Renault Clio V6 Specs and Overview (2003–2005)

Full renault clio v6 specs: a 3-door RWD hatchback from 2003–2005 with 226–255 hp, a 2946 cc engine and manual gearbox only.

The Renault Clio V6 is a 3-door hatchback built from 2003 to 2005 with power outputs between 226 and 255 hp, rear-wheel drive and a manual gearbox only. Anyone searching for renault clio v6 specs will find a mid-engined hot hatch that suits drivers who want a compact car with sports-car mechanics rather than a practical daily runabout.

Renault Clio V6 generations

1 generation

The 1 generation Renault Clio V6 was produced from 2003 to 2005 in a single body style, the 3-door hatchback. Its power range spans 226 to 255 hp, and every version pairs a 2946 cc engine with a manual transmission and rear-wheel drive. The lineup counts just 2 modifications: the 3.0 MT (226 hp) and the 3.0 MT (255 hp), both of which were listed in production from 2001 to 2005 at the modification level. The Renault Clio V6 3.0 MT (255 hp) accelerates to 100 km/h in 6.0 seconds, while the Renault Clio V6 3.0 MT (226 hp) does it in 6.4 seconds and consumes 11.2 l/100 km against 11.9 l/100 km for the stronger version. The gap between the two versions is therefore 29 hp, 0.4 seconds in the sprint to 100 km/h and 0.7 l/100 km in fuel consumption, while the 2946 cc displacement is identical. No automatic gearbox, no front-wheel or all-wheel drive and no other body style were ever offered in this generation.

Which Renault Clio V6 to buy

On the used market the choice is simple: the model was sold only from 2003 to 2005 in one generation, one body and one gearbox, so the decision comes down to which of the two engine outputs you prefer. The 2946 cc engine, manual transmission and rear-wheel drive are shared by both versions, which keeps the comparison straightforward.

Which Renault Clio V6 to avoid

Neither version is dominated by the other: the Renault Clio V6 3.0 MT (255 hp) is quicker (6.0 s vs 6.4 s to 100 km/h), while the Renault Clio V6 3.0 MT (226 hp) uses less fuel (11.2 vs 11.9 l/100 km). Each has a numerical advantage, so there is no version to rule out on the data alone.