RE: Tell me I'm wrong: Peugeot 205 GTI
Discussion
It might have been said already, but I think the 1.9 sounds sweeter too. The 205 3DR body is one of the great car designs imo. I'm not trying to compare it to a 250 GTO or E Type here, I'm just saying it's great bit of pen work for a mass produced car. A mint 1.9 GTI pre-cat in gunmetal is in my million pound garage all day long.
OracIe said:
When new:
1.6 = 115bhp
1.9 = 128 bhp
Your all banging on about power this, speed that with 13bhp more?
Do me a favour.
If you wanted a real power hike then 1.9TT was where it was at. 180bhp wasn't it?
Autocar tests 1.6 = 115bhp
1.9 = 128 bhp
Your all banging on about power this, speed that with 13bhp more?
Do me a favour.
If you wanted a real power hike then 1.9TT was where it was at. 180bhp wasn't it?
| Car and Engine | Test date | 0-60 | 0-100 | Max Speed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 205 1.6 105bhp | 23/06/84 | 8.6 | 29.5 | 116 |
| 205 1.6 115bhp | 03/09/86 | 8.7 | 26.6 | 122 |
| 205 1.9 130bhp | 21/01/87 | 7.8 | 23.8 | 120 |
No-one will ever agree on this topic - it has been going on for years. I had a 1.9 20 years ago when it was a few years old and 15 years later I wanted another and did not even consider a 1.6. That said I bought a 1.6 CTI a few years ago too and the revvy, peppy nature of the engine makes it feel more 'alive'. Of course the blancmange handling of the CTI can't compare to the 1.6 GTI but there really is not as much between them as this debate suggests. Disc brakes at the rear make little difference as they are so light and yes the interior is smarter and longer lasting.
A recent blast in the Lakes with a few 205s showed little difference in 1.6 and 1.9 power and handling, when new the difference may have been starker, I accept. 20 years on they will all have lost lots of power (except the later cat cars which retain their power better)and there is a chance that the power gap will not be as large now anyhow. Chris, you will have to join us next year if you can in the XS - 15 205s turn almost as many heads as 15 Lambos through Buttermere!
At the risk of nerding it up completely too, Chris' remark about the tyres is incorrect, they both left the factory with 185 section tyres, 185 55 15s versus 185 60 14s.
All in all, whichever you chose at the time they were new or choose now both are are a delight - if you have never owned one you are really missing out. OK they are fragile and at times can let you down but that is all part of the fun (most of the time). I will never sell my 2 and are the only 80s/90s hot hatch (and cabriolet)for me.
It would be a boring world if we all agreed on everything though eh?
A snap of my 2:
A recent blast in the Lakes with a few 205s showed little difference in 1.6 and 1.9 power and handling, when new the difference may have been starker, I accept. 20 years on they will all have lost lots of power (except the later cat cars which retain their power better)and there is a chance that the power gap will not be as large now anyhow. Chris, you will have to join us next year if you can in the XS - 15 205s turn almost as many heads as 15 Lambos through Buttermere!
At the risk of nerding it up completely too, Chris' remark about the tyres is incorrect, they both left the factory with 185 section tyres, 185 55 15s versus 185 60 14s.
All in all, whichever you chose at the time they were new or choose now both are are a delight - if you have never owned one you are really missing out. OK they are fragile and at times can let you down but that is all part of the fun (most of the time). I will never sell my 2 and are the only 80s/90s hot hatch (and cabriolet)for me.
It would be a boring world if we all agreed on everything though eh?
A snap of my 2:
Edited by stufarri on Thursday 24th May 23:02
A mate of mine wrote his 1.6 Gti off, the day after passing West Mercia Police's High Speed Driving Course, where apparently they taught him to drive VERY fast. Apparently he took his foot off the accelerator mid bend, the rear clipped the kurb, and he went arse over tit into a field.
I had the later 1.6 with power steering. I never thought it really lacked for power and it was "sweet" but I suppose in most day to day situations and at this level more power actually affords a bit more comfort.
But I think there is a difference between saying which is the better car and which is the sweeter car. Better is different things to different people, sweeter suggests a more balanced proposition ie zingy engine / light chassis combination. To go any great distance in it however you would probably want the 1.9 as the 1.6 was ringing its guts out on the motorway. To get the faster laptime you would need the 1.9 all else being equal, but that doesn't mean its "sweeter".
As to "which one to go for" I guess the motoring press were generally hooning about on test tracks largely trying to rag it/ judge it by how much fun it was.... hence we go back to this idea of not needing power to have fun..... maybe you have more fun in the 1.6 more of the time in situations in real life, but its more difficult to live with...slightly...and if you accept that your thinking now and then perhaps differs in terms of what is "better" this makes sense.... also given the levels of power we have now our perspectives have changed. By todays standard 115bhp is seen as just not enough!
To illustrate one of my points, what about the MX-5 mk1 Vs the Mk2/2.5? The mk1 is probably "the one to have" but the practicalities of ownership probably means most people would choose a later model. Maybe more power, maybe electric roof....ooooh and what about.......etc
I see your point Chris and I see you have found the key to stirring the PH pot as it were!
Geez....next you'll be saying something like "The Impreza was the better prospect than the Evo....discuss"
But I think there is a difference between saying which is the better car and which is the sweeter car. Better is different things to different people, sweeter suggests a more balanced proposition ie zingy engine / light chassis combination. To go any great distance in it however you would probably want the 1.9 as the 1.6 was ringing its guts out on the motorway. To get the faster laptime you would need the 1.9 all else being equal, but that doesn't mean its "sweeter".
As to "which one to go for" I guess the motoring press were generally hooning about on test tracks largely trying to rag it/ judge it by how much fun it was.... hence we go back to this idea of not needing power to have fun..... maybe you have more fun in the 1.6 more of the time in situations in real life, but its more difficult to live with...slightly...and if you accept that your thinking now and then perhaps differs in terms of what is "better" this makes sense.... also given the levels of power we have now our perspectives have changed. By todays standard 115bhp is seen as just not enough!
To illustrate one of my points, what about the MX-5 mk1 Vs the Mk2/2.5? The mk1 is probably "the one to have" but the practicalities of ownership probably means most people would choose a later model. Maybe more power, maybe electric roof....ooooh and what about.......etc
I see your point Chris and I see you have found the key to stirring the PH pot as it were!
Geez....next you'll be saying something like "The Impreza was the better prospect than the Evo....discuss"
_dobbo_ said:
Whilst your story is tragic and upsetting, if you think your brother's life was lost because he was in a 1.6 rather than 1.9 I'd have to say I think you're fooling yourself.
+1 I'm afraid. If you smash a roadworthy car, it's because you're going to quickly. A car's handling characteristics - no matter how bad - can never be blamed for an accident of that nature. The reason most 205's (replace 205 with whatever derivative you like, 911, 355, GTR, 968, 306, 458, 5Turbo, LP560, M3, RS6, SL55 etc, etc, etc......) went into hedges backwards is because the laws of physics were breached. I'm now 35, and when I think of some of the things I did in cars when I was 17,18,19......it makes me feel really silly, and I'm thankful that I never hurt anyone. I still like to drive quickly, but I always think of the old lady on her push bike, or the man changing his tyre with his family in the car. They can always be around the next corner. 200Plus Club said:
can also comment on this, as i also had 2 uno turbos, the mk1 and mk2, both tuned, both caned within an inch of their lives. mk1 uno door card came off in my hand when i pulled door shut again at 40mph as it wasnt quite shut fully, typical of the build quality. like s
t off a shovel both of em in the day!
my 1.9gti was tuned and played with and made 120odd bhp at the wheels, which was blindingly quick, and also very very twitchy on lift off. it all ended in tears with a twht who ran me off the road during an impromptu race one night, he lost his and nudged me on a bend (private dual carriageway)
i ended up backwards into a bridge parapet and destroyed the car :-( while my new friend cleared off without stopping.
Appreciated as you've peddle the Uno and a 205 and told it fairly much as it was. Nikolai just rocks up with a one sided statement.t off a shovel both of em in the day!my 1.9gti was tuned and played with and made 120odd bhp at the wheels, which was blindingly quick, and also very very twitchy on lift off. it all ended in tears with a twht who ran me off the road during an impromptu race one night, he lost his and nudged me on a bend (private dual carriageway)
i ended up backwards into a bridge parapet and destroyed the car :-( while my new friend cleared off without stopping.
Leading up to getting my 1.9 I had my short list... Uno Turbo, 5 GT Turbo, XR2i... The ford fell by the wayside pretty quickly. The Fiat was more fragile than the Pug. The 5 was lovely but as Performance Car put it was a car to have access to but not to own and stalled when hot because the fuel vapourised in the card or something like that. Wonderful drive though but the 1.9 was a beast with a touch of class. No it wasn't built like a VW but not many cared, they outsold golfs all day long!
Incidentally the rally world were upset with Peugeot because the 205 T16 was a purpose built rally car, then turned into a road car. The others picked the most suitable car from the range and the motorsport department did the rest.
Edited by HighwayStar on Thursday 24th May 23:42
New POD said:
A mate of mine wrote his 1.6 Gti off, the day after passing West Mercia Police's High Speed Driving Course, where apparently they taught him to drive VERY fast. Apparently he took his foot off the accelerator mid bend, the rear clipped the kurb, and he went arse over tit into a field.
He couldn't have been top of the class as they would have no doubt taught him the system of car control, which does not advocate lifting off in a bend!
I know a former world rally champion who drove 205's and preferred the 1.6 for the revvy nature. I only have experience of the 1.6 205 Challenge rally cars but reckon the 1.9 favours the less experienced driver by having the wider torque spread which = more real world performance :-)
I do appreciate torque these days but I also recognise that changing gear is easy and fun :-D Hence why I will never sell my S2 Rallye!!
I do appreciate torque these days but I also recognise that changing gear is easy and fun :-D Hence why I will never sell my S2 Rallye!!
That's the thing with 205's, changing gear was a nice experience.
I've said it before about double clutches and PDK's, that pause between gears is something that should be revelled in and is sadly missing in preference of gaining tenths of a second.
The revs diving as you clutch in and work your way up the box is a very very pleasing sound.
The 1.6 only seemed to drop about 500 revs between gears but it sounded like there was much more transition.
It was always gunning and that suited the nippy handling.
The 1.9 was a little too grown up feeling IME.
I've said it before about double clutches and PDK's, that pause between gears is something that should be revelled in and is sadly missing in preference of gaining tenths of a second.
The revs diving as you clutch in and work your way up the box is a very very pleasing sound.
The 1.6 only seemed to drop about 500 revs between gears but it sounded like there was much more transition.
It was always gunning and that suited the nippy handling.
The 1.9 was a little too grown up feeling IME.
I drove the 1.6 and the 1.9 back in the long long ago, and preferred the 1.9 for the power, seats, wheels, etc., but ended up rallying a 309GTi which, due to it's longer wheelbase and slightly wider track, went round corners far better than the 205. In my opinion, the 309GTi was a very under-rated car.
Anyway, time passed and nearly 20 years later I'm looking for a cheap car to use for sprinting in the sub 1600cc production class. Thought I'd bring back some old memories by getting a 205 1.6GTi, but compared to the newer, cheaper, faster, more refined 106GTi that I ended up with, the 205 seemed a bit lame (and very rattly!).
Anyway, time passed and nearly 20 years later I'm looking for a cheap car to use for sprinting in the sub 1600cc production class. Thought I'd bring back some old memories by getting a 205 1.6GTi, but compared to the newer, cheaper, faster, more refined 106GTi that I ended up with, the 205 seemed a bit lame (and very rattly!).
Nikolai said:
I can't stand 'all day long' either.
But anyway, I've not driven 205s, but mk1 Uno Turbos were better in every way. Although for some reason, only Uno Turbo owners seem to know this...
I always thought it was Uno Turbo owners that were special......that just confirms it But anyway, I've not driven 205s, but mk1 Uno Turbos were better in every way. Although for some reason, only Uno Turbo owners seem to know this...
LOL....
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff