Smug git.

[Albi06]

I've come from a 280bhp WRX and i have a lot more confidence in the corners, much more feel in the corners for what the wheels are doing.

As for a straight line it is definately slower, i think because it's a high reving engine and a short ratio gearbox it feels and sounds quicker but in reality it's nowhere near.

 

[TB Rich]

The f4r is not rubbish, not at all and I agree with antnee.

It is not tunable I give you that but far from being rubbish. It is as reliable as it gets as opposed to K20, it will output 100bhp/lt if broken in properly, it has more torque than the K20 and it passes the euro 5 emissions even if it's a high rev 2.0 lt engine...

As I said, far from rubbish

I would like to compare in the real world on the road differences with my F4R vs a K20. I'd be the first to slate the F4R normally, but now mines mapped properly and making good power I'm not so sure. Just been looking at some dyno's on K20's (typical 240-250bhp ones - comparable in mods etc), and they are all making 165-175ft.lb at 5.5-6000rpm. On RST's rollers I made 174 at 4700. So the ft.lb/per litre which is the real yard stick of a good engine puts the F4R right on song. As a point of reference, when NA 90ft.lb/litre+ is the measure of a damn good engine, once you're at 90 then chasing more is very much in the law of diminishing returns. I'm at 87 and when I sort my centre system out (still rueing the missing 10bhp after the exhaust got cut up last) then I reckon it'll put me bang on 90.

Even some of the RR's I've just seen on the 260-270bhp K20's are still doing only 180ft.lb but just at ever increasing revs. aka 90ft.lb/litre. The F4R is lacking airflow (I suspect valve size) to compete with the K20's for ultimate power (and in turn our under-square geometry isn't suitable), but we are still making real decent torque and much lower rpm's..... hence I'd like to see how we compare to these 240/250bhp Civics.

 

[Kazumz]

At the end of the day, it's a Clio.

It's fast enough to get you in trouble in the twisties and on the road, but the chassis is good enough to get you out of plenty of messy situations. I think, IMO, that it's a perfect balance the way it is.

Not to say I won't turbo the car, but although I want to do it, I won't go spent £5k to get it up to 320-340, it's just not viable at the moment and the car itself has served me well as is. Like everyone else has said, it's moreso seeing someones face when you pull away from them with a meg lump when they were expecting them to mince you. As for the track, most of us use the car as a daily, so I see nothing wrong with a turbo..

Both options are totally viable and totally good, the standard car is excellent and the meg conversion or turbo conversion is also excellent. N/A or not, it's the chassis that makes the car. I'll never sell my car, ever, because I know I'll never come across such a great and unique chassis as the 197/200 setup. I think it looks fantastic too, the shape is lovely and sits well on the road.

Different engines? No matter, it's all part of the same species and race. It's like comparing willy sizes if I'm honest...

 

[litchy]

At the end of the day, it's a Clio.

It's fast enough to get you in trouble in the twisties and on the road, but the chassis is good enough to get you out of plenty of messy situations. I think, IMO, that it's a perfect balance the way it is.

Not to say I won't turbo the car, but although I want to do it, I won't go spent £5k to get it up to 320-340, it's just not viable at the moment and the car itself has served me well as is. Like everyone else has said, it's moreso seeing someones face when you pull away from them with a meg lump when they were expecting them to mince you. As for the track, most of us use the car as a daily, so I see nothing wrong with a turbo..

Both options are totally viable and totally good, the standard car is excellent and the meg conversion or turbo conversion is also excellent. N/A or not, it's the chassis that makes the car. I'll never sell my car, ever, because I know I'll never come across such a great and unique chassis as the 197/200 setup. I think it looks fantastic too, the shape is lovely and sits well on the road.

Different engines? No matter, it's all part of the same species and race. It's like comparing willy sizes if I'm honest...

I'd agree but like willies, most would rather have a big one than a small one. I've never met a person who's been in a Meg Clio say they prefer it NA. The conversion comes with its issues but if Renault had both available from new, they would never have sold an NA Clio or 225 Meg for that matter. It's really that good.

 

[TB Rich]

I'd agree but like willies, most would rather have a big one than a small one. I've never met a person who's been in a Meg Clio say they prefer it NA. The conversion comes with its issues but if Renault had both available from new, they would never have sold an NA Clio or 225 Meg for that matter. It's really that good.

You say that, but I would never have bought the Clio if it had a turbo lump in it. Wouldn't have even got on the radar.

They'll always be connoisseurs who prefer quality over quantity

 

[nutnutwelshman]

My biggest mistake was Px my meg 250 so much better all round than my 197/200 and so much better build quality

 

[Foxspeed]

I would like to compare in the real world on the road differences with my F4R vs a K20. I'd be the first to slate the F4R normally, but now mines mapped properly and making good power I'm not so sure. Just been looking at some dyno's on K20's (typical 240-250bhp ones - comparable in mods etc), and they are all making 165-175ft.lb at 5.5-6000rpm. On RST's rollers I made 174 at 4700. So the ft.lb/per litre which is the real yard stick of a good engine puts the F4R right on song. As a point of reference, when NA 90ft.lb/litre+ is the measure of a damn good engine, once you're at 90 then chasing more is very much in the law of diminishing returns. I'm at 87 and when I sort my centre system out (still rueing the missing 10bhp after the exhaust got cut up last) then I reckon it'll put me bang on 90.

Even some of the RR's I've just seen on the 260-270bhp K20's are still doing only 180ft.lb but just at ever increasing revs. aka 90ft.lb/litre. The F4R is lacking airflow (I suspect valve size) to compete with the K20's for ultimate power (and in turn our under-square geometry isn't suitable), but we are still making real decent torque and much lower rpm's..... hence I'd like to see how we compare to these 240/250bhp Civics.

port sizes are also far bigger on k20...

the fr4 with it being under square gives it a torque advantage but ultimately limit revs

if you look at the age of the fr4 and what it has/got its only recently that some engine makers have caught up ie roller rockers/small hydraulics cam phasing

just a shame Renault didn't fit direct injection and twin vvt then it would be hitting some big numbers

 

[TB Rich]

port sizes are also far bigger on k20...

the fr4 with it being under square gives it a torque advantage but ultimately limit revs

if you look at the age of the fr4 and what it has/got its only recently that some engine makers have caught up ie roller rockers/small hydraulics cam phasing

just a shame Renault didn't fit direct injection and twin vvt then it would be hitting some big numbers

Twin VVT would be nice, or at the very least a properly key'd exh cam for a vernier. If I change cams I'll make sure the exh can be played with properly via a vernier as not having separate cam ladders to the rocker is such a bad design for using dial gauges etc

 

[litchy]

You say that, but I would never have bought the Clio if it had a turbo lump in it. Wouldn't have even got on the radar.

They'll always be connoisseurs who prefer quality over quantity

Quality? take that engine and gearbox and put it in any other car, and you'll see that in my opinion it's the worst engine and gearbox I've not had the pleasure of driving in 30 years. You can see where Renault spent their money and it wasn't on that. It offers you the power where you least need it and you have to drive it like you stole it all the time to go reasonably quick but certainly not fast. From cold, it's embarrassing to drive before it warms up. There's a lot of placebo about the engine and gearbox, and you feel like a race God as you go through the gears but in the real world, your going as fast as a 2 litre family car.
On the track where the chassis allows you to keep the momentum, it's something else but we don't live on the track.

You see, most work out that's it's a bit of a one trick pony quite quickly and these are not 'keepers' as you need more from cars that going round corners quickly. Cars also need to go on motorways where you aren't constantly checking your in the right gear!! Or that your not best mates with the local petrol station owner who pays for his family trip to Dubai each year on your fuel bill alone.

Of of course there's always the option to try to bring the NA engine up to the chassis capability. This wonderful engine to mod is like having a mistress. Easy to get into, even harder to get out of. This engine has lost girlfriends, caused divorces, raped savings and maxed out credit cards in the pursuit of power.

Meg conversion is not without its problems but once you've worked through them, it makes the Clio into a bit more of an all rounder. People need to drive one before they make judgement.

That said, would still have an NA Clio tmw but it wouldn't be a 197/200, it would be a 182 trophy.

 

[TB Rich]

Ah, he took the bait :biggrin:

That was a big reply mind so I'll comment back (I was trolling though re the quality/quantity comment! ) - this reminds me of the ITB vs Boost (SC) days when I had my 106!! So for me there's just not enough drama to a Meg swap to keep me interested, to me boost is the one trick pony - just hit the throttle (wait a bit (more trolling!) :lol and then go. It's the noise and feel of NA I much prefer. Within the realms of normal cars - you will always get used to the power and end up wanting more, therefore delivery and noise are the 2 things that keep a smile on your face long after you are used to the power. I learnt that from a wise engine builder many years ago, after I slapped a set of ITB's on and have never questioned NA since
Nothing wrong with the box either, synchros might be a blend of metal and chocolate but tbh this is such a common theme with cars - not restricted to Renault.

 

[litchy]

Ah, he took the bait :biggrin:

That was a big reply mind so I'll comment back (I was trolling though re the quality/quantity comment! ) - this reminds me of the ITB vs Boost (SC) days when I had my 106!! So for me there's just not enough drama to a Meg swap to keep me interested, to me boost is the one trick pony - just hit the throttle (wait a bit (more trolling!) :lol and then go. It's the noise and feel of NA I much prefer. Within the realms of normal cars - you will always get used to the power and end up wanting more, therefore delivery and noise are the 2 things that keep a smile on your face long after you are used to the power. I learnt that from a wise engine builder many years ago, after I slapped a set of ITB's on and have never questioned NA since
Nothing wrong with the box either, synchros might be a blend of metal and chocolate but tbh this is such a common theme with cars - not restricted to Renault.

forums eh....no bait. Each to their own I guess and I appreciate NA but IMO the 197/200 isn't one irrespective of how much you try to get more out of it. This isn't a NA v FI for me, its 197/200 NA I'm not a fan of. Like I said, it's the chassis that makes this car and not the engine and gearbox. Neither of which will win any prizes. Like I said each to their own but I really don't miss either of them.

 

[TB Rich]

Well we will never agree but whilst I would actually swap for a K20, my first post about ft.lb/litre shows the F4R isn't all bad at all. Being able to get 90ft.lb/litre around 1000rpm before a K20 means on the road I find for what it is it goes very well (or at least mine does now anyway).

Anyway I'm having a hankering (this week anyway :lol for a 370z, big CC NA power (won't fit the kids in it though!)

 

[Kazumz]

I like baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP,

but I also like baaaaaaaaRPPPPPSTUTTUTTTUTUTUTUTUTU.

Like comparing apples and pears to be honest. Each to their own.

 

[Chris]

Lol [MENTION=51445]Kazumz[/MENTION] you do have a way with words

 

[Kazumz]

Lol @Kazumz you do have a way with words

Yeah I'm a little messed up like that.

You'd never peg me for being 21, I'm more like a 15 year old who can drive.

 

[litchy]

Yeah I'm a little messed up like that.

You'd never peg me for being 21, I'm more like a 15 year old who can drive.

And that's why I'm the grumpy old fart on here that needs to sell this Clio and buy a BM or Audi. It's just a shame that it's so damn good and I can't justify or have the time to run 2 cars.

Like you say though, each to their own.

 

[antnee]

I prefer having a hoon in the 197 than the Fiesta ST, as Rich said it is about the delivery. With boost your power is always there which soon gets boring.

 

[Just_Jack2014]

I'm just putting this out there, Clio's arnt slow, off the line my Clio beets my friends vw shrrocco (tuned) and my friends Audi TT (also tune) they always beat me with sheer go but in town going between lights they never keep up, I have a 200 (without the paddle shift) I haven't even had my car remapped! Let's be fair, you don't buy a Renault sport as a practical car, its a toy! If you want something that is big in numbers get a GTR, if you want something that doesn't cost a fortune and is endless fun then get a Clio, or a Megan if you want a bigger more powerful car, ORRRR get a Clio and put the Megan engine in it and like Perviously said have a best of both worlds :-D

 

[Robo_#1]

In a drag race or straight line the Clio isn't that quick. In fact you'll end up looking pretty stupid just against some of the more high powered diesels kicking around these days. But point-to-point along a twisting road or something that requires good brakes/suspension and chassis you'll be having more fun AND carrying more speed. I can see why people Meg them, as having driven a 300+bhp meg'd Clio the power in such a small car is hilarious, and really makes them a bit of a giant killer. Although, after seeing so many conversions gone sideways in the build process, personally I don't know if the juice is worth the squeeze.