at the bottom of the page;

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/breakdown-cover/most-reliable-cars/

Clio is in the top 30, not a skoda, or a fabia in sight...

Edited 11 April, 201313 yr by BTSvRS

Specsavers appointment required possibly.

Skoda is there just above Rover !!!

In Manufacturers reliability.

Skoda shows in cheapest to repair list.

Renault does not appear to rate well in that link.

Pleased to see that the Picanto is showing top for reliability, but then i knew that already about them.

george

Specsavers appointment required possibly.

Skoda is there just above Rover !!!

In Manufacturers reliability.

george

I know that, I was referring to the model reliability section below where the clio is 24th.

What surprises me is some of the results.

Do many people with 5 or 7 year manufacturers warranties take out Warranties with a Warranty Company.

Lots to do with the types of people that buy certain types of cars look after them, and still take out Warranties,

so low claims or repair costs.

then,

people that buy Land Rovers or the likes, knowing the potential risks and know they really need a Extended Warranty, and then use it.

There are many types of cars there that are regularly Hire & Lease cars, possibly abused in early life.

Do they get Warranties and appear in the Figures and effect greatly the results that were supplied to Moneysupermarket by the Warranty Company.

george

Yeah I would agree, there will never be a comprehensive set of data to show reliability as some people won't report things/get them fixed elsewhere etc, or like you say, never need to use warranty.

We've got a Renault, it's ten years old. It's electronics are giving up the ghost

Her's as comprehensible set of data as thye come, courtesy of TUV

http://www.anusedcar.com/

Skoda is not doing that bad at all

There is a good road test article on the 'RS Clio 200 Turbo' in EVO May issue no 182.

Also this month a very informative article entitled 'RIP The manual gearshift'

george

From the Article.

http://www.evo.co.uk...d_pictures.html