Naturally aspirated - upgrade options.

litchy said:
I'm not so romantic about the Clio engine and gearbox cause it heavily relies on the Clio's chassis. Its the worst 'standalone' engine I've had in a car bar none. Anything outside of the track, its completely unusable. Renaultsport created the illusion that your going fast but your not, its the speed you can take into and carry out of the corners that the Clio excels in. The ability to maintain that speed is absolutely a masterpiece.

Don't want to argue about the merits of both, but just to say the Megg'd Clio is a completely different animal than simply buying a Megane. Its like most stuff on forums though, its really down to personally preference and informed choice. Hard to really explain it, till you've experienced both...
Click to expand...

This is a nice post and the bit in red sums it up nicely. So true, the f4r engine is not a good engine and we all know it. Yes ok the NA feeling is good etc but is common knowledge that Renault couldn't be bothered so they tweaked a relatively old engine - originally designed for a car less than a tone - moved the ''power'' further across the range and when they realised that they would be dealing with a car nearly 300 kgs heavier they drop a stupidly close ratio gearbox to keep it alive (ruining the efficiency in the process lol 70mph/4krpm on a road car? Really?)

Yes fine...when driving in anger it's ok but it is a road car at the end of the day. I can totally understand people's frustration, I don't personally mind it, I love my car too much to mind (If I was doing motorways and checking mpgs i probably would) but I understand where people are coming from.

I've got a question though. Why isn't our engine tunable? I mean...172/182 can be turbocharged, supercharged, itb'ed etc. Why can't ours then? I thought that more or less they were the same engine, an engine that wasn't designed to be a high rev one anyway! So what is it that I'm missing?
 
Yiannis197 said:
This is a nice post and the bit in red sums it up nicely. So true, the f4r engine is not a good engine and we all know it. Yes ok the NA feeling is good etc but is common knowledge that Renault couldn't be bothered so they tweaked a relatively old engine - originally designed for a car less than a tone - moved the ''power'' further across the range and when they realised that they would be dealing with a car nearly 300 kgs heavier they drop a stupidly close ratio gearbox to keep it alive (ruining the efficiency in the process lol 70mph/4krpm on a road car? Really?)

Yes fine...when driving in anger it's ok but it is a road car at the end of the day. I can totally understand people's frustration, I don't personally mind it, I love my car too much to mind (If I was doing motorways and checking mpgs i probably would) but I understand where people are coming from.

I've got a question though. Why isn't our engine tunable? I mean...172/182 can be turbocharged, supercharged, itb'ed etc. Why can't ours then? I thought that more or less they were the same engine, an engine that wasn't designed to be a high rev one anyway! So what is it that I'm missing?
Click to expand...

Compression, crap ECU, chocolate pistons and rods. It's quite highly strung for an NA and the fact it's nowhere is as well developed as a honda engine means it's near it's natural designed limit. A honda, bolt what u want ok it and get 350bhp easy as that!

They are different to the 182 lump, VVT isn't just on or off like it was in the MK2's. Think all the subtle differences have made it a more difficult engine to do anything with. I don't think it's the worst engine, when it was out nearly 7/8 years ago it was good, but u think engines in General have vastly been improved since then. The whole Eco green stuff wasn't a part if a company's development then back then really. Where as now it's an integral part in selling the car, if the 197 was released now I think it would die on it's arse tbh. But all that said, it is a great car :smile:
 
Thanks for the info Mike, interesting. So basically Renault developed the engine and it made it worse!

As mentioned above the engine really suited the 172/182s but not the heavy 197/200s. But hey, it is what it is, not something that we didn't know prior to buying:smile:
Honda conversion anyone???
 
Yiannis197 said:
Thanks for the info Mike, interesting. So basically Renault developed the engine and it made it worse!

As mentioned above the engine really suited the 172/182s but not the heavy 197/200s. But hey, it is what it is, not something that we didn't know prior to buying:smile:
Honda conversion anyone???
Click to expand...

I don't think they made it worse, I think if they put it into the 182 it would be epic. I personally don't think enough development went into it. Like u said a lot of what they did was to compensate for the weight, and also more modern regulations. The Type-R isn't a light car, that's still 1200 ish kg but the engine is great and no one complains. So it's very similar in paper spec to to the Clio, but the Honda is quicker. I no if I hadn't modded mine to such a spec I would of traded it for something else by now. But with 300+ bhp in rather S/C or turbo form completely changed it. This is where I think it's an amazing car because the standard engine doesn't even give the car a whiff of what it's chassis is capable of! SC Definatly does keep it character, I don't think it feels any different from standard or even when I use my 182, the only difference being it's fookin quick. So there are options out there. Whether your bank account allows u is something else lol!
 
Sorry, like I said the engine is absolutely crap for a road car IMO. The power is soooo far up the rev range you need to drive it like you stole it even when you dont want too, and even then you need a runway to do it on make most of the pwer delivery. The gearbox ratios are ridiculous, and its like it needs a 7th gear. The things so highly strung and to the margins where its almost impossible to extract more that 5 bhp out of a healthy car. The casts on the inlets what an absolute joke. The idea that Renault put this in a 20 grand car beggars belief...

The chassis is a work of heart though, just a same they didn't give it an engine to go with it....
 
Last edited:
Yiannis197 said:
Thanks for the info Mike, interesting. So basically Renault developed the engine and it made it worse!

As mentioned above the engine really suited the 172/182s but not the heavy 197/200s. But hey, it is what it is, not something that we didn't know prior to buying:smile:
Honda conversion anyone???
Click to expand...

they didn't make it worse as it got more power standard...

as for the ctr engine it has less torque than the clio!!! having said that Honda did slightly different they built in more but lowered the potential in the normal cars so the tune up items always make a big effect...having said that Honda couldn't make the k20 meet euro5 whereas Renault did with the f4r...
 
the engine is at a disadvantage as the bore and stroke aint the best combination for the type of power delivery for starters...

n/a - is usually revs based to get more out therefore it has to have the ability to rev more or higher per given time to get more in the cylinders
whereas a turbo just forces it in at lower revs - and making that turbine do it is far easier (cheaper) than making a motor rev higher/better

the megane engine or should I say the 250 engine is basically a 197 with turbo bolted on (lower compression pistons aside)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom