Renault Clio
Renault Clio technical data
Select Renault Clio generation for full details - reviews, specifications, fuel consumption, pricing, quality and safety features, options, photos and more
Is Renault Clio a reliable car?
The Renault Clio is not a very reliable car. 75% of other cars of the same age are found to have fewer defects than the Renault Clio in annual roadworthiness tests.
According to these reviews, the highest reliability scores achieved Renault Clio generation from 2003 to 2005, while the models produced from 2008 to 2013 had the lowest reliability ratings, reliability scores vary quite significantly between generations of Renault Clio. For more information, check the respective generation information.
Most Renault Clio engines use a timing belt, which is generally regarded as less reliable than engines with a timing chain.
Renault Clio reviews
Total 15 Renault Clio owner reviews
| Purchase year: | 2019 (age of car 19 years) | Owned for: | 0 years |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 6.0 litres per 100km (70% urban driving) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: As the first car, super :). Easy to drive, easy to swivel, economical, fast, jumps well, relatively stable on the road, ideal for parking. If something bad happens, relatively cheap repairs (but rarely needed for pleasure)
Cons: Like an old car is in a crappy cabin - different rattles, on the one hand cool - there is a sunroof, but while driving it rattles :) ..
| Purchase year: | 2014 (age of car 9 years) | Owned for: | 20`000 kilometers (2 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 5.0 litres per 100km (30% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 280 € (~ 140 € per year) | ||
Would NOT recomend this car to the friend
Pros: Small devielas consumption, drive as you like - keeps just around 5l to 100km.
Cheap components and easy to repair rolling gear part.
Dynamic car.
Cons: Often breaks.
A cheap parlour who rattles and quickly showed signs of wearing. Often problems with electronics. Small capacity hard outside city to pass without a run.
| Purchase year: | 2016 (age of car 9 years) | Owned for: | 4`000 kilometers (0 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 6.0 litres per 100km (80% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 95 € | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: Easy to manoeuvre, very economical, enough power if not overloaded. Never left in woods.
Cons: The interior qualityis not best.
| Purchase year: | 2005 (age of car 11 years) | Owned for: | 20`000 kilometers (2 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 3.0 litres per 100km (50% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 160 € (~ 80 € per year) | ||
Would NOT recomend this car to the friend
Pros: Very durable small car, super economic.
Cons: Little comfort, bit stupid light switches, and others.
| Purchase year: | 2011 (age of car 5 years) | Owned for: | 100`000 kilometers (5 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 8.0 litres per 100km (100% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 400 € (~ 80 € per year) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: A small, fast, agile, manageable.
Cons: On low for winter conditions.
| Purchase year: | 2006 (new car) | Owned for: | 130`000 kilometers (11 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 5.0 litres per 100km (80% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 700 € (~ 63 € per year) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: Good for town, a small petrol consumption
| Purchase year: | 2011 (age of car 5 years) | Owned for: | 300`000 kilometers (5 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 4.5 litres per 100km (60% urban driving) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Cons: Relatively often light bulbs burns off.