406 2 litre HDI 110 or 90 BHP

[tomthered]

Am thinking of getting a Pug 406 with 2 litre engine for economy. I presntly have a standard 1.9TD 406 which gets me about 40 mpg. Am looking to buy the later car with better engine performance and fuel economy. Am I right in thinking the 90BHP is slightly underpowered? Are there any pitfalls with getting the 110BHP? Would appreciate any comments people bad or good and what I need to look for!

Hope this is the right section to post in for this,cheers

[puggy]

Go for the 110 got more power and torque and gives more mpg

[Welly]

Right then,

The 110 has got rear discs with an inner handbrake drum set up and these can give trouble by siezing etc but regular inspection/cleaning/copper slip where needed will prevent this. The 90 has rear drums only so simpler.

The 110 has got a dual mass flywheel which can wear and cause slippage/vibration this is a £600.00 job. My DMF is worn but then again it's been like it for 2 years, very occasionally slips but doesn't make the driving a problem. The 90 just has a solid flywheel.

The 110 adds an intercooler which could corrode and leak although very rare.

The 110 has more complex fuelling and turbo control over the 90 but rarely gives trouble.

The 90 is reported as being sluggish which will get on your nerves. The 110 is quite fast as standard.

If it was me - if I found a minter of a 90 with good history etc I would snap it up and get it chipped to 120BHP then you would have a simpler motor with decent power. That is what I would look to do although I don't think you can get the 'exec' in 90BHP guise if that's what you wanted.

Don't be put off by a 110 though especially one that's come off a fleet with loads of history and had a new clutch fitted

One thing to note is that the last of the HDi's 03/04's had more complex emission controls which will see you down at the dealers a fair bit with 'errors'.

Hope this helps.

[puggy]

kinda makes a mockery of my little reply

(clever little bugger )

[jameslxdt]

i would take the 110 all day long, the 90 is not just slow its just undriveable, i wouldnt say the 110 is fast, it has a nice punch of torque between 1500 and 3000 rpm, with the peak torque or 250nm starting at 1750rpm, but its not fast by any means, its easy to drive, and very very frugal, the best i had from mine was 68mpg and the worst 37 mpg, which is obviously far better than a 1.9td but, the HDi's are no where near as reliable, so any saving in fuel is instantly wiped out in repairs

[paulb2004uk]

I've got a 90 - has discs and drums on the rear. As for power difference, I don't really notice as I spend
most of my time stuck in London traffic but as was previously mentioned, you can get it chipped.

[muffindell]

I have a 90 chiped to 125, pulls better than a 110 and far more reliable Just changed brake shoes at 110k, they weren't worn out, just covered in brake fluid, rear discs on 110 's corrode and stick on, mainly cos people don't brake very often from 110mph to 0. DFM clutch on the 110 gives heaps of problems. oh forgot to say, when you chip a 90 you get an additional 8% improvement in fuel consumption along with a much smoother engine which pulls cleanly from 1300rpm to red line without smoke.

[steve_earwig]

...rear discs on 110 's corrode and stick on

Umm, it looks more like the calliper sliders are assembled sans grease, so they corrode and sieze, so the calliper doesn't slide which results in the side of the disk away from the piston not getting any use and corroding.

[muffindell]

yeah you're probably right garages never grease anything, lazy come to mind , but the rear brakes don't really do all that much in normal driving, drums are simpler and don't suffer from the same problems. I reckon that I could of got 200k out of the rear shoes with the amount of wear on them before the brake cylinder decided to throw all it's fluid over them!