RE: SOTW: Peugeot 406 Coupe

[james280779]

406highlander said:

Except there are only two seatbelts in the back ... your middle passenger, in the event of a crash, would be eating windscreen (or tarmac) in the blink of an eye.

pretty simple- just dont crash and its fine

[beasto]

Peugeots of this era were clean and elegant, unlike the over-styled fussmobiles of today.

[406GTX]

Nice car. As this one is a V reg (Sept 1999 - March 2000) it is very likely to be the earlier 194 bhp V6 engine – code ES9J4. The 210 bhp VP (code ES9J4S) only became available in early 2000 and entered the marketplace with W reg cars from April 2000 onwards. A photo of the engine cover will quickly confirm. It won’t be a multiplex car as that was introduced in 2001-2. On a run these V6s are very economical for the engine size - low 30s mpg is easily achieved at sensible speeds.

[RichardR]

Although my '97 manual V6 Coupe was, in hindsight, a bit of a dog, I still enjoyed owning it and it was one of those cars that I've look back over my shoulder at when walking away from it.

I originally agreed a sale on a manual 2.0 but the buyer pulled out at the last minute with some bullst excuse (I think he found another buyer who'd offered him more) so I ended up trying to hunt another one down (having set my heart on a 406 Coupe) without allowing enough time to do the job properly.

The Coupe I bought was a part-ex with about 155k miles on the clock and was due a cambelt change. Not realising the potential expense of this job (huge quad-cam belt + tensioner kit + mega labour) I agreed a couple of hundred quid off the price and it was mine for £1,350.

Thanks to all the helpful info on the excellent 406 Coupe Owners Club forum, I sorted out the previously noted issues with the door stay and the erratic variable steering assistance and found the Coupe to be a relatively entertaining drive, although I always thought that the gear lever should've been shorter (I know that some owners have modified this).

There was enough space in the back seats and boot to make the Coupe a fairly practical family car (overlooking the 2-door layout) and I even managed to fit a chest of drawers in the boot on one outing.

The engine threw a con-rod in the end after I got stranded in a flood and I sold the car for £300 to one of the guys on the owners' forum who was planning on trying to ressurect it. He turned up in a near-identical Coupe and this was my last view of my old car...

[DHE]

RichardR]Although [url said:

I remember seeing this on the forum about 7 or 8 years ago. Taken near Reading?

[EarlOfHazard]

Has anyone had a 406 v6 estate? Stick an hdi badge on the back and you the ultimate Q car. Everyone thinks they're diesels..

[james280779]

406GTX said:

Nice car. As this one is a V reg (Sept 1999 - March 2000) it is very likely to be the earlier 194 bhp V6 engine – code ES9J4. The 210 bhp VP (code ES9J4S) only became available in early 2000 and entered the marketplace with W reg cars from April 2000 onwards. A photo of the engine cover will quickly confirm. It won’t be a multiplex car as that was introduced in 2001-2. On a run these V6s are very economical for the engine size - low 30s mpg is easily achieved at sensible speeds.

I had 2 x 1998 194bhp but my 1999 had the 210 bhp engine, also not once in ten years did I ever achieve low 30's mpg. On a good run I would expect low - mid 20's, using as I did probably closer to 15.

[Jim V-6]

Mine averages 35 mpg on a good run. Overall averages about 25.

[V8RX7]

Jim V-6 said:

Mine averages 35 mpg on a good run. Overall averages about 25.

What's your definition of a good run ?

I've encountered this before, some cruise at 56 with the lorries

Whilst I cruise at 85 in the outside lane.

I can't understand buying a fast car and then not using it's performance whenever possible (hence with similar cars I tend to average 20-25 as I don't do many runs)

[andrewrob]

V8RX7 said:

Jim V-6 said:

Mine averages 35 mpg on a good run. Overall averages about 25.

What's your definition of a good run ?

I've encountered this before, some cruise at 56 with the lorries

Whilst I cruise at 85 in the outside lane.

I can't understand buying a fast car and then not using it's performance whenever possible (hence with similar cars I tend to average 20-25 as I don't do many runs)

I get 32mpg sitting at around 80mph with the 194bhp version

[405dogvan]

406highlander said:

405dogvan said:

It's a shed tho - all this talk of changing belts etc. is pointless, you buy it and drive it and when something breaks which makes it unusuable, you scrap it.

Yes, because cars are like pocket calculators - throw 'em away when they stop working...

405dogvan said:

If you're looking for a long-term car and/or a restoration project (or you just like to keep your cars mint) you don't buy the cheap ones, you buy the better and more cared-for ones and you keep that up.

Note: "low-cost" does not mean "badly neglected, ready for the scrapper". Some of the guys on the Coupe Club forums have paid *well* under £1,000 for their Coupes (yes, including V6s) and ended up with well-maintained cars that have lasted them for years. One guy paid £400 from a car dealership; the previous owners part-exed their Coupe for a new car, but there was nothing wrong with the Coupe at all.

405dogvan said:

SHED: Car use until it dies - ownership is a form of organised retreat - you just ignore the things which don't work (unless they're effortlessly fixable) until you can't ignore them anymore.

Or, you could consider the car for its merits - it's not an appreciating classic yet, but it's a reasonably exclusive Pininfarina design, a comfortable, practical, spacious 4-seater coupe, and it's more than capable of running 250k miles before the engine wears out. If it costs £1,000 to buy the car, and £600 to replace the cambelt, then you are £400 up if you replace the belt on time (as opposed to spending another £1,000 to buy another shed when the cambelt snaps).

My point about shedding is that SOTW is "find a car under an arbitrary price point - often the cheapest example available" and that's not the ideal way to buy any car, but when it's a car with potential expensive work needed you have to adopt the 'shed' approach - use it until it stops and walk away.

The alternative isn't caring or preserving or eco-friendly - it's WASTING MONEY ON A SHED - was my point.

Anyone who targets a car under £1000 and decides to spend £600 then-and-there changing the belts is slightly bonkers - esp if they get it back from that and the gearbox/cluthc/suspension/electrics break shortly thereafter - especially if £600 might get you another engine (for the record, the lad who looks after my shed says the engine swap would be about £500 against £350 for the belts but that's friend prices and the engine swap would be easier for someone who's not done the belts before, he reckons )

Edited by 405dogvan on Wednesday 13th March 14:01

Edited by 405dogvan on Wednesday 13th March 14:02

[405dogvan]

V8RX7 said:

Jim V-6 said:

Mine averages 35 mpg on a good run. Overall averages about 25.

What's your definition of a good run ?

I've encountered this before, some cruise at 56 with the lorries

Whilst I cruise at 85 in the outside lane.

I can't understand buying a fast car and then not using it's performance whenever possible (hence with similar cars I tend to average 20-25 as I don't do many runs)

Are you about 22? It's just that owning a 'fast' car and driving 'fast' are not connected events at all. The fact your car can do 150 does not mean it has to do 80 everywhere...

The difference between good and bad MPG for most people is a decent run on derestricted roads against slogging through traffic and staying below 40 really. You could probably say it's "averaging less than 40" against "averaging more than 40" in fact - with "averaging over 60" heading back in the other direction, most likely

There comes a time when most drivers realise that accelerating hard, braking hard, playing in the fastlane with the Audi repwagons etc. isn't the best way to drive. I followed someone for 20 miles the other day, at every roundabout or set of lights he set-off at a furious pace - and I caught him at the next one every, single time - he'd have gotten half my MPG and 3 times my stress

[Jim V-6]

I class a good run as Motorway, Duel carriageway, A Roads, Avoid city centres (Stop start) keep less than 80MPH...Good for 35 MPG

The MPG really drops to around 18-22 in town

Round trip to friends in Scotland is 550 Miles Trip average is 32-35, depending how eager I am to get home

Cruising at 56, 36-40MPG

V8RX7 said:

What's your definition of a good run ?

I've encountered this before, some cruise at 56 with the lorries

Whilst I cruise at 85 in the outside lane.

I can't understand buying a fast car and then not using it's performance whenever possible (hence with similar cars I tend to average 20-25 as I don't do many runs)

[V8RX7]

405dogvan said:

Are you about 22?

It's just that owning a 'fast' car and driving 'fast' are not connected events at all. The fact your car can do 150 does not mean it has to do 80 everywhere...)

Nope over 40.

I enjoy driving as fast as possible - my Dad still does too.

I've just sold my 420bhp RX7 as I found it frustrating that I couldn't use it's full power anywhere - no point having it if you can't use it.

[405dogvan]

V8RX7 said:

I've just sold my 420bhp RX7 as I found it frustrating that I couldn't use it's full power anywhere - no point having it if you can't use it.

it's arguably hard to use more than about 90hp in most cars, most of the time!

What I really hate are cars which egg-you-on tho, and most tuned turbo engines (even some stock ones) do exactly that.

Classic example - the VAG 2.0 Turbo which found it's way into most models but most notably the Mk1 TT. in 225 form it's just always "on the boil", it's always asking you to prod it - it's just wearing and when it's chipped it just gets worse.

Just because you have performance doesn't mean you need to use it - using a car's power wisely > just giving it the full beans every time.

Most people who class themselves as 'quick drivers' are actually 'reckless drivers' - the really quick drivers are the ones who keep up without all the fury and risk!

First trackday I ever did I did passenger laps with 3 race instructors and an older guy who worked for Porsche as a driver tutor. The race instructors were on-it, everywhere wheras the Porsche guy was relaxed and smooth and caught them up EVERY time

[EarlOfHazard]

405dogvan said:

V8RX7 said:

I've just sold my 420bhp RX7 as I found it frustrating that I couldn't use it's full power anywhere - no point having it if you can't use it.

it's arguably hard to use more than about 90hp in most cars, most of the time!

What I really hate are cars which egg-you-on tho, and most tuned turbo engines (even some stock ones) do exactly that.

Classic example - the VAG 2.0 Turbo which found it's way into most models but most notably the Mk1 TT. in 225 form it's just always "on the boil", it's always asking you to prod it - it's just wearing and when it's chipped it just gets worse.

Just because you have performance doesn't mean you need to use it - using a car's power wisely > just giving it the full beans every time.

Most people who class themselves as 'quick drivers' are actually 'reckless drivers' - the really quick drivers are the ones who keep up without all the fury and risk!

First trackday I ever did I did passenger laps with 3 race instructors and an older guy who worked for Porsche as a driver tutor. The race instructors were on-it, everywhere wheras the Porsche guy was relaxed and smooth and caught them up EVERY time

Im being a pedant here but it was the 1.8T in the mk1 TT. The 2.0 was in the mk2 TT

[V8RX7]

405dogvan said:

it's arguably hard to use more than about 90hp in most cars, most of the time!

What I really hate are cars which egg-you-on tho, and most tuned turbo engines (even some stock ones) do exactly that.

Just because you have performance doesn't mean you need to use it - using a car's power wisely > just giving it the full beans every time.

Depends where you live and how you drive I find my 210bhp MX5 about perfect.

There is a reason I won't let myself buy an Evo / Scooby

You are clearly wired differently to me

Who's talking about fast / reckless / track / race ? I'm talking about FUN

[RichardR]

DHE said:

RichardR said:

I remember seeing this on the forum about 7 or 8 years ago. Taken near Reading?

Oops - didn't realise I was recycling my posts! It was the end of 2007 that I sold it so just over 5 years ago. You're spot on regarding the location though. That shot was taken between the Theale roundabout and J12 of the M4 as I bid my final farewell to the old girl...

[Carnnoisseur]

GranCab said:

This a particularly unsuccessful attempt at a Ferrgeot 430/406 ... but I think it blends in well with the 1960's Wimpey Housing Estate setting



... it looks like it's held together with duct tape

Edited by GranCab on Friday 8th March 12:07

I was about to comment and state that its nice to see an original one that hasn't been modified to resemble a Ferrari, when I spotted this.....

Can you imagine the attention, albeit the wrong kind......wow

[craiglathan]

Ive had three of these and i honestly could not fault them beautiful looks ,great performance and well equipped,ive just paid £450 for mine top of the range ,with tax and.mot ,show me another car you can get for that money ,with them looks and easily capable of 150 mph ,the only problem ive had in the past is the windows packing in other than that just generaln maintenance.