106 GTIs, a real bargain?
Discussion
Been browsing and for around £1500 it looks like you can get a tidy 106 GTI. I've driven a few and they are great little cars. Ok their not the last word in quality but they just make you smile like a cat. If I hasn't recently bought my Eunos I think I'd really consider one of these. They might even go up in value in a few years if you have a mint example.
Here's a random one from the classifieds which I'm sure the seller would drop his price a bit...
http://mobile.pistonheads.com/sales/3593335.htm
Here's a random one from the classifieds which I'm sure the seller would drop his price a bit...
http://mobile.pistonheads.com/sales/3593335.htm
I had a Saxo VTS for 6 years, pretty much the same thing.
Loved it. Quick enough, great fun and very economical.
Only had a few minor issues over its time until the rear axle stubs rotted.
Common problem apparently so check that out. Get the back wheels off the ground and check for any play. When driving it will want to oversteer even more than normal and steer itself when you want to go straight.
Loved it. Quick enough, great fun and very economical.
Only had a few minor issues over its time until the rear axle stubs rotted.
Common problem apparently so check that out. Get the back wheels off the ground and check for any play. When driving it will want to oversteer even more than normal and steer itself when you want to go straight.
Ive had 1 for the last 5 years and Im looking to change mine for a BMW 330 and the though of not having it anymore is killing me.
They are great fun and cheap. As mentioned above they are by no way luxurious but who cares, look at £/fun.
Other then normal wear and tear the only issue I have had is the sunroof leaks in the rain and has been put down to the left drainage pipe that runs down the passenger pillar of the windscreen and seems unblockable without taking the car to bits.
Any other questions OP has please let me know and will be happy to help.
They are great fun and cheap. As mentioned above they are by no way luxurious but who cares, look at £/fun.
Other then normal wear and tear the only issue I have had is the sunroof leaks in the rain and has been put down to the left drainage pipe that runs down the passenger pillar of the windscreen and seems unblockable without taking the car to bits.
Any other questions OP has please let me know and will be happy to help.
KB_S1 said:
pidsy said:
Ive had a VTR, VTS and a 106GTI and the 106 is a far better machine than the citroens.
Great little car, with go-karthandling and looks that have aged well!
What did you find better about the 106?Great little car, with go-karthandling and looks that have aged well!
I always thought the only difference (mechanical) was wheel/tyre size.
The Saxo is available for sub £1000, they sold so many more making it way better value
KB_S1 said:
pidsy said:
Ive had a VTR, VTS and a 106GTI and the 106 is a far better machine than the citroens.
Great little car, with go-karthandling and looks that have aged well!
What did you find better about the 106?Great little car, with go-karthandling and looks that have aged well!
I always thought the only difference (mechanical) was wheel/tyre size.
My mate had one when they first came out, only a few months old, lovely car. Diablo red, he spoiled it a bit with crap suspension, Lexus lights etc.
pidsy said:
Just felt better put together. It all felt tighter and the engine was just right.
Interesting.Mine was solid from day 1 but a mate had a VTR that had all sorts of rattles and squeeks.
My car didn't have any rattles at all up to 85k but then some knob end caved the passenger door in. I had to remove the interior trim to push it out and that side rattled a bit after.
Engines were identical in VTS/GTi but, I believe they were inconsistent. It was a cracking unit though.
I always preferred the GTi interior though.
I almost decided to get one but I only had around £1K to spend, and I couldn't find any tidy ones for that money... and I ended up getting an MX5 instead, as there are plenty of tidy ones for £1K. Also, they have the advantages of being RWD and convertible. If you don't need two seats I'd say they were a better bet. And if you get a 1.8, I doubt they're much slower than a GTI either.
The Citroen alternative really didn't appeal in the slightest for me, even if they were cheaper.
The Citroen alternative really didn't appeal in the slightest for me, even if they were cheaper.
TameRacingDriver said:
And if you get a 1.8, I doubt they're much slower than a GTI either.
The Citroen alternative really didn't appeal in the slightest for me, even if they were cheaper.
When I had my VTS a friend had 2 different MX5 mk1s. Both were 1.8s. Both were significantly slower than the VTS in a straight line and the twisties.The Citroen alternative really didn't appeal in the slightest for me, even if they were cheaper.
That of course is just a measurement of speed, not fun or pleasure.
The MX5 also used a LOT more fuel.
It looked a lot better though.
KB_S1 said:
When I had my VTS a friend had 2 different MX5 mk1s. Both were 1.8s. Both were significantly slower than the VTS in a straight line and the twisties.
That of course is just a measurement of speed, not fun or pleasure.
The MX5 also used a LOT more fuel.
It looked a lot better though.
Strange then really... I'm not disbelieving you, don't get me wrong, it may be the case, but there shouldn't be much in it really... 120 bhp 920 kg hatch versus a 130 bhp 960 kg sports car, should in theory be pretty evenly matched, but I will say that the MX5 does seem quite poor top end (i.e. after about 80), although I'd say in the first 3 gears its fairly nippy.That of course is just a measurement of speed, not fun or pleasure.
The MX5 also used a LOT more fuel.
It looked a lot better though.
That said, when I had a 182, a lot of the folks on cliosport used to say the GTI/VTS wasn't much slower than a 172, so maybe they have a bit more poke than admitted to?
It is/was surprising about the MX5 comparison.
I always wondered if the 120bhp figure was conservative and, possibly the 130bhp MX5 was optimistic.
The MX5 always felt it had a heavier engine, in terms of flywheel and drivetrain.
I remember the 5th Gear episode where they raced a VTS and 172 on track. The 172 pulled away slightly on the straights but the VTS made it up and more through the corners.
I always wondered if the 120bhp figure was conservative and, possibly the 130bhp MX5 was optimistic.
The MX5 always felt it had a heavier engine, in terms of flywheel and drivetrain.
I remember the 5th Gear episode where they raced a VTS and 172 on track. The 172 pulled away slightly on the straights but the VTS made it up and more through the corners.
CampDavid said:
KB_S1 said:
pidsy said:
Ive had a VTR, VTS and a 106GTI and the 106 is a far better machine than the citroens.
Great little car, with go-karthandling and looks that have aged well!
What did you find better about the 106?Great little car, with go-karthandling and looks that have aged well!
I always thought the only difference (mechanical) was wheel/tyre size.
The Saxo is available for sub £1000, they sold so many more making it way better value
In discounts/trade-ins
The nicer interior on the 106 wasn't worth 2k ( on a 10.5 k car ) to me plus I preferred the VTS soupbowl alloys
Fantastic little cars though - got well over 40 mpg cruising down to Cornwall/South of France.
When new, was a very cheap little car to run
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff