Are Renault really that stupid? Read on..

  • Thread starter Thread starter TurboSmoke
  • 41 comments
  • 1,757 views
Wikipedia
The Volkswagen Lupo is a city car manufactured by Volkswagen.
(...)
Various special-edition and test models have set records in fuel economy. The lightweight nature of the car and advanced 3-cylinder diesel engine have resulted in a production model (the Lupo 3L) that can consume as little as 3 litres per 100 kilometres (78 miles per US gallon or 94 miles per Imperial gallon). It was rumoured that it was this model that encouraged Renault to produced the Clio V6, since they assumed 3L stood for a 3-litre engine.
I'm sorry, but in my eyes, that's bull. The Clio V6 was the logical successor of the R5 Turbo, and not the product of something Renault misunderstood. I really can't believe that it only was produced because of the 3L Lupo being misinterpreted. This may well have been a rumour, but some rumours just turn out not to be true.

Regards
the Interceptor
 
No, that's not true, the Clio V6 was the modern R5 Turbo, no less.
 
Nothing, it's a great driver's car, and the Clio 172 is nothing like a R5 turbo successor, that'd be like the next Porsche 911 successor being front engined.
 
Nothing are wrong with the V6s. Only the usual niggles the Clio has, like that last gen one has bad build quality, reliability issues and bad driving position, but it is still a great car to drive. The only problem I've heard it has, apparently like with a mid-engined Renos, it has a tendacy to spin when driven hard. Other than that, it's very good.

It's a shame the car didn't sell that well here.
 
The first gen Clio V6 got loose on the limit, and would spin pretty sharply, the second gen V6 had that sorted out.
 
Really? I remember Jeremy Clarkson testing it for that very reason as they had a reputation of doing so, and it still spun, BUT he was pushing it very hard so any car like that would do I suppose.
 
If the Clio V6 is good enough for Fernando Alonso, it is good enough for you. End of story.
 
The V6 clio was pointless and outshined by the 182. Every review I read said so, and the 182 was faster than the clio V6 on B roads. A guy over on a impreza forum went for a test drive the other day and he was very dissapointed. He liked the RS4 very much though :sly:
 
The Clio V6 is nothing like an Impreza, if a guy took one for a test drive and expected it to be a rocket, he would be dissapointed. The Clio 182 isn't as powerful, or as fast, it does corner better though. But the Clio V6 is a proper drivers car, this is somethin that 0-60 and lap time's do not convey. Performance isn't the be all and end all of how good a car is. Sure the Clio V6 was rather pointless as a car, but so is a Ferrari, so is a Lamborghini, so is an M3, when a normal 3 series makes so much more sense.
 
This is what he thought of the clio.

Then I had a drive in a Clio V6 . This car disappointed me, despite my lack of expectations. It’s not the most accommodating cabin if your 6’3 and above . The car under steered and I was never sure it was going to react to the inputs I was frantically feeding it. This car was returned post haste to the dealer

He also test drove a Evo 8 and RS4 that day.
 
He sound's like he wasn't a confident driver, simple as, give it the beans and it'll perform, it offer's a thoroughly enjoyable drive. It isn't however, in the same class as the Evo 8 and the Evo 8 isn't in the same class as the RS4, so I'm perplexed as to what type of car this person was actually after.
 
The RS4 and Evo are totally different cars. I'm not surprised he felt disappointed driving the Clio after he'd driven them. But still, all reviews I've read, the Clio is still a very decent car to drive.
 
hey man, dont shoot the messenger, i didnt write this guff...

just thought you all deserved a chuckle...


GilesGuthrie
It's May 1st, not April 1st...

The 3L engine found in the Clio V6 is what's commonly referred to as a "parts-bin special".
 
*sound of gun being cocked*


Don't worry, no one's shooting you down, just the rumour in the Wiki article.
 
The 172 and 182 are fantastic car's, they deserve praise no one has said otherwise, but that doesn't mean you have to discredit the V6 in doing so.
 
Then they're jealouse, it's a forum for Impreza fan's as you said, so they're opinion will generally be havilly biased towards the Impreza especially in regards to a car that's actually an Impreza rival performance wise. Like G.T. said, all the review's of the V6 are positive and the car alway's get's praised overall.
 
live4speed
The Clio V6 is nothing like an Impreza...

Um, both understeer a lot...

When they fixed the tail-happiness for the second-gen Clio V6, they neutered it and made it so that it just wouldn't turn. :crazy:
 
they all acknowledge that theyre arch enemy evo is the better car though, but that they chose the impreza because of running costs and slightly better interior
 
Wolfe2x7
Um, both understeer a lot...

When they fixed the tail-happiness for the second-gen Clio V6, they neutered it and made it so that it just wouldn't turn. :crazy:

Sorry but this based on your experience driving how many of these?


I've driven both generations of the V6 and was lucky enough to be working for Renault at the time of the original cars launch.

First off the Wiki story is just that, a story, Renaultsport have a history of producing cars of this nature, as has been said already the Clio V6 is a succesor to the R5 Maxi. It was also the basis for a very good one make race series.

As far as the drive goes, in terms of straight line speed and acceleration the V6 was killed by its curb weight and the Mk 1 was also very tricky on the limit.

The Mk 2, while not being massively faster is a much better drivers car and it was not neutered in any way, in fact the revised suspension improved the cars handling massively.

As far as understeer goes, its a car that needs to be driven in quite a similar manner to a 911, its weight bias is strongly to the rear and does need a slow in approach.

In closing, yes the 182 is in many ways a faster car, but the world would have been a much poorer place without the Clio V6, it turns heads and sounds great.

Regards

Scaff
 
I'd love a Clio V6... (Better yet, R5 Turbo 2... In red please...)
 
Scaff
Sorry but this based on your experience driving how many of these?


I've driven both generations of the V6 and was lucky enough to be working for Renault at the time of the original cars launch.

First off the Wiki story is just that, a story, Renaultsport have a history of producing cars of this nature, as has been said already the Clio V6 is a succesor to the R5 Maxi. It was also the basis for a very good one make race series.

As far as the drive goes, in terms of straight line speed and acceleration the V6 was killed by its curb weight and the Mk 1 was also very tricky on the limit.

The Mk 2, while not being massively faster is a much better drivers car and it was not neutered in any way, in fact the revised suspension improved the cars handling massively.

As far as understeer goes, its a car that needs to be driven in quite a similar manner to a 911, its weight bias is strongly to the rear and does need a slow in approach.

In closing, yes the 182 is in many ways a faster car, but the world would have been a much poorer place without the Clio V6, it turns heads and sounds great.

Regards

Scaff

Good post !...
 
And anyway, a mid-engined V6 hatchback ... how much cooler can any small car be? Okay, it may not be that pretty, good to drive or quick, but for pure excitement, the Clio V6 definitely is at the top.

Regards
the Interceptor
 
the Interceptor
And anyway, a mid-engined V6 hatchback ... how much cooler can any small car be? Okay, it may not be that pretty, good to drive or quick, but for pure excitement, the Clio V6 definitely is at the top.

Regards
the Interceptor

Exactly - The Coolness factor of having a small hatchback with the engine stuffed in the boot and some fat fenders - it's simply unbeatable !...
 
Poverty
they all acknowledge that their arch enemy evo is the better car though, but that they chose the impreza because of running costs and slightly better interior

What the....... :odd:

How the hell can they say that the Clio V6 is a rival to the EVO? They're 2 completely different cars!

Clio V6 - MR

Evo - 4WD

Clio - Hot Hatch

Evo - 4 door Saloon

Clio - 0-62 mph in 6.4 seconds seconds with a top speed of 147 mph

Evo - 0-62 in 4.7 seconds with a top speed of 157mph

Clio - 252BHP

Evo - 300BHP (base model)

If anything, the Clio is a rival to the Vauxhall Astra VXR, and it would smoke it easily around a track.
 

Latest Posts

Back