Got one on loan today, was first time ive driven a 207 so I had a fresh view.
Im not french car fan, they always seem like 'nearly there' cars to me which dont strike a balance of talents that suits me. Overall, Im still not a fan after today.
One thing that struck me about the car straight off was that on start up, it was never going to be mistaken for a petrol - remember 15 years ago when they often said how quiet diesels were getting - I think they must have given up on trying to diguise them because this Pug aint quiet.
It is a sweet engine though in many ways with plenty of pull, as much as anyone would need normally and it doesnt feel small, until that is you find its gone off the boil and the thing flatlines, meaning a swift grab for another gear to avoid huge speed loss.
I used to like TDs because you were hardly ever in a gear where there wasnt decent pull, but it seems these modern diesels dont have the low down guts that older ones do, which means having to drive it like a petrol. Not convinced by that. I like leaving a car in 3rd around town alot of the time, its a gear for most situations in most cars.
Not so here. Peugeot have given it very tall gearing, which Im sure helps economy on longer runs, but around town, it means far more 2nd gear work than Im used to.
I suspect that if it had a 6-speed box, it would have a lower 3rd and thus the problem would be resolved, but I dont know if you can have one or whether you need to spend on a high spec one to get it.
Stil on the gearbox, why do Pug boxes still have that floppy, vague feeling after all these years? Cant they sort that? I drove a knackered 405 TD many years ago that had a box which felt just like this one. Its light enough, just feels slack.
I cant say it lit up my world, I didnt think wow, what a car, but the steering was nice, it rode well and the absence of vibration certainly marks out new cars over older ones, progress has certainly been made there.
Driving position wasnt for me, it made my right leg numb, but otherwise the seats were supportive and everything felt right.
Quality is there in the main, although why must they make it so obvious where the money has been saved, especially on door trim and cheapo carpets. Poor form given the premium price they seem to think the car is worth.
Ive a few more miles to do in it today, Im wondering if it will grow on me, but I fear not.
Its a big car really, too big in many ways, visability isnt great for parking either.
I can see why people buy them, but I can see many reasons why I wouldnt. One of them would be the Hyundai I20.
3/5 for this model/spec. Better gears, id give it 4/5.
|
"I used to like TDs because you were hardly ever in a gear where there wasnt decent pull, but it seems these modern diesels dont have the low down guts that older ones do, which means having to drive it like a petrol."
Yup. Exactly what I'm finding on my 1.6 HDi Berlingo. No low down pull. But that doesn't mean that I drive it like I drove my old 1.6 petrol Berlingo - because, comparatively speaking, the petrol version did have low down torque.
Needless to say, not all modern diesels have no bottom end torque - but the PSA 1.6 HDi certainly does.
"Peugeot have given it very tall gearing, which Im sure helps economy on longer runs, but around town, it means far more 2nd gear work than Im used to."
Again, snap. My HDi Berlingo has very tall gearing. In my petrol vehicle, in 5th gear at 1500 revs, I was doing 35 mph. In the diesel, it's 43 mph in 5th gear. Great for motorways, but in normal driving it means that I seem to be forever changing down a gear when I didn't need to before.
|
I think it's all in the gearing and power delivery designed for a smoother response through the rev range with staggering economy. The 1.6Hdi 92hp version is up on both power and torque compared with the old XUD 1.9TD. But the grunt of the older engine felt more because of the abrupt turbo on/off feel.
The Berlingo body blunts the performance of the 1.6Hdi (as does my C5) but in a smaller car it's a flyer from 1500rpm onwards.
|
|
BTW the figures show the 1.6Hdi has about 45% more torque than the 1.6 petrol version!
|
The extra cost of the 1.6Hdi 110 hp is worth paying, the 207 isn't light by any means, i like the car itself...pity they saw fit to remove the full size spare wheel, then fill the wheel well with a huge expanse of foam, a tub of goo and a toy pump.
As FL notes that 110 engine makes the C2 fly, it should it's no slouch ina C5 battleship.
The 2 litre HDi had a lot of grunt in the Berlie, does yours have a FAP Tyro?...if not a remap would make the world of difference, bringing the power in much earlier, though that's probably a route you don't want to go down.
|
"BTW the figures show the 1.6Hdi has about 45% more torque than the 1.6 petrol version!"
Indeed it does, Fenlander - but not at 1500 rpm! As far as I can see, the torque curves meet at about 1900 rpm. Above that figure the HDi is, of course, the winner (at least up to 4,500 rpm!). But below 1900, the petrol has the torque advantage.
"The 2 litre HDi had a lot of grunt in the Berlie, does yours have a FAP Tyro?...if not a remap would make the world of difference, bringing the power in much earlier, though that's probably a route you don't want to go down."
No, gb, it doesn't have the FAP.
And as for a remap . . . well, one of the big disadvantages of having the HDi instead of a petrol engine is that one starts becoming tempted - very tempted . . . .
The prospect of having decent bottom end torque is appealing, but I'm not yet completely persuaded. And even if I was, I'd then have to persuade my wife. If there were realistic expectations of significantly improved fuel economy without long term damage to the inner workings of the vehicle, then there might be some prospect of that.
I think I'd prefer the 2 litre HDi - but I've never had the opportunity to drive one.
Last edited by: tyro on Wed 9 Feb 11 at 12:01
|
>> I'd then have to persuade my wife. If there
>> were realistic expectations of significantly improved fuel economy
I don't think that's really on the cards in most cases.
Put on a nice suit, sickly false smile to camera, kiss babies, shake hands, trouser any expenses going, tell her what she wants to hear...most of it distortions, exaggerations and lies but keep at least one item of truth in the speech...sorted, remap next week.
Politicians have been doing the above for time immortal, pity we couldn't get them remapped.
|
My partner has the PSA 1.6Hdi 110 hp in the C4, and that has lots of low down tourque, that really makes the car shift -
although its not a quiet engine by all means, but compiled with its small turbo makes the power deleivery very smooth, and really shifts when you need it to.
we have had it for 3 years 40k miles now and no matter what the temp outside, it starts on the key 1st time, and everytime
Last edited by: Redviper on Wed 9 Feb 11 at 12:24
|
|
Genuinely like to see any torque graphs you can link to Tyro. I can only find them for the 92hp Hdi, 110hp Hdi & 2.0 petrol. On those graphs (from a Citroen brochure I think) the 92hp Hdi has greater torque at 1750rpm than the 2.0 petrol engine at any speed!
|
These are the graphs that I am looking at.
1.6 HDi 90 - from Superchips - tinyurl.com/5szuyac
1.6 petrol, from a Citroen brochure - tinyurl.com/6dy6jo3
|
Interesting. The graph I was looking at seems to be a scan from a Citroen brochure and shows the 1.6Hdi reaching 135Nm at around 1200rpm before climbing rapidly to 215Nm by 1750rpm.
pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200612/2007-citroen-c4-3_1024x0w.jpg
This compares with your 1.6 petrol graph showing the torque only reaching 135Nm at 2500rpm.
The Superchips graph looks very different and pessamistic for the 1.6Hdi... odd.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Wed 9 Feb 11 at 13:10
|
"very different and pessamistic for the 1.6Hdi... odd."
Very odd.
My only comment is that the Superchips graph fits with my experience of my newly acquired Berlingo.
What is particularly odd is that I've driven the 1.6 HDi on courtesy and rental cars - in some cases the 110 bhp version, in some probably the 90 bhp version - and I never noticed the absence of low down torque on any of them.
There are a number of possible explanations . . .
|
Now I have had the car a bit longer and will have it atleast until Tuesday.
Ive discovered a few more things. Firstly, sorry but build quality aint there. This car already has several niggly faults - there is a horrible clang from one of the rear doors, reminds me of the original Mini, the front suspension is rattling and the front and rear windscreen washers dont work ( the bottle is full to the brim and theres no sound of any motors working ). The seat trim on the drivers seat is already fraying and this is at 10k.
Doesnt bode well for an older example at all.
The boot - well, its small, especially given the size of the car and the rear seats dont even fold flat, the mechanisms are incredibly flimsy ( the rear parcel shelf appears to be made from polystyrene ) and I shouldnt think they will last that long if you fold the seats down often.
The interior design isnt too bad, but heating controls and stereo controls are over complex so to make adjustments without taking your eyes from the road requires blind faith your hitting the right button ( which you often dont ). Doesnt help that the buttons are flush with the dash, so you cant even feel your way around them.
Im getting used to driving it, but its not really growing on me at all, I can only think id be terribly dissapointed had I shelled out 11 grand on one. There are flashes of greatness in the fluidity with which it drives, the steering really is lovely although Im not convinced the ride is all its cracked up to be ( its no better than the wifes car on rough roads ).
Ive also noticed that people simply cannot see a dark grey car - twice this morning ive had near accidents with people pulling into my path, once on a dual carriageway at 70 when I was 3/4 way past a Volvo and they indicated and moved out ( they waved to say sorry but still scary stuff ) which required a heavy bit of braking.
Then nearer home down a woman in a Berlingo going across a crossroads in the backstreets simply went right out infront of me, luckily she had only just let the clutch up so I had enough room to take to the low kerb and avoid her, but man I started to feel vunerable to people just not seeing the car.
|
|
our Fiesta 1.6 psa diesel lump and it pulls like a train from 1300rpm upwards. Too much tourque really and so nippy much better than our 1.4 Fiesta with the 1.4PSA lump
|
>>The Superchips graph looks very different and pessamistic for the 1.6Hdi... odd.
Many tuning firms use inertia type dynamometers, and then various fiddle factors to work back to an at flywheel figure. In terms of absolute figures, they shouldn't really be trusted. The fundamental error these dynamameters include is that they are also measuring the acceleration of the vehicle's drivetrain - which includes the engine. Any attempt to compensate via coastdown is better than nothing, but isn't really valid.
Any serious engine measurement uses a resistance type dynamometer, where the engine can be held at constant rpm while a measurement is taken - or better as a series of measurements are taken, and averaged.
The inertia dyamaometers can tell you if you've made a change to a particular car by comparing before and after readings, but, the numbers themselves are not massively meaningful.
|
I have run several 207 hatches and the SW estate and can comment on your thoughts.
- Big, it's the size of a 306.
- All diesels are noisier when stone cold.
- The 1.4 HDi is a fairly small engine at 70bhp hauling a heavy car at 1.2 tonnes. The 1.6 HDi in either the 90 or 110 version is a much better bet.
- Gearchange is a bit floppy but nothing that stops you selecting a gear easily and you get used to it after a few miles. The 1.4 with a 6 speed would be a waste of time as it doesn't have the power to benefit.
- Trim wise the Verve is fairly low rent with a few of extras. There are much better equipped versions.
HTH
|
I can only comment on this particular product Peugeot are offering, Im sure they o better versions.
I disagree that it wouldnt benefit from a 6-speed box. Its not to do with power so much as the gear spacing, so giving it an extra gear would allow for lower 2nd/3rd/4th gears which is what it lacks, but would still allow the long top gear which gives it the economy.
|
Peugeot 207 - 2010 1.4 HDi Verve - Brief test - tyro
