Peugeot Forums banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi

I'm new to the forum, although I've had my 306 for nearly a year now.

I'm looking for a 407 SW, about 2005/2006 I can't decide on the 2.0 or the 1.6.

I know the obvious - rcheaper road tax, better mpg, better insurance, maybe...

I have only had the oportunity to test drive the 2.0 which was great, I'm not sure of the 1.6 will be a little under powered?

Any opinions at all will be greatfully recieved...

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,377 Posts
2 litre every time 1.6 is under a lot of strain making the 110hp and pulling such a big car

None are totaly reliable but the 2 litre is better in terms of being able to fix it except the turbo its a mission :)
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I'd go for 2ltr every time.

They seem to have less turbo issues.

Try to get a an x line or zenith less issues around dpf.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,067 Posts
I'd go for 2ltr every time.

They seem to have less turbo issues.

Try to get a an x line or zenith less issues around dpf.
seconded :thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
Depends if fuel economy is a big issue for you? I have owned a 1.6 saloon and now a 2.0 and I do miss the frugality of the 1.6. Do you want to justify a 26bhp increase for a larger fuel consumption.less issues with the dpf as in a 1.6 you can feel the car wanting to regenerate and you can actively keep the car on the road so it will complete the regen. I can't feel it on the 2.0 163. The only thing I found with the 1.6 is that it misses a 6th gear
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
are the x line or zenith not fitted with a dpf?
i thought they just had a better spec rather than any mechanical changes
Aren't 100% sure on the later models but the early one's are without dpf.

Any you look at get the vin number and we can tell you what is/isn't fitted.

I know Seb has had both also and I'm sure he prefers the 2ltr.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,067 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
That's what I was thinking I do not think his car is working properly :)
yeah it wasn't working right, dpf was in need of some heat but it seems to pull alright now and no fault codes, it's still faster than my dads v70 (same engine)
but it's not as quick as my polo but the fuel economy is substantially better (42mpg).

so how well do the rhr engines take to a remap and dpf deletion?
just want to know as i might go down this path in the near future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I'd go for 2ltr every time.

They seem to have less turbo issues.

Try to get a an x line or zenith less issues around dpf.
Ok, stupid question time.... X line??? Zenith???? Are these models? I was looking predominantly at the SE.....

A few people have mentioned DPF issues, the 2.0 is less likely to have issues?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Depends if fuel economy is a big issue for you? I have owned a 1.6 saloon and now a 2.0 and I do miss the frugality of the 1.6. Do you want to justify a 26bhp increase for a larger fuel consumption.
What kind of difference is there, as you've had both?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
464 Posts
S is the bobby basic - SE is the "common one" (and I just bought one) with the alloys, and glass roof along with some other toys - X-Line adds leather interior - Zenith is to of the range bar one (the executive) with heated electric seats and more toys again.

This is NOT a definitive list but I really wanted a Zenith but got the SE crash damaged for a cracking price so I relented.

As regards the 2.0 or the 1.6 - the 1.6 has huge turbo issues if anyone has ever put 10w40 oil into them (which happens WAY too often - "diesel oil is diesel oil, right?") The 2.0 is only fractionally more expensive to insure (well it was for me anyway) but you get a lump more engine for your money - the 1.6 comes with 110 hp stock and can be tweaked up to the mid 130's (ask bettyswollocks) - the 2.0 is 136 stock and will happily go up to the high 160's.

For me, once I'd done my research, there was no question - lose a little fuel economy (which you can get most of back with a remap if you bother) and you get more reliability, flexibility etc.

2.0 MPG is probably better on the long hauls, with the 6th gear - if not better I bet it's comparable. If you're doing lots of slow round the town stuff, you might benefit from the 1.6 but you'll be forever getting regen cycles which will eat into the MPG....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
What kind of difference is there, as you've had both?
Real world driving. About 8 mpg in the difference . My 2.0 is the new 163bhp so I find I tend to push it on abit more than I would in the 1.6 ,it is also more frugal than the oldr 2.0.I definitly would not have upgraded from the 1.6 to the older 2.0. But the newer engine I felt I could justify gaining 53 extra bhp for a for a little less economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
it is also more frugal than the oldr 2.0.I definitly would not have upgraded from the 1.6 to the older 2.0. But the newer engine I felt I could justify gaining 53 extra bhp for a for a little less economy.
Am I right in saying the 'older' ones are pre 2008? If so I'm not looking that new... I onjly have around 3-4k to spend.

I'm sorry guys I know very little....:confused:
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top