RE: Tell me I'm wrong: Peugeot 205 GTI
Discussion
Daveyraveygravey said:
+2 here! Mind you, the real debate was whether the 309GTi was better than the 205. But this is counter to Chris's argument...the same journos Chris thought were wrong about the 1.6 205 said the 309 was the better car, sweeter handling (ie a lot less likely to exit a bend backwards)
The 309 had the 1.9 engine and alloys from the 205 (so the best bits from that car!
) plus the 4 fogs/driving lamps at the front. Ugly in an Apache ugly kind of way, to my eyes...
I hear what your saying about the 309GTi, an equally capable car, but come on, it looks terrible.The 309 had the 1.9 engine and alloys from the 205 (so the best bits from that car!
) plus the 4 fogs/driving lamps at the front. Ugly in an Apache ugly kind of way, to my eyes... As said in the article the mk2 Golf suffers to from misinformed rubbish often spouted by people who have never driven either the 8v GTI or 16v GTI.
I'm lucky enough to have had a go in 1.6, 1.9 and MI16 205 and there is no reason to me to prefer the lowest power model, the 1.9 is a noticeable step up from the 1.6 and until I get a 306 GTI-6 converted 205 the MI16 is the best 205 or Peugeot for that matter that I've driven.
Likewise I have owned several mk2 8 and 16v golfs and would never try and convince someone a 8v is better to drive out of the two.
I'm lucky enough to have had a go in 1.6, 1.9 and MI16 205 and there is no reason to me to prefer the lowest power model, the 1.9 is a noticeable step up from the 1.6 and until I get a 306 GTI-6 converted 205 the MI16 is the best 205 or Peugeot for that matter that I've driven.
Likewise I have owned several mk2 8 and 16v golfs and would never try and convince someone a 8v is better to drive out of the two.
When you look at them mechanically and realise quite how similar the 1.6 and 1.9s are underneath, it is hard to then go back to the reviews and believe half of what is said. Having said that I have only driven 1.9s and GLDs but am told the 1.6 engine feels revvier and some people prefer this over the lazier 1.9 but I like the torque of the 1.9.
aka_kerrly said:
As said in the article the mk2 Golf suffers to from misinformed rubbish often spouted by people who have never driven either the 8v GTI or 16v GTI.
I'm lucky enough to have had a go in 1.6, 1.9 and MI16 205 and there is no reason to me to prefer the lowest power model, the 1.9 is a noticeable step up from the 1.6 and until I get a 306 GTI-6 converted 205 the MI16 is the best 205 or Peugeot for that matter that I've driven.
Likewise I have owned several mk2 8 and 16v golfs and would never try and convince someone a 8v is better to drive out of the two.
My 205 GTI-6 is up for sale soon if you're interested. (Pic above)I'm lucky enough to have had a go in 1.6, 1.9 and MI16 205 and there is no reason to me to prefer the lowest power model, the 1.9 is a noticeable step up from the 1.6 and until I get a 306 GTI-6 converted 205 the MI16 is the best 205 or Peugeot for that matter that I've driven.
Likewise I have owned several mk2 8 and 16v golfs and would never try and convince someone a 8v is better to drive out of the two.
I couldn't care less if you're right or wrong.
I test drove a 1.6 GTI and it left me colder than a wet fish on the supermarket slab and I bought the R5 GT Turbo which I found better in every way and a "superchip" bumped the performance up a notch. It could be flung in true Renaultsport stle as hard as you dared until it went into a 4 wheel drift which was easily caught. It was a real barrel of fun and Renault used torsion bar rear supension to distance it from the lesser-handling 5s which, to my mind, showed real commitment to making it the better driver's car.
I test drove a 1.6 GTI and it left me colder than a wet fish on the supermarket slab and I bought the R5 GT Turbo which I found better in every way and a "superchip" bumped the performance up a notch. It could be flung in true Renaultsport stle as hard as you dared until it went into a 4 wheel drift which was easily caught. It was a real barrel of fun and Renault used torsion bar rear supension to distance it from the lesser-handling 5s which, to my mind, showed real commitment to making it the better driver's car.
Owned both!!
1.9 for sure!!
Had a lovely non sunroof 1.9 white car, 1991 (so phase 2, pre cat) 50k on it. I love this car, i loved it so much, i was genuinely gutted when i spun it into a bridge!
I then had a 1984 1.6 (no 70 into the country) with 60k it was also a very cool car, but i have to say, the 1.9, was much faster, and in general felt a lot better. It was more of a feeling in my case, than actual facts i can articulate.
Anyway, i WILL buy another, but only when i have a decent sized garage to keep it in, hopefully another white, phase 2 car!
1.9 for sure!!
Had a lovely non sunroof 1.9 white car, 1991 (so phase 2, pre cat) 50k on it. I love this car, i loved it so much, i was genuinely gutted when i spun it into a bridge!
I then had a 1984 1.6 (no 70 into the country) with 60k it was also a very cool car, but i have to say, the 1.9, was much faster, and in general felt a lot better. It was more of a feeling in my case, than actual facts i can articulate.
Anyway, i WILL buy another, but only when i have a decent sized garage to keep it in, hopefully another white, phase 2 car!
I never got as far as ownership, but I drove several 205s (and Golfs) back-in-the-day and I have my 10p too.
The 205 1.9 suffered more from it's wheel/tyre choice than the engine IMO. We're talking non-power-assisted steering cars here (PAS 205s were super-rare in my experience) and whilst both had heavy steering (eye-watering at parking speeds), 1.9's didn't actually lighten as you went quicker (ask my brother-in-law as we had a rather interesting brush with a hedge because of this very fact!!) wheras 1.6's did - a bit.
So they felt a bit easy to hustle along - and when you put them into context/how most people used them, that probably explains the idea that the 1.6 was the sweeter car, I suspect.
Golfs tho - the 8v Mk2 is a nicer car in every possible way. To get more out of the 16v you have to rev the tits out of it everywhere - all the time. Why anyone would enjoy working harder to get a TINY bit more performance (and if you don't, you're driving a significantly slower car) beats the hell out of me...
The 205 1.9 suffered more from it's wheel/tyre choice than the engine IMO. We're talking non-power-assisted steering cars here (PAS 205s were super-rare in my experience) and whilst both had heavy steering (eye-watering at parking speeds), 1.9's didn't actually lighten as you went quicker (ask my brother-in-law as we had a rather interesting brush with a hedge because of this very fact!!) wheras 1.6's did - a bit.
So they felt a bit easy to hustle along - and when you put them into context/how most people used them, that probably explains the idea that the 1.6 was the sweeter car, I suspect.
Golfs tho - the 8v Mk2 is a nicer car in every possible way. To get more out of the 16v you have to rev the tits out of it everywhere - all the time. Why anyone would enjoy working harder to get a TINY bit more performance (and if you don't, you're driving a significantly slower car) beats the hell out of me...
screwloose said:
In todays 'real world' terms there is literally nothing in it in terms of performance between the two models. You'll find a decent 1.6 will easily keep up with the 1.9.
Of the many I've driven the more rev happy 1.6s are far more rewarding and peppy drive.
The gearing in the 1.9s is too long IMO hence a 1.9 with a 1.6 'box is a far better propostion.
A 205 with an Mi16 engine in it is the perfect option.
+1Of the many I've driven the more rev happy 1.6s are far more rewarding and peppy drive.
The gearing in the 1.9s is too long IMO hence a 1.9 with a 1.6 'box is a far better propostion.
A 205 with an Mi16 engine in it is the perfect option.
I've also owned both and went from a 1.9 to a 1.6. I would say the 1.6 was better than the 1.9.
The engine seemed to be more revvy for want of a better term.
That suited the car and the experience of what it was designed for, it also seemed to rev easier, labour less and be more 'fun' as you had to work it that bit harder. The gearing was also different which better suited the more rev happy nature of the 1.6 which you didnt get with the 1.9.
IMO of course.
Edited by OracIe on Thursday 24th May 13:48
I had two 1.9's and tried the 1.6 and there was only one winner. My second was a white one from LAD Motorsport which was 150bhp at the wheels, and a complete monster i hate too think how many times I stained my shorts in that thing. I dont think i have ever owned a car that gave me so much pleasure and terror in equal measures as that car :-)
I spent quite a lot of time in both variants when they were fairly new because I did odd bits of driving for a garage specialising in hot hatches.
I preferred the 1.6 because it felt lighter and cornered better. My recollection was that the 1.9 was prone to understeer and tended to break traction when exiting corners under power, in much the same manner as the R5 turbo.
We viewed the differences between 8v and 16v Golfs as swings and roundabouts; my boss liked the punchier delivery of the 8v but I preferred the free revving nature of the 16v. However, we both preferred the mk1 MR2 to its replacement and the 2.9 Cologne engine to the 2.8.
As with most things, neither is 'better'. People's preferences always differ, and some people will always struggle to grasp that.
I preferred the 1.6 because it felt lighter and cornered better. My recollection was that the 1.9 was prone to understeer and tended to break traction when exiting corners under power, in much the same manner as the R5 turbo.
We viewed the differences between 8v and 16v Golfs as swings and roundabouts; my boss liked the punchier delivery of the 8v but I preferred the free revving nature of the 16v. However, we both preferred the mk1 MR2 to its replacement and the 2.9 Cologne engine to the 2.8.
As with most things, neither is 'better'. People's preferences always differ, and some people will always struggle to grasp that.
I owned both, in fact a couple of each, and I go for the 1.6... the reason being... 14” wheels! Yes those little tiny wheels on the 1.6 made feel that little bit more nimble and agile than the 1.9.
Also it had a shorter ratio gearbox, the 1.9 box was so long that you could hit 70odd in second gear!
Don't get me wrong, I personally think the 1.9 had the better engine but the 1.6 was just that little bit keener on country roads.
Plus - it was the original!
Also it had a shorter ratio gearbox, the 1.9 box was so long that you could hit 70odd in second gear!
Don't get me wrong, I personally think the 1.9 had the better engine but the 1.6 was just that little bit keener on country roads.
Plus - it was the original!
Edited by Mintyhit on Thursday 24th May 13:49
Daveyraveygravey said:
+2 here! Mind you, the real debate was whether the 309GTi was better than the 205. But this is counter to Chris's argument...the same journos Chris thought were wrong about the 1.6 205 said the 309 was the better car, sweeter handling (ie a lot less likely to exit a bend backwards)
The 309 had the 1.9 engine and alloys from the 205 (so the best bits from that car!) plus the 4 fogs/driving lamps at the front. Ugly in an Apache ugly kind of way, to my eyes...
I used to get taken to school in a 309 GTI by a friend's Dad (school run). Driver's door would continuously be flying open, but the upside was that it did allow his Pipe smoke to exit the car more quickly whilst going rather quickly, always left later and arrived early. So after recovering from that the following day I had to jump into another friend's dad's car, a Merc 190 EVO 2 and be scared sThe 309 had the 1.9 engine and alloys from the 205 (so the best bits from that car!
) plus the 4 fogs/driving lamps at the front. Ugly in an Apache ugly kind of way, to my eyes... 
tless entering Wardinton (Near the Tuthill's of Porsche fame) to see how much air could be achieved over a 'lump' in the road. Nice car mindGassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff