I take it all back...

Will my lardy-arsed sports tourer suffice?

Yes... even with the good lady, and all your recent holiday baggage on board.

[...]

A smaller engine may sound more exciting, but the bigger one usually out-grunts...

The M62 based ALPINA 4.6 is like that too. :)

The 4.0 M60 may only need 100 rpm more for peak power but peak torque is almost 1500 rpm higher so it's worth holding intermediates 500-1000 rpm longer - it sounds *much* more exciting but it's *much*, *much* slower.

A

So you agree that the 1.6 has nothing in it's favour then ?

And so the 1.9 *is* the quicker car. Given that the rest of the car is pretty much the same, but the 1.6 has a slightly narrower rear track and (sometimes) rear drum brakes, then I'll take the 1.9 thanks !

0-60 times are a Meaningless Indicator Of Performance. Why would it make a lot of real world difference ? Why would you think that I'd think it would ?

Gear change ? Off the lights ? WTF ?

I'm only interested in real-world performance, not 0-60 times !

The point to me, is that it's a quicker-than normal, tin box car. Which bit am I missing ?

You cant deny that either of them aren't a fantastic engine, especially the MR2. And Vamps had 130k miles on the clock when it failed.

Always drum brakes. Which I prefer TBH The 1.6 has the advantage of a better gearbox. Put that gearbox on the 1.9 engine and you'll have the best possible combination (without going down the Mi16 route!).

Its all a matter of personal taste at the end of the day. 205s are used extensively in rallying and the 1.6/1.9 arguement is continually ongoing there too.

The way that it drives... the way that it makes the driver feel, when he's thrashing every ounce of power out of it, and squealing round an assortment of bends...

If you can't finally get that point, I give up - you're obviously not 'with it', on this one.

I'll give you another clue - Clarkson did a video a while back - one where IIRC, he was looking for the best car in the world... he, even with a brace of exotica featured, almost gave it to the 106GTi.

Why?

Because of the way it drove, the way it needed to be thrashed, it's peaky power delivery, it's fantastic handling - all things that for him at that time in his life, made him *really* enjoy driving it.

Clear enough for you???

You may well be right - I can't be arsed to look it up right now, but given the MI16 change for the worse mid life cycle, nothing would surprise me. ;-)

I still fancy a 205GTi myself, if I can get one worth having for sensible money...

"Yeah, right!" ;-)

Note the 'IIRC' above ;-)

I want a 205 CTi.

I was actually asking :D

Look under '205 GTi Info'

Seems the early 1.6 was 105bhp - in 1986 it became 115bhp, with the 130bhp

1.9 appearing in December of that year.

The 1.6 versions were indeed dropped in the latter part of 1992, when the

1.9 was suffocated down to 122bhp by a cat.

HTH (If it doesn't get fecked and do your own homework) ;-)

I've read mixed. Purists argue that the 1.9 is the one to have. To most people stepping up from a 1.1 Ford rustbucket, the 1.6 is the better bet, there's less chance of killing themselves.

I'd not consider the 1.6. The 1.9 out-pokes it in every respect.

But driven back to back, the 1.6 feels anemic compared to the 1.9 despite having shorter gearing.

When has that been a concern?

With the 1.6 you have to wring the nuts off it. With the 1.9, that's optional.

That's becuase you're not caning it appropriately. Remember OHC engines rev much better than that OHV boat anchor in your Ka.

Since I decided I want to keep my license. One of the big reasons I won't change my 75 for a V6 version is that the TSpark is more fun at lower speeds.

The whole point of a 205 GTi is that it's a fun little buzz-box. The 1.9 doesn't quite have the same edge to it. Low down torque is all well and good, but it doesn't suit the car as it's not backed up by the revvy nature of the 1.6.

You've been spending too much time behind the wheel of a low-revving asthmatic pushrod lump.

Heh. I was hooning about in a 1.9 205 GTI before the Ka was first built (but not before the concept was designed).

*cough* Ford Ka *cough* more powerful machines *cough* ding! :)

But it _is_ backed up by a wonderful revvy zesty top end, it's just that it's over all too quickly in the lower three gears :) leaving fourth and fifth.

And the handling is sharper.

It also bites back a bit harder.

But you know, they're both top machines, so really we're nit picking in the

205 GTI. I'd buy the 1.9 in preference to the 1.6. I'd drive either if given to me. :)

I'll change what I said. The 1.9 out-pokes it in every respect but I would consider the 1.6. I'd just not buy one.

Why did Peugeot make the 1.9 if the 1.6 was good enough/