New Peugeot 405. Less than £8,000

[AC43]

daveco said:

AC43 said:

Sheepshanks said:

Really - says who? Better than Sierra or 3 Series?? I had a 405GTX company car - main thing I remember is it was the first rep-mobile with a/c as standard!

In rep spec rhe Sierra was a slightly less st Cortina. And the 3 series was an underpowered Cortina with no kit and st damping.

The 405 was streets ahead chassis-wise.

The E30 was released in '82 and by the time the 405 came out in early '88, BMW had replaced all the engines with fuel injected motors so they weren't down on power at that point. Peugeot ran with carburetors for a few years after this, parallel to the fuel injected motors in the more powerful engines.

You also had the bonus/additional cost of a 6 cylinder, rear wheel drive layout with a LSD if you wanted it. A base 320 was £11,000 and capable of the same performance as the Mi16, despite being heavier and down on power on paper.

I guess I was talking about the lower end of things where a rep-spec 405 would be up against a 316 or 318. I drove a pretty basic version of the latter and was totally underwhelmed by performance and handling. To my sensibilities it was oversprung and underdamped. I was expecting the "ultimate driving machine" and felt that it was really a bit of a well-made Cortina in that spec.

I'm sure the engine in the 320 would make a huge difference. Still not sure how it would cope with mid-corner bumps, through.

[surveyor]

I also think the Sierra and 405 were both far bigger than a 3 series. More comparable in size to a 5 series

[Kawasicki]

AC43 said:

daveco said:

AC43 said:

Sheepshanks said:

Really - says who? Better than Sierra or 3 Series?? I had a 405GTX company car - main thing I remember is it was the first rep-mobile with a/c as standard!

In rep spec rhe Sierra was a slightly less st Cortina. And the 3 series was an underpowered Cortina with no kit and st damping.

The 405 was streets ahead chassis-wise.

The E30 was released in '82 and by the time the 405 came out in early '88, BMW had replaced all the engines with fuel injected motors so they weren't down on power at that point. Peugeot ran with carburetors for a few years after this, parallel to the fuel injected motors in the more powerful engines.

You also had the bonus/additional cost of a 6 cylinder, rear wheel drive layout with a LSD if you wanted it. A base 320 was £11,000 and capable of the same performance as the Mi16, despite being heavier and down on power on paper.

I guess I was talking about the lower end of things where a rep-spec 405 would be up against a 316 or 318. I drove a pretty basic version of the latter and was totally underwhelmed by performance and handling. To my sensibilities it was oversprung and underdamped. I was expecting the "ultimate driving machine" and felt that it was really a bit of a well-made Cortina in that spec.

I'm sure the engine in the 320 would make a huge difference. Still not sure how it would cope with mid-corner bumps, through.

As someone who drove a basic/standard 318i on the raggedy edge for thousands of miles I can honestly say you are talking crap.

[C70R]

Jesus, the rose-tinted glasses of the PH brigade are out in force.

If this thread were to be believed, the 405 was a pin-sharp handling legend.

Give me a break. It was slightly better than its contemporaries, most of which were utterly dire.

[AC43]

C70R said:

Jesus, the rose-tinted glasses of the PH brigade are out in force.

If this thread were to be believed, the 405 was a pin-sharp handling legend.

Give me a break. It was slightly better than its contemporaries, most of which were utterly dire.

It was well known for having a very well-developed chassis, that's all I'm saying, which meant it could be absolutely battered down bumpy B roads. It was amusing for such a boring-looking car to have that particular party trick.

"few cars at any price have such a harmonious relationship between their controls and no car in this class makes such unruffled progress"

https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/444...

[C.A.R.]

Dad had one growing up, couldn't tell you what engine it would have had (but it was petrol).

I remember him under the bonnet of it a few times, but it was many times more reliable than the Cavalier he had before, and obviously worked because he had 2 406s afterwards!

[PhillipM]

Still have one, an Mi16x4, needs some TLC though.

It's a pity the new ones don't have the same quality of running gear or they'd make great donor cars...

[kiseca]

C70R said:

Jesus, the rose-tinted glasses of the PH brigade are out in force.

If this thread were to be believed, the 405 was a pin-sharp handling legend.

Give me a break. It was slightly better than its contemporaries, most of which were utterly dire.

It was though. I never saw a contemporary road test of any 405 where its handling didn't get top drawer praise.

[AC43]

kiseca said:

C70R said:

Jesus, the rose-tinted glasses of the PH brigade are out in force.

If this thread were to be believed, the 405 was a pin-sharp handling legend.

Give me a break. It was slightly better than its contemporaries, most of which were utterly dire.

It was though. I never saw a contemporary road test of any 405 where its handling didn't get top drawer praise.

At the time they also had the 205 GTI and the 309 GTI. The 405 I used to borrow had a carb-fed version of the engines in them.

All three were recognised as having tremendous handling. I suspect the sweet spot for me might have been the 309 but I never had a change to try it.

I did drive the 205 and 405 a lot and of the two actually preferred the 405 as it was still surprisingly pointy but didn't feel so nervous.

For anyone who thinks I think that the 405 is the greatest car of all time - I don't.

I was just lumped with driving (company) cars in that class and thought the 405 was by far the best handling of all its peers at that price point at that time.

[rallycross]

C70R said:

Jesus, the rose-tinted glasses of the PH brigade are out in force.

If this thread were to be believed, the 405 was a pin-sharp handling legend.

Give me a break. It was slightly better than its contemporaries, most of which were utterly dire.

Your wrong on this one at the time it was quite a revelation.

[shakotan]

williamp said:

Sheepshanks said:

Really - says who? Better than Sierra or 3 Series?? I had a 405GTX company car - main thing I remember is it was the first rep-mobile with a/c as standard!

[Alan partrdge] not my words, lynn Carol....the words of autocar magazne

https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/444...

[/alanpartidge]

"Stop getting Partridge wrong!"

[RobM77]

Kawasicki said:

AC43 said:

daveco said:

AC43 said:

Sheepshanks said:

Really - says who? Better than Sierra or 3 Series?? I had a 405GTX company car - main thing I remember is it was the first rep-mobile with a/c as standard!

In rep spec rhe Sierra was a slightly less st Cortina. And the 3 series was an underpowered Cortina with no kit and st damping.

The 405 was streets ahead chassis-wise.

The E30 was released in '82 and by the time the 405 came out in early '88, BMW had replaced all the engines with fuel injected motors so they weren't down on power at that point. Peugeot ran with carburetors for a few years after this, parallel to the fuel injected motors in the more powerful engines.

You also had the bonus/additional cost of a 6 cylinder, rear wheel drive layout with a LSD if you wanted it. A base 320 was £11,000 and capable of the same performance as the Mi16, despite being heavier and down on power on paper.

I guess I was talking about the lower end of things where a rep-spec 405 would be up against a 316 or 318. I drove a pretty basic version of the latter and was totally underwhelmed by performance and handling. To my sensibilities it was oversprung and underdamped. I was expecting the "ultimate driving machine" and felt that it was really a bit of a well-made Cortina in that spec.

I'm sure the engine in the 320 would make a huge difference. Still not sure how it would cope with mid-corner bumps, through.

As someone who drove a basic/standard 318i on the raggedy edge for thousands of miles I can honestly say you are talking crap.

Bigger engines actually make most cars handle worse due to the weight. In all other respects, the chassis is identical between an E30 325i and a 318i. The optional LSD is debatable - personally I consider them a necessary evil (both my racing cars have them, so I'm used to them). So, if we're talking purely about handling, the 316i and 318i would actually be the peak of the range. All the 325i does better is concerning straight lines - the extra weight of the 6 cyl engine actually detracts from the handling.

[surveyor]

RobM77 said:

Kawasicki said:

AC43 said:

daveco said:

AC43 said:

Sheepshanks said:

Really - says who? Better than Sierra or 3 Series?? I had a 405GTX company car - main thing I remember is it was the first rep-mobile with a/c as standard!

In rep spec rhe Sierra was a slightly less st Cortina. And the 3 series was an underpowered Cortina with no kit and st damping.

The 405 was streets ahead chassis-wise.

The E30 was released in '82 and by the time the 405 came out in early '88, BMW had replaced all the engines with fuel injected motors so they weren't down on power at that point. Peugeot ran with carburetors for a few years after this, parallel to the fuel injected motors in the more powerful engines.

You also had the bonus/additional cost of a 6 cylinder, rear wheel drive layout with a LSD if you wanted it. A base 320 was £11,000 and capable of the same performance as the Mi16, despite being heavier and down on power on paper.

I guess I was talking about the lower end of things where a rep-spec 405 would be up against a 316 or 318. I drove a pretty basic version of the latter and was totally underwhelmed by performance and handling. To my sensibilities it was oversprung and underdamped. I was expecting the "ultimate driving machine" and felt that it was really a bit of a well-made Cortina in that spec.

I'm sure the engine in the 320 would make a huge difference. Still not sure how it would cope with mid-corner bumps, through.

As someone who drove a basic/standard 318i on the raggedy edge for thousands of miles I can honestly say you are talking crap.

Bigger engines actually make most cars handle worse due to the weight. In all other respects, the chassis is identical between an E30 325i and a 318i. The optional LSD is debatable - personally I consider them a necessary evil (both my racing cars have them, so I'm used to them). So, if we're talking purely about handling, the 316i and 318i would actually be the peak of the range. All the 325i does better is concerning straight lines - the extra weight of the 6 cyl engine actually detracts from the handling.

But the 3 series was a far smaller car. Not comparable to a rep saloon with rather good handling.

[RobM77]

surveyor said:

RobM77 said:

Kawasicki said:

AC43 said:

daveco said:

AC43 said:

Sheepshanks said:

Really - says who? Better than Sierra or 3 Series?? I had a 405GTX company car - main thing I remember is it was the first rep-mobile with a/c as standard!

In rep spec rhe Sierra was a slightly less st Cortina. And the 3 series was an underpowered Cortina with no kit and st damping.

The 405 was streets ahead chassis-wise.

The E30 was released in '82 and by the time the 405 came out in early '88, BMW had replaced all the engines with fuel injected motors so they weren't down on power at that point. Peugeot ran with carburetors for a few years after this, parallel to the fuel injected motors in the more powerful engines.

You also had the bonus/additional cost of a 6 cylinder, rear wheel drive layout with a LSD if you wanted it. A base 320 was £11,000 and capable of the same performance as the Mi16, despite being heavier and down on power on paper.

I guess I was talking about the lower end of things where a rep-spec 405 would be up against a 316 or 318. I drove a pretty basic version of the latter and was totally underwhelmed by performance and handling. To my sensibilities it was oversprung and underdamped. I was expecting the "ultimate driving machine" and felt that it was really a bit of a well-made Cortina in that spec.

I'm sure the engine in the 320 would make a huge difference. Still not sure how it would cope with mid-corner bumps, through.

As someone who drove a basic/standard 318i on the raggedy edge for thousands of miles I can honestly say you are talking crap.

Bigger engines actually make most cars handle worse due to the weight. In all other respects, the chassis is identical between an E30 325i and a 318i. The optional LSD is debatable - personally I consider them a necessary evil (both my racing cars have them, so I'm used to them). So, if we're talking purely about handling, the 316i and 318i would actually be the peak of the range. All the 325i does better is concerning straight lines - the extra weight of the 6 cyl engine actually detracts from the handling.

But the 3 series was a far smaller car. Not comparable to a rep saloon with rather good handling.

The biggest contributors to handling are indeed overall size and weight, CofG, polar moment and driven wheels. That is precisely why I, and others, are suggesting that the E30 handled better. The original premise was simply 'saloon', not saloon of that size.

This shouldn't detract from the 405 at all; they were good cars. I was also a fan of the 406 too, just a really nicely rounded package and I always liked getting them as hire cars with work (although again, I did prefer the contemporary 3 series).

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 17th April 16:38

[PhillipM]

I know my old man went out looking at 5 series for a while when I was a kid, drove the Mi16 that we spotted whilst going past it, bought it there and then just on the way it drove....

[Phil Dicky]

PhillipM said:

Still have one, an Mi16x4, needs some TLC though.

It's a pity the new ones don't have the same quality of running gear or they'd make great donor cars...

Top motors....let one slip through my fingers a few years ago, big mistake

[surveyor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZqHH-SMdmU

[Jag_NE]

Love the 405.

This will likely be impacted by Brexit but does anyone know what loopholes you could go through to drive this in the UK? I ask this as I have seen eastern European cars where I live seemingly permanently on the road here. Could you buy one in Azerbaijan and get it onto a Bulgarian plate somehow, then drive it here?

[andyalan10]

That's my 405 estate on a road rally somewhere around 1995, photo by Andy Manston of M&H probably. Certainly the best all round car I've ever owned. Apart from top 3 finishes in road rallies it also acted as a service barge towing a stage rally car, went to the alps 5 up for skiing holidays and holidayed in France with 3 bikes and a trailer tent. Fantastic ride/handling compromise and beautifully balanced. In the same way that a 309 GTi is regarded as a less twitchy 205, the 405 would display the same lift off oversteer to tighten the line when required. I did 110,000 miles in 4 years in mine with very few problems.

A quick internet search shows it as being 3 inches longer than an E30 3 series, and an inch wider. We've lost a massive amount in terms of handling (as opposed to grip), visibility and space efficiency as cars have become cleaner and safer to crash in.

Feeling quite nostalgic for it now.

Andy

[Kawasicki]

andyalan10 said:

That's my 405 estate on a road rally somewhere around 1995, photo by Andy Manston of M&H probably. Certainly the best all round car I've ever owned. Apart from top 3 finishes in road rallies it also acted as a service barge towing a stage rally car, went to the alps 5 up for skiing holidays and holidayed in France with 3 bikes and a trailer tent. Fantastic ride/handling compromise and beautifully balanced. In the same way that a 309 GTi is regarded as a less twitchy 205, the 405 would display the same lift off oversteer to tighten the line when required. I did 110,000 miles in 4 years in mine with very few problems.

A quick internet search shows it as being 3 inches longer than an E30 3 series, and an inch wider. We've lost a massive amount in terms of handling (as opposed to grip), visibility and space efficiency as cars have become cleaner and safer to crash in.

Feeling quite nostalgic for it now.

Andy

The 405 is wider than an e36 and way wider than an e30. Not sure where you got your numbers from.

The handling that you yearn for wasn’t intentionally tuned in. It was an unfortunate (for most drivers) outcome of a simple suspension design. Engaged/alert drivers love lift off oversteer...but they are quite rare.