New Alliance 2.0-Liter Gasoline Engine for Renault Clio
14 November 2006
 |
| Clio III. |
Renault is applying a new 2.0-liter gasoline engine (M4R) developed jointly by Renault and Nissan within the framework of their Alliance to the B-Segment Clio. This is the first Renault-Nissan Alliance-developed gasoline engine to power a Renault model.
The 16-valve 101.5 kW (140 hp) engine develops 194 Nm (143 lb-ft) of torque and is coupled with a choice of two types of transmission: the new-generation four-speed Proactive automatic transmission (DP0+) and the six-speed manual gearbox (TL4).
 |
| The M4R 2.0-liter engine. |
Continually variable inlet valve timing minimizes fuel consumption by optimizing the filling of the combustion chambers. The engineers reduced friction by accelerating the rise in the engine’s working temperature with the Spilt Cooling engine cooling system. This restricts the flow of water within the cylinder block when cold and all the way up to 95°C.
The cooling system favors a rapid rise in the temperature of the oil and cylinder linings with a view to minimizing losses due to friction.
The combination of the machining of the engine block with the montage of a dummy cylinder head for optimal cylinder geometry and mirror-finish polishing of moving parts (camshaft bearings, crank pins and crankshaft journals) also contributes to the engine’s efficiency.
Fuel consumption on the combined European cycle is an estimated 7.3 l/100km (32 mpg US) with the manual transmission, and 7.9 l/100km (30 mpg US) with the automatic. Carbon dioxide emissions are 173 g/km and 187 g/km respectively.
The other 2.0-liter engine used in the Clio lineup is a higher-powered unit applied in the Renault Sport model. This engine (F4R) is also applied in larger Renault vehicles and provides 145 kW of power (197 hp) with combined cycle fuel consumption of 8.4 l/100km (28 mpg US) and CO2 emissions of 199 g/km.
Better looking than a Chevy Aveo but no better consumption/emission figures for a small 4 psgr. vehicle
Posted by: fyi CO2 | 14 November 2006 at 08:31 AM
This seems to be a step backward. We averaged 5.7L/100Km on 8000 Km with a Clio driving across Europe 3 years ago.
This engine has more power, but the 4-door Clio we drove had enough.
Posted by: Harvey D. | 14 November 2006 at 08:34 AM
The car must be heavy, or something, I would have expected somewhat better mileage........
Posted by: Bud Johns | 14 November 2006 at 08:35 AM
I agree, sharp looking, but what's with the high consumption?
Posted by: richard | 14 November 2006 at 08:57 AM
My 1997 Civic HX with a 1.6 liter v-tec engine gives me 46 mpg
on E10, or about 48 mpg on regular gas. It seems like this is
definitely not an economy car. I don't like it when the car
companies only cater to the power crowd.
Posted by: orv lynn | 14 November 2006 at 09:06 AM
Nissan was rated the worst brand in a recent comparison wrt fleet average CO2 emissions improvements. The Renault-Nissan alliance is similar to GM in that it prioritizes cost/kW over fuel economy. In engineering terms, this naturally aspirated engine design is rather unremarkable. Split cooling is a really old hat. The fact that they had to resort to compensation honing merely implies that the 4th mode (clover leaf) distortion of the upper end of the cylinder liners would otherwise have been excessive.
Note that the Clio is still available with smaller engines as well. This article is just a product placement to pay the bills.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 14 November 2006 at 09:21 AM
This is just a mediocre car, without any "green" technology worth mentioning. Why publish this on greencarcongress.com ?
Posted by: MasterD | 14 November 2006 at 09:28 AM
I'm really surprised that 16v 2.0 engines haven't come farther in the last 15 years. The 1991 Nissan Sentra SE-R was rated at 140hp/133tq with fuel economy of 24 city/32 hwy (US).
I'm with others here - why is this on GCC?
Posted by: Jeff | 14 November 2006 at 10:24 AM
I do agree that for a small car the fuel economy is weak. The new Honda Civic is a larger car and blows the doors off this thing in terms of fuel use
Only a small segment of car buyers put a big emphasis on fuel economy. Car Mfgs. are locked in something of a horsepower arms race where many buyers will select the model in the segment they are looking that has the best acceleration and power.
With the run in fuel prices in the past two years or so this is starting to change but we are still a long way from making fuel consumption a major factor for all but a host of hybrid niche products.
Posted by: Ian | 14 November 2006 at 10:46 AM
This would be considered a very large engine for a car of this size in Europe.
Most Clios would have 1.2 and 1.4 ( or 1.5 diesel) engines and get 42 - 48 mpUKg. It is a bit odd - a large capacity engine in a warm hatch back - you can understand the full on Sport models with the 197 bhp engine, but this is a bit weak
On the other hand the Clio won European car of the year 2006 (before this model came out), so they must be doing something right.
Posted by: mahonj | 14 November 2006 at 01:13 PM
I drive 12 years old Renault Laguna 1.8l (94HP) and it consumes 6,2l/100km when driving carefuly (I live in Slovenia - Europe) - and after 12 years (230.000 km) it still reaches a speed of 200km/h (125mph).
This 2.0l engine is nothing special.
Posted by: Skrivo | 14 November 2006 at 01:51 PM
I have a 2004 malibu 4 cylinder its rated for
24 MPG city, 34 MPG (dont really get that)
but it seems like a much larger car than this one with
a bigger engine. why is this car news worthy
Posted by: kevin | 14 November 2006 at 04:49 PM
Why is this high power sport compact car in GCC? A compact car should do 50MPG.
Posted by: rexis | 14 November 2006 at 05:29 PM
I agree. I has nothing to do in greencarcongress.com, although it remembers you that inspite of lots of marketing bullshit, efficienices are not improving a lot!!!
Posted by: Fc | 15 November 2006 at 12:47 AM
Very disappointing results from long-advertised new engine. I drive 15 years old Nissan NX with 4-speed automatic and SR20 2 liter engine developing 140 hp, and routinely make 32 mpg highway (with slight overspeeding). Ten years ago Nissan manufactured same engine with VVT, named SR20VE with 185 hp output and optionally mated to CV transmission (not sold in US). Where the progress?
Posted by: Andrey | 15 November 2006 at 01:27 AM
There will be no progress - it's an ICE. They can only refine at the moment ICE's are pretty much developed to their max efficiencies....
Posted by: Ruan | 16 November 2006 at 04:30 AM
The Clio is basically the same car as the Nissan Versa that is sold in the US.
The Versa gets 30/34 mpg with a less powerfull 1.8l engine, so getting the same economy with a more powerful engine is not bad. Especially if you consider that the Versa's engine is only a year old.
As others have mentioned, older Sentras (which are smaller and lighter than the Clio) used to get 24/32 mpg. This new engine's averaged consumption is as good as the old Sentra's best-case consumption, which is no small improvement. If that isn't what GCC is about, then I don't know what is.
Posted by: Bernard | 16 November 2006 at 03:31 PM
why can't nissan (or anyone else) sell a turbo diesel version of the Versa/Clio in N. America? We drove a Clio CDI in France last summer (2 weks, 3000km) worked like a charm, 50 mpg (about 5.5 l/km). These turbo diesels seem as common as grass in Europe, why not here?
Posted by: Lorne | 05 March 2007 at 12:39 PM