|
If ride comfort is your priority, then I'd be looking at the wheels and tyres before whether or not it is a 8v or 16v. Smaller diameter wheels with 'taller' tyres are going to give a better ride than larger diameter low profile tyres. With regards to 8v or 16v, in my experience n/a 16v engines don't offer any performance benefits over the 8v until you are well over 3000rpm. In fact, I remember years ago trying an 8v golf gti and then a 16v version right after. The 8v version actually felt stronger at lower revs, whereas the 16v only came alive above 3500rpm. So, by all means try them both if you get the opportunity, but personally, given your mileage, and ride comfort priority, I really wouldn't bother too much about specifically finding a 16v.
A couple of other things, Citroën's do tend to be a bit more softly sprung than their rivals, but that doesn't always translate into a more comfortable ride so make sure you take it for a good test drive. Also, Citroën seats seem to have a bit of a marmite effect, some people love them while others hate them. From what I have read, it seems like they are very soft, which, if you only do short journeys, will probably be fine. But on a longer journey, a more firmly sprung seat would be better.
|
|
Agree with the above. If you have a back problem, supportive seats are at least as important as a comfortable ride.
Volvos have some of the best seats in the business, so have a look at a V40. Also, I couldn't find much to tempt me with the Nissan Pulsar and Qashqai, but both do have, to my mind, very comfortable seats.
You haven't told us your budget, but these have all been around for some time so hopefully something will be manageable.
Edited by Avant on 28/06/2017 at 01:20
|
|
Thanks to all for their replies. Unfortunately, other parameters prevail. My wife will be the main driver and has determined that the car should be small, cheap, quick and, for reasons that escape me, have a small bonnet. A V40 would be my ideal choice but I can't imagine that it would be considered as even the C3 is seen as a little too big and 'swoopy'. The Pulsar is smaller but too new for the preferred budget. I'll certainly try to bag a longer test drive - perhaps the 8v (of which there are many) might not be too interminable to drive after all.
|
|
Without wishing to throw a spanner in the works, the 16v and 8v engines are quite different to drive.
The 8v dates back to the Xsara, ZX and Peugeot 206 and is a bit wheezy.
The 16v is the much newer VTi engine as fitted to the Peugeot 308 and later models of the 207 and the Mini One (2006 on)
It is a little short of grunt at lower revs but still has more torque than the 8v, and is almost turbine smooth when you rev it.
Agree with the comments about the old Golf 8v vs.16v but that's not a good comparison and dates back 25 years!
|
Without wishing to throw a spanner in the works, the 16v and 8v engines are quite different to drive.
The 8v dates back to the Xsara, ZX and Peugeot 206 and is a bit wheezy.
The 16v is the much newer VTi engine as fitted to the Peugeot 308 and later models of the 207 and the Mini One (2006 on)
It is a little short of grunt at lower revs but still has more torque than the 8v, and is almost turbine smooth when you rev it.
Agree with the comments about the old Golf 8v vs.16v but that's not a good comparison and dates back 25 years!
You aren't throwing a spanner in the works, that the 8v and 16v drive different is the jist of what I said. Indeed the raw figures bear this out. At 3000rpm the 8v is making around 50PS, the 16v is making around 54PS. The 8v produces it's maximum 87 lb/ft of torque at 3300rpm while the 16v is making about 96 lb/ft at the same rpm. So very little difference at sensible revs. Add to this the fact that the 16v, spec for spec, weighs around 45kg more than the equivalent 8v and that difference shrinks even more.
I do take issue with your comments about the 8v though. From 2003-2006 we ran a Peugeot partner combi with that same 1360cc 75bhp petrol engine and it was smooth and responsive, certainly not 'wheezy'. And while it wouldn't win many traffic light grand prix, it didn't feel underpowered. Not even when I drove it from our home in North East Scotland to Coventry for my Sister in Law's wedding.
By the way, I have driven other 8v/16v versions of cars, I used the golf as an extreme example because it was the only one where the 8v actually felt stronger at lower rpm, instead of the same (which I have found is usually the case)
|
I do take issue with your comments about the 8v though. From 2003-2006 we ran a Peugeot partner combi with that same 1360cc 75bhp petrol engine and it was smooth and responsive, certainly not 'wheezy'. And while it wouldn't win many traffic light grand prix, it didn't feel underpowered. Not even when I drove it from our home in North East Scotland to Coventry for my Sister in Law's wedding.
I delivered lots of these and agree that the petrol engine in the Berlingo/Partner was a good little unit with decent low engine spped torque, but PSA cars with the same engine did not have the same grunt, they might have been better at high revs but seriously lacking at low revs, definately set up differently in the vans, the vans/multispaces were almost impossible to stall, the cars however would stall at the drop of a hat.
|
|
|
|
Thanks to all for their replies. Unfortunately, other parameters prevail. My wife will be the main driver and has determined that the car should be small, cheap, quick and, for reasons that escape me, have a small bonnet. A V40 would be my ideal choice but I can't imagine that it would be considered as even the C3 is seen as a little too big and 'swoopy'. The Pulsar is smaller but too new for the preferred budget. I'll certainly try to bag a longer test drive - perhaps the 8v (of which there are many) might not be too interminable to drive after all.
Something else which has just occurred to me, why just the 8v and 16v versions of the 1.4?. You also got a 1.6 petrol with 118bhp. I mention this because I see from this post that your wife also wants 'quick'.
Regarding the short bonnet, I'd have thought the obvious answer there is because it will make it easier to park.
|
|
|
|
Agree with the above. If you have a back problem, supportive seats are at least as important as a comfortable ride.
Volvos have some of the best seats in the business, so have a look at a V40. Also, I couldn't find much to tempt me with the Nissan Pulsar and Qashqai, but both do have, to my mind, very comfortable seats.
You haven't told us your budget, but these have all been around for some time so hopefully something will be manageable.
Whilst I didn't test-drive one, I did sit in a Pulsar at the dealership when looking around for a new car (decided against changing at present) back around Jan/Feb. The driver's seat was nice, but I found, quite surprisingly for a car of that size, that the steering wheel was offset quite a bit, more than my Mazda3 and more than my old (mid 90s) Micra. That could make a large difference if you have back problems (like me), as if you are twisted when driving, it puts much more of a strain on the back and will be uncomfortable at best, maybe giving really bad problems with your back at worst.
I also find that having a left foot rest is a must for me for comfort on long journeys. One of the reasons why I didn't choose the early-mid 2000s Honda Civic (no foot rest - not sure why), though the Jazz did have one. Oddly enough, the Volvo V40 doesn't have a footrest either, something that really surprised me from a manufacturer that takes ergonomics more seriously than most.
|
|
|
|
|
