Thanks..I did!
It was in his usual style, typically covering 4 long columns of ramble before getting to the point of the exercise. He indicates it is likely to suffer regular breakdowns, but was coplimentary to its ride, equipment and style.
I just wondered if this hint of unreliability is historical, or has it been misreported? Are newer Peugeots any better than older models?...in the same way that Ford and Vauxhall have upped their quality?
|
If it is the only car that feels right for you, it may be fair enough to go with it.
However - a new model is always an unknown quantity as far as reliability goes. Perhaps people with good technical knowledge can spot whether a car is likely to be reliable or not as soon as it has come off the production line, just by going over it with a fine tooth comb - but if so, I've yet to hear about it.
As I guess you know, Peugeot generally come in at the wrong end of the reliability league tables. That said, I suspect that in practice these days, there is not a huge amount of difference between the those in the top half of the table and those in the bottom half. There are plenty of Peugeot owners who are happy - but a look at the JD Power satisfaction surveys indicates that owners of other makes are more likely to be.
|
Have a look at the Car-by-Car Breakdown for the 406, and also see here: www.topgear.com/content/my_topgear/duffers/D2/B4/1.../
it's basically the same car.
I've had several 405/406's as company cars. Currently have a 406 Exec estate. It's a very nice drive and I *love* all the toys - elec heated memory leather seats etc, but I'm *really* glad it's not my car. I've had a lot of problems with it but the most frustrating thing is that the neither the dealer nor Peugeot apparently could give a toss. I feel a lot of it in my case is that the dealer is hopeless, but Peugeot seem to have had a lot of problems with parts availability this year.
I have similar concerns about Audi and I emailed them to say I was thinking about buying an Audi but was concerned by horror stories I'd read. Of course I got the usual bland reply but I felt better that I had something in writing and the name of a customer service manager. I still can't bring myself to commit , though.
It's not available as an auto, but you could look at the Honda Accord. I'm keen to get an auto too, but I had an Accord diesel for 3 days as corporate demo and it's a beautifully smooth / easy drive. It's also only 5 speed (but the engine pulls over a wide range), where most others are 6 speed, so there's less gearchanging. 3rd gear seemed to do almost everything.
|
>but Peugeot seem to have had a lot of problems with parts >availability this year.
Solved now and a new warehouse extension is underway.
|
>but Peugeot seem to have had a lot of problems with parts >availability this year. Solved now and a new warehouse extension is underway.
Still took a week to get spark plugs for my H*P*i engine about a month ago (they're 'special'). I had that 'they'll be in tomorrow' thing for several days. In the end they got them from another dealer.
|
The dealer you originally went to should have tried other dealers in the area if they were doing their job properly.
|
|
|
|
Good to see someone not being seduced by so called premium brands, that being said I would have reservations about current Peugeot's, they don't fare well in reliability ratings or for dealer satisfaction. Might be better off with a Citroen which is afterall a Peugeot with character or certainly a Renault though I dont think the Laguna comes as a diesel auto.
Ford are the ones that have really improved in respect of reliability ratings etc, they are rated well above BMW, VW, Audi etc, I have an '02 Mondeo GHia X TDCi 130, now 83k miles, which has not been trouble free though has been great to drive, for 20k you could get a Ghia X 2.0 TDCi 130 "tiptronic" auto, very well equipped as standard with a few quid to spend on the odd extras you might want, i.e. Xenons etc.
|
|
|
JC is referring to Peugeot's standing in the reliability stakes which is admittedly hasn't been good recently.
Diesel auto's are a bit of mixed bag, loads of torque doesn't work too well on standard auto's as the torque converter has extra work to do. This equates to a large leap in emissions.
DSG box on VAG group cars does appear to give the best of both, emissions as low as manual cars and acceleration is actually quicker for a lot of DSG cars.
If you want an auto, this is probably the best solution around at the moment.
I'm pleased with my Accord diesel but auto isn't an option.
|
Take a look here: tinyurl.com/68bm7 CD Bramall in Stourbridge has an 04 plate Executive HDi auto in silver for £15,995 with 8k on the clock.
As for reliability - my car is a 406 1.9 TD LX from the car's first month on sale with 104k up. In the four months and 8k miles that I have had it, I have had to replace an indicator bulb. That's it, apart from a service with an oil change. I blame French electrics :-)
|
|
|
|
Turbo Diesel engine characteristics are well suited to autos, while I would generally choose a manual many diesel autos are great cars. Yes, as with petrol cars the torque converter reduces efficiency and increases CO2 though for some this is a price worth paying.
|
One of the times my 406 was off the road (with HPi engine problems) I was given a 607 2.2HDi Auto for about a month. As a 'wafting' car I thought it was fabulous, in a 'it's really a naff car' kind of way. I drove it like a chauffeur and the trip computer showed over 40MPG (mostly motorway stuff, where the engine was doing under 2000RPM at 70MPH). I also had a Mondeo TDCi auto and that took a big hit on fuel consumption.
One thing with diesel auto's is they can have a big delay on take-off. Pulling on to fast roundabouts etc can be nightmare (the Mondeo was quite bad for that, and then its pick up was vicious). I didn't notice a problem with the 607, but it might be worth trying the exact car you're thinking of buying.
|
|
|
Sorry Cheddar - have to disagree with you,
I've always been aware of the exponential hike in emissions with auto diesels but this link explains it well.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=11847
|
Sorry Cheddar - have to disagree with you, I've always been aware of the exponential hike in emissions with auto diesels but this link explains it well. www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=11847
Not quite sure what you are disagreeing with me on, the point about emissions or whether a TD suits an auto box?
To clarify my point, I prefer manuals however the high torque characteristics of a TD do suit a auto well (of course some are better than others) I mean this in respect of drivability, not emissions, I agree that auto TD's are less economical than manuals and produce higher emissions.
|
Cheddar,
a little of both.
Low down torque doesn't sit well with torque converters - they are more efficient at higher revs.
Mondeo 2.0 petrol and diesel engines are a good example.
2.0 petrol - autobox is 16% less efficient than the manual
2.0 diesel - autobox is 23% less efficient than the manual
The diesel might feel better in terms of driveability but in reality the torque converter slipping at low revs is sapping the available power.
|
|
|
|
as with petrol cars the torque converter reduces efficiency and increases CO2
am I right in thinking that CVT autos don't have this problem?
|
Fleet News have one on long term test. Its developed two faults in 8,000 miles - a faulty door lock and problem with the depollution system (?) which meant a long wait for a part.
Quote
'the dealer has told us we can still drive the car without causing further problems and they?ll call when the part comes in.
Despite this, any problem with a car can make the driver nervous and I wouldn?t want to trust it on a long journey regardless of any official reassurances.'
Apart from these faults they seem to like the car, nice ride and plenty of boot space. Niggly faults can quickly become a pain - a neighbour had a 307 which was constantly in and out of the dealership for similar small faults and ECU error messages. He has nor traded for a Toyota!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
