| Statistics | Renault Clio V6 Phase 1 (2001) | Renault Clio V6 Phase 2 (2003) |
|---|---|---|
| Power | ||
| Torque | ||
| Kerb weight | ||
| Power-to-weight | ||
| 0-62 mph | ||
| Top speed | ||
| Price New | ||
| Price New (inflation adjusted) | ||
| Fuel type | Petrol | Petrol |
| Drivetrain | RWD | RWD |
| Combined MPG | ||
| CO2 | ||
| Engine | Mid-mounted 3.0-litre V6 | Mid-mounted 3.0-litre V6 |
| Cylinders | 6 | 6 |
| Induction type | Naturally aspirated | Naturally aspirated |
| Gearbox | 6-speed manual | 6-speed manual |
| Insurance group | ||
| Origin | FR | FR |
| Production years | 2001-2003 | 2003-2005 |
| Chassis code | C61A | CB1U |
The Renaultsport Clio V6 is best understood as two related but quite different attempts at the same wonderfully unhinged idea: take a small front-wheel-drive hatchback, remove the rear seats, put a 3.0-litre V6 behind the driver, and send the power to the rear wheels. The Phase 1, sold from 2001, was the rawer car. It was developed and built by TWR rather than Renaultsport’s Dieppe factory, and made around 230hp from its mid-mounted V6. The Phase 2, introduced in 2003, brought production back in-house to Renaultsport at Dieppe and raised output to roughly 255hp. (Renault)
The Phase 1 has a greater sense of madness about it. It looked like a Clio that had been inflated with a bicycle pump, but mechanically it was a very different animal: wider, lower, longer in wheelbase than a normal Clio, and with a bespoke rear structure to carry the engine. That layout created huge theatre, but it also created problems. A small hatchback shell was never intended to carry a heavy V6 behind the cabin, so the weight distribution, rear suspension geometry and short overall proportions made the car famously tricky near the limit. The reputation for snap oversteer was not just pub folklore; it was a predictable consequence of putting a lot of mass behind the driver in a short, mid-engined car with relatively little margin for error. (pistonheads.com)
That is why the Phase 2 changes were more than a cosmetic facelift. Renaultsport lengthened the wheelbase by 23mm, widened the front track by 33mm, and revised the suspension to make the car more stable and progressive. The point was not to make it soft or sensible — that would rather defeat the object — but to give the driver more warning before the rear of the car started making decisions of its own. Contemporary used-car summaries and later retrospectives both describe the Phase 2 as having much more controllable handling, with the revisions helping it move towards progressive drift rather than sudden oversteer. (RAC)
The engine and gearbox changes also mattered. The extra power gave the Phase 2 stronger numbers, but the shorter final drive and closer ratios were arguably just as important because they helped keep the V6 in its useful rev range. The Phase 1 could feel slightly under-geared or awkward in places for such an exotic-looking machine, whereas the Phase 2 felt more resolved as a performance car. Renault quoted the Phase 2 as quicker to 100km/h and over the standing kilometre than its predecessor, as well as having a higher top speed. (cliorally.com)
In character terms, the Phase 1 is the purer oddball: more abrupt, more nervous, and probably more memorable if your idea of fun includes a raised heart rate. Phase 2 is the better car: faster, more polished, more predictable, and more convincingly engineered. Renault did not change it because the original idea was wrong; it changed it because the original idea was so extreme that it needed a second pass to make the chassis live up to the drama of the bodywork. That is the charm of the Clio V6 in both forms: the Phase 1 is the wild experiment, the Phase 2 is the same experiment after Renaultsport worked out how to stop it biting quite so hard.