Renault Clio 1.5 dCi

...I cannot imagine that Renault have conned the authorities into thinking that a good sample of their motor cars does 64 when it doesn't, but what am I to make of this glaring disparity? The simple fact is that there is absolutely no sensible relationship between what I know as a fact and what the car's onboard computer is telling me. Just to add insult to injury, actually the Honda did as well in the real world, despite being slightly bigger, and ...
...
I did email Renault - it's their problem, not the dealer's, after all is said and done - and after prodding they did come back, but claimed that the displayed mpg was only 'an indication', which was about as unconvincing as they could get. If the actual figures were, say, two or three mpg different from what is displayed I would find it acceptable, but ten to twelve mpg! Come on, pull the other one Renault. That's nearly a 25% difference!! ... more

Clio 1.5 DCi Dynamique 86

We ordered our Clio in November and picked it up just after the New Year, opting for the 86 over the more powerful 110 for the former's quietness and economy. It's silver and we also opted for cruise control and climate control. Also we had a towbar fitted for my small trailer.

The car feels very solid, as it should when weighing in at 1400 kg, and the doors sound nice and clumpy. The seats are comfortable and supportive, and the cabin generally seems solid and functional. The controls are placed well, unobtrusive generally and work effectively. The car is impressively quiet, road surface noise rarely intruding .

On the road the car gives a good sense of being glued to the ground - although I have slid it on wet snow - and the brakes are excellent, being progressive and very powerful, which contributes to confidence. The ABS has not convinced me yet, it is poorer than the Honda Civic we had previously but it is better than simple manual braking. As a vehicle the Clio is acceptably quick and smooth, with the typical turbo-diesel mid-range grunt which is so useful for pulling past slower traffic. This doesn't alter much even when the car is loaded, probably because one is pulling a fair weight to begin with. The car has the typical diesel effortlessness; there is no sense of having to 'row the thing along', which one can get with some small cars.

The electric steering is very light but rather dead, but I would prefer it that way around with my arthritic wrists, rather than heavier and with more feel. The turning circle is significantly tighter than my '03 Civic, which is useful, and the car is measurably easier to park, the rear view being better and this is further helped by the smaller dimensions. Manouvering my small trailer is also much easier, the geometry of the rear window and the hitch angle making it possible to reverse, a trick which was nigh on impossible with the Honda. Backing a long-wheelbase trailer/caravan should be no problem.

The suspension is supple without being in any sense loose, wobbly or 'floaty', and seems to deal well with most road surfaces. The short wheelbase inevitably shows up in extreme situations, but as I am not in the habit of off-roading this doesn't usually bother me.

The boot space a tad limited, understandable in a small car, but they have done a good job on the options for putting the seats down, and one can get an almost flat boot+rear-seat area. The spare is in the boot well, and full-sized, a distinct improvement on the Civic which had one of these 'get-you-home' jobs. The rear seat-belt sockets are in little holders which prevent them disappearing down the crack between the two seat halves, which can be an absolute pain in other cars. Generally the inside is well thought through, although there are only three cupholders - two for those in the front, and one between the front seats reachable from the rear, and there are no holders for things like small change or driving spectacles. ISO child seat brackets are fitted and are easy to use. The sunshades can be pulled out and swung to the sides, but the holding clip is quite stiff.

The headlights are powerful, and have separate bulbs for dip and full beam, the dip remaining on when full beam is used. I find this useful, having enjoyed it on my Citroen ZX, and being disappointed that the Civic reverted to the single-bulb filament-swap system. There are lateral auxiliary lights which come on when turning corners, which I at first thought a little gimmicky but actually prove rather useful when turning in very dark places.

The gearbox is reasonably light to use, although not quick, but I did manage to jam the lever once, curiously. I am puzzled as to how it happened, and it took some fiddling before it released. It has only happened once.

The engine's grunt has been more manifest as it has run in, and despite the considerable weight the Clio's performance in a straight line is respectable - without it quite being in the Bugatti Veyron class - but then I didn't spend that sort of money. I did, however, invest in cruise control (CC), our lives seeming being dominated by the need to frequently travel a minimum of 200 miles, and often considerably more, to see our family. Apart from a slight tendency for the system to 'hunt' when the engine is not properly warm, this has been a revelation.

When first investigating CC I was told a lot of rubbish by people - car salesmen in particular - who should unquestionably have known better. I was told that it was going to be made illegal, and that it was going to be taxed, that it was dangerous, etc., etc. In fact it has been more-or-less standard on luxury cars for many years, and is increasingly appearing on smaller cars; there are no plans that I am aware of to specially target it from a tax point of view; but yes, in some respects, it is potentially dangerous.

So, let it be said, is driving on an empty motorway at 70 mph, or even 40. Hitting something really immoveable at that speed - a bridge pier for example - will kill you as effectively as falling out of a 'plane at 1000 ft, seatbelts and airbags not withstanding. The human body was never designed to stop dead from speeds of 60+ feet per second, and no car is 100% reliable. So we have to be just a bit balanced here.

CC works by the driver setting the current speed into a memory with a button push, and then, when the foot is taken off the accelerator, the engine management system (EMS) takes over and keeps the car at the memorised speed. In the Clio one can use the accelerator to increase the car speed (to pass a truck, for instance), and when one lifts off the EMS regains control and resumes at the previously set speed. The slightest touch on the brake, or declutching to change gear, or a press of the 'Off' button, will disconnect the CC and return absolute control to the driver. It works, and works well.

The Clio's CC, like nearly all modern ones, is incremental, allowing one to adjust the speed up or down by approximately 1mph for each button-press. This is a refinement which is very useful when in a column of traffic and someone ahead is moving marginally slower (or faster) than yourself.

However, without a shadow of doubt CC slows one's reactions. The reason is simple. With one's foot on the carpet it takes measurably longer in an emergency to lift the foot and stamp on the brake than to transfer it sideways from the adjoining accelerator pedal. CC should never be used if there are a lot of cars closely around one, or on country or urban roads - anywhere, in fact, where you need, or are very likely to need, full control.

Using CC also has some wrinkles. I was intruiged by, for example, just how far away from a roundabout one had to cancel the CC to slow down smoothly. It was considerably further than I had at first anticipated. It is also not necessarily the best way to keep a good mpg. The tendency under manual control is to slow down marginally on an upgrade and accelerate on a downgrade. CC simply feeds the power in as one goes up the hill and backs off as one goes down. At least the CC stops any tendency to see-saw on the loud pedal, which is seriously inimical to good fuel economy.

But the real advantage of CC, and for which we bought it, is that it allows the driver to be much more relaxed in appropriate situations. Both my wife and I have back problems, and sitting for two hours in one position, necessitated by keeping one's right foot in one place, plays real hookey with sciatica. CC eliminates that almost totally. I wouldn't advocate actually putting one's feet up on the dash, but the freedom of movement allowed is wonderful. It has converted long journeys from being wearisome to being quite pleasurable. To take real advantage of the CC we have tended to travel in the late evening - and to avoid the M25. CC is not best used in a car park.

All that said, I have to confess that the engine itself is something of a disappointment so far. At first, when cold and to a lesser extent when warmed up, there is an annoying crackle to it, which fortunately is all but inaudible at engine speeds over about 2000 rpm. That has improved somewhat as the engine has run in, although it is still just present most of the time, and as colder weather sets in again is becoming more noticeable. It isn't a rattle, just a harshness. That said, in almost all other respects it is without fault so far - except for one other rather crucial point.

One of the reasons we bought the Clio, although it has to be said not the most important, was for its economy. The advertised 64 mpg was quite mouth-watering. After the first 1500 miles, during which the dealer warned that things wouldn't be quite what we expected, the displayed mpg has been between 60 and 68. So far so good.

Travelling from Barnstaple to Tiverton, in March 2008, behind a line of trucks trundling along at about 45 the Clio recorded 74 mpg, which, as anyone who knows that road will witness is no small feat due to some stiff hills. That did impress me, although in all fairness I really was employing a feather-foot. We then continued up to the Lake District, and although the average fell at 70 mph on the motorway it seemed to be able to keep up a pretty good mpg, and we returned home with it showing well over 60.

But then I did an independent calculation on the mpg from miles covered and litres actually put in, and was shocked to find that for all miles done, about 4000 to that point, the combined mpg came out around 52, and that did not take into account the small amount of fuel which the dealer put in to enable me to drive the car away.

Something is drastically wrong here. I cannot imagine that Renault have conned the authorities into thinking that a good sample of their motor cars does 64 when it doesn't, but what am I to make of this glaring disparity? The simple fact is that there is absolutely no sensible relationship between what I know as a fact and what the car's onboard computer is telling me. Just to add insult to injury, actually the Honda did as well in the real world, despite being slightly bigger, and having a larger engine.

I think Renault have some explaining to do here. I am disappointed with the fuel consumption, no question, but the real issue is the dishonesty. How can the EMS calculate such an mpg, one which is palpably incorrect? As far as I can tell the speedo is pretty accurate, which implies that the distance measurement system is also, but that leaves the fuel metering and the calculation system as possibly guilty. But EMS's these days have to meter fuel to the picolitre, so why can it not tell me the truth?

I did email Renault - it's their problem, not the dealer's, after all is said and done - and after prodding they did come back, but claimed that the displayed mpg was only 'an indication', which was about as unconvincing as they could get. If the actual figures were, say, two or three mpg different from what is displayed I would find it acceptable, but ten to twelve mpg! Come on, pull the other one Renault. That's nearly a 25% difference!! The only ameliorating factor, at least so far as the actual mpg is concerned, is that Renault do not consider the engine completely run in until it has covered 8000 miles, but frankly at the present rate of improvement of the mpg the car won't get anywhere near 64.

In order to nail this down properly I decided to fill the tank, clear the trip which controls the displayed mpg, and then run it for 300 miles or so. This I have now done and the results make for interesting reading.

Actual mileage was 346, true litres used were 28.3, making the true mpg 55.6. Claimed gallons used were 5.3, which converts to 24.1 litres, and the displayed mpg was 64.0. This is a 15% difference in the mpg. It is just possible that the fill-up at each end wasn't equivalent, but it isn't really tenable to use this as an explanation of a 4 litre disparity. Whatever, it is the fuel used which seems to be the problem, and one wonders just how this measurement is achieved and whether it is possible to re-calibrate a sensor to make this more representative.

In all fairness I ought also to say that on the previous fill-up I recorded a true mpg of 58+, and we are not out of the running-in period yet. Nevertheless there is still the issue of the discrepancy between what I know the car is doing and what it tells me. A disparity of 2-3 mpg might be acceptable. Frankly 8+ mpg really isn't. I suppose I am a little irritated that with normal use the car is apparently achieving its advertised mpg when as a matter of strict fact it is doing nothing of the kind. I wonder just how many other Clio buyers are being conned into thinking that their car is doing 64mpg?

That all sounds as if it is a serious issue. In one sense it is of course - I object very strongly to being conned, and conned I have been over what the car is actually doing. In almost all other respects, however, the car has more than lived up to its promise. It's a solid, brisk, quiet and relatively frugal bit of kit, with just enough internal space to be seriously useful, and small enough and with the manoeuvrability to park almost anywhere. It also attracts no congestion charge - yet - and has a nominal road tax. The CC is a life saver for us. The styling isn't quite my cup of tea, admittedly, and I thought that the Civic was significantly more elegant, but so what? I'm inside, and frankly I don't give a hoot about what it looks like outside, so long as it works. Does it work? Yes. Ok then. 

...less