RE: Tell me I'm wrong: Peugeot 205 GTI
Discussion
OlberJ said:
Would the diesel 5th not be good for stringing out the cruising gear?
Was it fettled and took advantage of the longer FD?
Yes, his was a TurboTechnics car so nowhere near a standard 8v.Was it fettled and took advantage of the longer FD?
If a 1.6 box bothers you that much, a nice solution is a longer 5th gear. I have a hybrid 1.9 box with 1.6 FD & Mi16 5th gear i use for trips to Europe etc, for slightly happier cruising at 130 or so on the Autobahns, yet won't be dull for when i reach some more interesting roads/the 'ring, etc.
stufarri said:
Oliboy, I have no idea what part of the UK you are based, but did you buy Danny Jackson's Sorrento GTI? Great car if you did.
Agree with most of the posts on here from GTI owners, there is no way I'll be parting with mine!
Yes pal! took me a year to find one i wanted, and Danny lived in next village and was selling so no brainer! Just had her in the garage for new hoses and pipes all round, underseal, discs and pads and full service. shes a minter!Agree with most of the posts on here from GTI owners, there is no way I'll be parting with mine!
I thought I'd share what I believe to be generally true. The early 1.9 rear beam is different to later, both 205 and 309 tweaked to reduce the lift off oversteer about facelift time I believe. 1.9 engine on std injection/ignition HATES poor fuel, despises normal unleaded and wont give anything like the power/torque it should, unless its on the good old leaded or very high octane stuff, initially Peugeot suggested changing the ignition timing in an effort to combat poor running on the lower octane fuels, this also reduced power and was later withdrawn! Later 1.9 's with CATs have a lower power output, feel a little strangled but run better on 'poor' fuel. The 1.9 is basically a stroked 1.6, the 1.6 runs far better on lower grade fuel and its bore/stroke ratio is better for high revs :-) The above and other factors are why the 1.6 version performs consistently well and feels more responsive, there maybe less power under foot but it seems more willing to work with the 1.6. I've driven, modded, owned, looked after and broken sooo many XU engined cars over the years, the bottom line is either engine makes me smile a lot!
Looks nice, don't take this the wrong way but I trust you have FULL history.
The cynic in me says theres not many low mileage pugs with enough history to validate their claims.
A case in point- those speedos are VERY easy to disconnect for 364 days of the year and then re-connect for the MOT...
My 2 205 gti's cars were well on their way to 80-100k in 2000 and these were 1988 and 1989 cars respectively - this was a very common mileage at that age and values overall were poor due to so many newer cars being around which were facelifted and therefore commanding the higher prices. Speedo disconnection was rife.
The cynic in me says theres not many low mileage pugs with enough history to validate their claims.
A case in point- those speedos are VERY easy to disconnect for 364 days of the year and then re-connect for the MOT...
My 2 205 gti's cars were well on their way to 80-100k in 2000 and these were 1988 and 1989 cars respectively - this was a very common mileage at that age and values overall were poor due to so many newer cars being around which were facelifted and therefore commanding the higher prices. Speedo disconnection was rife.
I'd always assumed that perhaps the 1.9 engine was heavier and that explained journo's preferring the 1.6, but Mitchie's post above reveals that the 1.9 was just a stroked 1.6, so aside from a few engine internals maybe being ever so slightly heavier or different on the 1.9, and assuming they used the same gearbox and diff, I'm guessing there was no significant extra mass over the front of a 1.9 vs a 1.6?
I've always fancied one of these as a third car.. I'm put off by their age and mileage though - I suspect to experience the car as it was when it was new a lot of money and/or time would need to be spent?
I've always fancied one of these as a third car.. I'm put off by their age and mileage though - I suspect to experience the car as it was when it was new a lot of money and/or time would need to be spent?
There isn't a car in the world that doesn't need a full suspension refresh every so often if it is to keep driving as well as a new one. The interval depends on miles, surfaces and years, but it always comes around, and anything 25 or 30 years old should have been done more than once to keep it at its best. It's not hideously expensive on most cars. Can't see the point buying a car like this and not making sure it handles as nicely as it can.
Hard to generalise beyond the suspension... on the question of rust, they are often surprisingly good for corrosion, though obviously all old cars, especially quick ones, need checking carefully for both structural rust and crash repairs (which often go hand in hand).
For the rest, I'd say the ongoing bills you can expect are really just down to the individual car and what's happened to it over two and a half decades in terms of bodywork and trim, and what sort or care it's had for the last five years in terms of mechanicals, no different from any other old car really. If you find one that looks right, everything works, the clutch and steering feel good, it pulls up straight and hard, and the gearchange is swift and non-crunchy, then with a suspension rebuild in your budget you're probably on a winner.
You probably know that the sunroof seals are a bit of a weak point on these, so a solid roof one may be less problematical.
For the rest, I'd say the ongoing bills you can expect are really just down to the individual car and what's happened to it over two and a half decades in terms of bodywork and trim, and what sort or care it's had for the last five years in terms of mechanicals, no different from any other old car really. If you find one that looks right, everything works, the clutch and steering feel good, it pulls up straight and hard, and the gearchange is swift and non-crunchy, then with a suspension rebuild in your budget you're probably on a winner.
You probably know that the sunroof seals are a bit of a weak point on these, so a solid roof one may be less problematical.
Either form is fine: check a decent dictionary.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/englis...
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/englis...
correct, however you are rather behind the times...
http://grammarist.com/usage/problematic-problemati...
http://grammarist.com/usage/problematic-problemati...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff