It's not so much the fact that the thing'll rot to dust, as the fact that a rusty car looks like a shiteheap. To stop it looking like a shiteheap, I'll spend lots of money on welding. Until all the metal on the car has eventually been replaced, being as it's a Ford.
You're after a cheap car that handles ain't ya? For under £500... My Sierra handles, is reliable as f*ck and is £300.. Don't bother with the welding, cos it doesn't need any. It's just a Bagpuss motor, but it drives well, isn't that bad on fuel at all if you don't cane it, and it's not a diesel. It's the perfect car for ya ;-)
309s are pretty much completely different to 205s. Similar to look at, and the same engines but lights, grilles, bonnets, doors, wing mirrors, bumpers, chassis etc are definately not the same. This is from experience of trying to find bits for a 205 in a breakers.
Generally, in Puggery, GTi is hot, SRi and XSi are warm. It doesn't hold true for all the models, cos they go funny and introduce Mi16 and S16 from time to time.
I've never driven a 309 so can't comment on similarities between 205s/306s and 309s driving characteristics.
I read that the 309 was a Talbot project carried just before the PSA takeover. They already had a 305 and had plans for the x06 range.
Are you sure you can get a MTB in the boot of one? It's certainly a struggle getting one in the boot of an XJ40, which I'd have thought was bigger, despite the giant suspension. Or are you talking of estates?
God, the XJ40 boot is notoriously tiny - very space inefficient. The E28 is old-skool - the tin around the outside marks the boot, basically. None of that messy trim and boxes like the XJ40 has. Don't know about the E34 but IIRC they're on a par with a Passat saloon.
Not at all. Insurance is a bitch compared to the 306 though - 306dTurbo is group 5, ZX Volcane TD is group 11 or 13 IIRC, just as an example. But the ZX has a better driving position, better dashboard IMO (flat top, more 'honest' about the cheapness of the materials and as a result actually less crappy) and nicer seats.
Nope i mean the 309. You wont find a decent 306 for under 500. The top of the range 309 (over here) was badged GTi (1.9 8v). The next one down was the SRi/XSi. Both had the 1.6 8v engine (same as 205 GTi 1.6), but the SRi had 5 doors and the XSi had 3. Both fairly rare compared with the rest of the range, but i used to own a SRi and it was a bloody good car, with cheap insurance!
I would go as far as completely different. Mechanically they are virtually the same.
Also generally Gx (eg GR) would mean 5 door and Xx (eg XR) would mean 3 door. On the 205/309 generation this holds true up to the GTi (which can be either).
205 and 309s are very similar, although you might consider the 309 a bit more stable due to the longer wheelbase/wider track. Although some say the
205 is more nimble because of this. Its a debate that has been argued many a time. No idea about 306s, far too new for me to have owned :)
in news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de, "Carl Gibbs" slurred :
They both have passive rear steering. In fact they are mechanically identical. The early ZX's were slightly lighter than the 306, and the resulting weight distribution was _very_ slightly more nose biased, so they were either 'less agile' or 'more stable' depending on which review you want to belive. The difference is so slight as to be negligible, but the early ZXs are slightly quicker than thier 306 counterparts, 'cos of the weight thing.
Don't know about the cheese but I fear that you're right about the handling after nearly spinning the thing at a 'straight on' roundabout and also (incredibly) on a 40mph downhill curve at Port Solent!
My mk1 4-door seemed to handle better than my wife's mk2 5-door!
Still, if you don't mind 'not so good' handling, they're great!
I drive a Volvo 340. That's what I'd called "not so good" handling. I'd also like something that isn't *too* likely to cause comments along the lines of "There's no way I'm getting in that shitheap". And for that, a Proton's even worse than a Volvo.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.