Since the "car tax" -system in Finland (yes, we do do have it) is going to change starting from the beginning of the 2008, the used car prices around here are on a downward spiral....This has caused a serious case of car -fever to every other finnish male, me being one of those infected. Now I want to buy me a second car for those nice family Sunday drives. The alternatives are.......(drums).......
a ph2 Pug 406 2,2 sport (petrol)
or
a ph1 Pug 2,0 turbo
Help me out brothers and sisters. Let your guiding light shine.....
2,0 turbo or 2,2, what´s it gonna be....?
Moderator: Moderators
-
bargainbro
- 2.0 16v
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:02 am
- Location: Oulu, Finland
-
=|[PsychoPoet406]|=
- 1.8 16v
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:09 am
Re: 2,0 turbo or 2,2, what´s it gonna be....?
2.0 turbo (150bhp, 173lb/ft)
This car is a huge visual step up from the 405 (which is still a great car). Also reliability and build quality are better. The advantages of this car are that it's cheap to buy and it is very comfortable to cruise around in. It is supposed to be a match for the lighter 405 Mi16 in a line. The turbo really squirts out power, it responds well to tuning, and it is generally a hell of a car to drive. My ex girlfriend loved driving it even though she doesn't like big cars.
Fuel economy is noticeably worse than the 2.2 even though the turbo model is (A LOT) lighter. Also, it is definitely underpowered when standard. You need to increase power to get the best from the car but beware of torque steer. It's a costly car to run. The 2.0 turbo is rated at 28mpg which is really poor, even for 1996. (Honda NSX manages 22mpg with an extra 130bhp!)
There is a lot of body roll but not as much flex as the 2.2, so overall it feels like you can corner with more gusto. There is little between the 406 and the A4, Mondeo, Vectra, Accord and 3-series of its time. The handling always put a smile on my face even in the worst times. It responds extremely well to lowering with sports tyres.
2.2 16v (160bhp, 160lb/ft)
The revised 406 was an even bigger leap forward in some ways. Build quality is light years better. The car is beefier and curvier with a better back end and a more graceful profile, although the new nose isn't as pretty. Chrome dials, air con, half-leather sports interior, body coloured aluminium inserts, fog lights, a CD player and a full electrics pack push the spec level up to match the old executive turbo except the 2.2 SRi is classier, more modern, more chic in design. Sound proofing is much improved.
This isn't a boy racer car. Its mid to high range torque is enormous but you can feel the car's inertia at low revs. It's livelier in some ways as you don't need to change down on hills (as there is no turbo to spool up) but don't expect the same straight line thrill. This is a car you cruise in, not race with. On the other hand it revs right to 6000rpm increasing in power all the way. At 5000rpm in third the car is absolutely flying.
The cornering is not really a match for the mark 1. The body weight is noticeably greater and the car tends to wallow, with a lot of flex during sharp manoeuvres. If you take the mark 2 on a track even with performance tyres and suspension upgrades the tyres scream like torture victims! On the other hand the car repsonds to a bit of rough play and will liven up at high speed, taking winding roads in its stride.
Words of a novice: My mum is learning to drive and she's been tootling round a few car parks in my 2.2 SRi. She was scared by the car's size but it is a very respectful and understanding car, it doesn't show off and go out of control, it responds exactly how you want it to and she looks forward to getting behind the wheel. So if my mum likes it (she's 5'4") it's got to be good.
In Brief:
* If you are a wannabe boy racer, a performance enthusiast or just fancy a beautiful, easy to drive, happy, crazily comfortable car, get the turbo.
* If you are a gentleman, a wannabe middle class executive, like to cruise through the countryside or just want a car that looks a million dollars, get the 2.2.
This car is a huge visual step up from the 405 (which is still a great car). Also reliability and build quality are better. The advantages of this car are that it's cheap to buy and it is very comfortable to cruise around in. It is supposed to be a match for the lighter 405 Mi16 in a line. The turbo really squirts out power, it responds well to tuning, and it is generally a hell of a car to drive. My ex girlfriend loved driving it even though she doesn't like big cars.
Fuel economy is noticeably worse than the 2.2 even though the turbo model is (A LOT) lighter. Also, it is definitely underpowered when standard. You need to increase power to get the best from the car but beware of torque steer. It's a costly car to run. The 2.0 turbo is rated at 28mpg which is really poor, even for 1996. (Honda NSX manages 22mpg with an extra 130bhp!)
There is a lot of body roll but not as much flex as the 2.2, so overall it feels like you can corner with more gusto. There is little between the 406 and the A4, Mondeo, Vectra, Accord and 3-series of its time. The handling always put a smile on my face even in the worst times. It responds extremely well to lowering with sports tyres.
2.2 16v (160bhp, 160lb/ft)
The revised 406 was an even bigger leap forward in some ways. Build quality is light years better. The car is beefier and curvier with a better back end and a more graceful profile, although the new nose isn't as pretty. Chrome dials, air con, half-leather sports interior, body coloured aluminium inserts, fog lights, a CD player and a full electrics pack push the spec level up to match the old executive turbo except the 2.2 SRi is classier, more modern, more chic in design. Sound proofing is much improved.
This isn't a boy racer car. Its mid to high range torque is enormous but you can feel the car's inertia at low revs. It's livelier in some ways as you don't need to change down on hills (as there is no turbo to spool up) but don't expect the same straight line thrill. This is a car you cruise in, not race with. On the other hand it revs right to 6000rpm increasing in power all the way. At 5000rpm in third the car is absolutely flying.
The cornering is not really a match for the mark 1. The body weight is noticeably greater and the car tends to wallow, with a lot of flex during sharp manoeuvres. If you take the mark 2 on a track even with performance tyres and suspension upgrades the tyres scream like torture victims! On the other hand the car repsonds to a bit of rough play and will liven up at high speed, taking winding roads in its stride.
Words of a novice: My mum is learning to drive and she's been tootling round a few car parks in my 2.2 SRi. She was scared by the car's size but it is a very respectful and understanding car, it doesn't show off and go out of control, it responds exactly how you want it to and she looks forward to getting behind the wheel. So if my mum likes it (she's 5'4") it's got to be good.
In Brief:
* If you are a wannabe boy racer, a performance enthusiast or just fancy a beautiful, easy to drive, happy, crazily comfortable car, get the turbo.
* If you are a gentleman, a wannabe middle class executive, like to cruise through the countryside or just want a car that looks a million dollars, get the 2.2.
