RE: Tell me I'm wrong: Peugeot 205 GTI
Discussion
![](http://thumbsnap.com/sc/cNC794oC.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="http://thumbsnap.com/XdtmmQnZ" Target="_blank">[img]http://thumbsnap.com/sc/XdtmmQnZ.jpg)
Back in the mid 90's I wanted a 1.9 after driving a mate 1.6 a few years earlier. I searched high and low looking for a nice one but couldn't find anything worthy of the stamp needed to post off the log book. I ended up looking at a 1985 Skip Brown converted 1.6. The car was immaculate, I fell in love and bought it even though it wasn't quite what I was after. After a few months I discovered the conversion didn't include the 1.9 head, stupid idea, so I set about finding a 1.9 head. Bolting that on was like removing a rev limiter, the car was a flying machine with no pas, no sunroof and the early 1.6 box. The back end caught me out once, I was lucky enough to catch it and learn how to use it properly. A friend had a 309GTi, fast but much more grippy and safe feeling.
A few years later I bought a later XS. Not quite as fast but in my opinion a better drive for pure fun. Throw it into any bend as fast as you wanted, a bit too quick, easy, back off and drift not spin. The friend that had the 309 followed me in my xs in a Mk3 2.0 GTi Golf, he only managed to pass me on a dual carriage way.
My opinion is the Xs is the best every day car but I still look out for a decent 1.9.
A few years later I bought a later XS. Not quite as fast but in my opinion a better drive for pure fun. Throw it into any bend as fast as you wanted, a bit too quick, easy, back off and drift not spin. The friend that had the 309 followed me in my xs in a Mk3 2.0 GTi Golf, he only managed to pass me on a dual carriage way.
My opinion is the Xs is the best every day car but I still look out for a decent 1.9.
Had a Golf mk1 gti then a mk2 16v and tried both 1.6 and 1.9 205s before buying the latter. A good one is awesome, a little bit cammy and amazing lift off oversteer. On a nice cold evening when the air is dense and traffic light there is very little that's as much fun. I'm very lucky to have a GT3 as well and in this country for 99% of the time the 205 is more fun.
I've had a tuned frogeye, tweaked Élan Sprint, 220bhp Westfield, chipped TT and all sorts of other stuff and can honestly say nothing ever matched the Pug. After every thrash I still come back amazed how good it is. Just dont expect great build quality or 'safe' handling.
I've had a tuned frogeye, tweaked Élan Sprint, 220bhp Westfield, chipped TT and all sorts of other stuff and can honestly say nothing ever matched the Pug. After every thrash I still come back amazed how good it is. Just dont expect great build quality or 'safe' handling.
I've bitten my tongue every time i stumble across this thread, but being quite informed on the things, certainly in the last 12 or so years and an insane amount of them, easily, i'm going to now comment;
The 1.9 is the 'better' overall car, yes, in terms of package with the interior, wheels, rear disc brakes (if you like those kind of gimmicks). But it isn't if you want to get the most out of driving them, realistically in 'used' car terms.
They are very 'french' in many ways, they all differ, in that i mean regarding everything, one car can have all the same components swapped over to it and it will drive differently, hence some people talk of heavy feeling steering, etc etc. In reality, it shouldn't be. The age old problem with these is that there's a massive difference between a good and a bad one, and something very small can make a bad one!
It's easier to find a good 1.6 that will be easily on par with a 1.9 in the performance stakes, most 1.9's are tired and never made book power from dot anyway, whereas circa 115hp 1.6's are certainly more common.
Modifying aside, the 1.6 has the better suspension layout, wider at the front. It also has a better brake system layout, much simpler with a single compensator that doesn't cause issues. The rear brakes arguably 'work', although yes are harder to service, but never spit pads out like the rear calipers have been known too.
The 1.6 has a lighter flywheel and a shorter ratio box, very suited to the way the power's delivered. The 1.9 gearbox is simply too long, with a theoretical top speed of 165mph or something similarly daft. It suits a decent 1.9's torque delivery, but my god it's boring. The 0-60 times would be similar if it wasn't for the fact that the 1.6 box needs another gear...
Now, if you were to mix the both, in an ideal world you'd get a 1.6 car, that hard to find very good 1.9 engine, fit it with a 1.6 flywheel & box, if not at least an Mi16/VTS box if you don't want something so short, fit the 1.9 front brakes, interior & wheels and you'd have the best of the best.
Going beyond that, fit an Mi16, some 309 front wishbones & driveshafts with some well chosen suspension (not too low!) if not standard kit in fine fettle, and you have yourself a giant killer in the purest sense, i kid you not.
I could go on, but i fear i'm already going to be boring/riling some!
The 1.9 is the 'better' overall car, yes, in terms of package with the interior, wheels, rear disc brakes (if you like those kind of gimmicks). But it isn't if you want to get the most out of driving them, realistically in 'used' car terms.
They are very 'french' in many ways, they all differ, in that i mean regarding everything, one car can have all the same components swapped over to it and it will drive differently, hence some people talk of heavy feeling steering, etc etc. In reality, it shouldn't be. The age old problem with these is that there's a massive difference between a good and a bad one, and something very small can make a bad one!
It's easier to find a good 1.6 that will be easily on par with a 1.9 in the performance stakes, most 1.9's are tired and never made book power from dot anyway, whereas circa 115hp 1.6's are certainly more common.
Modifying aside, the 1.6 has the better suspension layout, wider at the front. It also has a better brake system layout, much simpler with a single compensator that doesn't cause issues. The rear brakes arguably 'work', although yes are harder to service, but never spit pads out like the rear calipers have been known too.
The 1.6 has a lighter flywheel and a shorter ratio box, very suited to the way the power's delivered. The 1.9 gearbox is simply too long, with a theoretical top speed of 165mph or something similarly daft. It suits a decent 1.9's torque delivery, but my god it's boring. The 0-60 times would be similar if it wasn't for the fact that the 1.6 box needs another gear...
Now, if you were to mix the both, in an ideal world you'd get a 1.6 car, that hard to find very good 1.9 engine, fit it with a 1.6 flywheel & box, if not at least an Mi16/VTS box if you don't want something so short, fit the 1.9 front brakes, interior & wheels and you'd have the best of the best.
Going beyond that, fit an Mi16, some 309 front wishbones & driveshafts with some well chosen suspension (not too low!) if not standard kit in fine fettle, and you have yourself a giant killer in the purest sense, i kid you not.
I could go on, but i fear i'm already going to be boring/riling some!
I agree with Baz to some extent, he obviously knows more about these cars than me, but as standard road cars, I feel the 1.9 offers the more satisfying package overall, if not the most balanced from a pure handling perspective. I think this is what Chris Harris was getting at...
BTW, even tired 1.9s go pretty well! I've surprised many newer car drivers whilst driving our standard 1.9.. yes the gearing is long, but that allows you to really hassle people as you wring out 2nd gear!!
BTW, even tired 1.9s go pretty well! I've surprised many newer car drivers whilst driving our standard 1.9.. yes the gearing is long, but that allows you to really hassle people as you wring out 2nd gear!!
_dobbo_ said:
OMG fitting an Mi16 makes it fast? You should tell more people that. It seems like something worth sharing. And since those engines are so easily available, really useful advice too.
I sense some sarcasm?! 
It had to be said in this instance, obviously! I don't think they're that scarce quite yet, you just have to know where to get one. For example, i have 'a few'... sold one on sunday. Beyond that, the 'modern' tact seems to be putting the overweight GTi6/VTS engine in, which delivers similar but less frantic/characterful performance.
mekondelta said:
What's a good 1.9 GTi worth? My old man has a H-reg 1.9 GTi with about 70k on the clock. All in excellent condition with all original panels and almost perfect interior.
Well that depends on the definition of "excellent". Anywhere between £2k and £5k I'd guess. it's an interesting market right now and excellent cars will go for excellent money.Schuey M said:
Only a retard would buy the 1.6 instead of the 1.9! Why would you want a slower car ffs?
Lighter, no PAS, revier engine.
Owned both, and it's the 1.6 I miss the most. Hot hatches should be about fun, not straight line speed.
oliboy said:
power steering so decent through corners hman
Are you kidding me? I think you need to get to the gym if the no PAS steering on a 205 is too heavy for you.I have to take issue with the comments regarding gear ratios in the 1.9. It does indeed have a tall 1st and 2nd; this was to ensure that it could hit 60mph without need for a second gear change (0-60 figures still seem as important to manufacturers now, as they did 20 years ago). However, 3/4&5 and all close ratios gears. Which means that you have instant response in any gear at any speed above 40mph.
I'm not sure what engine you have but the 1.9 box only pulls 20mph per 1k in 5th. To max out at 165mph, you'd have to be spinning 8250rpm in 5th! This ties in with the supposed top speed of 128mpg (20mph@1k x 6500rpm). 80mph is an mpg-unfriendly 4000rpm.
When I had my TT I changed the final drive for one from a TD, which dragged all the gears out by 10% (80mph now at 3600rpm) as at motorway speeds the engine was always on boost and just a twitch of the right foot away from 3-figure speeds
I'm not sure what engine you have but the 1.9 box only pulls 20mph per 1k in 5th. To max out at 165mph, you'd have to be spinning 8250rpm in 5th! This ties in with the supposed top speed of 128mpg (20mph@1k x 6500rpm). 80mph is an mpg-unfriendly 4000rpm.
When I had my TT I changed the final drive for one from a TD, which dragged all the gears out by 10% (80mph now at 3600rpm) as at motorway speeds the engine was always on boost and just a twitch of the right foot away from 3-figure speeds
Oh dear, here we go...
It wasn't regarding the ratios, as they're basically the same as a 1.6 box bar first gear, more-so the FD that they're attached too(3.69 v 4.06), it's only 10% or so longer, but it makes a huge difference, far too long IMO. It depends very much on what you feel comfortable with and therefore how much to a point on what you want to get from the car.
I don't own a 205 GTi to cruise around going to the shops and back to be perfectly honest, and hence what does MPG have to do with it? Excuse me for thinking you buy a GTi for the driving experience, not what the fuel consumption is!!
It's all a matter of opinion of course, i personally hate 1.9 gearboxes, they're fine until you want to do more than bimble around going from A to B sure, otherwise they're just so boring and really don't suit what the GTi is about, if you've ever driven a 1.6 gearbox and a 1.9 gearbox back to back, ideally around a track, then you'll know exactly what i mean.
I get why some people hate the 1.6 box because it cruises at a very 'mpg unfriendly' c4200rpm at 80, (1.9 -3800rpm) but it doesn't fuss me as i'd rather have a gearbox that wholly suits what i want to do with the car, not just when i'm cruising along the motorway, in turn making B-road blasting dull, which is what these cars are about. In fact, given i quite like the 4.4 FDR, at least until on a motorway for any length of time, you can see why i hold this opinion...
It wasn't regarding the ratios, as they're basically the same as a 1.6 box bar first gear, more-so the FD that they're attached too(3.69 v 4.06), it's only 10% or so longer, but it makes a huge difference, far too long IMO. It depends very much on what you feel comfortable with and therefore how much to a point on what you want to get from the car.
I don't own a 205 GTi to cruise around going to the shops and back to be perfectly honest, and hence what does MPG have to do with it? Excuse me for thinking you buy a GTi for the driving experience, not what the fuel consumption is!!
It's all a matter of opinion of course, i personally hate 1.9 gearboxes, they're fine until you want to do more than bimble around going from A to B sure, otherwise they're just so boring and really don't suit what the GTi is about, if you've ever driven a 1.6 gearbox and a 1.9 gearbox back to back, ideally around a track, then you'll know exactly what i mean.
I get why some people hate the 1.6 box because it cruises at a very 'mpg unfriendly' c4200rpm at 80, (1.9 -3800rpm) but it doesn't fuss me as i'd rather have a gearbox that wholly suits what i want to do with the car, not just when i'm cruising along the motorway, in turn making B-road blasting dull, which is what these cars are about. In fact, given i quite like the 4.4 FDR, at least until on a motorway for any length of time, you can see why i hold this opinion...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff