Buy a 106 GTi and be a sensible person simultaneously?

[BadBanshee]

Given the age of the 106 GTi and given that 2013 is nearly upon us (unless you're from somewhere in South America) can the 106 GTI still be a sensible ownership proposition?

I know this is a French car forum but let's be honest, older French cars aren't exactly reliable are they? However, for someone who wants a lightweight quick tiny-hatch with the spirit of the legendary warm hatches of old, is anybody prepared to say they would rather spend their hard earned cash on a 106 GTi over, say, a Lupo GTI.

If I forsake my facade of maturity what I'm really saying is: 106 GTI vs Lupo GTI... FIGHT!!!

[Noesph]

There not as unreliable has everyone makes out, In very nearly 6 years of ownership the only things that have needed replacing are just general wear and tear items like tyres, brake pads, one light bulb, a new horn and washer pump, and a exhaust backbox (and most of that was me being a bit picky and changing things that just weren't quite right rather than knacked, mostly in the last year and a half).

If you can find one that's been looked after well (and you keep looking after it), it will serve you well.

[billy939]

Mine is also just general wear and tear, brakes and tyres etc.
Driveshafts can be an issue and if the rear beam starts to develop camber then it is probably time for a new one.

However the beauty is that they are relatively cheap to repair and simple to a lot of the work yourself saving a lot of money

If little things annoy you like interior lights, window squeeks then it might not be great but the fun factor overwhelms all of that for me....lift off oversteer is yum :P

[106 gti]

I've owned my 106 gti for 9 years and it's been 90% faultless , it's a brilliant reliable car .
I've done 110,000 miles since i've owned it , can't fault it in any way .

[DanTvts]

I had my Saxo Vts ( I know its not a 106 but almost identical bar a couple of minor differences ) for 2 years and covered 20,000 miles in it, granted i service my cars very regularly but it was really was a good car! Weak points these days are rust and rear axles generally, also the sunroof/aerial leaking is a common problem.
As mentioned if you don't mind something thats got a few rattles they're a great choice of car.
Parts are cheap, very good on fuel and really fun to drive

[BadBanshee]

I wouldn't say very good on fuel. Both the 106 Gti and saxo vts are low thirties mpg I understand?

[106 gti]

BadBanshee said:

I wouldn't say very good on fuel. Both the 106 Gti and saxo vts are low thirties mpg I understand?

Na they arn't that bad , if you get some chav with a heavy right foot everytime he drives it it wont do many to the gallon , like all cars, but driven sensibly they are ok .
You should see 300 miles to a tankfull .

[BadBanshee]

106 gti said:

Na they arn't that bad , if you get some chav with a heavy right foot everytime he drives it it wont do many to the gallon , like all cars, but driven sensibly they are ok .
You should see 300 miles to a tankfull .

Don't see the point of owning any car with "GTI" after it's name and driving it sensibly, to be honest. But going by official mpg figures, the 106 gti and Saxo vts seem to indicate that their engines are very dated. You can get similar mpg out of a modern Clio 200 or Golf GTI.

[DanTvts]

BadBanshee said:

Don't see the point of owning any car with "GTI" after it's name and driving it sensibly, to be honest. But going by official mpg figures, the 106 gti and Saxo vts seem to indicate that their engines are very dated. You can get similar mpg out of a modern Clio 200 or Golf GTI.

Well i was averaging around 35-38 mpg a week depending on where i drove to work, that wasn't trundling along everywhere either. That was on a car with High lift cams, uprated panel filter, manifold, decat and cat back exhaust. I'd consider that good on fuel. The engine is a fantastic engine in many ways, until you own a well maintained one you won't understand the attraction to these cars. I would say go for it but you don't seem to keen on the idea.
Of course the engine is going to appear dated when compared with a modern car, the 16v engine was used in 97/98 and was almost exactly the same (bar a few bits of kit for emissions) until 2003 when the saxos/106s were phased out.

[davidsc]

I own a S1 Rallye and I've recently put the Gti engine in it. My previous experiance with them is they are pretty bomb proof - main things that can go wrong are the rear axles and the gearbox/shafts - axle refurb is about £200 max and new driveshafts are about £80 each and a gearbox is about £100! Very cheap to maintain.

Its a lovely car now, weighs around 820kg and has about 140bhp.

Will do about 42mpg on a run and I'm averaging about 37mpg on the work run which is roughly 10 minute drive.

Not bad for a car that does 0-60 in 6 seconds and 0-100 in about 14 seconds

[300bhp/ton]

BadBanshee said:

Given the age of the 106 GTi and given that 2013 is nearly upon us (unless you're from somewhere in South America) can the 106 GTI still be a sensible ownership proposition?

How can it not be?

It's a mass produced car built for mass produced use.

BadBanshee said:

I know this is a French car forum but let's be honest, older French cars aren't exactly reliable are they? However, for someone who wants a lightweight quick tiny-hatch with the spirit of the legendary warm hatches of old, is anybody prepared to say they would rather spend their hard earned cash on a 106 GTi over, say, a Lupo GTI.

If I forsake my facade of maturity what I'm really saying is: 106 GTI vs Lupo GTI... FIGHT!!!

[BadBanshee]

Are those "Rallyes" supposed to have a better chassis than the GTI? They seem to be much loved for a car that I would have thought was a more lukewarm version of the GTI.

[davidsc]

BadBanshee said:

Are those "Rallyes" supposed to have a better chassis than the GTI? They seem to be much loved for a car that I would have thought was a more lukewarm version of the GTI.

The chassis is pretty much the same - Rallyes have slightly thicker ARB's but the main difference is weight - 106 GTi's weight about 120kg more than a Rallye.

[BadBanshee]

According to carfolio:

106 Rallye: 100hp, 810kg, 0-60 in 10.5 secs
Panda 100hp: 99bhp, 975kg, 0-60 in 9.5 secs
Yaris T-Sport: 104bhp, 940kg, 0-60 in 9 secs

All that weight-saving seems to have been in vain. It probably feels nippier for it though I'm guessing.

[300bhp/ton]

BadBanshee said:

According to carfolio:

106 Rallye: 100hp, 810kg, 0-60 in 10.5 secs
Panda 100hp: 99bhp, 975kg, 0-60 in 9.5 secs
Yaris T-Sport: 104bhp, 940kg, 0-60 in 9 secs

All that weight-saving seems to have been in vain. It probably feels nippier for it though I'm guessing.

It has less power than a GTI, and it's not out about outright pace. Less weight affects handling too. The Rallye is a raw little frantic hatch which in it's day would have been more insurance friendly than the GTI.

0-60 times don't really tell much either tbh as it depends on gear, such as if one car will do 61mph before changing gear while another will only do 59mph, then it could make 0.5+ second difference to the statistic, despite both cars being as quick as each other in reality.

Also gearing is about keeping the car in the powerband once moving, this might not always be ideal for 0-60 times. I don't know the specifics of the Rallye, but I know of other cars which post fairly mundane 0-60mph times but are a lot faster 20-100mph than you'd think given their 0-60 time.

[BadBanshee]

300bhp/ton said:

Also gearing is about keeping the car in the powerband once moving, this might not always be ideal for 0-60 times.

How do you mean?

[davidsc]

The original 1.3 8V rallye makes peak power at about 7200rpm (peak torque at about 5k) and needs to be changed into third to hit 60mph. This is why the time is slow.

The rallye with a 16v engine and 1.4 gearbox will hit 60 in 2nd gear and makes peak power around 6500 but the spread of power is giant compared to the 1.3. Hence a 0-60 time in around 6 seconds dead - if that is your thing of course.

Not to mention the Rallye would run rings around those other 2 above...!

[300bhp/ton]

BadBanshee said:

How do you mean?

As said I don't know the specifics for the Rallye, however I can give some info on a Rover 200BRM. This is a factory modified Rover 200vi, the BRM has a close ratio gearbox. But it has a tall first gear. This means 0-60mph is hampered somewhat. And indeed the BRM is only rated at 7.9sec 0-60mph while the 200vi (same engine, same weight) is rated at 7.1-7.5sec 0-60mph.

But this doesn't tell the entire story, 0-100mph the BRM is 1.5 sec+ quicker than the vi and blasting about country lanes is geared much better to keep it on the boil.

I suspect the Rallye is setup in a similar fashion with the aim of making the most of the powerplant on the move, not gunning for the best 0-60mph time.

[Noesph]

BadBanshee said:

According to carfolio:

106 Rallye: 100hp, 810kg, 0-60 in 10.5 secs
Panda 100hp: 99bhp, 975kg, 0-60 in 9.5 secs
Yaris T-Sport: 104bhp, 940kg, 0-60 in 9 secs

All that weight-saving seems to have been in vain. It probably feels nippier for it though I'm guessing.

Peugeot figures for the 106 (all models) are given with half the cars payload on board (Full tank, 2 big people etc your looking at around 250kg on board). It was done to get them into a lower insurance group.

Citreon tested the car with just the driver on board and a bit of petrol in the tank, hence why the 106 gti does 0 to 60 in 8.7 sec and the vts does it in 7.5, even though there the same car. (Vts in one insurance group higher than the 106)

Edited by Noesph on Tuesday 27th November 20:28

[BadBanshee]

I'm going to put less emphasis on 0-60 times from now on. Power, torque and weight all the way