406oc.co.uk

Could anybody have two pictures, one of a 90bhp engine and one of a 110bhp engine jus to see the difference know very liitle about 406's tbh

Here you go: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13910#p128254

Which is the better engine? reliability/easier to map/ comfort? ... or is there much of a difference?

90 has less to go wrong, very economical, perfectly adequate round town but can struggle to keep up on a bypass. Harder to find maps for a Siemens one too.
110 is quicker, easier to map but still economical. A slightly better all-rounder but if you find a 406 you really like and it happens to be a 90, don't let it put you off.
Both engines have pro's and con's - both perfectly okay and reliable.
Later 406's should have either 90 or 110 on a sticker on the drivers B pillar inside the door.

don't like my Siemens 90. Too fussy and no better on fuel.
Wish I'd gone for a 110.

Thanks lads

Hi Darren,
I have had my 110 rapier estate for 6 week's now, very happy with it I'm getting 52mpg with mainly A & B road's / town work but a bit of 80+ duel carridge ways thrown in Mega I can't recomend them enough, & with mod's to come, watch this space (not you wife!)
All the best with your choice Paul.

The 110bhp's were all fitted with a dual mass fly wheel sometime in 2000 onwards. Whereas the 90's just kept the standard solid mass fly wheel. Although the dmf's in the 406 are not particularly prone to failure it might be something you should take into account when buying one especially if it has high mileage or has been remapped (and the bollox driven out of it). Although if you could get a 110 that has had a solid flywheel conversion already done well
As far as fuel economy goes my 110 gets about 55-62mpg on long motorway runs doing 70mph avg, 60 - 65mpg on roads with a speed limit of 60 - 50mph (in summer time). As regards driving in urban areas id be lucky to get 35mpg so if thats what you're going to be doing mainly I would suggest going for a 90 as I cant imagine doing any worse than that. Somebody else who drives a 90 might be able to give you ball park figures of their fuel economy, just to compare?

keppler wrote:Somebody else who drives a 90 might be able to give you ball park figures of their fuel economy, just to compare?

Now there's a red rag to a bull I can get my graph out again:



This is mostly on a daily 70 mile round trip on the M4 in Berkshire -- which is flat. The most interesting thing here is the seasonal variation. HDis hate being cold, so if you're doing short trips (it takes about 10 miles to get my 90 up to temperature in the winter) then you may be better off with a petrol. On my current 10 mile commute I'm getting about 55.

The 90 is slow, but is capable of remarkable economy -- both in town and on the motorway -- but not if it's hilly because of the very narrow power band. In a flat town you can dribble it round on no more than 1500 rpm. On the motorway it'll do 60 to 70 MPG at 55 to 60 MPH, and down to 50MPG at 70 to 75, above which it gets very thirsty.

If you need to get your clog down then go for the 110. If you can accept the slowness in return for extra MPGs then go for the 90.

By way of pendant to rwb's figures and graph: - My normal usage consists of journeys between 5 and 12 miles on fairly hilly terrain, every trip including about a quarter-mile of crawling in first or second gear (by courtesy of the unmetalled lane leading to and from my house), and in these conditions my 2001 90HDi gives an almost exact 50mpg. (Computer readings usually range between 50.4mpg and 53.5mpg; calculations based on mileage and fuel purchased suggest that these are over-optimistic but only fractionally so.) On an occasional 20-mile trip, mostly at between 50 and 65mph, I can expect about 65mpg. These are summer readings; I too have found that the engine is very slow to warm up, and so I fully expect the returns to suffer when winter comes.

A few figures for other cars, in the same circumstances, may be of interest. All except the Volvo had the XUD9 engine.

1995 Citroen ZX Reflex, non-turbo: 44mpg
1993 Peugeot 405 estate, non-turbo: 42mpg
1996 Volvo 440LE: 43mpg
1995 Peugeot 306: 40mpg
1997 Peugeot 306: 40mpg
1997 Peugeot 406 1.9TD: 37mpg

Oliver Mundy.

I was getting 48mpg from my old 90 estate, that was all in town.

Went up to 55mpg on a run to Radstock, mostly A roads but mixture of hills and fast bits, with the family and luggage inside....

I'm sure my Siemens 90 is a rongun, mast have been a friday afternoon job.
Mostly town & slow rural but with motorway towing at weekends, so never ideal for hyper mileing.
Has got better with Mew MAF and an oil & fuel filter change, see bottom:
Date Miles Litres MPG
06/02/2012 591.4 68.72 39.12
24/02/2012 1287.6 160.62 36.44
18/03/2012 629.3 73.21 39.08
19/04/2012 981.4 105.81 42.17
01/05/2012 614.6 71.32 39.18
18/05/2012 510.1 52.94 43.80
03/06/2012 713.7 73.8 43.96
28/06/2012 749 73.17 46.54
12/07/2012 714.3 72.49 44.80
14/08/2012 654.2 71.09 41.84
10/09/2012 641.7 69.08 42.23
04/10/2012 878.2 89.55 44.58
25/10/2012 866 89.05 44.21
12/11/2012 622.2 67 42.22
02/12/2012 621.4 69.96 40.38
05/01/2013 861.3 91.47 42.81
24/01/2013 610.6 69.14 40.15
04/02/2013 566.7 57.67 44.67
21/02/2013 623.2 66.27 42.75
10/03/2013 665.3 67.39 44.88
23/03/2013 634.7 68.5 42.12
09/04/2013 562 64.63 39.53
27/04/2013 670.7 68.37 44.60
17/05/2013 646.9 71.13 41.34
06/06/2013 459.4 46.01 45.39
19/06/2013 689.6 69.04 45.41

Hi Piglet, my 90 was a Siemens too.
I had to adjust my way of driving to get that mpg, don't be fooled by low revs in a high gear, just keeping momentum with decent revs in the right gear helped loads.
Also, keeping one eye on trip computer helps to see what technique is best for you - but don't crash in the meantime.

My driving style changed completely thanks to the instantaneous MPG readout