I've just landed myself a new job, which brings two things:
1) More money.
2) A longer commute.
I currently drive a 52 plate 1.4 renault clio which I get 38-42mpg from. Whilst it's served me fairly well, the clutch is on the way out and I had advisory notice for play in my steering rack when I went for my last MOT. That, coupled with the fact that I'm going to be covering more ground now, means I need a new motor!
Anyway, I really like the looks of the 2.0 FR, think the kit it comes with is great and have only read good things about it. Unfortunately though, it's really at the high-end of my budget and so I've been looking at the 1.6 SC as well.
I'm after a car that's about a year old with less than 15k miles on the clock. Obviously the FR's are only just approaching 1 year old, and there's very few about on the used market (I don't know if that's because everyone loves them so much
), but the 1.6's are easy enough to find.
From what I've seen, FR's are about £13 - 15k and the SCs are about £10k. Now, seeing as you can supposedly get a new FR for £15k, I was surprised to see them advertised for up to £15.5k, a year old and with over 10k miles on the clock. They certainly seem to be holding their value well, Parkers estimated worth of £10 - £11k after a year.
Anyway, I'm looking for something that will give me more performance than my Clio, and better fuel consumption too. On paper, both the 1.6 and 2.0 models look to be able to achieve better fuel consumption, though I've read on here about poor economy for the 1.6? Could any 1.6 or 2.0 owners tell me their real-world mpg?
As for performance, Parkers lists the 0-60 time as 10.2 seconds for both the 1.6 and my current clio. I know diesels are different though, will it feel more powerful? Or will there not really be much difference... I've looked into the option of remapping it but there doesn't seem to be much information out there.
Any personal opinions on each motor and whether the £3k difference for the FR is justifiable are welcome
1) More money.
2) A longer commute.
I currently drive a 52 plate 1.4 renault clio which I get 38-42mpg from. Whilst it's served me fairly well, the clutch is on the way out and I had advisory notice for play in my steering rack when I went for my last MOT. That, coupled with the fact that I'm going to be covering more ground now, means I need a new motor!
Anyway, I really like the looks of the 2.0 FR, think the kit it comes with is great and have only read good things about it. Unfortunately though, it's really at the high-end of my budget and so I've been looking at the 1.6 SC as well.
I'm after a car that's about a year old with less than 15k miles on the clock. Obviously the FR's are only just approaching 1 year old, and there's very few about on the used market (I don't know if that's because everyone loves them so much
), but the 1.6's are easy enough to find.From what I've seen, FR's are about £13 - 15k and the SCs are about £10k. Now, seeing as you can supposedly get a new FR for £15k, I was surprised to see them advertised for up to £15.5k, a year old and with over 10k miles on the clock. They certainly seem to be holding their value well, Parkers estimated worth of £10 - £11k after a year.
Anyway, I'm looking for something that will give me more performance than my Clio, and better fuel consumption too. On paper, both the 1.6 and 2.0 models look to be able to achieve better fuel consumption, though I've read on here about poor economy for the 1.6? Could any 1.6 or 2.0 owners tell me their real-world mpg?
As for performance, Parkers lists the 0-60 time as 10.2 seconds for both the 1.6 and my current clio. I know diesels are different though, will it feel more powerful? Or will there not really be much difference... I've looked into the option of remapping it but there doesn't seem to be much information out there.
Any personal opinions on each motor and whether the £3k difference for the FR is justifiable are welcome
