Is their opinion of it as 'awful' to be believed? It doesn't really accord with HJ's opinion.
Is a road test carried out in a city, at an average of about 10 mph, a fair test anyway? Given that it was the 1.6 HDI, it was probably still tight but it should have more than enough power for a car of that size, even allowing for the fact that it is much bigger than a 206. A Xantia with only 90 bhp was OK.
|
I had the misfortune to be in the back of a 407 recently. Driver was average height and I was drastically short of legroom in the rear. I couldn't get my feet under the driver's seat. I can't remember being in a car like that before. It made the rear legroom crippling.
Then there's that ugly corporate nose they all have. I've driven a small 206 estate thing - the seat's were crippling and I've never seen such a cheap interior. Anything else?- ooh yes, a run out 306 tarted up with every conceivable extra, every one of them from the pound shop and interior panel gaps that you could hide a body in.
Buy a Peugot? No chance.
JH
|
I think the reason it got rated as rubbish is because of several key things. Supermini's are no longer mini. Peugeot (and FIAT and Renault) are extremely happy to go on about how their new superminis have grown - but in my mind, they've grown disproportionately to how much space has been gained. The 207 is snug in the back, especially without sports seats, and the Grande Punto doesn't feel much bigger than it's predecessor - not been in a Clio, so can't comment. But worse than this, is that superminis haven't just grown in size, they've grown substantially in price. Now you're expected to pay about £9,000 for a basic (and very slow) 207. The FIAT competitor (though not as high up on perceived quality) is definately more fun and has genuine character, and starts (with similar performance) for about £1,500 less. I know this is to incorporate the new "mini" contenders into a brand's product positioning, but they're actually too small (or at least the 107 with it's teeny tiny boot is) to be realistic for most with, again the exception of the Panda. I never thought I'd see the day I put a FIAT higher on my wish-list than a Peugeot (I admit, bit of a snob) but that day has well and truly come.
What kept the 206 selling was that it looked good, and I felt the 207 only has this in 3dr guise. Even then, I can see it looking dated quickly as it's basic lines are 206, which is nearly a decade old now. The one James May drove was priced at the same price as an HDi equipped Focus - far more spacious, and better to drive, even if it doesn't get a fragrance diffuser - and I believe similar in performance...
|
|
|
|
|
300 lbs heavier than the 206 and the same engine - it is going to be a snail!
|
|
best fill up with shell then ;)
|
|
|
300 lbs heavier than the 206 and the same engine - it is going to be a snail!
The 110 bhp 1.6 HDI has a claimed top speed of 120 mph and a 0-60 mph time of about 11 seconds. Not my idea of a snail.
|
|
|
|
I have driven 3 different versions 1.4 Petrol, 1.4 HDi & 1.6 HDi in three different trim levels. The car is an improvement without any doubt over the 206.
Rather than rely on TG hearsay why not actually try one at a dealer and make up your own mind?
--
Was Charles {P} but someone c o p i e d my name with spaces.
|
|
The only things that appeal about any of current Peugeots are the PSA/Ford diesel engines and even those are better in a Ford, Volvo or Jag.
|
|
I do agree that it is expensive, for what it is.
|
The FIAT competitor (though not as high up on perceived quality) is definately more fun and has genuine character, and starts (with similar performance) for about £1,500 less.
I would never perceive the Punto as being of lower quality than the 207. I know FIAT take a bashing, but if I was choosing a small car, I would definately go for a Punto over a 207. My neighbour has just bought a new Grande Punto; it looks superb. Unfortunately, can't ask him what it's like as we've 'had a bit of a falling out' :-)
--
let me be the last to let you down....
|
Whenever mention is made of the current Peugeot family 'nose', the line trotted out is that they look that way to comply with pedestrian safety legislation. How come then, that other manufacturers can still produce new cars that have front ends that don't look clumsy and out of proportion to the rest of the car?
S6 1SW
|
|
I agree, I cannot get to like it at all. It does look out of proportion, especially when compared to a Citroen C4, for example.
|
Regardless of whether Top Gear think it's any good or not why would anybody pay 12/13/14 grand or so for a 207 when that sort of money buys a multitude of alternatives that are bigger, better, faster, more interesting and not French?
Then there's the factory closure issue.
And if you still fancy buying one remember that it's a Peugeot and will, therefore, break.
I had the misfortune to have a 206 as a courtesy car recently while the wife's car was being repaired. I have to say I've never seen anything so cheap, nasty and uncomfortable in my life. And it was quite a high spec model too with lots of toys.
It was so awful I almost contemplated walking!!! God forbid I even thought about getting a bus!!!!
|
|
For what that 207 Top Gear test car cost you could easily get a bigger Focus or a Golf, Both much better cars.
|
|
What on earth went wrong for Peugeot? The 205 was a brilliant car at sensible prices, and remarkably reliable too ... but things seem to have been sliding downhill ever since.
|
mmm, that seems true NW. Peugeot was always supposed to be Citroens more superior brother since its takeover in the 1970s, but quite frankly, I could never really see how. Yes, Peugeots were relatively rugged, but otherwise very dull, mediocre cars while Citroens had more style and technology. The same could be said right this very day, if they hadn't lost the ability to be called rugged.
After all, TG only gave an opinion, which (most of the time) wont match your own. Like what has already been mentioned, try it for yourself.
|
|
'fragrance diffuser' - ye gods...
|
Having had the misfortune of driving a 206 1.4 "Verve" (the mother of all misnomers) hire car last year, the idea of this engine pulling a few hundred more kilos fills me with horror. I saw a 207 on the road only yesterday and it is truly huge. It looks almost 307 sized from the back.
Even in the 206, the 1.4 engine was dangerously slow, with a truly horrid drive-by-wire throttle which only seemed to register pedal movement changes about once a second. Granted it helped in a way that the thing was so flat and breathless because the throttle was invariably mashed into the carpet, but what a dreadful engine to use. It made my Mondeo TD feel gutsy! I did always have a bit of respect for the 206 chassis though which still had a little of the traditional Peugeot lift off oversteer and general dynamic finesse. I suspect that has been well and truly "dialled out" on the 207.
The 205 and 306 rate among my all time favourite "affordable" cars, but I now consider Peugeots to be bloated, over complex and nothing special to drive. Certainly that has been true of the 307 and 407, and I see no reason why the 207 should be any different. Tragic when you consider the dynamically excellent and mechanically tough cars they were producing ten years ago (106, 306, 405/6)
Cheers
DP
|
most of the 207 engine range is slow and old technology.
The 207 is over priced in my opinion - £9k upwards is way to much to spend on a average euro supermini - and pegeout dealers are not renowned for giving discounts. fiat punto looks better, drives better, better engines and priced more keenly. And it will be as reliable/un-reliable.
The troubles in work people have had with their 307's is enough to put me of buying a peugeot for a few years until they drastically improve their reliability.
I ve also sat in the back of a 406 - it reminded me of a rover 75 - as being a bit cramped.
when i got to drive it - i thought the suspension was great for motorways, but the handling was not so great when i found some A roads.
Anyway - when are we going to see these cheap 206's?
I just cant see them seling many unless they price them below the 107 - and compete with the likes of kia and chevrolet.
|
|
Funnily enough I had a 206 1.4 verve as a courtesy car for almost a week. Although it only had 2000 miles on it all the controls were kind of floppy and imprecise, to the extent that reverse was v tricky to find. Going back to my 76000 mile, 6 year old Focus was almost a shock because the pedal travel was so short in comparison.
|
|
It's funny you should say that because the 206 referred to above had the longest travel clutch I've ever used. The biting point was just before the pedal was fully let out and was consequently very difficult to drive smoothly. I can't have stalled a car in years until I drove that heap. And the pedals were offset so it was really uncomfortable. Horrible floppy gearchange. Hard nasty plastic. Just horrible.
|
You should be thankful you didn't learn to drive in one - a 1.1 model as well!
I distinctly remember a short strech of dual carriageway that made up part of the test route. You were supposed to get up towards the legal limit to show the tester that you could 'make progress' - in reality with an overweight tester in the passenger seat it was impossible to get above 55 before it was time to start braking!
|
Another irritating thing - the universal joint on the steering column rubbed against the toe of my left foot whenever I pressed the clutch down. Admittedly, I'm a size 10 shoe, but never had it in any other car.
And then there's the offset pedal box and the LHD wipers.....
Cheers
DP
|
|
For what that 207 Top Gear test car cost you could easily get a bigger Focus or a Golf, Both much better cars.
And you could get a C4 too.
|
|
|
|
|
