Peugeot 406 Coupe v Peugeot 206 GTi v Mondeo v Mazda6

[Fastdruid]

Jaguar steve said:

We put about 30k on a 138 HP 206 GTI from almost new.

Handling was ok and it'd get high 30s mpg on a longish run.

That's terrible for such a small car. I used to get over 40mpg on a run out of my old 2.0i mk2 Mondeo Estate which was only slightly down on power (128hp IIRC) and far more massive (and in Ghia X trim with leather a lovely place to sit for hours).

[Mr SFJ]

Have you considered something italin?

Alfa Romeo
Fiat etc..?

My Grande Punto T-Jet gets about 40-45 on a run, sits at just under 3k revs at 70 and has a decent amount of kit. Cruise, BT, Parking Sensors, pano roof etc..

They start from 3, but can go up to 5 for a late series 2.

[edward1]

We have a Mazda 6 2.0 petrol and whilst it is OK there are a number of weak points. As has been said corrosion, ours is clean but look carefully at the wheel arches. The 2.0L petrol does the job but nothing more, needs t be worked hard to get the best but then if you drive it like that it gets thirsty. I find it OK round town and on M/way but too slow to safely overtake much on a typical A road. Mondeo won't be any better as they share the power plant badged Duratech in the ford.

MPG is worse than my old 2.0l vectra, about 35-36 on the m/way. high 20's round town. On the plus side apart from service and MOT nothing has gone wrong in the last 3 years coupled with low purchase price means cheap motoring.

If you need the space then a mondeo/Mazda 6 would be an OK work horse, if you don't need the space I would go for a smaller, lighter car and get more mpg and better performance.

[Jaguar steve]

Fastdruid said:

Jaguar steve said:

We put about 30k on a 138 HP 206 GTI from almost new.

Handling was ok and it'd get high 30s mpg on a longish run.

That's terrible for such a small car. I used to get over 40mpg on a run out of my old 2.0i mk2 Mondeo Estate which was only slightly down on power (128hp IIRC) and far more massive (and in Ghia X trim with leather a lovely place to sit for hours).

Yes it is. I put it down to the gutless 2.0 engine having to be geared very low to get even mediocre performance. The result of that was It was screaming its nuts off at motorway speeds and consequently drinking fuel. I suspect that was a deliberate ploy to increase sales of the faster 206 GTI. I just broke 40 mpg once pussying about on holiday which is piss poor.

Hateful thing - nothing like the 205 GTI we had previously

[Fastdruid]

I presumed it was because he's after something reliable...

[Bennet]

I have a mk2 mondeo. I found a relatively low mileage zetec-s, (which means it looks like an st200). To me, it's a nicer looking car than a standard mk2 or mk3. It took a few months of waiting for the right one to come up. Whilst I don't especially enjoy the idea of driving a slow car with suped up looks, I prefer it to driving a slow car with utterly anonymous looks, and I'm still happy it was the best £900 car I could have bought.

I actually find the 2.0 engine fairly pleasing. It has no trouble keeping up with the traffic and if you're willing to hold on to the gears it'll pick up speed quite satisfactorily. I even think it sounds ok. I would be very surprised if you got 40mpg out of it. I get 30 driving around the suburbs with a bit of motorway here and there. I suspect 35 is realistic for a long steady motorway journey.

Anyway, isn't the usual answer to this question a Primera GT?

Edited by Bennet on Monday 15th September 16:57

[Fastdruid]

Bennet said:

I actually find the 2.0 engine fairly pleasing. It has no trouble keeping up with the traffic and if you're willing to hold on to the gears it'll pick up speed quite satisfactorily. I even think it sounds ok. I would be very surprised if you got 40mpg out of it. I get 30 driving around the suburbs with a bit of motorway here and there. I suspect 35 is realistic for a long steady motorway journey.

Yours is broken. Claimed avg mpg for yours is 35, mine (same engine, more weight) was 31 and I would regularly see 34-36mpg for my normal use (which was a commute with a mix of A-road, Motorway, 30's and 40's) with 40+ on a long run (being sensible at 70-75 indicated, not the 85mph cruising that some people do).

While I doubt that you'll hit the claimed "extra urban" mpg of 47mpg you should be able to do over 40 without a problem.

HTH

My only annoyance about that engine btw was that there was little point in revving it as it just got noisier past 5k with no extra go. Still I suppose it avoided me bouncing it off the redline as I did with the 1.8's.

[Devil2575]

Fastdruid said:

Bennet said:

I actually find the 2.0 engine fairly pleasing. It has no trouble keeping up with the traffic and if you're willing to hold on to the gears it'll pick up speed quite satisfactorily. I even think it sounds ok. I would be very surprised if you got 40mpg out of it. I get 30 driving around the suburbs with a bit of motorway here and there. I suspect 35 is realistic for a long steady motorway journey.

Yours is broken. Claimed avg mpg for yours is 35, mine (same engine, more weight) was 31 and I would regularly see 34-36mpg for my normal use (which was a commute with a mix of A-road, Motorway, 30's and 40's) with 40+ on a long run (being sensible at 70-75 indicated, not the 85mph cruising that some people do).

While I doubt that you'll hit the claimed "extra urban" mpg of 47mpg you should be able to do over 40 without a problem.

HTH

My only annoyance about that engine btw was that there was little point in revving it as it just got noisier past 5k with no extra go. Still I suppose it avoided me bouncing it off the redline as I did with the 1.8's.

I'd be amazed if it could ever get anywhere near the extra Urban.
My wife had a Mk1 Focus 1.8 and even with a very light right foot it would only manage 38 mpg and I owned a Mk Focus 2.0 and was terrible on juice. 32-34 on a run, same engine and box as in the Mk2 Mondeo
My mates dad has a Mk2 Mondeo 2.0 Auto and it got low 20s round the doors. Drank like Oliver Reed on a bender.

[shalmaneser]

MagneticMeerkat said:

I'd stay away from the Mazda. They're pretty much the same as the Mondeo, but with a fatal issue. The rustproofing didn't work. A Mondeo of that age may have a bit, but Mazda 6s tend to actually rot away. Which is not a good thing.

That's interesting, there's one on my road where the quarter panel is totally knackered; I'd assumed it had been dodgily repaired (not unreasonable as I live in South London) but this explains it!

For my money, BTW, it has to be the 406 Coupe! What a great looking car!

[TheAngryDog]

Mr SFJ said:

Have you considered something italin?

Alfa Romeo
Fiat etc..?

My Grande Punto T-Jet gets about 40-45 on a run, sits at just under 3k revs at 70 and has a decent amount of kit. Cruise, BT, Parking Sensors, pano roof etc..

They start from 3, but can go up to 5 for a late series 2.

Yes I looked at some Alfa's, but I want something I can rely on to start every day. None of the Fiat's appeal to me. I dont have a £3k budget, let alone £5k!

Fastdruid said:

I presumed it was because he's after something reliable...

I do. Not sure if the 406 Coupe falls into the unreliable bracket? I think the Mondeo Ghia X is winning..

[Fastdruid]

Devil2575 said:

I'd be amazed if it could ever get anywhere near the extra Urban.
My wife had a Mk1 Focus 1.8 and even with a very light right foot it would only manage 38 mpg and I owned a Mk Focus 2.0 and was terrible on juice. 32-34 on a run, same engine and box as in the Mk2 Mondeo
My mates dad has a Mk2 Mondeo 2.0 Auto and it got low 20s round the doors. Drank like Oliver Reed on a bender.

I always figure on 85-90% of the Extra Urban is easily achievable in the real world. Beyond that requires driving at closer to the tested speed (ie 60mph rather than 70) and accelerating slowly, especially on turbo cars.

So my current car does 36mpg on a run normally (claimed 41.5), I've had 40mpg out of it but it needed driving at 60 like a saint and a single dose of full throttle would ruin the entire run.

Trouble is with saying that it's "the same" engine/gearbox is that the claimed mpg varies wildly between cars with "the same" engine/gearbox.

I'm not the only one to get 40mpg out of them btw but it's all down to your driving style. When on a run I don't bother speeding, IMO it's not worth it so I stick it on cruise control at 70-75 indicated (65-70 real). I'm sure you won't get anywhere close if you're doing 80-90 everywhere.

Don't disagree with the auto.

[TheAngryDog]

Fastdruid said:

Devil2575 said:

I'd be amazed if it could ever get anywhere near the extra Urban.
My wife had a Mk1 Focus 1.8 and even with a very light right foot it would only manage 38 mpg and I owned a Mk Focus 2.0 and was terrible on juice. 32-34 on a run, same engine and box as in the Mk2 Mondeo
My mates dad has a Mk2 Mondeo 2.0 Auto and it got low 20s round the doors. Drank like Oliver Reed on a bender.

I always figure on 85-90% of the Extra Urban is easily achievable in the real world. Beyond that requires driving at closer to the tested speed (ie 60mph rather than 70) and accelerating slowly, especially on turbo cars.

So my current car does 36mpg on a run normally (claimed 41.5), I've had 40mpg out of it but it needed driving at 60 like a saint and a single dose of full throttle would ruin the entire run.

Trouble is with saying that it's "the same" engine/gearbox is that the claimed mpg varies wildly between cars with "the same" engine/gearbox.

I'm not the only one to get 40mpg out of them btw but it's all down to your driving style. When on a run I don't bother speeding, IMO it's not worth it so I stick it on cruise control at 70-75 indicated (65-70 real). I'm sure you won't get anywhere close if you're doing 80-90 everywhere.

Don't disagree with the auto.

These days on the motorway you cant do more than 70-75 indicated, unless you're travelling in the early hours, its just too busy. For all the hustling and bustling of people doing 80-90, I often find that when traffic builds up, I catch them up when I am doing 70-75.

[Depthhoar]

Get the 406 coupe: it's utterly gorgeous. Life's too short to be driving totally anonymous cars.

Look at it this way, when you're an old fart you'll look back and think about how wonderful it was to own that elegant Pininfarina-designed car. Ask yourself, would the Ford or the Mazda invoke the same response?

The 406 a 'loser coupe'? There'll be many, many more losers driving Mondeos and Mazdas.

Of course the 406 will be less reliable/less economical than some other choices but not massively so.

[TheAngryDog]

Depthhoar said:

Get the 406 coupe: it's utterly gorgeous. Life's too short to be driving totally anonymous cars.

Look at it this way, when you're an old fart you'll look back and think about how wonderful it was to own that elegant Pininfarina-designed car. Ask yourself, would the Ford or the Mazda invoke the same response?

The 406 a 'loser coupe'? There'll be many, many more losers driving Mondeos and Mazdas.

Of course the 406 will be less reliable/less economical than some other choices but not massively so.

Thing is, I need my car to be reliable, as I have to get into work as there is never anyone to cover me. And it has to do 40mpg average otherwise it makes coming to work pointless, i might as well go on the dole

[Mr SFJ]

TheAngryDog said:

Mr SFJ said:

Have you considered something italin?

Alfa Romeo
Fiat etc..?

My Grande Punto T-Jet gets about 40-45 on a run, sits at just under 3k revs at 70 and has a decent amount of kit. Cruise, BT, Parking Sensors, pano roof etc..

They start from 3, but can go up to 5 for a late series 2.

Yes I looked at some Alfa's, but I want something I can rely on to start every day. None of the Fiat's appeal to me. I dont have a £3k budget, let alone £5k!

Fastdruid said:

I presumed it was because he's after something reliable...

I do. Not sure if the 406 Coupe falls into the unreliable bracket? I think the Mondeo Ghia X is winning..

Alfa's aren't as bad as they once were.

[edward1]

I agree alfas are not as bad as they used to be, we used to have 2 alfas and a TVR and the only time we needed the big yellow taxi was for the tiv after a track day when the diff blew an oil seal.

A 2.0 twin spark 147 would be a great little car. You would get a nicely looked after one for 3k. The noly reason we sold ours was for more space for baby stuff hence the mazda 6. The alfa was a great car with a nice interior and good styling the mazda is seen just as a tool that does a job.

[Bennet]

Fastdruid said:

Bennet said:

I actually find the 2.0 engine fairly pleasing. It has no trouble keeping up with the traffic and if you're willing to hold on to the gears it'll pick up speed quite satisfactorily. I even think it sounds ok. I would be very surprised if you got 40mpg out of it. I get 30 driving around the suburbs with a bit of motorway here and there. I suspect 35 is realistic for a long steady motorway journey.

Yours is broken. Claimed avg mpg for yours is 35.

I'm pretty certain it's not broken and that the difference can only be down to the roads we drive on. I have never once hit the average mpg figure in any car I've owned. In fact, when buying a new car, I can reliably expect to get mpg roughly equivalent to half way between the claimed urban and the average mpg figures.

That driving long distances is good for an increase of an entire 10 mpg is surprising to me. I often see seriously spurious mpg claims on these forums. Unfortunately it's impossible to distinguish between the optimistic guestimations and accurate, honest brim to brim calculation. I'll trust yours are the latter, rather than the former if you say so.

For my part, I'd advise anyone thinking of buying a 2.0 mondeo for long journeys to expect 35 and treat 40mpg as a bonus if he can manage to get it. And 30mpg if it's used for short journeys.

[Fastdruid]

Bennet said:

For my part, I'd advise anyone thinking of buying a 2.0 mondeo for long journeys to expect 35 and treat 40mpg as a bonus if he can manage to get it. And 30mpg if it's used for short journeys.

I agree which was why I suggested the 1.8 rather than the 2.0.

[406highlander]

TheAngryDog said:

Not sure if the 406 Coupe falls into the unreliable bracket? I think the Mondeo Ghia X is winning..

I used my 2.2 petrol SE model as a daily driver for two years (Nov 2010 to Dec 2012), clear urban/suburban roads to work most mornings, nose-to-tail traffic most nights. It was 10 years old at the time. Never let me down during that whole time. I still have the car, but due to a job change, I walk to/from work now.

I use that car to go on holidays (it's been from Aberdeen to Carlisle, Aberdeen to Glasgow, Aberdeen to Edinburgh), and to see my parents (a 220 mile trip, each way!) - a decent-sized boot helps you out on that front, and if you so wish, you can fit roof rails and a roof box for them, or stick on a towbar and use them to tow a trailer, or both!

I've been an AA member since 2007, and the one time I had to use that membership was with the Mk. 1 Clio I had in 2008.

They don't rust (galvanized shell) unless they've been in a crash. The petrol engines are very reliable (the 2.2 HDi diesel option is reliable but costs more to fix if it does break, owing to having a turbo and a high-pressure fuel pump and injectors). The "infamous" French electrics are also not as prevalent on the 406 range as they are with other Peugeot models. The one thing that's wrong with mine is the seat heaters have stopped working - but my car is 12.5 years old now; you need to expect this kind of thing. The digital climate control works flawlessly, the JBL amplifier and CD autochanger work like a charm, the electric windows raise and lower as intended. Even the damn keyfob still locks and unlocks the car as it should do (more than can be said about the fob on my step-sons' 2002 Ford Focus).

The 406 was generally a well-designed, reliable, comfortable car. Check all the 406 saloon/estate taxis that still run about, having done 300k - 500k miles. The Coupe has the same engine options (except the 1.6 and 1.8 petrol, and 2.0 8v turbo, which were not offered on the Coupe) as the saloon/estate. Same engines, same gearboxes, same running gear. And the saloons/estates were mass-manufactured; the Coupes were assembled on their own dedicated production lines by Pininfarina in Italy, with only 109k of them ever built. The quality control on the Coupes was rather higher, and they feel better-built. Mine rattles a bit *now*, but I know the shocks/springs are a bit tired.

Get a Coupe that's been well looked-after, and you'll have a lovely car to cruise about in, and unless you're really unlucky or you don't service it when needed, it won't let you down.

My advice would be to check the 406 Coupe Club forums, particularly the "For Sale" section. Members cars are generally looked after rather better than some of the misused and abused examples you might find on other sites, and the forums have plenty of advice for prospective buyers.

[TheAngryDog]

406highlander said:

TheAngryDog said:

Not sure if the 406 Coupe falls into the unreliable bracket? I think the Mondeo Ghia X is winning..

I used my 2.2 petrol SE model as a daily driver for two years (Nov 2010 to Dec 2012), clear urban/suburban roads to work most mornings, nose-to-tail traffic most nights. It was 10 years old at the time. Never let me down during that whole time. I still have the car, but due to a job change, I walk to/from work now.

I use that car to go on holidays (it's been from Aberdeen to Carlisle, Aberdeen to Glasgow, Aberdeen to Edinburgh), and to see my parents (a 220 mile trip, each way!) - a decent-sized boot helps you out on that front, and if you so wish, you can fit roof rails and a roof box for them, or stick on a towbar and use them to tow a trailer, or both!

I've been an AA member since 2007, and the one time I had to use that membership was with the Mk. 1 Clio I had in 2008.

They don't rust (galvanized shell) unless they've been in a crash. The petrol engines are very reliable (the 2.2 HDi diesel option is reliable but costs more to fix if it does break, owing to having a turbo and a high-pressure fuel pump and injectors). The "infamous" French electrics are also not as prevalent on the 406 range as they are with other Peugeot models. The one thing that's wrong with mine is the seat heaters have stopped working - but my car is 12.5 years old now; you need to expect this kind of thing. The digital climate control works flawlessly, the JBL amplifier and CD autochanger work like a charm, the electric windows raise and lower as intended. Even the damn keyfob still locks and unlocks the car as it should do (more than can be said about the fob on my step-sons' 2002 Ford Focus).

The 406 was generally a well-designed, reliable, comfortable car. Check all the 406 saloon/estate taxis that still run about, having done 300k - 500k miles. The Coupe has the same engine options (except the 1.6 and 1.8 petrol, and 2.0 8v turbo, which were not offered on the Coupe) as the saloon/estate. Same engines, same gearboxes, same running gear. And the saloons/estates were mass-manufactured; the Coupes were assembled on their own dedicated production lines by Pininfarina in Italy, with only 109k of them ever built. The quality control on the Coupes was rather higher, and they feel better-built. Mine rattles a bit *now*, but I know the shocks/springs are a bit tired.

Get a Coupe that's been well looked-after, and you'll have a lovely car to cruise about in, and unless you're really unlucky or you don't service it when needed, it won't let you down.

My advice would be to check the 406 Coupe Club forums, particularly the "For Sale" section. Members cars are generally looked after rather better than some of the misused and abused examples you might find on other sites, and the forums have plenty of advice for prospective buyers.

Thanks for the write up! I'll check that forum out.

Would you say that the 2.2 is the one to go for? I need something with a compliant ride as Sheffield is not treating my suspension nicely! Does the Coupe come with Xenon head lights?

The heated seats on my 15 year old BMW still work