I?ve now bought an ex-fleet car, it?s a May ?98 Peugeot 406 1.9 LXTD (£3,500).
I bought it direct from the company owner, having spoken to the user who?d had it from new and confirmed he?d had no problems. It?s done 77k miles and has full main dealer service history. I double checked with the dealership that the 72k service was the big one including the cam belt change.
Is there any additional maintenance recommended at this stage to aim to keep it in good health for the next few year???
Many thanks
PR
P.S. It does have air con - so I?ll let you know if it generates
|
The P.S. should say Ill let you know if it generates big bill!!
What was that about an edit button?
|
|
My xm 2.5td has the same discs as the pug and at 135000km show no signs of where,you often see them for sale wiith over 400000km my sisterinlaw has one thats now over 550000km same engine new clutch same discs,the secret gentle driving and lots of oil changes
|
|
|
|
Paul,
Make sure it is up to date with two yearly brake fluid and coolant changes. Don't assume if there is no proof.
Keep to a maximum of 6000 miles for oil change intervals. Use a decent semi-syn or TD oil.
Consider a gearbox oil drain and re-fill for the small cost involved.
Then enjoy one of the all time classic diesel engines.
David
|
|
|
Should be a very enjoyable car.
Follw HJ's advice on aircon, and DW is about right with the rest. Keep an eye on the brake disks, too. This car probably weighs about 1.4 tonnes and brake disks may need changing at 40K to 50K - so yours may be nearly due.
Ian
|
|
|
If thats what you call an all time classic Diesel engine I'd sure hate to drive what you would call a crap one.
I've done 170k miles in mine in 6 years(in a 405 estate),it had to be VanAackened to get it past Ladas,it still has no power below 2000 rpm,and has never exceeded 43 mpg.
It needed a head gasket at about 90k,for no good reason.
It is not as noisy as my otherwise much better Hdi110,although I should hesitate to call even that any sort of paragon,since its power and torque outputs are pitiful.
It probably makes the best of a bad job,and its day is past,I dont mind wishing it an R.I.P,but its going to do another 5 years before I do,whether it likes it or not!
In the 406,which I have driven a fair bit,it feels even more gutless,the 406 being stupendously heavy this is not surprising,but VA will deal with it for you for very little money,and I recommend them to you.
|
ROBIN,
I carefully used the term all time classic diesel because most people understand what that infers. Not the best car engine ever, not even the best diesel ever made but a very important one in the history of car diesels.
Before the introduction of the 1.7/1.9 XUD engines in the early eighties car diesels were absolute lorry engines. Just think of the 2.3 Peugeot engine fitted in the Sierra...the noise...the vibration....zero power....dreadful.
It is likely the XUD fitted to the BX was the real turning point, ordinary motorists looked at diesels for the first time and the rest is history.
The thing is they got the XUD right first time. I mean think of the other diesels about then. Ford 1.6 in the Fiesta, the Uno, Vauxhall and even VAG with their 1.6. They were all in the old school of diesels and virtually every commentator agreed the Cit/Pug was in a different class.
Then move the story on a few years to the first sight of a BX DTR TD, that was the final straw for the competitors. The turbo added immense torque while giving greater smoothness and less noise. The BX is quite a light car and the turbo installation was a little more "raw" in those early days giving a sharper response. A BX 1.7TD hatchback in top order today still has a very impressive 3/4/5th gear pull as the boost comes in.
When the Citroen ZX was introduced with the 1.9/1.9TD engine in the early eighties another diesel benchmark was established. Just one quote from Autocar "Takes family diesels onto a new plane" says it all.
The 1.9TD has now served across the makes and models as possibly the best regarded variant of these engines. They are reliable if maintained and economy is OK. My Xantia never drops below 43mpg and nearer 50mpg is possible. Yes they are a little slower in the larger bodies than the BX/ZX versions but all are capable of driving faster than the roads/conditions/law allows.
Take a 5yr old Peugeot 306 1.9TD with the slightly better chassis balance than the Citroens and you have as good a cross country vehicle as anything.
True there is littlepower below 2000 rpm but that is well compensated for by the dollop of torque from then on. In fact this is perfect for real world driving as you usually find yourself at the start of the torque curve in 4/5th when pulling out to overtake.
As for the torque of the 110HDi being pitiful, would this be the version with over 180lbft? Come on you needed a V8 not many years ago to get those sort of figures.
Nicely targeted wind up though!
David
|
> think of the 2.3 Peugeot engine fitted in the Sierra...the
> noise...the vibration....zero power....dreadful.
>
David,
that very combination was the first diesel I drove any distance, rental car on a long mainland Europe trip. Thinking back it's a good job I had an open mind, and did not use that one experience to forever banish diesel as an option.
Having said that the Belgians were highly amused at seeing a heavily loaded Sierra 2.3D Estate barreling round the Spa circuit. It was a VERY slow lap though!
Stuart
|
|
|
The technology to vastly improve the XUD had been around for half a century,all it needs is some more manifold pressure below 2000rpm,consequently I do not think PSA were trying hard enough.
Similarly,there is no reason the HDI 110 cannot be an HDI 130 or 140,with correspondingly more torque.Whilst flexible, it doesnt exactly push hard below 2000 rpm,as a 3 litre six might.This is because PSA have failed to fit a turbo with VIGV,or as some call it,variable geometry. The 2.2 version is even more pathetic,being new it should easily have been capable of 170 BHP and is thus way behind the game at birth.
PSA are worrying me ,they are no longer producing state of the art cars or engines,they are getting lazy and will thus become a takeover victim.
The XUD was indeed the best engine of its type for most of its life,but this was purely because the rest were execrable lumps of ill-designed pig iron which were never developed properly.
Typical of this is the direct injection Perkins engine in the Montego.
The only possible explanation for this horror was that it was drawn one day,mocked up the next and put into production straight away.The technology existed to make it much,much better,so why,oh why was it not used?
The same company spent years,and probably millions, failing to complete the project to dieselise the Rover V8,I think it was called the Everest project.
This surpasses all belief.The block is strong,but could easily be strengthened,Di diesel heads are so simple a kid could design one,and common rail injection is a bolt-on.So what was the big hold up here?
Perhaps they couldnt agree on the design of the rocker covers,or possibly there was some disagreement over what colour to paint it?
Perhaps someone who knows might tell us.
|
|
|
The technology to vastly improve the XUD had been around for half a century,all it needs is some more manifold pressure below 2000rpm,consequently I do not think PSA were trying hard enough.
Similarly,there is no reason the HDI 110 cannot be an HDI 130 or 140,with correspondingly more torque.Whilst flexible, it doesnt exactly push hard below 2000 rpm,as a 3 litre six might.This is because PSA have failed to fit a turbo with VIGV,or as some call it,variable geometry. The 2.2 version is even more pathetic,being new it should easily have been capable of 170 BHP and is thus way behind the game at birth.
PSA are worrying me ,they are no longer producing state of the art cars or engines,they are getting lazy and will thus become a takeover victim.
The XUD was indeed the best engine of its type for most of its life,but this was purely because the rest were execrable lumps of ill-designed pig iron which were never developed properly.
Typical of this is the direct injection Perkins engine in the Montego.
The only possible explanation for this horror was that it was drawn one day,mocked up the next and put into production straight away.The technology existed to make it much,much better,so why,oh why was it not used?
The same company spent years,and probably millions, failing to complete the project to dieselise the Rover V8,I think it was called the Everest project.
This surpasses all belief.The block is strong,but could easily be strengthened,Di diesel heads are so simple a kid could design one,and common rail injection is a bolt-on.So what was the big hold up here?
Perhaps they couldnt agree on the design of the rocker covers,or possibly there was some disagreement over what colour to paint it?
Perhaps someone who knows might tell us.
|
|
|
|
I am planning on buying a 406 next year (hopefully HDI model) I do a reasonably high annual mileage & intend to keep thea car for 4-5 years. What's good about them, bad about them. What should I watch out for ?
Any advice appreciated
Graham
|
|
|
|
