 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Peugeot Cars / June 2005A Comfortable Car & Cheap To Run
I'll soon be at the point of replacing my 1998 Peugeot 406 (Petrol, 140,000 miles) with another car. Would anyone recommend a car that is comfortable, quiet, economical & will last to about 150k (with regular home servicing) If it is cheaper to buy, so much the better! To date I've considered a Mitsubishi Carisma, Chrysler Neon, another 406, a Ford Focus, a Proton Wira - does anyone recommend a particular car or want to condemn another? (Petrol must not come to more than 12p/mile) Many thanks Artie > I'll soon be at the point of replacing my 1998 Peugeot 406 (Petrol, > 140,000 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Ford Focus, a Proton Wira - does anyone recommend a particular car or want > to condemn another? (Petrol must not come to more than 12p/mile) There are too many variables to try to stick within a twelve pence per mile "budget," and we should also consider depreciation. If we assume that petrol costs 85 pence per litre and you'll average 35 mpg, this comes to approximately 11 pence per mile. But if petrol increases to 95 pence per litre the cost per mile comes to 12.3 pence per litre. If you've had the Peugeot 406 from new and it's now worth £3,000 (say), how do your 140,000 miles of petrol compare with the loss in depreciation? How much was it - let us suppose it was £15,000 to keep the maths easy. You've lost £12,000 in depreciation, around 8.6 pence per mile. Your fuel cost has been £15,400. If you cover around 40,000 miles a year, you should seriously consider ditching conventional petrol engines and opting for something diesel or LPG. Using 85 pence per litre but with 50 mpg, your cost per mile in fuel drops to under 8 pence. Finally, when you say "comfort," what do you mean? A smooth motorway ride, a quiet engine at a cruise, or good air conditioning and a heater for the winter, or good seats? I would struggle to recommend the Neon although the air conditioning is very powerful. For cheap servicing, the "mainstream" makes are better. The more mainstream the better, so the more units sold the cheaper parts tend to be. That means Ford and Vauxhall. Renault, Peugeot, Citroen tend to be more expensive - Japanese cars, well you shouldn't need so many repairs but parts tend to be expensive... The above is going on experience with the company car fleets. I did want a 406 TD myself but the regular servicing was around half as much again as the Mondeo TD. The Focus has all of the bases cover, but you should also seriously consider the previous generation Astra. This is nearly as good as the Focus in most respects, but it's always cheaper (sometimes much cheaper) as a used buy. Both the Focus and the Astra have a good range of petrol and diesel engines. If you're wanting an economical motorway car, the 1.6 petrol Focus or either diesel (the TDCi models are better than the TDDi donks). It's similar with the Astra, the 1.7 DTI is newer but very economical, the 2.0 DTI offers good performance and economy, and the 1.6 petrol has the bases covered. Anyway I think I've asked more questions than I've answered.....  SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > > Would anyone recommend a car that is comfortable, quiet, economical & will > > last to about 150k (with regular home servicing) If it is cheaper to buy, [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Anyway I think I've asked more questions than I've answered..... And the 12p/mile is just the petrol, as I've been bought out of the co. car scheme. The comfort I'm after is really ease/comfort of cruising on the motorway - if it gets hot I'll open a back window, if it gets cold I'll switch the heater on. A decent seat wouldn't go amiss either as I have 'Snowboarder's bum' (Previously broken coccyx) and most seats get a bit painful after 4 hours! A > To date I've considered a Mitsubishi Carisma, Chrysler Neon, another 406, > a > Ford Focus, a Proton Wira - does anyone recommend a particular car or want > to condemn another? (Petrol must not come to more than 12p/mile) Mk2 Ford Mondeo. Very cheap to buy - £3k gets a mint condition late V/W/X plate range topper with leather, ac, etc etc, very reliable, suprisingly good fuel economy (40-45mpg on the Motorway), and cheap parts. A Mk2 Mondeo if you're absolutely sure the clutch is OK as they are really expensive to replace. Otherwise, a Primera 2.0 from 1997 to 1999, they still rate 5 stars out of 5 for reliability in What Car? magazine. >> To date I've considered a Mitsubishi Carisma, Chrysler Neon, another 406, >> a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > plate range topper with leather, ac, etc etc, very reliable, suprisingly > good fuel economy (40-45mpg on the Motorway), and cheap parts. >A Mk2 Mondeo if you're absolutely sure the clutch is OK as they are really >expensive to replace. I would hardly call £250 'really expensive'. >>A Mk2 Mondeo if you're absolutely sure the clutch is OK as they are really >>expensive to replace. > I would hardly call £250 'really expensive'. You'd be lucky to find a garage willing to do it for £250. The subframe needs to be dropped to get the box out, which means a whole load of jiggery pokery to get it all set back up again, if you want the thing to drive right again. Ta, G. > I'll soon be at the point of replacing my 1998 Peugeot 406 (Petrol, 140,000 > miles) with another car. > > Would anyone recommend a car that is comfortable, quiet, economical & will > last to about 150k (with regular home servicing) If it is cheaper to buy, > so much the better! Home Servicing? Hmm, I was going to recommend the Mitsubishi Carisma GDI, but not with home servicing. Those coilpacks (4 of 'em) are £80 each, IIRC. Richard SignatureRichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/ Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740 MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;) > Hmm, I was going to recommend the Mitsubishi Carisma GDI As a cure for insomnia? > > Hmm, I was going to recommend the Mitsubishi Carisma GDI > > As a cure for insomnia? Maybe - I had one once - it lost loads from depreciation and cost me an alternator - 100k with only an alternator seemed OK. >>Hmm, I was going to recommend the Mitsubishi Carisma GDI > > As a cure for insomnia? They're good cars, dammit! No less interesting than a 406, Avensis/Carina, Mondeo et al. Richard SignatureRichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/ Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740 MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;) >>>Hmm, I was going to recommend the Mitsubishi Carisma GDI >> >> As a cure for insomnia? > > They're good cars, dammit! No less interesting than a 406, Avensis/Carina, > Mondeo et al. Hmm. Good cars but not very involving. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >>>Hmm, I was going to recommend the Mitsubishi Carisma GDI >> As a cure for insomnia? > They're good cars, dammit! They're tedious beyond belief. I rented one for a week. It was enough. >>>>Hmm, I was going to recommend the Mitsubishi Carisma GDI > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They're tedious beyond belief. I rented one for a week. It was enough. I used one for a year. It was forgettable, but handled well, carried everything I wanted, and returned 44mpg reliably. Only thing I hated was the awful interior trim. Now: For the same reliability and economy, I would actually choose a Mk II Golf GTI, but I feel that the Carisma is very unfairly dismissed. Richard SignatureRichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/ Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740 MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;) > Only thing I hated was the awful interior trim. > > Now: For the same reliability and economy, I would actually choose a > Mk II Golf GTI, but I feel that the Carisma is very unfairly > dismissed. Interior trim in it's cousin the Volvo S40 1.8i (same GDi engine, similar economy) is a lot better - leather on many of them (mine had it). Signature"Excuse me, would you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?" "Would you rather silent but deadly?" >>Only thing I hated was the awful interior trim. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Interior trim in it's cousin the Volvo S40 1.8i (same GDi engine, similar > economy) is a lot better - leather on many of them (mine had it). Yep, I haven't experienced an S40 though, so I recommend the Carisma. I figure they were cheap cars, but also, they're faster depreciating because of the negative image. Richard SignatureRichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/ Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740 MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;) > >>>Hmm, I was going to recommend the Mitsubishi Carisma GDI > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They're tedious beyond belief. I rented one for a week. It was enough. recon you either got a 1.6 or it had something wrong with it.. my 1.8 GDI GLX was a fantastic drive, best car ive ever owned. and great fun on the twisties.. I know several people who after a blatt in mine gave them serious consideration as their cars came up for replacement. Loopy >> They're tedious beyond belief. I rented one for a week. It was >> enough. > recon you either got a 1.6 or it had something wrong with it.. I have no idea if it was a 1.6 or 1.8. I couldn't have cared less. It wasn't very slow or fast, it wasn't very bad or good. It wasn't very... anything. It was just plain boring. I seem to vaguely recall it was blue. > my 1.8 GDI GLX was a fantastic drive, best car ive ever owned. and > great fun on the twisties.. I know several people who after a blatt > in mine gave them serious consideration as their cars came up for > replacement. Had you or they actually ever driven something, anything else? >>my 1.8 GDI GLX was a fantastic drive, best car ive ever owned. and >>great fun on the twisties.. I know several people who after a blatt >>in mine gave them serious consideration as their cars came up for >>replacement. > > Had you or they actually ever driven something, anything else? You can't use that argument with me, though, and /I/ thought the GDI was a good car - it went through the Coldstream bends 5-up at 90, a speed which my Porsche 924S felt quite twitchy at in comparison. I notice the GDI was dropped from the later ones, making last-gen Carismas probably very, very dull indeed. Richard SignatureRichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/ Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740 MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;) > 5-up at 90 Mmmm. Don't think this one would have hit 90. But it was a rentaslushomatic. >>5-up at 90 > > Mmmm. Don't think this one would have hit 90. But it was a > rentaslushomatic. Ah, mine was a manual. I can't imagine what it would be like with an auto because the Supra's box (as an example of a Japanese auto) is a power-sapping slug of a thing, the Sera's is a frantic, mad thing, and the Hondamatic Accord I had was quite snappy. I don't know if the Carisma would have had a CVT or something. Either way, mine would do 120+ on the clock, and was a compelling argument for the "Increased efficiency means 20% more power or economy depending on how you drive" theory behind the direct petrol injection engine. Richard SignatureRichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/ Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740 MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;) >> Mmmm. Don't think this one would have hit 90. But it was a >> rentaslushomatic. > Ah, mine was a manual. I can't imagine what it would be like with an > auto because the Supra's box (as an example of a Japanese auto) is a > power-sapping slug of a thing, the Sera's is a frantic, mad thing, and > the Hondamatic Accord I had was quite snappy. > > I don't know if the Carisma would have had a CVT or something. No, it was a normal autobox. Think it would have been closer to the Supra, in that way if in no other. > No, it was a normal autobox. Think it would have been closer to the > Supra, in that way if in no other. I don't remember there being an auto GDi carisma. Signature"Excuse me, would you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?" "Would you rather silent but deadly?" >> No, it was a normal autobox. Think it would have been closer to the >> Supra, in that way if in no other. > I don't remember there being an auto GDi carisma. This wasn't in the UK. >>>> Hmm, I was going to recommend the Mitsubishi Carisma GDI > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They're tedious beyond belief. I rented one for a week. It was enough. Sure it was the GDi? Seriously good motor. Signature"Excuse me, would you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?" "Would you rather silent but deadly?" >>>>> Hmm, I was going to recommend the Mitsubishi Carisma GDI >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sure it was the GDi? Seriously good motor. You're Rob "buy a Honda Civic, it has a great engine" and I claim my tenner prize! :) SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >> They're tedious beyond belief. I rented one for a week. It was enough. > Sure it was the GDi? Seriously good motor. It had a light on the dash that lit up and said "GDi" if you didn't thrape the fuckin' thing hard enough to get out of the way of the local milkfloat. >>> They're tedious beyond belief. I rented one for a week. It was enough. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the fuckin' thing hard enough to get out of the way of the local > milkfloat. We had a couple of 1.8 "lean burn" Carina Es on the fleet that also had a light. I struggled to get it to go out... ;) SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >>>They're tedious beyond belief. I rented one for a week. It was enough. > >>Sure it was the GDi? Seriously good motor. > > It had a light on the dash that lit up and said "GDi" if you didn't thrape > the fuckin' thing hard enough to get out of the way of the local milkfloat. Mine had no such thing, and it didn't need any degree of caning to make decent progress, but made remarkably /good/ progress when caned. It had a little fuel computer in the dash, too. Driving it slowly (as in, 55mph) gave me 52mpg average on a 12 mile run from cold. Richard SignatureRichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/ Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740 MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;) > It had a little fuel computer in the dash, too. Driving it slowly (as > in, 55mph) gave me 52mpg average on a 12 mile run from cold. Mine would do >45mpg if you kept to speed limits on my regular hull / gatwick round trips - >500 miles a tank. Signature"Excuse me, would you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?" "Would you rather silent but deadly?" > I'll soon be at the point of replacing my 1998 Peugeot 406 (Petrol, > 140,000 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Artie Get another 406 if you liked that one. They have a ride and handling that equals anything else in the class, and the HDi ones are very economical. SignatureDan >> I'll soon be at the point of replacing my 1998 Peugeot 406 (Petrol, >> 140,000 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that equals anything else in the class, and the HDi ones are very > economical. Just what I was thinking. Now the 407 is out , the last of the 406s should be available for an attractive price , and having owned one before makes the home servicing easier. Oh , and continuing a fine tradition , Skoda Octavia TDI SignatureAlex Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!" Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!" www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.sffh.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk Skoda Octavia? I've got one, an S-reg 1.6. It's great. Much better than the pile-of-toss mk2 Mondeo I had before it. > Skoda Octavia? > > I've got one, an S-reg 1.6. It's great. Much better than the > pile-of-toss mk2 Mondeo I had before it. The 1.6 is just plain wrong. The Octavia works best with VAG TDI engines, otherwise it's just, well, mediocre. Not a bad car, but not good either. Oh and the Mondeo rides and handles better and has more interior space, too. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >>Skoda Octavia? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oh and the Mondeo rides and handles better and has more interior space, too. People say that the VAG 2.0 8valve 115bhp lump is crap, I loved the one I had in a mk3 golf estate and that had done 135k miles and still going very strong. The TDI is the choice though, my TDI is a million miles away from my other car (peugot 406 2.1TD). I know Dervman is a Ford fan, but I think there crap, it's only MHO. Andy My dad has an Octavia Estate with the 2.0 engine, I think it's pretty good too, loads of torque low down, will drive around all day at 'motorway speeds' and still get 40 ish mpg. It's effortless to drive. Never driven the TDI version. Other than the Mondeo, the only Ford I've driven is a Focus. It was breathtakingly uncomfy, but I think that was more to with my hugeness combined with the smallness of the focus' seat than anything. Never had the same problem in another car. > My dad has an Octavia Estate with the 2.0 engine, I think it's pretty > good too, loads of torque low down, will drive around all day at > 'motorway speeds' and still get 40 ish mpg. It's effortless to drive. Yes it's a good enough engine, but it lacks brilliance. Much better than the 1.6 and 1.4, heh. > Never driven the TDI version. > > Other than the Mondeo, the only Ford I've driven is a Focus. It was > breathtakingly uncomfy, but I think that was more to with my hugeness > combined with the smallness of the focus' seat than anything. Never had > the same problem in another car. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com The 1.6 is great, fast enough (for the car it is...), economical enough. Built so well, much better than the Mondeo. Mondeo had less head and leg room than the Octavia (I'm 6'6" so I'm acutely aware of the room issue!). The Octavia may be mediocre, but it's a hell of a lot better than the Mondeo. Just my oppinion of course. Cheers. > The 1.6 is great, fast enough (for the car it is...), economical > enough. I suspect that's the 1.6 I have in my Beetle. 3,400 RPM at 60, or something equally silly - always looking for 6th gear. Goes very well for a 1.6 in a car of that weight (the Beetle is a cabrio, so pretty heavy), but returns a shameful 33mpg. It is a nice engine, and unlike the 2.0 doesn't use oil (allegedly the 2.0 is quite heavy on oil, which is one reason I didn't want one), but economical enough? My Golf GTI 1.8 8v returned 45mpg. Richard SignatureRichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/ Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740 MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;) > always looking for 6th Yeah, I know what you mean about that, but I can't say it bothers me at all. > but returns a shameful 33mpg. Fair play, I'm quite happy to get anything over 30mpg. Different standards I suppose. The first car I had was a 350 V8, so fuel consumption isn't something I get too stressed about. > (allegedly the 2.0 is quite heavy on oil, which is one reason I didn't > want one) My dad hasn't had any problem with that. Again, I'm not quite sure he'd be too bothered. Quite an apathetic lot really ;-) Cheers. >> but returns a shameful 33mpg. > > Fair play, I'm quite happy to get anything over 30mpg. Different > standards I suppose. The first car I had was a 350 V8, so fuel > consumption isn't something I get too stressed about. I don't think Richard's the overly fuel consumption obsessed type - he was just pointing out that, for something with not all that much go, you'd expect better economy. Especially when something like the brilliant Mk2 Golf GTi is much better on fuel. >> (allegedly the 2.0 is quite heavy on oil, which is one reason I didn't >> want one) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Quite an apathetic lot really ;-) "What do we want?" "Nothing." "When do we want it?" "Whenever." That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the UK Apathy Party. Peter > Fair play, I'm quite happy to get anything over 30mpg. Different > standards I suppose. The first car I had was a 350 V8, so fuel > consumption isn't something I get too stressed about. Don't get me wrong - I'm not economy minded when I choose or drive cars, and I generally don't get bothered by poor economy. I do find 1.6 mpg shameful for a 1.6 injection car, though, when the Government and everyone else are going mad for NEW CARS to save the environment - when my 16 year old Golf got 45mpg and offered better performance. Richard SignatureRichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/ Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740 MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;) > > Fair play, I'm quite happy to get anything over 30mpg. Different > > standards I suppose. The first car I had was a 350 V8, so fuel [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > everyone else are going mad for NEW CARS to save the environment - when > my 16 year old Golf got 45mpg and offered better performance. Googled data varies slightly, but a Mk2 GTI weighed in somewhere around the 950kg mark - about the same as a 1.0 litre Lupo (should that be Lardo?) weighs today. Your Beetle cabrio is more like 1385 kg. That's pretty much a 50% weight increase, and goes a long way to explain the economy deficit. Ian SignatureIan Riches Bedford, UK >> Don't get me wrong - I'm not economy minded when I choose or drive cars, >> and I generally don't get bothered by poor economy. I do find 1.6 mpg [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Your Beetle cabrio is more like 1385 kg. That's pretty much a 50% > weight increase, and goes a long way to explain the economy deficit. Granted, but OTOH engines are supposed to have improved in terms of technology and become more efficient than they used to be. Things obviously didn't weigh up properly. Peter >>>Fair play, I'm quite happy to get anything over 30mpg. Different >>>standards I suppose. The first car I had was a 350 V8, so fuel [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Your Beetle cabrio is more like 1385 kg. That's pretty much a 50% > weight increase, and goes a long way to explain the economy deficit. Oh, I know. But all the extra weight is for stuff I don't want - SRS, crash protection (I don't recall the old Beetle having much of that), emissions control crap. I mean, it even has plastic wings. No wonder I expected the 1.4 A140 to be a slug, but it is probably quite light really. Plastic wings, tailgate, quite light seats. Richard SignatureRichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/ Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740 MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;) > I do find 1.6 mpg shameful for a 1.6 injection car, though Umm, yes, I think I would, too. >>I do find 1.6 mpg shameful for a 1.6 injection car, though > > Umm, yes, I think I would, too. Bah. I'm tired and trying to get organised to drive a Transit to Cambridge and Nuneaton. 33mpg, of course. Richard SignatureRichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/ Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740 MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;) > Don't get me wrong - I'm not economy minded when I choose or drive cars, > and I generally don't get bothered by poor economy. Oh ok. > I do find 1.6 mpg shameful for a 1.6 injection car Yeah, I would. > when the Government and everyone else are going mad for > NEW CARS to save the environment Oh bleeding hell yeah, I know what you mean. It's farcical really. Cheers. >> Fair play, I'm quite happy to get anything over 30mpg. Different >> standards I suppose. The first car I had was a 350 V8, so fuel [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and I generally don't get bothered by poor economy. I do find 1.6 mpg > shameful for a 1.6 injection car On that point, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. One point six miles per gallon would be absolutely horrendously dissapointing on something like a V12 Jag, let alone a 1.6 Beetle :-) Peter We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember RichardK <atari@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> saying something like: >I do find 1.6 mpg >shameful for a 1.6 injection car, though Tanks get better mpg. SignatureDave SE6a >> I do find 1.6 mpg shameful for a 1.6 injection car, though > Tanks get better mpg. To quote SteveH elsewhere this evening, in ref to a certain Pinquecento - "Give it 'ere, I'll show you"... > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > drugs began to take hold. I remember RichardK [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tanks get better mpg. Most do gallons per mile... SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > It is a nice engine, and unlike the 2.0 doesn't use oil What's wrong with it using oil ? > (allegedly the > 2.0 is quite heavy on oil, which is one reason I didn't want one) Why not ? Just top up as and when required. >> It is a nice engine, and unlike the 2.0 doesn't use oil > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why not ? Just top up as and when required. Maybe some people are too lazy or forgetful to check their oil? <can of worms> SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >>> It is a nice engine, and unlike the 2.0 doesn't use oil >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe some people are too lazy or forgetful to check their oil? Well it's not like you have to do it on a daily basis or anything ! The message <d7p48o0hhu@news1.newsguy.com> from "Nom" <Nom@Somewhere.Somewhere> contains these words: > > Maybe some people are too lazy or forgetful to check their oil? > Well it's not like you have to do it on a daily basis or anything ! Ah - you've not had some of the cars I've had. SignatureSkipweasel. Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood." >>>> It is a nice engine, and unlike the 2.0 doesn't use oil >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Well it's not like you have to do it on a daily basis or anything ! You don't own an Alfa Romeo then? :) Technically, "before every long journey" but it doesn't state what a long trip is. Every two hundred and fifty miles perhaps, which for some people or on some days will be every day. Heh when we run Kermy down Crail Raceway we cover over 500 miles in the day so should be checking it twice... :) SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >>It is a nice engine, and unlike the 2.0 doesn't use oil > > What's wrong with it using oil ? Nothing fundamentally, but if I can have a 1.6 which doesn't and not really notice the difference in performance... And have you seen how much that green VW oil is? Richard SignatureRichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/ Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/ Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740 MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;) > The 1.6 is great, fast enough (for the car it is...), economical > enough. Built so well, much better than the Mondeo. Mondeo had less > head and leg room than the Octavia (I'm 6'6" so I'm acutely aware of > the room issue!). What was it you didn't like about the Mondeo? I really like mine - it's comfortable, effortless on long journeys, smooth and pliant around town, has a decent engine, is reasonably well built (125k now and nothing has fallen off), reliable, suprisingly fun to drive with decent handling and communicative steering, absolutely loaded with every conceivable extra, a nice pleasant interior, cheap to run, and it cost less than £3k @ 4 years old. Top notch. Did you get lumbered with a horrible old TD Aspen or something? >> The 1.6 is great, fast enough (for the car it is...), economical >> enough. Built so well, much better than the Mondeo. Mondeo had less [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Top notch. Aye, my Dad's 1.8 Mk1 Mondeo's been nothing but reliable. He bought it at around 2 years old with around 30k on the clock for around £8k (cue cries of 'HFM?'), back in around 98 - it's a P reg - last of the Mk1s. It's recently clocked over 100k, and has never needed anything major doing - just normal consumables, plus I think one pair of lower suspension arms (front IIRC, the ones that Mondeos are known for knackering). Once it failed to start, and we took the plugs out and cleaned them up, and it went fine. It doesn't get much use at all these days, but it'll probably go on strong for another 10 years or so - they don't seem to rust generally (well this one hasn't anyway). It's a good drive - decent ride/handling combination for a car of its size, and the 1.8 Zetec is a relatively perky engine (not going to set the world on fire, but nippy enough). Peter > What was it you didn't like about the Mondeo? Everything, lack of room mainly, although I am rather large, the interior of the car (at least for the driver) is disproportionally small to the exterior lardiness of it. Therefore, as you can appreciate, it wasn't terribly comfy for long journeys. I don't think I would say it was well built either, all the plastic bits squeaked, the air con was crap, just all the little niggling things that let it down. Rubbish radio also! I can see why people would like it if they were averaged sized and got a good one, but I must have got a dog or something. Oh, and the wish bones needed doing after some short time. It might have been cursed (obviously) because it got written off by a kid in a 106 in January. I didn't mourn. > Did you get lumbered with a horrible old TD Aspen or something? No, it was a 1.8LX but said it was an Aspen on the book. I didn't like it, but It wouldn't prejudice me against all Fords or anything. Cheers. >> What was it you didn't like about the Mondeo? > > Everything, lack of room mainly, although I am rather large, the > interior of the car (at least for the driver) is disproportionally > small to the exterior lardiness of it. Therefore, as you can > appreciate, it wasn't terribly comfy for long journeys. Fair enough - I'm not exactly huge, and only 21, so I've never found an issue there. > I don't think I would say it was well built either, all the plastic > bits squeaked, the air con was crap, just all the little niggling > things that let it down. Rubbish radio also! Air Conditioning is brilliant - icy cold and the only squeeks I'm getting are from the leather (Driving me insane). Radio is indeed absolutely shite, which is why I've replaced it now. >> Did you get lumbered with a horrible old TD Aspen or something? > > No, it was a 1.8LX but said it was an Aspen on the book. I didn't like > it, but It wouldn't prejudice me against all Fords or anything. Hmm, mines a Ghia X so I guess its a bit nicer although we did have a 2.0 LX as the family car from 6 months old until 4 years old - the only bad thing it did was shed a ridiculous amount of value. Everything else about it was faultless, not a single thing went wrong and it didn't have any rattles after 50k when it was sold. Depreciation is absolutely savage - but thats why I got mine. I'd never had found a fully loaded 4 year old car for under £3k otherwise. > > Skoda Octavia? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The 1.6 is just plain wrong. The Octavia works best with VAG TDI engines, > otherwise it's just, well, mediocre. Not a bad car, but not good either. Or with the 1.8T. > Oh and the Mondeo rides and handles better and has more interior space, too. But an Octavia is screwed together better and will hold it's value much better. Interior space, yeah, I can see that, but that's because the Mondeo is a *huge* car these days, even the MkI/II was a lot bigger than an Octavia. Ride and handling are quite subjective and personal - I find my Passat rides and handles very well - ride is better than the 156, but it doesn't handle anywhere near as well, though. But that's more because the 156 handles exceptionally well, whereas the Passat / Mondeo etc are all around the 'average' ball-park. SignatureSteve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Golf Cabrio Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark - Alfa 75 TSpark - Passat 1.8T - COSOC KOTL BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # >> > Skoda Octavia? >> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the 156 handles exceptionally well, whereas the Passat / Mondeo etc are > all around the 'average' ball-park. But the Mondeo took the Peugeot 405's brilliance in the handling department and _made_ it average. It redefined the class average... SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com I think the original question got lost here somewhere, but how about a Saab 9-3. Comfy seats. A bit different. Diesel version would be cheap enough to run. Or its cousin, the Vauxhall Vectra: very quiet and comfortable, durable. Grey interiors aren't much fun, but it's very cheap and great value. Or a Seat Leon or (old style) Toledo? A Citroen C5 HDi would also be comfy and cheap to fuel. Androo > Or its cousin, the Vauxhall Vectra: very quiet and comfortable, > durable And crap. Handles like a boat, lifeless steering, tacky dashboard.. Just.... not good. >> Or its cousin, the Vauxhall Vectra: very quiet and comfortable, >> durable > > And crap. Handles like a boat, lifeless steering, tacky dashboard.. > > Just.... not good. The older generation machines, maybe. The newer ones are much, much better. And even then, to be fair to the older generation machine, if you had one with a good seat it made an excellent long distance cruiser. Just like the Xantia; a smooth and unruffled ride on the motorway, whilst being lovely and quiet. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >>>Or its cousin, the Vauxhall Vectra: very quiet and comfortable, >>>durable [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Xantia; a smooth and unruffled ride on the motorway, whilst being lovely and > quiet. I dunno, my last car was a Vectra - 02,reg SRI 130 (1.8). It didn't handle to well over 80mph, but other than that, the seats where fully adjustable in every direction, good stereo, v.good brakes. Plenty of pep in the engine department. rasonable MPG too, no better than the mk3 golf 2.0 I had before it though. Couldn't really fault it, other than it was very dark blue and it looked like a hearse. Andy >>> Or its cousin, the Vauxhall Vectra: very quiet and comfortable, >>> durable [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Xantia; a smooth and unruffled ride on the motorway, whilst being lovely and > quiet. As I said, almost as good as a 407! SignatureCreated on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/ >>>> Or its cousin, the Vauxhall Vectra: very quiet and comfortable, >>>> durable [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > As I said, almost as good as a 407! Heh I'll see t'other post. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >> Or its cousin, the Vauxhall Vectra: very quiet and comfortable, >> durable > > And crap. Handles like a boat, lifeless steering, tacky dashboard.. > > Just.... not good. No, not when you could have a 407. Despite my earlier misgivings about fuel consumption with my HDI 136, today I averaged 52mpg on a run between the outskirts of Leicester and the outskirts of Peterborough, a distance of 31 miles. Admittedly there were no hold ups, and it is all single carriageway A road, with a couple of villages with 40 limits and 3 stretches with 50 limits. And four roundabouts where i had to stop. But most of the time I could drive at a steady 60mph in 6th gear, but went up to 80ish a couple of times when overtaking (which it is possible to do quite quickly even in 6th gear). Even after some town driving in both Peterborough and Leicester, the return journey returned 45mpg over 91 miles. I think this is pretty impressive, considering my initial experiences with the car, when I was averaging about 37mpg. Part of it might be the loosening up of the engine, but a lot more is learning how to drive this car. Keeping a steady speed, and avoiding the use of the brakes (by anticipation) is the key. Plus of course it is a delightful car to drive. I certainly wouldn't swap mine for a Vectra or Saab, or perhaps even a BMW. Martin SignatureCreated on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/ >>> Or its cousin, the Vauxhall Vectra: very quiet and comfortable, >>> durable [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > when overtaking (which it is possible to do quite quickly even in 6th > gear). That's not too bad... > Even after some town driving in both Peterborough and Leicester, the > return journey returned 45mpg over 91 miles. I think this is pretty [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > learning how to drive this car. Keeping a steady speed, and avoiding > the use of the brakes (by anticipation) is the key. It's probably loosening up the donk. Surely you'd drive any car the same! :) > Plus of course it is a delightful car to drive. I certainly wouldn't > swap mine for a Vectra or Saab, or perhaps even a BMW. I still have misgivings about Citroen and Peugeot longevity. Some models are superb at high mileage, others just fall apart. Curiously, if there was just you, doing the same trip in our Ka under the same circumstances would have yielded a very similar return. He'll exceed 50 mpg on a gentle longer run and it's not difficult to keep the mpg figure in the very high 40s even when there's town driving. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >>>> Or its cousin, the Vauxhall Vectra: very quiet and comfortable, >>>> durable [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > It's probably loosening up the donk. Surely you'd drive any car the same! >:) No. If I lifted off the accelerator half a mile before a roundabout in some cars, such as my old 306, it would have slowed much more quickly. The combination of a very long legged sixth gear and a very slippery car through the air makes a big difference. The secret with the 407 is to be as gentle as you can. >> Plus of course it is a delightful car to drive. I certainly wouldn't >> swap mine for a Vectra or Saab, or perhaps even a BMW. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 50 mpg on a gentle longer run and it's not difficult to keep the mpg figure > in the very high 40s even when there's town driving. Around town with the 407, I get pretty close to the 37mpg that Peugeot's figures claim. But to start with i wasn't getting much more than this on the motorway. With the Ka, I suggest that flooring the accelerator or using the brakes a lot won't affect consumption as much as it does with the 407. SignatureCreated on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/ >>>>> Or its cousin, the Vauxhall Vectra: very quiet and comfortable, >>>>> durable [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > in some cars, such as my old 306, it would have slowed much more > quickly. That's because of a number of factors, such as emission control and tall gearing. On many modern engines (diesel or petrol) when you lift off it doesn't necessarily mean that the ECU has stopped squirting fuel into the engine. > The combination of a very long legged sixth gear and a very > slippery car through the air makes a big difference. It does, but the mass of the vehicle is also very important. Heavier cars coast for longer. > The secret with the 407 is to be as gentle as you can. That's not really a secret, though, and it's common to almost all cars. >>> Plus of course it is a delightful car to drive. I certainly wouldn't >>> swap mine for a Vectra or Saab, or perhaps even a BMW. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Peugeot's figures claim. But to start with i wasn't getting much more > than this on the motorway. Aye it was brand new and needed running in. Over the next 40,000 miles it will get better and better. You have this to look forward to! :) > With the Ka, I suggest that flooring the accelerator or using the > brakes a lot won't affect consumption as much as it does with the 407. No it won't, for a number of reasons (such as the maximum amount of power produced by the engine being of course related to the amount of fuel burnt). But changes in speed are bad for fuel consumption no matter what vehicle. Using the air conditioning makes a much more significant difference. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > > No. If I lifted off the accelerator half a mile before a roundabout > > in some cars, such as my old 306, it would have slowed much more > > quickly. Ah, you used to have a 306. > > The combination of a very long legged sixth gear and a very > > slippery car through the air makes a big difference. The 407 is less slippery than the 406, which is less slippery than the 306 > It does, but the mass of the vehicle is also very important. Heavier cars > coast for longer. Yes, and the 407 could weigh 50% more than the 306. >> > No. If I lifted off the accelerator half a mile before a roundabout >> > in some cars, such as my old 306, it would have slowed much more [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The 407 is less slippery than the 406, which is less slippery than the 306 You could have fooled me. I doesn't feel like it. It doesn't look like it either. >> It does, but the mass of the vehicle is also very important. Heavier cars >> coast for longer. > > Yes, and the 407 could weigh 50% more than the 306. Indeed. SignatureCreated on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/ <dervman@ntlworld.com> slurred : >> The secret with the 407 is to be as gentle as you can. > > That's not really a secret, though, and it's common to almost all > cars. Except it isn't really true. You need to compromise between distance travelled in low gears and extra fuel used to accellerate more quickly. In the extreme case, you could drive sufficiently gently that you never got out of 1st gear and you would have terrible economy. To get the best economy you should accelerate 'briskly' up to your cruising speed - for most NA petrol engines, 'briskly' would be between 60-80% of maximum*, using a rev-band either side of the torque peak _at that throttle opening_, which will be somewhat lower in the rev-range than the torque peak at maximum throttle. With turbo engines, it's all quite a lot more complicated :-) *i.e. as much throttle as possible whilst keeping to the region where the fuel:air mixture is stoicometric (i.e. not close to WOT) and the various air-flow restrictions don't have a major impact. The message <Xns966D85D5B625D224267@130.133.1.4> from Albert T Cone <me@yahoo.com> contains these words: > In the extreme case, you could drive sufficiently gently that you never got > out of 1st gear and you would have terrible economy. That's not gentle, that's slow. There's a world of difference. SignatureSkipweasel. Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood." <guy.king@zetnet.co.uk> slurred : > The message <Xns966D85D5B625D224267@130.133.1.4> > from Albert T Cone <me@yahoo.com> contains these words: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's not gentle, that's slow. There's a world of difference. Lol. Fair enough. I'm unclear about exactly what point 'slow' becomes 'gentle', so if that happens at the point of best economy, then I retract what I said :) > <guy.king@zetnet.co.uk> slurred : > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'm unclear about exactly what point 'slow' becomes 'gentle', so if that > happens at the point of best economy, then I retract what I said :) Well, what I meant is not flooring the accelerator or revving the engine unduly. Changing up early. Avoid braking as much as possible by anticipating when you will need to slow down, bearing in mind that in 6th grear a 407 loses speed very slowly indeed, or not at all on even a slight downhill slope. With the 407 i can keep below 2000 RPM all the time for example, if I drive within the legal limit. It doesn't mean driving slowly at all, within reason. 2000 RPM is peak torque, so you can still accelerate well when you need to. Martin SignatureCreated on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/ >> <guy.king@zetnet.co.uk> slurred : >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > even a slight downhill slope. With the 407 i can keep below 2000 RPM > all the time for example, if I drive within the legal limit. That's because it's almost certainly still squirting in a meaningful amount of fuel into the engine. It's only because of tall gearing that it does this... With the air conditioning system compressor running, most ECUs* continue to squirt fuel into the donk, so you can extend your deceleration distance over a considerable distance. > It doesn't mean driving slowly at all, within reason. 2000 RPM is > peak torque, so you can still accelerate well when you need to. The technique is the same for all cars, it just feels easier in some. With ours, we don't have such tall gearing but I can achieve the same effect as you by giving the engine a bare sniff of power, thus extending my deceleration over a considerable distance. It achieves the same thing. You just have to think about it more. *in my experience at least. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >> No. If I lifted off the accelerator half a mile before a roundabout >> in some cars, such as my old 306, it would have slowed much more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > doesn't necessarily mean that the ECU has stopped squirting fuel into the > engine. Well, the instantaneous readout on the trip computer certainly gives that impression. Fuel consumption jumps up to 999mpg. >> The combination of a very long legged sixth gear and a very >> slippery car through the air makes a big difference. > > It does, but the mass of the vehicle is also very important. Heavier cars > coast for longer. And the 407 is a heavy car. But I understand that the new Passat will be even heavier. >> The secret with the 407 is to be as gentle as you can. > > That's not really a secret, though, and it's common to almost all cars. More apparent on some cars than others. My old 306 XUD 1.9 didn't seen anything like so sensitive to driving style. Nor, I am told, is the 130 pd powered Passat. My colleague with a Passat claims that he gets consistent mpg almost indenpendent of driving conditions and style. >>>> Plus of course it is a delightful car to drive. I certainly wouldn't >>>> swap mine for a Vectra or Saab, or perhaps even a BMW. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Aye it was brand new and needed running in. Over the next 40,000 miles it > will get better and better. You have this to look forward to! :) Good. I haven't done 3000 miles yet, and I am already seeing spectacular improvements. I was disappointed at first as you may have gathered. I hadn't expected this. Peugeot say that the engine doesn't need running in because it has been "bench run". I'm, happy to be proved wrong. >> With the Ka, I suggest that flooring the accelerator or using the >> brakes a lot won't affect consumption as much as it does with the 407. > > No it won't, for a number of reasons (such as the maximum amount of power > produced by the engine being of course related to the amount of fuel burnt). > But changes in speed are bad for fuel consumption no matter what vehicle. But for a heavier vehicle, I would expect the effect to be more noticable. It takes more energy to accelerate a larger mass, as Newton showed. > Using the air conditioning makes a much more significant difference. I have occasionally turned off the dual zone climate control in the 407. But never for long enough to see its effects on fuel consumption. But presumably with climate control, more fuel will be used in hot weather, when cooling is needed. This has only been necessary in the last 3 weeks or so. And as I said, consumption is getting better rather than worse. Martin SignatureCreated on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/ > I hadn't expected this. Peugeot say that the engine doesn't need > running in because it has been "bench run". I'm, happy to be proved > wrong. They're right in that it doesn't *need* running in - ie, you don't need to keep below 3000rpm in the first 1000 miles etc. But as you cover more miles, things will loosen up as the friction surfaces wear etc. - note that as you cover more miles, this trend will reverse. You'll make less power and give less economy when you're upto 150,000 miles :) slurred : >> I hadn't expected this. Peugeot say that the engine doesn't need >> running in because it has been "bench run". I'm, happy to be proved [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > upto 150,000 miles >:) 150k? Bah. That's barely run in for a PSA TD/HDi lump! [...] > Even after some town driving in both Peterborough and Leicester, the > return journey returned 45mpg over 91 miles. I think this is pretty > impressive, considering my initial experiences with the car, when I > was averaging about 37mpg. Friend of mine just did a return trip Rosyth - Rotterdam - 'Ring in a chipped 330d with 280bhp at an average of 37mpg /including/ five laps of the 'Ring (9'55" best lap) and cruising at ~120-150mph through most of Germany... Jings! A SignatureTrade Oil in € |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.