interesting argument. (can of worms)

[rory182]

205 1.9 gti over anything, ever.

oh, and anyone that says the 1.6 handled better is on drugs, it just had less power, nothing else. Really didn't like the 1.6 for having to rape the engine to make it go anywhere

My 1.6 did handle better than my 1.9, granted the 1.6 was 12 years old at the time and the 1.9 20 years old so might have been a wear and tear thing.

 

[kev182cup]

It was the the brakes on my 1.6 that let it down. Drums on the back compared to discs all round. I updated them but they were still poor. Think there is a slight weight difference between 1.6 and 1.9 on paper dunno how accurate that is.

 

[Short Norman]

it thread make's me laugh...

there's also a thread/argument goining on on the 205 Gti drivers forum about whether a 205 is better with a MI16/GTi6 engine or with a standard 8v engine..

 

[kev182cup]

Obvious the 8v. Although fast the mi16 is heavy over the front wheels. So it's taking a quality away from the 205.

 

[CIW]

Never understood why the 1.6 would handle that differently to a 1.9, the engines were basically the same bar for the longer stroke on the 1.9 so doubt the weight would be much/any different, didn't the 1.6 have smaller wheels though, maybe that was it?

I have a soft spot for the GTi as my dad bought a red 1.6 brand new in 1986. I remember him poring over the brochures for that and the Golf GTi, took him an age to decide. I'm glad he went with the Pug as I really think it's a design classic, look at the Pininfarina lines and how much better they've aged than the Golf.

We still have the car tucked away in storage, got over 140k miles on it with no major issues but it hasn't run for years so will be a hell of project when we find the time to try and get it back on the road...

 

[Vicky.]

It was the the brakes on my 1.6 that let it down. Drums on the back compared to discs all round. I updated them but they were still poor. Think there is a slight weight difference between 1.6 and 1.9 on paper dunno how accurate that is.

This I really noticed when I first drove mine back. The brakes are deadly!

The brakes and the crazy throttle response! That took a while to get used to

 

[kev182cup]

This I really noticed when I first drove mine back. The brakes are deadly!

The brakes and the crazy throttle response! That took a while to get used to

Haha yeah the old no weighted throttle it's a classic. Lol when I replaced my discs and pads the pads where dust and discs all purple and cracked. Never even seen that on another car since.

 

[2 live]

205 is still the ultimate raw hatchback imo, really is bare to the bones fun.

bare to the bones fun? no abs, no tc, no esp.....no driver aids, fast, handled well, soooo much fun.

sounds like a williams to me.

 

[kev182cup]

bare to the bones fun? no abs, no tc, no esp.....no driver aids, fast, handled well, soooo much fun.

sounds like a williams to me.

would a williams of even been made if it wasnt for the 205gti? i think renault would of left it at the valver but they wanted to build a car to better the 205.

 

[2 live]

would a williams of even been made if it wasnt for the 205gti? i think renault would of left it at the valver but they wanted to build a car to better the 205.

they did that WITH the valver. the valver was quicker, handled better, was comfier, better all round really. they built the williams to take advantage of the rallying regs upgrading from 1800 cc limit to 2.0 litre. so williams was built purely for homolgomation purposes.

moving the game on massively, and something imho, they havent yet surpassed.

 

[Gally]

Yes Williams > all iirc.

 

[Ali]

they did that WITH the valver. the valver was quicker, handled better, was comfier, better all round really. they built the williams to take advantage of the rallying regs upgrading from 1800 cc limit to 2.0 litre. so williams was built purely for homolgomation purposes.

moving the game on massively, and something imho, they havent yet surpassed.[/QUOTE]

I f**king love you man! (Your forgetting the ultimate RS...The ph2 V6!)

 

[Mr Burns]

If you gave the average Cliosport member both cars for one week, I'm pretty sure the only difference they would spot between the two would be the lack of A/C in the Peugeot.

 

[kev182cup]

they did that WITH the valver. the valver was quicker, handled better, was comfier, better all round really. they built the williams to take advantage of the rallying regs upgrading from 1800 cc limit to 2.0 litre. so williams was built purely for homolgomation purposes.

moving the game on massively, and something imho, they havent yet surpassed.

You're the only man ever to claim a valver was better than a 205. Car wise most people wouldn't even remember a valver existed. For an example (not definitive) check evos list of cars in the back. Is the valver even listed? No because no1 else agrees with what you just blurted out.

 

[2 live]

and the williams is a better car than a zonda. evo said it so must be true?


but yet anyone quotes that and they get slated. selective belief on whos part?

 

[kev182cup]

Check the part that says not definitive. I'd say a great car has never ever just been forgotten but in your opinion the valver knocked the 205gti off the top spot but only you remember it. Lol

 

[Revels]

You will never ever, ever ever, win a mk1 related argument with 2 live.

 

[kev182cup]

He started off well with a Williams but now he's just talking nonsense.

 

[2 live]

imo the 309 knocked the 205 off top spot. this is another forgotten car. which is also NOT just my opinion. many other ppl think this too. the valver is a forgotten car because its overshadowed by the williams. pretty much like the 1600ti sunbeam is a forgotten car, overshadowed by the lotus. and like the allegro equipe, a good car, head and shoulders above the rest of the range, was quick, handled well, well equiped, recaro trim etc, but overshadowed by the dire ability of the rest of the range.


definitive or not, which 1 of those are in evo's list? the cizetta marauder, took the fight to rari and lambo, the big bristols etc etc etc, all great cars in their own right.

 

[Mr Burns]

they did that WITH the valver. the valver was quicker, handled better, was comfier, better all round really. they built the williams to take advantage of the rallying regs upgrading from 1800 cc limit to 2.0 litre. so williams was built purely for homolgomation purposes.

moving the game on massively, and something imho, they havent yet surpassed.

Have to agree to a certain extent. My brother had a valver at the same time that I had a 172. Despite me having the edge in a straight line (and the 'better' car) I was always jealous of his car. My brother eventually sold it to a friend who fitted a turbo and turned it into a crazy track car. The lap we did of the Nurburgring in the turbo valver is still the best experience I've ever had in a car (whilst driving anyway ).

 

[kev182cup]

imo the 309 knocked the 205 off top spot. this is another forgotten car. which is also NOT just my opinion. many other ppl think this too. the valver is a forgotten car because its overshadowed by the williams. pretty much like the 1600ti sunbeam is a forgotten car, overshadowed by the lotus. and like the allegro equipe, a good car, head and shoulders above the rest of the range, was quick, handled well, well equiped, recaro trim etc, but overshadowed by the dire ability of the rest of the range.


definitive or not, which 1 of those are in evo's list? the cizetta marauder, took the fight to rari and lambo, the big bristols etc etc etc, all great cars in their own right.

None because they wernt great they were just good in a few peoples views. Having not being around at the launch I don't know for sure but I'm pretty sure the 309 was in the shadow of the 205 all it's life. So I'd say although you may think it was better a lot of people don't hence the 205 still being remembered as 1 of the best.

 

[bling]

You're the only man ever to claim a valver was better than a 205. Car wise most people wouldn't even remember a valver existed. For an example (not definitive) check evos list of cars in the back. Is the valver even listed? No because no1 else agrees with what you just blurted out.

cant believe you actaully base your facts by what a magazine says or does? i bet you probably would not even reach the limits of the same car to what these drivers push them to find that niche depth of each car.

205 gti was a good car but lets face it, cars nowadays a far better including the valver, williams, type-r and 172 and rs's out there.

 

[Kam.]

I love the random hearsay from people who simply have never driven these old cars.
I can safely say the 200 is the better car. Its safer, more comfortable, and faster

But thats not why we look back at the 205 with misty eyes....

The one thing modern cars lack is feedback. A 205 gti gave decent feedback through the chassis, brakes, accelerator and steering meaning it could be thrown about with abandon and provoked to go exactly where you wanted it to go. With plenty of information being fed to the driver so you dont end up out of control unless you make a mistake. Lift off oversteer caught me and many others out, but it was never the car that was the problem. It had steering I can only dream of in a modern car, giving so much feel as to what the tyres are doing (even with the powersteering models). The only car of that era I havent been in is the williams. Everything else was worse imo. The williams engine was much more capable, but mi16 engines could bolt straight in the 205 so comparable 16v power was available.
Saying all that. The best handling car really was the 309. It had better front to rear weight distribution making the handling near on perfect, something the shorter hatches simply could not match without getting some weight at the rear. The 205 1.6 was more nimble due to its wheels. Lighter 14" and skinny tyres make it more nimble, but the 1.9 had far more mechanical grip.
My other favourite was the 205 XS. With a lighter engine and gearbox it was more like the 309 in its handling.
Now I like the modern renaults as fast modern and reliable hot hatches. But I fail to love them. Modern engines are more powerful but linear in power delivery, over servoed power steering and a chassis designed to understeer unless massively provoked. Its a faster car but dumbed down for idiots that cannot drive well and have no desire to.

I've been driving for 15 years and I've owned a 205 for most of that time. I'll still have one in another 15 years. I'd never try to use one as an everyday car now. Mine was built in 1986 and its an old girl. Its an old classic and parts are worn out, but once restored you just get in and grin like a little boy. I'd also have the mi16 over other engine choices for its manic power delivery once it comes on cam.

I also like the seats. The foam bolsters hold you in the seat yet the main back is soft to mould to your back...With a steady burble of throttlebodies, i've never had a car where people used to drift off to sleep..

 

[2 live]

lol. bristols 'only good in a few ppls view' the cizettas have been awesome cars, pure sex to look at, mostly, fast as fook. maybe its time you learnt a little bit of petrolhead history before you slate other peoples opinions and hide behind the 'evo is godlike and all knowledgeable' bullshit. cars are in their lists due to THEIR ,the writers, opinions. lol

 

[kev182cup]

cant believe you actaully base your facts by what a magazine says or does? i bet you probably would not even reach the limits of the same car to what these drivers push them to find that niche depth of each car.

205 gti was a good car but lets face it, cars nowadays a far better including the valver, williams, type-r and 172 and rs's out there.

Dude WTF are you talking about? I used evo as an example for today's great cars. If you actually read the thread you will see I've actually owned a 205 and driven most rs's not 200 but a 197f1 which is very similar.

I may not of been around aslong as 2live and owned alot of iconic cars but doesn't mean I have no experience of them. And FYI I could drive blind folded and still drive a car further and harder than you have ever dreamed.

 

[kev182cup]

lol. bristols 'only good in a few ppls view' the cizettas have been awesome cars, pure sex to look at, mostly, fast as fook. maybe its time you learnt a little bit of petrolhead history before you slate other peoples opinions and hide behind the 'evo is godlike and all knowledgeable' bullshit. cars are in their lists due to THEIR ,the writers, opinions. lol

I wasn't slating your opinion of the cars just the fact that others don't share your views. I don't like evo I stopped buying it years ago as it's full of s**t, I just used it as an example.

 

[bling]

lol. bristols 'only good in a few ppls view' the cizettas have been awesome cars, pure sex to look at, mostly, fast as fook. maybe its time you learnt a little bit of petrolhead history before you slate other peoples opinions and hide behind the 'evo is godlike and all knowledgeable' bullshit. cars are in their lists due to THEIR ,the writers, opinions. lol

i think people on here do base their so called experience from reading the EVO mags, and like you say its utter bullshit!
as for the pug 205 gti being brillant that may have been true if a proffesional driver had one but on the roads and with most people that owned one it was silly to make it so oversteery.
i have known many people back in the early 90's write them off.

 

[bling]

Dude WTF are you talking about? I used evo as an example for today's great cars. If you actually read the thread you will see I've actually owned a 205 and driven most rs's not 200 but a 197f1 which is very similar.

I may not of been around aslong as 2live and owned alot of iconic cars but doesn't mean I have no experience of them. And FYI I could drive blind folded and still drive a car further and harder than you have ever dreamed.

i am on about the evo example you used! and i would like you to show me that blindfolded car driven experience, is that another evo mag thing? LOL- blindfolded, is that around the macdonanlds car park?

 

[kev182cup]

i am on about the evo example you used! and i would like you to show me that blindfolded car driven experience, is that another evo mag thing? LOL- blindfolded, is that around the macdonanlds car park?

I'm sorry how old do you think I am? I never Had any problems driving my 205 at the limit either maybe the people you knew couldn't drive that well.

 

[2 live]

I wasn't slating your opinion of the cars just the fact that others don't share your views. I don't like evo I stopped buying it years ago as it's full of s**t, I just used it as an example.

so basically youv given a s**t example. u now realise this and are backtracking. another example of how bad yours was. is the rs3.1 capri in their list. a great car revered by many.

but thats not what this is about. it is about MY opinion, and yours, and everyone who replies to this thread. not EVO's not CLASSIC FORD etc etc. anf i think overall, the 205 wins hands down. although there are greater hot hatches than both those mentioned in the title out there.









and the valver is STILL better than the 205. valver vs 309 would be a LOT closer comparison

 

[.Kev.]

The 205 is a nasty looking car tbh! Nothing nice about it tbh!

What was it's rival back in the day? R5T?

The 205's a great looking car.

 

[Kam.]

as for the pug 205 gti being brillant that may have been true if a proffesional driver had one but on the roads and with most people that owned one it was silly to make it so oversteery.
i have known many people back in the early 90's write them off.

The only people who found them to oversteer would lift off mid corner - usually in the wet. Basically it caught out the uneducated and they would end up in a hedge backwards. Not many people understand to floor the throttle to bring the car under control as the usual panic reaction is the opposite - hit the brakes making it worse.
Its actually not as dramatic as people make out, once you understand the car will do it, everything seems perfectly natural. Like I said before. So much hearsay so little truth. I've driven 205's with completely restored suspension and they were a dream to drive. Old seized beams and knackered dampers or cars lowered too much and are sitting on their rear bumpstops are rather more difficult.

 

[kev182cup]

so basically youv given a s**t example. u now realise this and are backtracking. another example of how bad yours was. is the rs3.1 capri in their list. a great car revered by many.

but thats not what this is about. it is about MY opinion, and yours, and everyone who replies to this thread. not EVO's not CLASSIC FORD etc etc. anf i think overall, the 205 wins hands down. although there are greater hot hatches than both those mentioned in the title out there.









and the valver is STILL better than the 205. valver vs 309 would be a LOT closer comparison

i never back tracked at all i used evo because every1 has heard of it and use it for a source on car knowledge.
i made sure i wasnt slating your own opinion of cars as thats preference but you were claiming they were preferred by every1.

i think the point of the thread was lost from the start and people got carried away but at least i got people to actually talk about cars and driving, instead of usual mundane stuff.

 

[Kam.]

how about we get on track from here?

 

[kev182cup]

The only people who found them to oversteer would lift off mid corner - usually in the wet. Basically it caught out the uneducated and they would end up in a hedge backwards. Not many people understand to floor the throttle to bring the car under control as the usual panic reaction is the opposite - hit the brakes making it worse.
Its actually not as dramatic as people make out, once you understand the car will do it, everything seems perfectly natural. Like I said before. So much hearsay so little truth. I've driven 205's with completely restored suspension and they were a dream to drive. Old seized beams and knackered dampers or cars lowered too much and are sitting on their rear bumpstops are rather more difficult.

the oversteer was a big part of the drive and part of the appeal i loved. Aproach roundabout brake hard, get the weight off the back, dab of oppo bit of power and repeat until grin reaches ear to ear. lol

i used to finish work at 11pm then go for a blast, my mam used to wait up for me and id come in at like 3am. lol she used to say youve been flogging that bloody car again i bet. lol

 

[kev182cup]

how about we get on track from here?

ok right the point is its not which car you would own but comparing ability vs time/technology.

so is the 200 as scintillating as a 205 was when it was launched?

 

[2 live]

no. but then i dont think theres a massive diff between the mk1 gti, mk1 festa supersport etc up to the 205. i mean granted. the 205 was another level in terms of outright speed, but drivability??? the 1 car that really moved the game on in leaps and bounds was the mini, then the cooper and s. from then on its just been a little fettling here n there, bigger engines, bigger cars etc etc.

now we have all the aids s**t on the cars, i dont think the 'feel' of actually driving will ever come back. the 200 may be quicker in all areas than the 205, but the driver involvement, and enjoyment is lost. imho. i think, and i know your all gunna say, 2 live up to his old tricks.....but i think the williams is the last of the breed which is another of the reasons its so highly esteemed. i mean the valver was an amazing car, but after that, theres not a lot else, everything gained lots of weight, lots of safety and not much more in terms of power for quite a while. the 172 cup is about the last 'true' drivers cars really, no abs, baulked at and made fun of on here, but at least with cars like these, the ability of the driver really showed through. as has been said previously, with all the driver aids( or hindrances to the old skool) any fool can drive pretty quickly now and the cars electrics gets them out of trouble without them even realising it.

 

[Dunn]

it isnt a can of worms, they are both iconic

At there own times

bit like saying whats better? walkman or the ipod

both play music!

but one is more advanced than the other

FACT

 

[2 live]

completely opposite tbh. the ipod is smaller, and clips more of the sound. the walkman is bigger but you get the full spectrum of sound. sound quality is arguably better than the walkman.

the 200 is bigger and destroys the 'driver' feeling of the car. which is ultimately what a 'hot hatch' was and should still be. imho

 

[alex-avfc]

it isnt a can of worms, they are both iconic

At there own times

bit like saying whats better? walkman or the ipod

both play music!

but one is more advanced than the other

FACT

Wow Einstein, steady on or else you might conquer the world!