RE: Tell me I'm wrong: Peugeot 205 GTI
Discussion
I don't remember the contemporary magazines rating the 1.6 above the 1.9 when the latter first came out. In fact I thought it was the exact opposite- must be getting old or maybe it was that I was too busy having fun in my 1.9 to care. Absolutely fantastic little car as was the 5GT turbo that followed it.... .........happy days.
Just reading through the posts as this was all my era with cars, some posts are saying the 1.9 was more nose heavy, the two engines were identical apart from the 1.9 having a longer throw giving it 1.9 litres, the crank shaft only weighed something like 7kg more than the 1.6 crank and the sump had a spacer to allow for the longer throw with an alloy oil cooler stuck at the front? I Dont think that is enough for anyone to tell the difference or make it nose heavy!!!" its not a vr6 golf", 860kg for the 1.6 and 875 for the 1.9, 15kg guys come on as if....or you haven't owned or driven one.....
TEKNOPUG said:
1.6 good, 1.9 better, Mi16 great, 1.9 Turbo-Technics best 
I think this was the best! http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/3808520.htm
Like Chris, I grew up reading car mags in the mid eighties and too devoured every word about these cars. Always wanted the 1.6 for the very reason it was deemed to be the sweeter car.
Ended up with a 1.9 a few years back as I found a good one. Loved every minute but always still yearned for a 1.6.
Now that funds allow (though not parking space), I have been keeping my out for a...1.6 for a good few months. Briefly driven a power steered 1.6 but still have a hankering for a non powered car..
Ended up with a 1.9 a few years back as I found a good one. Loved every minute but always still yearned for a 1.6.
Now that funds allow (though not parking space), I have been keeping my out for a...1.6 for a good few months. Briefly driven a power steered 1.6 but still have a hankering for a non powered car..
Sexual Chocolate said:
We are talking about the 205 GTi? The car that was made than thinner metal than you find on a coke can! The same GTi that had really really horrible plastics that would scuff up as soon as you touched it or where the carpet was so badly made, read s
t, that it wore through after a few thousand miles.? You know that GTi that, if you where unfortunate enough to order a sun roof, would ensure you got drenched even if it was just spitting? Take the rose tinted classes of people.
You have to bear in mind though, that Pugs wwere bloody popular in rallying, and life don't come harder than that.t, that it wore through after a few thousand miles.? You know that GTi that, if you where unfortunate enough to order a sun roof, would ensure you got drenched even if it was just spitting? Take the rose tinted classes of people. I'm talking club rallying too, where cars were funded from private pockets. 205's can still be seen out there road rallying, as can 106's, all (still) living a bloody hard life.
Sexual Chocolate said:
We are talking about the 205 GTi? The car that was made than thinner metal than you find on a coke can! The same GTi that had really really horrible plastics that would scuff up as soon as you touched it or where the carpet was so badly made, read st, that it wore through after a few thousand miles.? You know that GTi that, if you where unfortunate enough to order a sun roof, would ensure you got drenched even if it was just spitting? Take the rose tinted classes of people.
I drove a 205 from 40k to over 100k in a few years as my daily driver not so long ago and I never had any of the issues you mentioned. If you care about that sort of thing you certainly would not get the 205 anyway. It was the fragile build (though in my experience totally reliable) that gave it its charm.t, that it wore through after a few thousand miles.? You know that GTi that, if you where unfortunate enough to order a sun roof, would ensure you got drenched even if it was just spitting? Take the rose tinted classes of people. At the same time as owning the Pug, I had a Caterham and can honestly say that I was having 8/10ths of the fun in the tintop. Stunning steering and gearchange where the highlights - both of which were almost on a par with the 7. There are very few "normal" cars (classic or modern) that I can think of that would have the same fundamental abilty.
Other things that stood out were great pedal positioning, throttle steerability (mine never saw a hedge!) and classic looks that still look wonderful today nearly 30 years after launch.
We had a Mk2 Golf GTI at a similar time and it was nowhere near as good. Faster, more roomy and better built but the basics of driver appeal were lacking in comparison.
Edited by SidewaysSi on Thursday 24th May 19:47
I owned a 1.6 for a few months in 1993, it was great fun, can't comment on the 1.9 as I've never driven one.
I know this is a thread about the 205 and it remains the car that hooked me on Pug GTi's, after a stodgy Corsa SRi, and I was lucky enough to move up to the 306 GTi-6 soon after, I went on to own 3 in a row, I loved those cars despite many reliability (mainly electrical) and trim/paint problems. The 'massive' 167bhp felt so good at the time, I know it's rep mobile TDi territory now but then it felt seriously quick. On the then much quieter 'ring it was in it's day, my price range and experience perfection.
How times change!
I know this is a thread about the 205 and it remains the car that hooked me on Pug GTi's, after a stodgy Corsa SRi, and I was lucky enough to move up to the 306 GTi-6 soon after, I went on to own 3 in a row, I loved those cars despite many reliability (mainly electrical) and trim/paint problems. The 'massive' 167bhp felt so good at the time, I know it's rep mobile TDi territory now but then it felt seriously quick. On the then much quieter 'ring it was in it's day, my price range and experience perfection.
How times change!
I rally a 1.6 but had a 1.9 for heavy track use and six months as a daily driver. Loved the 1.9, it's cams were great but made traffic jams interesting. The 1.6 is on carbs so difficult to compare the two of them. Love them both but would take a 1.9 everytime.
On the handling front, I don't find them scary. You can use the oversteer to your advantage though...
On the handling front, I don't find them scary. You can use the oversteer to your advantage though...
Edited by drakart on Thursday 24th May 20:49
Jobbo said:
There's no disadvantage to the 1.9 though - it's fundamentally the same but a bit quicker. Seems fair enough to prefer it.
There are subtle differences though.Gearing, power delivery, handling even.
The thing the 1.9 had going for it was indeed outright pace and comfortable cruising on more open roads.
Down a b-road where the 205 is most at home though, i much preferred the 1.6's character.
To quote a new over-used buzzword, the 1.6 had better flow.
Can't really comment. Maybe I should have had a test of one back in the day, but my Uni/youth default car was the Golf Mk2 GTi which are the cars I remember most fondly in my whole motoring life so far.I cant see how it could be as satisfying to own/drive as the Golf! And I did prefer the 8v
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff