1992 Peugeot 405 Reviews

1992 Peugeot 405 Mi16 1.9 16v petrol from Finland

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2008
Most recent year of ownership2010
Engine and transmission 1.9 16v petrol Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 3 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired270000 kilometres
Most recent distance300000 kilometres
Previous carToyota Corolla

Summary:

Tons of faults, but very enjoyable to drive

Faults:

Rear brakes failed at 290 000.

Distributor failed at 290 000.

Clutch failed at 290 000.

Rear axle failed at 300 000, would cost me the price of the car, not worth it to repair.

Also doors won't lock/keep shut during winter, which is a pain.

General Comments:

Surprisingly comfortable when working. Also pretty decent acceleration, although the catalyst version is slightly slower than the non catalyst one. A very fun car to drive, but all the faults combined, it might not be worth it.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 29th November, 2010

30th Nov 2010, 08:19

The clutch failed after ~290000 km and 17 years, my oh my. Also, the distribution, which normally is changed on this model every five years or 120000 km, also failed...

The car is not reliable for sure.

1992 Peugeot 405 Mi16 1.9 16v DOHC from Australia and New Zealand

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2008
Most recent year of ownership2010
Engine and transmission 1.9 16v DOHC Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired150000 kilometres
Most recent distance160000 kilometres
Previous carFord Capri

Summary:

Great performance and handling for the age of the car

Faults:

Replaced distributor cap and rotor as it had never been replaced in 150000km!

Starter motor recon at 155000km.

General Comments:

Quick car if you keep the revs over 4k.

Superb handling and brakes.

Very comfortable with leather upholstery.

I love driving this car, and get out on the weekends for a fast drive out in the country or a quiet (ish) cruise around town.

With all the adverse comments I have heard about these cars, this car has proved very reliable, and I put it down to regular maintenance and not thrashing it until it is warmed up properly. Even at this mileage, the oil stays like new between 5k changes.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 8th January, 2010

1992 Peugeot 405 GRDT 1.9 turbo diesel from Austria

Model year1993
Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership1993
Most recent year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 1.9 turbo diesel Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 3 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.6 / 10
Distance when acquired12 kilometres
Most recent distance242000 kilometres
Previous carPeugeot 405

Summary:

Nice family car with small faults

Faults:

Clutch - juddering.

Cylinder head gone - internal corrosion.

Wheel bearings at the front several times.

Rear axle: swing arm-bearings.

Cooling system: several leaks and a new radiator.

Fire in the engine bay due to an improperly laid wiring loom - construction/factory fault.

Front discs have short life, no matter whether original or aftermarket parts used.

General Comments:

Comfortable, roomy, quiet. Very good roadholding; overall fuel consumption 7,2 litres per 100km.

Went absolutely trouble-free until it reached 170000km.

Sadly dealers often not state-of-the-art. Better repair it at home with the aid of a Haynes manual and some friends :-)

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 15th October, 2008

1992 Peugeot 405 GLDT 1.9 turbo diesel from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2007
Most recent year of ownership2007
Engine and transmission 1.9 turbo diesel Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired110000 miles
Most recent distance115000 miles
Previous carToyota Celica

Summary:

Great cheap barge driving

Faults:

Radio flap spring gone, closes when going over bumps etc.

Windows going a bit slow.

Air-con doesn't work (but bought it like this)

Speedometer wobble and tachometer intermittently working.

Oil leak from unknown source (only small drip)

General Comments:

I needed a cheap family car as my other car was too small. I'm renovating a house, I need to put 3 meter pieces of wood in the car..

It does all the above beautifully.

Driving position is good if you put the chair at highest position. Steering is good, precise and predictable. Seats really comfortable. Interior looks hard wearing and no signs of wear on the seats or anywhere inside.

Being an estate car, you'd think it'd be boaty to drive, but the complete opposite. It handles better than some of the more sporty cars I have owned. Can push the car quite hard and it continues to grip. When it finally lets go, it understeers, but very recoverable.

Acceleration is something else that surprised me somewhat. It's slow off the mark, puffs a bit when revved hard, but when you're moving and the turbo kicks in, the performance is surprising. It sure does surprise other folks on the road! Motorway cruising is great as with the extra poke from the turbo you can keep up with all the big boy cars on the road with ease.

Won't go on about boot space, it's massive!

Rear seat room is excellent, can get 4/5 adults in the car without complaining too much.

Overall, it's a pleasure to drive, and very easy - lovely gear box. Feels well built and strong.

Shame it's got a bit of a painter and decorator stigma attached to it.. bit dated. Saying that, I'd have another one, great little big car!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 28th November, 2007

20th Dec 2007, 13:57

I had five of these and loved them, but my 406 2.1 diesel is better; more miles per gallon (50), more comfortable, and the controls are lighter (I mean the clutch, brake and throttle).

10th Jul 2008, 08:54

Ah, I wrote the original review and sadly had to scrap the car as it failed it's mot...didn't need tons but needed more than the average and didn't make it viable...

Watch out for under body rot on these cars... but other than that, served me very well, one of the bestest cars I've ever had! ;-)

M

p.s. only cost me £80 for 17k miles - perfect!

Average review marks: 7.6 / 10, based on 28 reviews