RE: PH Heroes: Peugeot 405 Mi16

[Kitchski]

s m said:

Kitchski said:

s m said:

Kitchski said:

s m said:

hotmelt said:

BX was lighter(MI16 wit aircon is 1150 kg)

That is true, although that particular test car didn't have aircon.

Just as pertinent is that you only needed one gear change to hit the benchmark 60 in the BX whereas 2 were required in the 405

Nope, can't agree on that one. Gear ratios are the same....infact the BX has smaller radius wheels than the later Mi16 too.
BX is 56mpg in second @ 7200rpm (IIRC).

I know it won't do 60mph in second for a fact. I imagine the difference is a little bit weight-related, and the fact that Peugeot are usually a bit reserved with their book figures.

Out of interest, is yours a late one or early one Kitchski?

Mine's a BX.....1990 built. Ph2 car, but with the mechanicals (less the anti-roll bars) of a ph1 dating from 1987. Has a BE3 gearbox (reverse right and down) but ratios are same as the BE1 which the BX 16v and 405 Mi16 were launched with.

My current gearbox is actually from an Mi16 (the BX one died). I performed extremely scientific tests after I'd changed them to see if the ratios were different.

Just going from all the road tests, the max speeds in gears initially were, as you say, exactly the same as they both had the same ratios. Both needed a change into 3rd about 57/58mph.


However, in one of the very late comparisons between the 2 cars, it specifically mentions in the test that the 405 needed 2 changes to hit 60 whereas the BX 16V only needed one. They mentioned that they had the same ratios still but had extended the rev limit on the later BXs just enough for it to gain the 60 marker with only a first/second change?
Maybe untrue but the figures they apparently recorded do show that?

Edited by s m on Friday 2nd November 13:56

Hmmm....never heard of that one. All Ml4.1 equipped cars redline at 7200rpm as far as I know. The later ML1.3 models (3-row ECU w/knock sensor, could run on unleaded) revved to the same. The last cars with ML3.1 had a cat fitted, and power was down about 15bhp. Can't imagine they'd rev higher.....lower if anything.

To my knowledge, no standard version of this setup can exceed 60mph in second gear. I once had a *ahem* standing start drag race with a mate in a Xsara VTS, which can hit 60mph in second (although it's believed the book figures short-shifted before that to keep the insurance group down, as the VTS badge was picking up a bit of a bad rep on the Saxo! 0-60 in over 8 secs in a Xsara VTS? No chance! They're low sevens, maybe even high sixes.) Anyway.....short story is that at the time, my car was chipped and the rev limit was raised to 7800rpm as a result. You couldn't rev it that high, but I used to hang on a bit longer - 7500rpm or so on that occasion. The change into second between the two cars was identical! Had I changed on a standard limiter, I would have fallen back first.

I believe the 0-60 time of mid-seven seconds-ish includes the shift into 3rd. The 405 does feel slightly flatter than the BX, but it could just be the fact it's alot more refined, as the BX is bloody noisy (and rattly these days).

I did manage a 1/4 mile in 15.69 @ 92mph once. Identical to the book figure, but better than most road tests. However at Pod (with the slippy start line) I could only get 16.1 @ 90mph.

• I should mention that chipped ECU has been un-chipped. It was killing it!

[Munich]

Leins said:

Don't forget this either, with the same engine and weighing < 1000kg, but LHD only:

I really want one of these, but good ones are now commarding strong prices.

I had a 405 MI16 about 9 years ago and loved it. However, it was startingto fall apart and I ended up breaking it for parts... I was going to put the MI16 engine in my 205 GTI but ended up thinking better of it and sold the engine instead. Probably the main reason why there are only ca. 35 405 MI16s left on British roads.

[s m]

Kitchski said:

s m said:

Just going from all the road tests, the max speeds in gears initially were, as you say, exactly the same as they both had the same ratios. Both needed a change into 3rd about 57/58mph.


However, in one of the very late comparisons between the 2 cars, it specifically mentions in the test that the 405 needed 2 changes to hit 60 whereas the BX 16V only needed one. They mentioned that they had the same ratios still but had extended the rev limit on the later BXs just enough for it to gain the 60 marker with only a first/second change?
Maybe untrue but the figures they apparently recorded do show that?

Edited by s m on Friday 2nd November 13:56

Hmmm....never heard of that one. All Ml4.1 equipped cars redline at 7200rpm as far as I know. The later ML1.3 models (3-row ECU w/knock sensor, could run on unleaded) revved to the same. The last cars with ML3.1 had a cat fitted, and power was down about 15bhp. Can't imagine they'd rev higher.....lower if anything.

To my knowledge, no standard version of this setup can exceed 60mph in second gear. I once had a *ahem* standing start drag race with a mate in a Xsara VTS, which can hit 60mph in second (although it's believed the book figures short-shifted before that to keep the insurance group down, as the VTS badge was picking up a bit of a bad rep on the Saxo! 0-60 in over 8 secs in a Xsara VTS? No chance! They're low sevens, maybe even high sixes.) Anyway.....short story is that at the time, my car was chipped and the rev limit was raised to 7800rpm as a result. You couldn't rev it that high, but I used to hang on a bit longer - 7500rpm or so on that occasion. The change into second between the two cars was identical! Had I changed on a standard limiter, I would have fallen back first.

I believe the 0-60 time of mid-seven seconds-ish includes the shift into 3rd. The 405 does feel slightly flatter than the BX, but it could just be the fact it's alot more refined, as the BX is bloody noisy (and rattly these days).

I did manage a 1/4 mile in 15.69 @ 92mph once. Identical to the book figure, but better than most road tests. However at Pod (with the slippy start line) I could only get 16.1 @ 90mph.

• I should mention that chipped ECU has been un-chipped. It was killing it!

Here's the bit where it mentioned it just for interest



Who knows what the background was - tweaked press car or incorrect fifth wheel timings?

Good work on keeping your BXs going by the way - only ever see diesel turbo versions round here generally

[Kitchski]

The 16v isn't difficult to run in any way, really. The fuel consumption is around 28-29mpg on average. It's been bloody reliable (all the issues it's had have been wear & tear or something I've cocked up trying to make it faster/smoother/better etc).

The TDs have a rep for dealing with mileage well - personally I think it's because people are more likely to keep running a diesel for that length of time than a petrol. My old man's got a 1.9 petrol with 196k on the clock and mechanically it's fine (bit knocky, but fine )

The 16v has a rep for being fragile, which it isn't. The only thing it's crap at with regards to the daily commute is refinement. After a while you want something quieter! Otherwise it's been cheap to run (usually), quick (for what it is), fun, interesting, comfortable....I love it.

However.....I have to point out that it has just broken! On the day the tax ran out, the brake valve (a year old) decided to blow its load of suspension fluid. Not the car's fault really, but it's still a fail

[s m]

Here's the End of Term report from one of the mags at the time and their 405Mi16x4

[AHRacing]

I had 2 (Both models) of these when i was 19/20 great big cars with great power miss the sound of a 16valve with no cat but dont miss the fuel bill, they were so unusual and you hardly seen any on the rood. Mine were always admired by the older drivers but the ones my age just wanted the engines and thought they were slow, they had less rust after 12 years than my seat leon has after 5years.

[AHRacing]

Does anybody no where K826 CVC and J617 JGE are located, they were mine not to sure if they are sill on the road think J617 JGE might have been stripped for the engine by Peugeot Ecosse

[bigjono]

how many of theese are left now ? just picked a 1991 j-reg up to go back on road, very nice and clean condition, is it worth doing ?

[CherieTW]

1989 Peugeot 405 MI16 project car available in Connecticut, USA. We are seeking the right person to restore this vehicle. There aren't too many left over here. I can send photos, to anyone interested. All offers will be considered. Thanks

Edited by CherieTW on Wednesday 5th June 05:31

[Inz4ne]

I personally love the 405s I happen to actually have one T16 I have wanted one for 2 years which is when I first saw it for sale, and now it actually has ended up at my place



As a daily driver I use a 405 GTX 2.0 second phase and I'm having a lot of fun with it.

I also have a 405 GTX also second phase which I'm putting an engine from a 306 GTI6 into. And have gotten my hands on styling form a phase one MI16, got it of a car that had a dead engine and a lot of rust, It was a sad sight

And I had another GTX second phase which I sold to a buddy of mine who needed a car. I'm probably going to end up being the one doing the maintenance on it, with a bit of help from my father who is a Peugeot mechanic.

[ringweekends]

Mine's still bobbing about ......

[sim72]

Funny this topic should bob up again, I saw an Mi16 in our village during the week and thought "blimey, how long is it since I last saw one of those?". Howmanyleft claims there are only 14 left on the road!

[Simes205]

ringweekends said:

Mine's still bobbing about ......

Taxi!

[ringweekends]

TAXI!

I think there will be 3 Mi16's at Coventry Motofest this year.

PSA have one on their stand down by the Cathedral, we've had another owner register one for the static displays and mine will most probably be running round the Sprint Circuit as a course car.

14 left! Blimey!

Will they ever be worth anything? (not that I'm selling)

Edited by ringweekends on Saturday 21st May 16:49

[E30M3SE]

Just checked on DVLA and my old 1993 Mi16 is taxed and MOT'd.

[ringweekends]

Decided to partially strip mine (I say partially, just after this pic we removed the interior and doors, only the dash and glass are left in - everything else is off the chassis) and have it properly preserved.

It's been blasted and isn't in too bad shape considering it's age. There's some metalwork to do before it's sealed and painted properly.

Meh - it's probably not a financially sound decision but I love the thing and want to keep it.
Plus, I don't think it'll be too much longer before perceived values make the current investment someway justifiable

Vive la 405!

[Miggers]

I had a bog stock 1988 1.6 GL,a great family carter,boy we did some miles in that,then swapped it for a 19901.9 SRi which was pretty good with 125 gee-gees under the lid them finally the Mi16 which was an absolute hoot.
It was lowered 30mm,had what was then big rims,15" TSW EVO's,a cat-back Powerflow S/S pipe with a
single back box(loud as feck)and a cone air filter.
Man that thing could shift,it used to harrass XR3i/RS Turbos for fun,they'd boot it and couldn't understand why a great big "grandad"4 door saloon was glued to their back bumpers.

I finally only sold it because it needed new back calipers,the hand brake was always sticking on.

[Lester H]

These were indeed excellent, and that view just comes from trade experience of most of the lower end of the range. However , these threads are in danger of becoming ‘rent a cliche’ with ‘ thrusting reps pounding down motorways, calling mid range saloons Repmobiles . Such language is misleading, as many were owned by ordinary, non company folk. Also, many reps did not ‘pound’ the M6, bur went through a few nearby towns flogging sweets and chocolate!