Where can I get car engine information?

Mrs OTH is after a new (secondhand) car. Presently running a 1998 Pug 306 Diesel and looking at a 2004 ish 307 Diesel.

They do two particular engine variations a 1.6 and a 2.0. Presently have the 2.0 but the 1.6 is more economical and has more power (16 valve instead of 8), but I want to see if it runs at higher revs or not. They may have upped the revs to get more output from the smaller engine.

I remember car reviews always showing rpm at 60mph in top but none seem to now.
I have looked in What Car magazine. On line I have looked at Top Gear, Honest John, Autocar, Glass, and Parkers. Parkers may do it in a pay for additional info pack but I do not know if it is shown and would need to buy two packs - one for each variation.

I looked at the Pug website too but nothing there and the current models are different so not comparable.

So I am a bit stuck now. Apart from taking one out on a test drive and checking it at 60 I cannot see how I can find its revs at 60mph.

I like diesels low rev motorway comfort and would not like the car if it revved too much.

Any idea where I could find out this info?
 

Chrisz

Über Member
Location
Sittingbourne
Owners clubs perhaps?
 

battered

Guru
There is a Peugeot forum. I'd ask there.

As for "does the smaller engine rev more?" Yes, it has to. Engine power is the multiple of"energy delivered per bang" and "number of bangs per second". "Energy delivered per bang" in turn is a function of the amount of fuel/air mixture you can cram in. Now I'm prepared to believe that a small engine with good breathing (and more importantly a big turbo) will cram the fuel in, but 1600 is only80% of 2000 so it's going to struggle to pick that up. Cue more revs.

This is academic though, you aren't interested in peak power delivery at 4500rpm when you are bowling along at 70mph on the Mway, you are interested simply in final drive raio. This is always a compromise. You may like long legs at speed but this makes for sluggish acceleration. You may be happy with that, a sports car owner less so. I'd suggest driving the thing and deciding, there are more important things than final drive ratio when it comes to buying a car.
 

tyred

Legendary Member
Location
Ireland
Driving it is the only way to really know if you like it but it should be possible to find the actual gear ratios. I would say that unless you spend a lot of time on the motorway, higher gearing isn't necessarily better.
 

Kestevan

Last of the Summer Winos
Location
Holmfirth.
Does it really matter anyway?

It's a Peugeot, so will be spending the majority of it's time sat in the garage waiting to be fixed anyway.
 

battered

Guru
You think? Mine (a yr 2000 406, petrol, 2L) went in once a year for the Mot and a service untl it hit 122,000 miles, no hassles, then someone stole it.
 

tyred

Legendary Member
Location
Ireland
Traditionallly, the only real fault Peugeots have had in my experience is an appetite for suspension bushings. The XUD series engines were good for at least 400,000 miles, syncro was a bit weak on the gearboxes but that only is a problem if you have bad driving skills.

I have mixed feelings about the newer HDIs. They are a good engine when working but I have seen quite a few give very expensive injector system problems.
 
Kestevan said:
Does it really matter anyway?

It's a Peugeot, so will be spending the majority of it's time sat in the garage waiting to be fixed anyway.

We have had two 306s doing about 12 k per year. Both bough with over 100k on the clock and each kept for about 5 years. So that is 120k in high milage Peugeots. The very occasinal thing has gone wrong on them but worst was a water pump with plenty of warning. Most MOTs they pass.
I cannot remember either car breaking down in the whole 10 year/120,000 miles. One was on old model engine, second was on the HDI. Never serviced apart from timing belt and the odd oil change.

At 55mpg and five years nearly free motoring from a £2-3k car I dont think it can be beaten.

I think they have a few bugs in when new and that gives them a bad reputation. Dont know about the petrol versions - dont like petrol cars.
 

GrasB

Veteran
Location
Nr Cambridge
You could use http://www.carfolio.com/ to find the two, or similar, models you're looking for & they often list final drive on that site, from there a bit of maths gives you the rpm for a given speed. With that said the car will be geared appropriately for the engine, the engine may rev a little higher but at the end of the day it's a diesel so it'll not be sitting there at petrol like rpm
 
battered said:
There is a Peugeot forum. I'd ask there.

As for "does the smaller engine rev more?" Yes, it has to. Engine power is the multiple of"energy delivered per bang" and "number of bangs per second". "Energy delivered per bang" in turn is a function of the amount of fuel/air mixture you can cram in. Now I'm prepared to believe that a small engine with good breathing (and more importantly a big turbo) will cram the fuel in, but 1600 is only80% of 2000 so it's going to struggle to pick that up. Cue more revs.

This is academic though, you aren't interested in peak power delivery at 4500rpm when you are bowling along at 70mph on the Mway, you are interested simply in final drive raio. This is always a compromise. You may like long legs at speed but this makes for sluggish acceleration. You may be happy with that, a sports car owner less so. I'd suggest driving the thing and deciding, there are more important things than final drive ratio when it comes to buying a car.

Good Idea! I will try that.

Yes I can see the 16 valve setup will give it some more go. Figures look most odd
1.6 is 110bhp and higher torque and 57 mpg
2.0 is 90bhp lower torque slower 0-60 and 54mpg.

I worry that someone has worked it to get within some tax group or emission level or whatever rather than looking at the driving of the thing. On paper I can see that the 1.6 with its 16 valves instead of 8 in the 2.0 can have more output as you are shoving more in the chamber.

Worries are if it revs more or if it will last so long. The old 2.0 keeps going for ever. Still like new at 170,000 miles but will the 1.6 last as well?

Most driving wifey does is out of town runs and the present engine is lovely with its low revs and nice long range in each gear.

I am probably just talking myself into taking one for a run.
 

GrasB

Veteran
Location
Nr Cambridge
OTH, if the 2.0 isn't HDI & the 1.6 is HDI then then the smaller engine can basically wipe the floor with the larger one due to the technology in it. Also being a turbo charged engine ccs become less relevant as one can simply push up the boost pressure to gain more power & torque.
 

BrumJim

Forum Stalwart (won't take the hint and leave...)
Doesn't matter how much technology you throw, there ain't no substitute for cubic inches (or cc). The larger engine will always have more torque, unless turbo-charging comes into the equation. Hence the 1.6l must be more blown than the 2.0 litre. The only real difference that you would feel between a larger, less blown engine and a smaller, more blown one would be pulling away from low revs, i.e. before the turbo has spooled up.

Also suggests that the 1.6l is a more robust unit than the 2.0 litre.
 

GrasB

Veteran
Location
Nr Cambridge
That's not true when you start comparing different engine designs & technology. With the rapid development of diesel technology engines have become smaller yet still provide the same torque & power for a given boost level compared to older engine designs. If you were to compare 2 engines of the same technological generation then cc has a meaningful impact, but even then it's not straight forward as boost levels, turbo setup & CR also come into play.
 
GrasB said:
OTH, if the 2.0 isn't HDI & the 1.6 is HDI then then the smaller engine can basically wipe the floor with the larger one due to the technology in it. Also being a turbo charged engine ccs become less relevant as one can simply push up the boost pressure to gain more power & torque.

Looking around the 2003 age so both will be HDI.

What you say is a bit of the concern. The 2.0 is great for torque at low revs and is relaxing to drive. I wonder if the 1.6 relies more on revs and turbo to get the power.

We changed the old 306 for a newer one to get the HDI and ABS and airbags and agree the HDI is much better. I have one too in my 406 but in that they have upped the bhp a bit.

As far as I can make out they are both similar engines but one is 1.6 on 16 valves and the other 2.0 on 8 valves.

Some years ago when most big cars had a smooth 2.5 or 3.0 engine they started doing 2.0 engines to get within a tax bracket. To get the performance they tuned them up a bit and put turbos and all sorts on them to match the bigger engines but were horrid to drive as you felt you needed to thrash them all the time. I was thinking on the same lines with this.
 
Top Bottom