Re: If the deity I've obviously upset is reading this, can they please tell me...

Correct.

Pug's diesels of that era, were far and away the best. It's only recently that the other manufacturers have caught up (and overtaken, in some cases).

enthusiasm,

LOL :)

You lummox :)

Yeah, I suppose they are all getting on a bit. My last one was a 95 N-plate though, and was pretty much immaculate when I got rid of it. Only 8 years old now, so you shouldn't have too much bother tracking one down ?

I have. It's not a bad engine (it's an isuzu lump), but it's not as good as the XUDT lump in the peugeots of the same era. The Nova TD isn't as quick as the 205DT - the Nova DT has a massive

70BHp/ton vs. 79bhp/ton for the 205. Driving the 205 'entusiastically' on a mixed town/country/motorway run gives 52mpg, and about 56 on a constant 75mph. Thrashing it as hard as possible gives about 44mpg :-D

Economy wise there's very little to choose between them, but the 205 is a much nicer drive, IMHO.

Andy

So you have no idea of how they drive.

Cheers for clarifying that for us.

One of the best - in case you haven't noticed, the Nova TD is powered by an Isuzu lump, and one which has a good reputation throughout the trade.

"Ignorance is bliss"

-- JackH

What year - pre 92 ones are cat free, meaning they have that little bit more grunt... which might partly explain why the Nova felt like it had that much more surge than either of the Corsa TDs I've had, with the same lump.

I disagree. I'd say neither were bad for what they are. Seen plenty of Corsa and Nova TDs running way past 200k on the original engine and turbo.

Official figures state that they are evenly matched in the 0-60 stakes, at a flat 12 seconds each.

IIRC, the Nova had an official claim to fame for a very rapid 50-70 time, in its day.

Yes, and then you look at the torque figures, which as we all know is what diesels, at least of that vintage, are all about...

Nova: 97lb/ft @ 2600rpm

205: 81lb/ft @ 2000rpm

-- JackH

From what i've read in places the nova TD is a fairly decent car, with the torquey engine giving fairly nifty performance. Up there with the SRs (wow) :)

Personally i'd say the 205 was a bit quicker than that. Isnt much slower than an XS in the 0-60 dash. Maybe thats just VTR optimism though, but thats not really what diesels are about anyway

Are you sure about that? 300cc down and 16ftlb up?

A look at Dervys datasheet says 67PS and 131Nm for the Nova; 78PS, and 157Nm for the 205. Bit more believable IMHO

Also, to Andrew the 205 TD puts out just under 80bhp, and it weighs at least

100kg under a tonne, so i'd say you power-weight figure is wrong.

Well I reckon in the midrange, it's as good as my GTE was, up to a point...

If you look at the owners reviews on Parkers, they're pretty consistent throughout all of them, with respect to owners raving about the performance, and whilst I know you have to make allowances for the Kev factor, they must be pretty good.

It's the rot that's the pisser on them.

Same with the Nova - I get the impression that both bed in well with a 100k or so on the clock.

Just over 120 on the flat was what I saw on the clock of mine... even taking speedo error into account, I reckon that's at least a genuine 112 to 114, and given they they book at 103mph officially, that's proof enough for me that its a much better performer than the figures on paper.

Well, officially... but then those of us that know otherwise beg to differ. ;-)

According to the Top Gear site, aye.

When I eventually get another Nova, you'll have to find a STDT, and we'll have an unofficial celebrity deathmatch at a set of lights of your choice. ;-D

-- JackH

Really? I tried - I mean, I really tried, but I just couldn't get it any lower.

*Bows to Carl's superior car-thrashing skills*

BTW, I've sort of lost track - what do you drive now? Am I right in thinking you tried to show a tree who's boss with the 205, or was it you who cooked the engine?

Andy

It was a J-reg, but it didn't have a cat.

Perhaps, but 0-60 isn't a very good measure of a TD's performance. I swapped straight from the Nova to the 205, and subjectively, it felt noticeably quicker.

That's the torque figure for the non-turbo pug diesel. The turbo (XUD7T) produces 118Lbft as stock, without intercooler (as in 205) and 135lbft as stock with intercooler (as in 405)

all the best, Andy

It depends how you measure it. It's normally measured with two (70Kg) people and a full tank of fuel - that's an increase of just under 200Kg over kerb weight, or more than 20%! Using an accelerometer, I measured the 0-60 time of my 205, and with me and my dad and a full tank of fuel, 0-60 was 11.7 secs. With just me, and a nearly empty tank of fuel, 0-60 was 9.6 secs (which I thought was pretty respectable :-)

Yup, (apologies for repetition) that is the torque figure for the non- turbo pug engine.

Er. Um. I had a figure of 985Kg, and 78 BHp. Dunno where I got that weight from. The GRD kerb weight is 890Kg, although the turbo is for some reason 20kg higher at 910Kg. Anyway, the (unladen) power to weight of the 205 is actually 86 Bhp/ton.

Andy

snip

Any relation to the Isuzu 1.7 in the horrible, horrible, horrible Cav TD???

I have every idea thanks.

I know of more than one Nova owner, and their reputation speaks volumes.

No problems.

Yup, I hadn't noticed. It's "trade" reputation concerns it's reliability and ease-to-work-on, not how good it is to drive.

Agreed.

He did both, and now has a 205 XS :)

Yup, Dervy's figures are right. The 205 makes PLENTY more torque and power - and it should, as it's a 1.8 ! It also makes it's torque lower-down.

Yes, it is.

I hate to admit I once owned one.

It was the biggest piece of shit I've ever owned (and that includes a 1.2 Nova once!). I really regretted buying that car more than any car before or since - slow, noisy, badly-built, handled like a big, floaty, wallowy bag of s**te (felt much bigger than it was) and its fuel consumption was far too high for a diesel. I had no feel-good factor from that car whatsoever!!!

I must admit though, I still just don't like diesels and, yes, I've driven a few of the new "super-duper-just-like-a-petrol" ones. They still feel slow. And noisy.

Sounds about right to me

ah i see

I would have said 90 as a rough guesstimate, so not too far out.

performance,

Indeed

Probably about the same for my D turbo

Pah, i'd take Dervy's figures :)

Sounds like a good idea :) But only if we can go out and do some lanes after. I'll give you a weight advantage by sticking my nav in my car, and you can *try* and follow ;)

OK, let me rephrase that: You have no real experience of how they drive...

I've had... hmm, about seven or eight of them now - every flavour going bar the 1.0, 1.4 and non turbo diesel - all overall, provided me with a fun, reliable, economical drive.

I compare this to the AXs, Clios, Metros, Fiestas, Corsas, and whatever else I've had in their relative class, over the years - all have their strengths and weaknesses.

I'm getting a Fiesta Mk3 Diesel next week - I've been unable to locate another Nova TD at the right price - no doubt that one won't meet with your expert approval either.

*sigh*

Yes, their reputation with the likes of yourself - in other words, given you've not owned one, null and void, ignorance in extremis.

Erm, no... that's two facades of it, the rest is regarding the performance and economy.

Anyway, I work as a courier... and I've had, as I've already mentioned many times, 2 Corsa TDs, powered by the same lump, both with over 200k on the clock, and still going strong.

So *personal* experience dictates that these are pretty good engines, having now owned three different motors with them in.

And none of the cars were bad to drive and live with, day in, day out, nor did they cost the earth to fix or run... unless of course your rad gets holed by a stone.

Go on, f*ck off and read up on the owner reviews on the Parkers website... :-P

-- JackH