30th Jun 2002, 13:53
I'd like to know a bit more about the faults as I've just gone and bought an '88 CTi.
7th Sep 2003, 11:49
I've just bought an 89 'gti' 1.9 and its great. I've replaced the whole exhaust system and replaced the cold start. apart from that its fun fast and handles like a dream.
27th Mar 2005, 07:55
Can I remind the enlightened individual who commented above that Peugeot are actually a French company, not a British one, and that the 205 GTi model to which the review applies in fact makes 130 hp not 45? As a British citizen and employed in our globally reknowned motorsport industry, without which neither the "American" IndyCar or Champ Car series would exist in their present form at all, I find this viewpoint somewhat puzzling.
Can I also politely suggest that he gains some experience of road conditions outside the US (yes, such places really do exist) before dismissing a nation's cars as "crappy"? 320hp and garden roller tyres (sorry, tires) or not, I suspect his Camaro would be even more of a joke on a typical twisty, challenging British B-road as that 45 hp 205 would on the wide, straight, smooth US tarmac. Acknowledge that different road conditions in different countries favour different types of car. Acknowledge that outside the US, straightline speed and raw BHP count for little in terms of making a car quick in the real world.
Basically, in the nicest and most respectful terms possible, can you at least make it sound like you have some experience of the wider world before abusing it?
12th Jul 2006, 18:01
As an American, I would agree with the July 12, 2004 comment.
45 horsepower for ANY car is bad, and after checking out the Peugeot specifications, it seems that few of those cars can go from 0-60 in under 10 seconds. It's hard to find new American cars which are that slow.
But as someone said, in Britain many of the roads are probably very twisty, unlike American interstate highways, and power isn't what counts.
Having said that, after driving my vehicle, which has over 400hp, it would be hard for me to get used to such low horsepower. And the talk about how unreliable American cars are is simply hype. Some car magazines are very biased against our cars and people read that, and then decide that American cars are therefore unreliable. If you look in other sections of this site, there are also many problems with other car makers, including Lexus, Acura, Honda and Toyota. And European car makers are well known for their bad reliability, and over-priced status symbol cars.
13th Jul 2006, 11:20
Come on, get real, so it has 400 BHP, show it a corner and it'll be crying. It is no good having a 400 BHP car if it can't handle.
26th Jul 2006, 03:40
On the right roads, and in full flow, very little will pull away from a well driven and healthy 205 GTI 1.9. That even includes "exotica" such as Porsches, Ferraris and Astons. Even French car hating Clarkson admitted as much when he revisited one recently and punted around some Welsh mountain roads. He clearly stated several times that nothing he'd ever driven would be quicker on those roads. A very significant statement from a man whose car ownership history includes an Escort RS Cosworth, a Ferrari F355, a Mercedes AMG SL55 and a new Ford GT.
The principles behind this are not rocket science. Most American cars that have "twice the power" of this car also have twice the weight (and three times the engine size). Combined with a complete lack of understanding of chassis dynamics (the second commenter is quite right when he/she says that American motorsport relies heavily on British chassis expertise), the average Brit finds the average American car generally quite fast in a straight line, but hopeless everywhere else.
If I was in America, that Camaro might make sense, but I'm not. It would be annihilated by this little French car on my drive home from work.
5th Jan 2007, 16:51
What Clarkson says (to me at least) doesn't hold much sway, because he seems to hate anything that isn't from Germany or England. Take American cars, it doesn't matter how good our cars are, he ALWAYS says they're junk. He's on That BBC top gear, which is really a joke (albeit entertaining) because when they drive American cars... well lets just say they are VERY biased against them.
And it may be true that our cars are twice as heavy, but that still doesn't explain why they're faster. Most european cars (aka those ugly little hatchbacks that people over there love so much) are really slow! I mean with the size of engines they use, I'm not really surprised. But I guess with the way our roads are, bigger, faster more comfortable cars are the way to go.
Oh and another good thing about our cars is that you can get a high performance one for under 70k! Sure you can compare a BMW M5 to a 5.7 Camaro, but can you get one for the same price as the Camaro? No, because to get a new high performance car in Europe you have to pay a lot more!
5th Jan 2007, 23:32
I completely agree that different countries need different vehicle types. My problem is just that Europeans just pass off our cars as junk when really they're very good for our country. That's why I get annoyed with snooty, biased people like Clarkson.
And by the way, on average European cars are more unreliable then American ones! That's a commonly known fact, I'm surprised you didn't know that, not to mention they have outrageous maintence costs.
Actually I watched Clarkson's new movie too, and how can you possibly take it seriously? That's the one where they compare how fast an Ariel Atom goes around a track compared to a Dodge Ram Hemi! Come on, how stupid of a comparison is that?! They also race a Chrysler 300 against a V10 BMW that's twice as expensive! Give me a break!! Clarkson is a complete moron if he makes thinks anyone is going to take those comparisons seriously!
And as far as the 205 Poogot, I really have no idea about how good of a car it is, I'm sure it's great for England, but how can you say the Camaro has bad brakes and even worse handling, or is a worse gas guzzler then a M5? Have you ever driven one? I doubt it.
6th Jan 2007, 10:30
'And by the way, on average European cars are more unreliable then American ones!'
I doubt this, but even if were true, it's only because many American cars have the technology of a 1970's European car, and therefore have less that can go wrong with them.
As Clarkson said when reviewing the Ford GT, American engineers need to test their cars in a gorge in the south of France, then not only would they realise what a corner is, but also how poor their cars are.
7th Jan 2007, 00:31
American cars are more reliable, but the European brands are doing better then they were (which is good).
As far as American cars having technology from European cars from the '70's, I frankly find that comment laughable. You obviously don't know anything about our cars. First of all, they are advanced, maybe not overly complicated like european brands, but advanced enough. You've probably never heard of On Star and XM satellite radio and auto track and the stuff we use.
And you'd have to explain to me why automotive designers for American cars should test cars in France. Why would we do that?! We're not designing our cars for France! Did you consider that maybe America isn't like Europe? We have mostly straight wide interstate freeways and don't need a tight suspension with a jarring ride for going around corners in France! Our cars don't go to France! And we don't like their Perrier either!