I thought since I'd picked up a Clio 172 recently that I'd give a little comparison to the Twingo 133 as I'd had a chance to drive them back to back.
I had a new Clio 172 back in 2003 but it's not since around 2007 that I've had a regular drive or a Clio 172/182. They're both small quick cars, one old skool and one new so thought they deserved a comparison....
Looks : Well side by side the Clio looks dated. With all it's angles and bigger wheels the Twingo looks much more modern and in my opinion is a more handsome car. That said the Twingo is noticeably taller than the Clio and in 172 guise is a lot more subtle. Good for surprising people but doesn't turn heads like the 133 does. The 172 is by no means a bad looking car and with it's Xenons, deeper bumpers and bigger archers looks something more special than any old MKII Clio.
Interior : Again the interior of the Twingo is a lot more modern, reading the speedo is far easier as it is so much more prominent than in the Clio, that said the rev count is still easily in sight. The seats in the Clio are a lot firmer but in turn more supportive whilst cornering. You feel like you sit quite high in the Clio where as in the Twingo you sit high but everything is designed to fit round so everything is easier to reach. The Clio feels high because everything inside it is low and slightly distant from the driver so the seat always feels like it should be lower to the floor. The dash board is more conventional than the Twingo but doesn't look bad for it although with the climate controls being so low it's a big improvement having the heater controls that bit higher in the Twingo. In terms of space the Twingo has far more useable rear seats where as the Clio feels as small as it looks. One thing that does date the interior of the 172 is it's steering wheel, skinny and too big where as the Twingos feels just right.
Features : This is where the Clio wins hands down, not only do you get auto wipers and lights, like the Twingo, you get Xenons by default and climate control. The standard stereo is better than the standard Twingo unit although not as good as the stereo upgrade. You also get leather/alcantara seats and door cards as well as lit sun visor mirrors which all add to a quality feel. The interior is more like the Twingo Gordini not the standard 133. Build quality of both feels fairly similar, the doors shut with a similar feel, not like they'll drop off but hardly German quality.
Performance : Off the line and in gear the Clio has noticeably more power as you'd expect with extra 40bhp it has on offer. The Twingo is by no means slow but the Clio pulls more lower down the revs and is that bit more eager to get up to speed. In turn though it makes for a frantic and generally less relaxed drive. The extra power means you have to be very aware of speeding and putting your foot down where as the Twingo has just enough power to make it fun and engaging without the effort. Where the gearbox in the Clio is smoother compared to the somewhat notchy Twingo box, it has a longer throw where the 133 gearbox feels short and snappy, ideal for stirring that 1.6 engine.
Handling : The Twingo wins on this count without question. The handling of the 133 is it's party piece and even without the Cup chassis feels more responsive and inspires more confidence than the 172. The Clio is still a hugely capable car and offers loads of grip and the handling is still very good. It's just that the Twingo is just better. The ride quality in a 133 Cup is far firmer and more jarring than the 172 which feels like a softer version of a non-Cup 133.
Running costs : The Clio is an insurance group 16 so higher than the Twingo and no doubt expensive for younger drivers. The 172 will achieve between 29-32mpg on average so a little less than the Twingo but not worlds apart. Obviously to buy the Clio is cheaper and shouldn't cause many big problems provided they have been serviced as and when they should but the Twingo is more modern and is overall all slightly cheaper to run.
So if you went from a 133 to a 172 you'd end up grinning because of the extra power, the 172 is effortlessly quicker than most cars where the 133 has to be worked that bit more. That said if you came from a 172 to a 133 the new feel and sharper handling would put a grin on your face for different reasons.
My conclusion is that if you decide on a newer car and have currently have a 172 you'd not be disappointed one bit with the 133 despite it having less power. If you're looking at buying a cheaper car, the 172 would make a great decision.
Both are fantastic RenaultSport cars and therefore make you feel good when you're behind the wheel.
I had a new Clio 172 back in 2003 but it's not since around 2007 that I've had a regular drive or a Clio 172/182. They're both small quick cars, one old skool and one new so thought they deserved a comparison....
Looks : Well side by side the Clio looks dated. With all it's angles and bigger wheels the Twingo looks much more modern and in my opinion is a more handsome car. That said the Twingo is noticeably taller than the Clio and in 172 guise is a lot more subtle. Good for surprising people but doesn't turn heads like the 133 does. The 172 is by no means a bad looking car and with it's Xenons, deeper bumpers and bigger archers looks something more special than any old MKII Clio.
Interior : Again the interior of the Twingo is a lot more modern, reading the speedo is far easier as it is so much more prominent than in the Clio, that said the rev count is still easily in sight. The seats in the Clio are a lot firmer but in turn more supportive whilst cornering. You feel like you sit quite high in the Clio where as in the Twingo you sit high but everything is designed to fit round so everything is easier to reach. The Clio feels high because everything inside it is low and slightly distant from the driver so the seat always feels like it should be lower to the floor. The dash board is more conventional than the Twingo but doesn't look bad for it although with the climate controls being so low it's a big improvement having the heater controls that bit higher in the Twingo. In terms of space the Twingo has far more useable rear seats where as the Clio feels as small as it looks. One thing that does date the interior of the 172 is it's steering wheel, skinny and too big where as the Twingos feels just right.
Features : This is where the Clio wins hands down, not only do you get auto wipers and lights, like the Twingo, you get Xenons by default and climate control. The standard stereo is better than the standard Twingo unit although not as good as the stereo upgrade. You also get leather/alcantara seats and door cards as well as lit sun visor mirrors which all add to a quality feel. The interior is more like the Twingo Gordini not the standard 133. Build quality of both feels fairly similar, the doors shut with a similar feel, not like they'll drop off but hardly German quality.
Performance : Off the line and in gear the Clio has noticeably more power as you'd expect with extra 40bhp it has on offer. The Twingo is by no means slow but the Clio pulls more lower down the revs and is that bit more eager to get up to speed. In turn though it makes for a frantic and generally less relaxed drive. The extra power means you have to be very aware of speeding and putting your foot down where as the Twingo has just enough power to make it fun and engaging without the effort. Where the gearbox in the Clio is smoother compared to the somewhat notchy Twingo box, it has a longer throw where the 133 gearbox feels short and snappy, ideal for stirring that 1.6 engine.
Handling : The Twingo wins on this count without question. The handling of the 133 is it's party piece and even without the Cup chassis feels more responsive and inspires more confidence than the 172. The Clio is still a hugely capable car and offers loads of grip and the handling is still very good. It's just that the Twingo is just better. The ride quality in a 133 Cup is far firmer and more jarring than the 172 which feels like a softer version of a non-Cup 133.
Running costs : The Clio is an insurance group 16 so higher than the Twingo and no doubt expensive for younger drivers. The 172 will achieve between 29-32mpg on average so a little less than the Twingo but not worlds apart. Obviously to buy the Clio is cheaper and shouldn't cause many big problems provided they have been serviced as and when they should but the Twingo is more modern and is overall all slightly cheaper to run.
So if you went from a 133 to a 172 you'd end up grinning because of the extra power, the 172 is effortlessly quicker than most cars where the 133 has to be worked that bit more. That said if you came from a 172 to a 133 the new feel and sharper handling would put a grin on your face for different reasons.
My conclusion is that if you decide on a newer car and have currently have a 172 you'd not be disappointed one bit with the 133 despite it having less power. If you're looking at buying a cheaper car, the 172 would make a great decision.
Both are fantastic RenaultSport cars and therefore make you feel good when you're behind the wheel.
![DZSFTY [Replacement] for Renault for Twingo for Scenic for Megane for Laguna for Kangoo for Clio II 2 for MK2 172 18 for Logan ABS Car Gear Shift Knob Lever Shifter Stick Pen Head (Sliver)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/31XJvjySvmL._SL500_.jpg)
