Buying a 106

[trem1]

Right guys i'm going to look at a 106xl for my daughter as a first car its a 1.1 petrol with 89,000 miles, 3 dr manual, first registered 1997, p reg.


anyhow whats the common things to look for on these little beauty's, what sort of size of fuel tank will it have? and what sort of mpg can be expected?

c'mon you lot share your knowledge with me

cheers in advance
NEIL

[highlander]

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/articles/20 ... car-review

8: Safety 5/10

This is where things tend to fall apart; the 106 was introduced in 1991 so you can’t expect much in the way of safety equipment to be fitted, while the bodyshell isn’t designed to withstand hefty impacts either. Unsurprisingly, the 106 was never EuroNCAP crash tested, so it doesn’t carry a safety rating; if it did, you can bet it wouldn’t be more than one star.

The 106 isn’t a completely hopeless case though, as all facelifted cars feature a driver’s airbag, and apart from the entry-level 1.1 Zest 1, they all get a passenger airbag too.

The 106 seems to be reasonably well-regarded in all aspects except crash-survivability. For a brand-new driver, it'll be cheap to insure, but I'd look for something a little more sturdy. If you want her to drive a cheap run-around Pug, the 2000-model 206 achieved a 4-star Euro NCAP rating (the 106 was introduced before NCAP). A 1.4 would be perfect. Not sure about reliability though.

[turbolag]

I don't pay too much credence to NCAP - the odds of driving along and hitting a concrete block, or having an offset head-on with exactly the same model of car are slim. The difference between 4 and 5 start can be something as simple as not having a seatbelt reminder system, which doesn't make the cars inherently less safe.

[highlander]

The difference between the 406 D8 and D9... apparently the 406 is a fairly poor car to be in if it's crashing... 2 stars for the D8, 3 for the D9, with the D9 being criticized for not maintaining the integrity of the cabin, with most injury being sustained by the driver...

I take the point about hitting concrete blocks and head-on impacts by the same type of car, but it's a fair indication of how your car would perform in a collision, and how survivable these impacts are. Docking a star for poor safety warning labels is a bit mean though.

Anyway, I still reckon the 206 is a sturdier beast than the 106 was.

[turbolag]

But then the 206, engine for engine, is rather heavier than the 106 and in typical conditions will take longer to brake, and is (for a fact) more ponderous to steer, making it potentially more likely to have a smack in the first place. It's horses for courses with a young driver anyway - you can't predict they eventualities they might encounter, and if you try and account for one then you potentially compromise another instead.

My 407s five star, but I was out in a mates (probably zero star) Westfield this morning and it has the agility of a hare on acid, and stops like someones shoved a broom handle through the front wheel - so which is actually 'safer'?

[trem1]

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/articles/20 ... car-review

8: Safety 5/10

This is where things tend to fall apart; the 106 was introduced in 1991 so you can’t expect much in the way of safety equipment to be fitted, while the bodyshell isn’t designed to withstand hefty impacts either. Unsurprisingly, the 106 was never EuroNCAP crash tested, so it doesn’t carry a safety rating; if it did, you can bet it wouldn’t be more than one star.

The 106 isn’t a completely hopeless case though, as all facelifted cars feature a driver’s airbag, and apart from the entry-level 1.1 Zest 1, they all get a passenger airbag too.

The 106 seems to be reasonably well-regarded in all aspects except crash-survivability. For a brand-new driver, it'll be cheap to insure, but I'd look for something a little more sturdy. If you want her to drive a cheap run-around Pug, the 2000-model 206 achieved a 4-star Euro NCAP rating (the 106 was introduced before NCAP). A 1.4 would be perfect. Not sure about reliability though.

sadly insurance is her crippler £1200 for a 106 jumping up to £1500 for a 206 with the same engine, i would prefer her to have something larger like a 306 or even a d8 406 but re the 406 the cheapest we have found for her to insure was £2990 tis why we have to go smaller to try and get her on-road for a year at least

[jasper5]

My son had one of these a year older. I look after quite a few for customers.

The things to look for, in no particular order.....
As they are single point injection, they can have faults with the cat, I've done quite few....not expensive though....on a similar note, the exhaust can break off where the downpipe bolts to the cat (changed loads, including my sons).
Check for sump corrosion.
Check for oil in the radiator (cracked head).
Check lower suspension arm inner bushes for wear.
Check gearlinkage wear.
Check for water leaks under the manifold (a steel pipe corrodes badly).

Having said all that, they are not a bad car.
Don't know fuel tank capacity.

[NollingtonHards]

I believe the tank is 70 litre capacity and i found when i had one is was 40 miles to a gallon. On motor way's i got to 44-45mpg and town driving was down to 35-38mpg. I had one as my first car but i do have to say i never felt safe in one e.g. it is a small car and the crumple zone was my legs. Though i do have to say it looks much better than most similar cars e.g. Corsa's and such. It treated me and my family very well as my sister owned it for 1 1/2 years and same for me.

[turbolag]

Er, the 406 and 407 are 70 lire capacity. 106 is IRO 35ish litres.

[trem1]

according to wiki the capacity is 45 litres, now play nicely

[turbolag]

Oooh, that wasn't a bad guess then. 45 litres...that's about £600 or €4 to fill up

I must admit, I get a certain perverse pleasure out of running the 407 low, then trying to look cool and nonchalant when I have to pay the petrol lady £70 to fill her up

[NollingtonHards]

Er, the 406 and 407 are 70 lire capacity. 106 is IRO 35ish litres.

Damn i was out on my guess-timate ha, never had the opportunity to have a full tank so far.

[gumby6371]

Just a suggestion but have you considered a mk1/mk2 punto ?

Great little first car, when I had mine there were loads in the breakers for bits and pieces, surprisingly quick from the 1.1 and handled and stopped very well all things considered. Engine is ultra simple and if it really goes wrong just unbolt it and it's cheap enough to throw another one in.

Took mine all over the place, even fully loaded over the Welsh mountains and it didn't miss a beat. Only problem I had in 18 months was a leaky rocker cover gasket.

Mine was a mk1 base model and the only thing I could fault it on was the lack of ABS but if you go for a slightly higher spec you'll be fine.

Alternatively they recently brought out the Abarth SS version with 155 BHP !, wouldn't reccomend buying one but god I'd love to have a go in/crash/roll/write off someone elses just think of the power to weight ratio !!!

[turbolag]

Early Punto is actually not a bad car at all, and there's a plentiful supply around so finding a straight one should be easy. A little more refined than the 106, but the 106's chassis and road manners are in a different league, so it's horses for courses really.

[highlander]

My brother had a Punto as his first car. During the 9 months he owned it, the head gasket blew, the brakes basically fell apart, and he had to replace the radiator. It was almost in the garage more than it was on the road. He got shot of it after having spent almost as much fixing it as he did originally buying it (thousands).

From my own experience, the Clio is a pretty solid car - takes all kinds of abuse and still keeps on going. I had two of the Mk.1 models, a 3-door 1.4 and a 5-door 1.2. The 3-door 1.4 had been solidly abused over its lifespan, having gone 109,000 miles without an oil change, oil filter change, air filter change, etc etc etc. By the time I got it, the sump was empty, the expansion bottle was empty, the brakes were shot, and there was a cracked bearing in the gearbox (the Wifely Person bought it from "a mate at work" without my knowledge). It still drove really well even with all these problems, and was even better after a service. It eventually failed its MOT on the brakes.

The 1997 model (Mk 1) only ranks a 2-star NCAP rating, but the 2000-model gets 4 stars. There's plenty of them about. Avoid the 1.2 as it's COMPLETELY gutless. Go for a 3-door model over the 5-door model if that somehow affects the insurance costs.