1.4 or 1.9 206 diesel

I have no first hand experience of the either of these engines, but I would just like to add a little something for you to consider.

If you drive at a steady ~50-60mph on the motorway or do a lot of town driving then the 1.4 is probably going to be more economical, if you thrap it at 90mph everywhere then the 1.9 is going to be working less hard, so will likely be more economical. I have an older 2.1Td and it only manages ~50mph on the motorway, but I can travel at 70-95mph and the fuel usage doesn't vary much, it will always do a steady 50mpg. I used to have a 1.9 none turbo Citroen ZX - Which is basically a Peugeot

306 1.9d - This did ~55mpg except at 90mph on the motorway, where it would drop to approx 40mpg, I can only assume because it had to work so much harder to get to and maintain that speed.

I have driven a 1.4tdi Toyota Yaris, it was rather gutless.... In fact it seemed less powerful than my zx diesel - ~ same power output but probably because the zx had more torque or something.

My 2pence worth on the subject after a few beers...

I suspect somebody will now shoot this hypothesis down in flames.....

Andy

Andy the beer is making sense mate as a lot of things it can cloud or clarify your thinking.

The 1.4 will undoubtedly be more economical round town but gutless on the motorway. If economy is your priority then go with the 'weener'. Having said that the 1.9 will give you more poke and if you don't thrash it may well stand up better on the extra-urban than the 1.4. Over and above, if it was me, I'd go with the bigger engine as it would be under less strain in most driving conditions and the difference in economy would probably be a mile or three to the gallon.

But both engines make the same 70bhp !

The 1.4 is a *much* newer engine design, and it's Turbo-charged.

You'd be mad to choose the 1.9 !

BHP ain't the be all and end all of engine performance. What about torque and where in the rev range maximum torque and power are produced? Add to that the gear ratios of the attached gearbox and what revs the engine runs at typical road speeds and it becomes a far more complicated equation, especially when you factor in the likelyhood of all that elastic-trickery engine management on the more modern engines going belly up.

Exactly. That's why he should choose the forced-induction 1.4

Yep - there's more torque and a wider powerband from the HDi lump.

The gearing between the two isn't much different.

Er, are you trying to suggest that modern engines are NOT much much better than their older equivalents ? Cos that would be madness.

Not if you are a DIY tinkerer and want something you can maintain with just a few spanners and the odd screwdriver.

Mercedes make taxi versions of their latest models with the old-fasioned engines for markets where sophisticated service eqipment and skills to operate it are scarce.

Newer doesn't necessarily mean better. As Phil has said there's more to compare than plain old horses. Had a 1.4HDI 206 loan car while main 406 was in for major service and belt change. It was gutless and only just more economical than the 406's HDI 110 2L. Was very glad to get the 406 back.

Agreed.

But don't you think the benefits of the modern lump, far outweigh it's maintainence issues ? They aren't even issues anyway, unless it goes wrong :)

Really ? Interesting !

With cars, it does.

Every generation of car, is better than the last - the car companies spend obscene amounts of R&D money to ensure this is the case. You get more refinement, more safety, more gadgets, more power, etc. etc. The trade-offs are more complexity and more weight.

Yep - 70bhp is way underpowered for a lardy modern vehicle ! My point was, he'd be no better off with the 1.9 NA lump - it would be just as gutless, and offer very similar (probably slightly less) economy.

Really?

Also quite possibly less power due to emissions law being tightened.

More gadgets and more complexity means there is more to go wrong and it will cost more to put right when it does.

I assume that you're looking at buying a new car? If so then the choice you have is between a 1.4 or a 2.0 diesel. Peugeot don't market a 1.9 any longer.

As a matter of preference, i would almost always buy the model with the larger engine - it is less likely to have to work as hard and therefore use less fuel and last longer - IMHO.

I run a 110 2.0 406HDI and my wife runs a 90 2.0 206HDI and are happy with both.

But most modern cars are much more powerful than their older counterparts ! Power-to-weight ratio both remains broadly similar for cooking-model cars - but it's risen hugely for performance vehicles (Clio 182, new M5, Evo, Scooby etc. etc.)

What kind of negative attitude is that :)

If it concerns you to such an extent that you're willing to forfeit all the modern luxuries, then you need to buy yourself an aftermarket warranty - they're readily available these days, and then you get the best of both worlds !

UTTER TOSH!

Not always - Late cavalier 2.0 16v was 150bhp - New vectra 2.0 is around

140bhp..... there are many other examples like this out there.

Volvo V6 - 190Bhp - 2 years later they added badly designed CAT, down to

170BHP... As with many cars.

Most modern diesels are loosing power to become complient with Euro4+5 regs, wheras most euro3 diesels will outperform there euro4 counterparts.

Very very real, my touran has already had one ECU changed under warrenty.

And then you add another £250 to the price of the vehicle, only to find out that the warranty excludes anything that can go wrong!!! i.e. - On my old cavalier 1.8 - coming back from France it started to overheat, turned out to be the waterpump, this was explicitly excluded in the warranty from warranty holdings ltd. This was the only thing that ever went wrong with that car.... Luckily Vauxhall had fixed price servicing, so it was £130 all in... with a warranty.

Andy

Um ?

You're trying to say that noisy, uncomfortable, polluting, slow, zero-crash-protection, gadget-free old cars are somehow better than their quicker, quieter, better-riding, gadget-laden, crash-protected modern counterparts ?

Are you mad Sir ?

The *only* thing I can think of that an older car does better than a modern car, is the act of weighing less :)

That would be relevent, if the comparable modern-day Vectra was not the 2.2, which makes exactly the same 150bhp.

It does lose out at the top end though - GM's crappy 3.2 makes a measly

208bhp. And in a lardy new Vectra, it doesn't get anywhere near the straight-line performance of the Turbo Cavalier.

Have you forgotten about the 200bhp LPT and the 250bhp HPT ? And the 300bhp blown V6 ? Volvo engines make more power than they ever have before.

You know full-well that modern Diesels are way way more powerful than they've ever been in the past.

And ?

So what you're saying, is you'd rather drive a lovely 1975 Land Rover Defender, instead of your shiny new Touran, because the landy is more reliable and cheaper and easier to fix ?

All the used-car-warranties that I've ever had, have included everything except a select few consumables (tyres, brakes, exhaust, clutch, battery etc.) and the ICE and alarm/immobiliser.

Well yes, obviously if your warranty is crap, then it's gonna be crap :) The solution to that problem, is a none-crap warranty.

So it doesn't matter that it was exluded then !

You are making a bit of a leap there. When we started this thread it was about the previous model and the newest one.

Just practical.

Yes but then I was comaring the latest model with the one previous. It is steady and incremental improvement.

I see lots of posts in here about ECU's and "clever" bits going wrong and needing to be fixed with new.

Well it would be cheaper to tax (free) and insure.

I think you just have a fixation about driving a new car. Get real most people can't afford to do that, and not even all those who do

*must* have the latest model.

Phil, Don't take my views as extreem please, I am just saying that although I own a new'ish car, I would feel a lot more comfortable if there was not so much crappy technology in them to go wrong.

I have no doubt that the computers improve engine power and emissions etc. I love Air-Con. I love 1975 Land Rovers!!! I love electric Seats etc...

Point being, I can fix a 1975 Land rover cheaply, as can I a 1984 Golf/Polo or Escort or even a 1991 Vauxhall Cavalier 1.8GL with a relativly moderate tool box. Not many people can fix a 'CAN' bus computer system with linked moduler ECU's !!!

Also cars are only just starting to get back the power they had in the 80's before the emmisions laws etc.. Look at the Sierra Cossy 500 - 250-350BHP with a few tweaks from a 2 litre engine. Now you need a 2.3Litre Hybrid Turbo Engine to produce 250BHP

I know which one I would rather try fixing.

If you are going to get a more modern engine, I think it is realistic expect higher running costs.

Andy

Yeah, I do that :)

Well the point still stands, to a lesser extent.

But I don't drive a new car. It's not even nearly new.

I'd never buy a new car - there's no reason to suffer the initial depreciation-hit, when someone else can suffer it for you.

I don't really see how this is relevent :) The financials make buying a new-car a none-starter - I don't intend to ever own one.

Yes, that was my point all along.

I'm quite happy to pay my higher repair bills, given the amount of things I get in return (ie, just about everything) from my more-modern car.