406 & 407 - a general discussion

Make sure you take the 307 for a drive down less than perfect roads, I for one can't tolerate the ride. Others that haven't experienced proper French suspension don't seem to be bothered by it.
My wife just bought a new Civic and while it was fantastic value for money, $21k on the road, it has a very firm ride (although quieter than the Mazda 3 and the Corolla) the roads O/S must be very smooth I think.
My S1 205 GTi with its 25 year old sports suspension rides better.
Definitely look for a 405, what about a well looked after 2 litre 8 valve series 2?
They are at throwaway prices at the moment.

Graham

peujohn said:
Thanks for the feedback. Happy to hear the mostly good reports on 407s. I don't like the long nose issues on the 407, this is just poor design in my opinion. Transverse-engined cars should have a compact nose. Look at a 407 side on and consider how far back from the front the driver sits! 406 on the other hand is a very conventional design but seems to be efficient in terms of packaging and space.

This is quite tempting: 406 SV

I have had a look at 607s but don't think we will go there. I would love to track down a really good Mi16, they are great cars and roomy inside but I have to be sensible! I also had a look at diesel Renault Lagunas, like these on Carsales. Pretty good value for money, automatic only it seems... do they have nasty autos? Mazda 3 was suggested too, I can't do that because my brother's wife has one. If we both have a 504 and a 3 it would be embarassing.

Still haven't had a look at a 407, but Alpine Affaire has one for us to check out. I think I will try the baby seat for size in a 307 wagon before we cross them off the list too. Actually if I could be convinced the 307 had enough room it would be top of the list.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
 
With greatest deference to Graham, I don't have much faith in 405 motors and running gear, after all this time. Only if you can be 99.9% assured the car has been properly maintained and driven sensibly (not lightly and/or not thrashed all the time). I've seen so many on the scrap heap.

Then again I suppose this applies to any "modern" Peugeot motor.
 
I have the utmost confidence in similar running gear on the 205s, I thought the only real 405 problem was the dash controls, one reason why I suggested the series 2.
What sort of problems have you had Gerry?
Graham
pugnut1 said:
With greatest deference to Graham, I don't have much faith in 405 motors and running gear, after all this time. Only if you can be 99.9% assured the car has been properly maintained and driven sensibly (not lightly and/or not thrashed all the time). I've seen so many on the scrap heap.

Then again I suppose this applies to any "modern" Peugeot motor.
Click to expand...
 
AusGrenouille said:
I haven't turned them off because when I sell the car the next person may not know they are there and that person may want to investigate why they are reporting pressure problems.
Click to expand...
In all seriousness, I'd turn them off and put the sensors in a bag tied to the spare key. When you do sell, reinstall and re-activate.
 
Older Pugs are cheap as chips; even the 407 is bargain territory quite often. I'm suggesting something the OP can press into service right away (save maybe a wash and minor service) rather than having a list of "stuff to do". There's no reason he couldn't purchase a slightly older model and work methodically through the defects, then flick the newer one.

It seems to be a human trend these days that people with young children also want cars with all the electronic mod-cons; ESP, GSXR, CBF etc.
 
GRAHAM WALLIS said:
I have the utmost confidence in similar running gear on the 205s, I thought the only real 405 problem was the dash controls, one reason why I suggested the series 2.
What sort of problems have you had Gerry?
Graham
Click to expand...

I have only 405 Mi16s, (3 of them) and sold them when they were still relatively low in Ks and going well. From watching other cars - mainly the 2 litres and the SRDTs I've seen cracked blocks being (too) common and the main problem. On one car, the owner bought a Series 1 405 with a cacked block, had the engine replaced, and 150,000 km later the same thing happened - and he had it serviced religiously. The car was scrapped afetr that. Wiring issues are another problem, especially with Series 1 cars. And then there's the things like heaters which fail.

My general impression with 405s, and to some extent 306s, is that Peugeot didn't engineer the cars to last. The ride and general handling which was/is great is let down by faults in the engine, gearbox and wiring. That is perhaps the story of modern Peugeots though isn't it!

A person/family mightown a Pug for many years, drive it for thousands of ks without many issues. When it's sold, the new buyer drives it differently and while not thrashing it or anythubg like that, things start to fail quite quickly - simply due to a different technique or conditions. They dont seem to be rugged enough to handle that, and this appliies to 405s especially.
 
Well personally, I've owned two 406's both D8, first one we hydraulicked the engine. Second one I put together from a car with a blown engine and a motor courtesy of Demannu. This 96 model 406 is a beauty, goes like a rocket, handles very well, gets about 12k's per litre. The seats are very cumfy, you can get out in Melbourne after a 16 hour drive and feel quite good. It is totally reliable. Right those are the good things.
Negatively it wears out suspension fairly often, but we have 10k's of dirt and six creek crossings. I have gone through two sets of front bushes in all places and have replaced a bottom kingpin in two years.
It chews up aircon compressor bearings, but I found out how to fix them and the replacement bearing from CBC is less than $20. It goes through exhaust manifold flange gaskets but the kit from Caravelle is only $45.
For our road the clearance is too low as we often have to stop and remove sump buster rocks that are more than 4" high.
The interior is just total rubbish, made very badly, short cut so the door fabric pulls away round the door handles. Trim all falls off. Plastic bits are not made to be worked on and break when manipulated according to instructions in the manual. Whoever did the interiors should be shot.
But now I have a 504 that will replace it. I just can't wait for the day when we finally say goodbye to the crappy 406. I am totally over new shit. Modern shit. Shit with too much plastic and electronics. Shit that doesn't stand up to hard use.
The 504 has cumfy seats, goes like a rocket, handles like on rails, has solid fixtures and fittings and makes a proper clunk when you close the door. Negatively it needs a gearbox overhaul and appears to go through a bit of water.
But it owes me less than $2000 and takes the dirt like a magic carpet. It cruises up our major hill as fast as the 406. It is more solid and less precious and has heaps of room. I had to take some large dining chairs to town and it fitted three. I doubt they would have gone in one of those other little things. It has roof racks and towbar and is a highly practical beast with pretensions of sport.
And every time I get in it, I love the bloody thing.
 
I took Gus's 406 HDi (for sale) for a drive the other day. First time to drive an HDi. It is a lovely car, drives very nicely, brisk performance, nice quiet supple suspension. After driving it I hopped into the back seat behind the driver and thought there wasn't much knee room, but later I realised the seat covers were pulled tight over the back of the front seats, covering the 40-50mm inset on the seatback which is all knee room. The boot is smaller than a 504, must say that overall it feels about the same as a 504 for interior space.

Tonight I left my 504 with Paris Jansen for a service and brought home his lovely 1988 505 GTI sedan. Now we are talking. This has heaps of interior space, a massive boot and drives beautifully. It's the perfect family car. If only Peugeot could produce a modern interpretation of the 505 with all its positive attributes along with a modern diesel engine and up to date safety equipment. I'll take some photos of this car and write a bit more in the blog tomorrow.
 
Some difficult choices between the different mid sized pugs.

I've now notched up a couple of thousand k's in the 407 SV HDi- so some early, but perhaps a little informed, thoughts re it and its immediate predecessor - a 97 D8 petrol 406ST. The 407 had 67,000 on the clock when I bought it. The 406 had 80,000 & has now done 220,000. (prior to this I had a couple of 505 sLi wagons, which succeeded a DSpecial, a 504, a 404, and a couple of 403's)

I chose the 407 over a replacement 406 largely because I wanted a low mileage car, wanted a wagon and wanted a diesel. It was much easier to find a 407 fitting these criteria than a 406. I toyed with the idea of a 307 or 308 diesel estate, but I spend a fair amount of time these days ferrying two very elderly women (one 91, one 84 with parkinson's disease) around to medical appointments etc, with their walking frames, and they have trouble, because of medical probs, getting in and out of our 307 XSE because of the significantly shorter door aperture. The extra mod cons also appealed (hey! I was 17 when I got my own first Peugeot 403 - though I'd been driven around in 'em since the age of 4 - & I've hit 60 now).

Got to say that I love the 407 SV & given the choice again I wouldn't pick any differently. In many respects it is the best of the Peugeots I've owned. The 406 has its pluses , too, though.

Power: I thought that the extra power etc of the V6 diesel might make the 407 seem unbalanced, but it isn't. For a large car you can certainly throw it around on the bends with remarkable ease. The extra grunt is remarkable compared to any of my earlier French cars, too. It puts the power down on the road noticeably more smoothly than the 406, too. Very impressive. A slight hint of turbo lag, but far less than on other turbo diesels I've driven, and wonderful "tractability" and "pick up" throughout the normal driving range. It actually makes driving easier in many situations. Those 440NM of torque really comes in at the range where you need it.

Comfort: Comfort-wise the 407 is generally outstanding. The 406 was a very comfortable car on long trips - significantly more so IMHO than the 505 or the 504 and rivalling the DS. The seats in the 407 are significantly better, however, and I don't get the niggle at the base of my spine that the 406 gave me after a few hundred k trip. Yes, the suspension on the 407 is more "Germanic" than the 406, but this doesn't translate into discomfort . The 407 seats are very well tuned to the suspension (but more on the suspension later, because it is one of a couple of areas where , for mine , the 406 still wins out). Driving position is very easy to set up in the 407SV, with electronic seat controls & the memory function makes swapping regularly between two drivers a doddle. My wife always found it hard to set up the 406 to suit her driving position. She doesn't in the 407. (bear in my mind our 406 was pretty close to "base model" while the 407 is fully optioned though). For a long trip in comfort I'd certainly pick the 407 over the 406, and either over anything else I've owned , even including the DS when it was young. Front leg room is better than the 406. Rear legroom, fairly similar.

Both cars are significantly more comfortable than our 307 XSE.

For mine, the 407 actually feels roomier than the 406 (though it is only about 50mm wider internally at "waist" height at the central pillars. Perhaps the long driver to bottom of windscreen length adds to the impression)

Noise: At cruising speed the 407 is even a little quieter than the 406 - due to the 6 speed auto & less wind noise. At intermediate speeds - accelerating in traffic etc, it seems just a little noisier to me (probably due to the diesel engine), though it is certainly not intrusive. Both are very quiet cars compared to their predecessors (none of which were seen as noisy in their day).

Economy: Fuel economy in the 407SV is noticeably better than in the 406 Petrol ST for the kind of driving I do, despite the very significantly greater power. I generally averaged around 10l/100k in the 406 in "mixed" driving (though I got significantly better on long trips). The 407 SV HDi has averaged about 8.3 l/100 K in mixed driving so far, and even though it's dear, diesel is still generally a few cents cheaper than the premium unleaded I fed the 406. The 2 litre diesels, of course, are significantly better again, though, and the 406 diesel is probably the most frugal of all.

Handling: Through the bends both cars are very capable. The 407 has a little less body roll than the 406 (both have far less than 403s through to 505s in standard set-up). Both also will go round corners faster than their rear wheel drive antecedents in general driving (though if you have only driven rear wheel Pugs before the style needed is a little different) and you can certainly power drive them through corners. Both are capable of very fast point to point times. The 407 handling reminds me a bit of a 306XSi we had, but with a more suppleness and subtlety. The 406 handling is on a class of its own for subtlety and suppleness, though. I suspect the 407 may actually even go round a set of cones faster than a 406, but you will be more conscious of it all in the 407. Both are far better, IMHO, than our 307 XSE in this regard, even though it hangs on well enough when pushed.

You'll notice a bad bump on a bend more in the 407 than the 406, especially in the rear (and if its shod with the 18" 235/45's like mine), but it doesn't lose grip as a result. The 406 is certainly more refined, suspension wise.

On rough roads, dirt, corrugations. etc. the superiority of the 406 in this area becomes more evident. The greater ground clearance and suppler suspension helps, and I suspect the unsuspended mass is lower, too. On a fast bitumen road, the 407 comes out on top. As I said, more Germanic than French in some ways. Both cars, are very enjoyable as "driving" vehicles.

Both are better than the 307.

Other design attributes: I see some people commenting on the "long nose" of the 407 compared to the 406. In fact the distance between the base of the steering wheel and the tip of the nose in my 407 is exactly the same as in the 406. Set for my driving position both cars come out at exactly 2 metres (by comparison, on the 505 SLi it is 1.8m & on the 307 1.9m - the price of safety zones).

The 407 does have more overhang than the 406 (by about 12 cm). This is entirely due to a longer crumple zone, and contains very little of any weight. The distance from the back of the radiator to the tip of the nose is also 12 cm shorter in the 406 than the 407. Basically I'd reckon it comes down to the need to meet 5 star safety ratings wrt pedestrian safety especially, but it does make it easier to scrape on a sloping driveway exit (The 407 is about the same in this regard as with our 307 XSE and my old DS).

The appearance of a "long nose" from the drivers seat really comes down to illusions created by the different windscreen positions & angles. The 407 is actually way shorter than the 406 from windscreen base to nose tip, but the equally greater steering wheel to windscreen position creates an illusion of greater length. If you are used to nose-in "wall parking" a 406 it takes a while to realise that the distance from you to the wall in a 407 needs to be exactly the same! Until you do, you'll be surprised at how unnecessarily far out you've stopped.

When I first stepped into the 407 for a test drive the main thing that bothered me was visibility. The acutely sloping windscreen & thick pillars to support it, coupled with dark window tinting and those silly wide angle "cars are really much closer than they look" side mirrors, made me have some serious second thoughts. The 307 has some of the same problems. The 406 was OK in this area, but even it fell way short of our old 505 wagon which, together with the 404, still wins hands down for visibility in my book.

Despite these reservations, I've actually been surprised at how quickly I've adjusted to it. The wrap around rear quarter windows in the wagon , despite the segmentation, actually gives you better rear quarter vision than on the 406 sedan or the 307 hatch. The 'silly" mirrors mean the vehicle has no problem with rearward blind spots, though I still have to make myself very conscious about distance of approaching vehicles when pulling out from the curb etc. I haven't found myself missing seeing Mack trucks or even mini minors as a result of the front pillars, etc etc.

Still, forward, especially front quarter, visibility is an area where the more upright screen & pillars of the 406 beats the 407 (though the 505 wagon beats both all round by a handy margin).

Safety:
Secondary safety - Well, I haven't managed to crash either a 406 or a 407 (though a 505 wagon that copped a car coming out of a sideroad against a stop sign when I was doing 80 kph dealt with it extremely well) so I can't speak from personal experience. You feel safe in both, but safer in the 407. All of those airbags, electronic gizmos and sheer body mass (1917kg kerb weight cf 1390kg for the 406 sedan) give you a lot of confidence. So does the 5 star safety rating.

Primary safety - Both cars offer excellent primary safety - handling, braking etc are extremely good/exceptional for vehicles of their size. 504s and 505s were both renowned for primary safety, but in these critical areas the 406 and 407 are even better. On occasion the extra grunt of the 407SV HDi may get you out of a situation that you might not in the 406, but on the other hand, the same grunt might encourage, shall we say, "overconfidence" on some occasions ;-). Headlights are better on the 407, though the 406 ones are certainly adequate, too. Both are better than the 307's.

Creature comforts: This is a bit of an unfair comparison. The 407 is a top of the range model, while the 406 was pretty well standard 1997 issue, apart from some nice mag wheels. Not surprisingly, the 407 wins hands down. I find the seats more comfortable (and with far better side support and adjustability of course) than even the armchairs in my old DS. The 406 seats were pretty good, but not on the same level, even when they were new. The split system climate control works extremely well, even on the stinking hot days we've had here in the last week or so). The 200 watt JBL 8 speaker audio system is the best I've had in any car. When it comes to music, this car offers it in spades. Built in 10 Gig HD for storing mp3s, in dash MP3 capable CD player, 6 stacker CD in the boot, Audio and AV input in the glovebox for your iPod. All works beautifully. Gorgeous sound & oodles of oomph. Only reservation re my 2008 model is that the iPod doesn't get mirrored on the car display when used through the AV/Audio input. I rarely use the iPod in it, though, given the other options.

The built in car phone can either run from a sim card, or be bluetooth tethered to your phone. I run it from its own sim. Far better/safer set-up than any "hands free" kit I've had before. The Sat Nav cost $100 at Regans to update from 2007 maps , but only 2010/2011 version is currently available. Sat Nav works well, but has more limited options for display & voices etc than most standalone options. Safer to use on the road, though I've barely played with the voice activated processes for the phone, satnav, trip dat, audio stuff yet, I'm afraid.

Internal storage for the driver is better than on my 406, with a useful lidded cuddy on the dash to the right of the driver, good central console storage, door pockets. Passenger "chillable" glovebox loses a lot of space to an airbag, but is very deep, though narrow.

For long loads the passenger's seat back can be laid flat, giving you a prodigious length for long bits and pieces. Built in rear side window blinds help keep the sun out. Auto-wipers , auto-headlights. "splitable" rear cargo door, so you can just open the window on the tailgate to put things in and out, electric memory seats, moon roof, etc etc etc.

All in all it is very well appointed, and almost impossible not to feel comfortable and cosseted when you are inside it. I hate to think what its like if the electrics die, though!

You can certainly get some of this stuff in a later model, up market, 406 than mine, but the whole combination really works very well in the 407.

On some "fully optioned" vehicles I've driven in , especially up market 4x4's, all of the creature comfort gimmickery distracts me , but the 407 still comes across as a "drivers car" first & foremost.

Character/ Styling:
I must confess I like cars with a bit of character. Obviously this comes down to subjective feelings of the person concerned, but for mine the 407 has it in spades. The 406 and the other vehicle I seriously considered, the C5 Citroen estate, are much blander. The exterior of the 407 does it for me. That curvy butt, sleek sidelines and great front smile of a radiator grill come together in a blend of style with cheekiness that works for me. A lot more character than the 406 both inside and out, I reckon. Far less likely to be mistaken for a Camry! I like the interior of the C5 estate, but the outside just doesn't cut it, to my mind.

Reliability/cost of owning: Only time will tell. For the most part the 406 was a very low cost car to own. Apart from brakes and belts very little broke down or needed replacing (the 307 has needed significantly more in 50,000 less kilometres of ownership). The two items that did go, though, were biggies, but in the late stages of its life. At 200,000 Ks a timing belt (rated for 80,000Ks) broke after less than 40,000 Ks use. Engine rebuild for $2000+ as a result. Shortly after this the transmission started to act up a little. At 220,000 it died completely. Hence the 407!

The 407 has longer service intervals than my 406 (later 406's are longer) and that danged timing belt is rated for 180,000 on the diesel V6 though I'll be replacing it earlier. Turbo, diesel filter and other costs will probably mean higher service & repair fees than I've had to meet for the 406 and the extra gimmickery means more things to go wrong, of course. No signs of anything wrong to date. At 69,000 K it drives and feels like a new car. Suspect tyre costs will be significantly higher, and more frequent, on the 407 though given the extra power, weight and rubber size.

So, all in all, I really loved my 406. Really felt like a part of me after spending 140,000 kms in the drivers seat. But while it still seems to give me a rueful, downcast look whenever I walk past it to the 407, I'd have to say that I'm very happy indeed with its successor. Only time will tell whether this is simply a brief affair or a long term relationship, I guess, but I'm not usually given to passing flirtations. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Rod Hagen said:
Reliability/cost of owning: Only time will tell. For the most part the 406 was a very low cost car to own. Apart from brakes and belts very little broke down or needed replacing (the 307 has needed significantly more in 50,000 less kilometres of ownership). The two items that did go, though, were biggies, but in the late stages of its life. At 200,000 Ks a timing belt (rated for 80,000Ks) broke after less than 40,000 Ks use. Engine rebuild for $2000+ as a result. Shortly after this the transmission started to act up a little. At 220,000 it died completely. Hence the 407!

The 407 has longer service intervals than my 406 (later 406's are longer) and that danged timing belt is rated for 180,000 on the diesel V6 though I'll be replacing it earlier. Turbo, diesel filter and other costs will probably mean higher service & repair fees than I've had to meet for the 406 and the extra gimmickery means more things to go wrong, of course. No signs of anything wrong to date. At 69,000 K it drives and feels like a new car. Suspect tyre costs will be significantly higher, and more frequent, on the 407 though given the extra power, weight and rubber size.

So, all in all, I really loved my 406. Really felt like a part of me after spending 140,000 kms in the drivers seat. But while it still seems to give me a rueful, downcast look whenever I walk past it to the 407, I'd have to say that I'm very happy indeed with its successor. Only time will tell whether this is simply a brief affair or a long term relationship, I guess, but I'm not usually given to passing flirtations. ;-)
Click to expand...

My wife LOVES the 407 here ..... Doesn't do much for me though.

It's suprising isn't it ... the seats are hard, cold ........................ or god damn burning hot .......leap back out of the car before you get 3rd degree burns :clown: No lower back support, not "knob" to wind out some lower back support...... Yet I don't get sore travelling distances in them (makes no sense to me either).

You took it onto a gravel road :eek: :eek: :eek: ..... Don't do that ...... You'll break the fragile thing. We crawl up my sister inlaws driveway like a bloody snail..... rocks will hit underneath, then bang and crash in the most horific fashion the entire length of the car. Most carparks in town can't be driven into without slamming the nose into the ground. I've already welded up all the remains of the plastic junk undertray and refitted. I doubt there is much left of it once again.

I find it has little front end grip.... it easily picks up and spins the inside wheel no matter how gentle I am each morning turning left at the top of the local hill. It also does the not happy shudder of a car with crappy suspension geometry as it tries to move itself around with a marginally spinning wheel and lots of lock on (a proper car for example .... will spin a wheel all day, and the car won't move or fight at the helm in the slightest). It takes a lot of clutch riding to get the clutch out on gravel without spinning the wheels. With the little box trailer on it's impossible without spraying gravel everywhere. The mighty CX however even with a loaded car trailer swinging off it's @rse would never spin a wheel unless you were hugely brutal.

Have you had it crash into it's bumpstops on "normal" country roads yet? There really is next to no suspension travel. Fuel economy versus performance is brilliant from the car here .... 320Nm, plenty of accelleration in any gear, yet sips 6.x L/100 around town. What really highlighted the "incredibly average" ride quality of the 407 to me was a few months back i picked the kids up in a 4wd from the mid 80's. The raved all the way home how comfortable it was in the back............ this is after they'd travelled the same road to school and back in the 407 for a few months.

The main HATE I have is the pillars...... They can and DO hide a B double semi..... There bloody ginourmous. There is some intersections I have to pull up at an angle so I can see the traffic around the pillars. Not just the 'A' pillar. The 'B' pillar are HUGE too. On the plus side, the roof probably won't crush down if it ever rolls :clown: They also should have fitted an athermic windscreen. The one here is incredibly hot with the sun blasting through, it's every bit as bad as a CX for heat transfer through the windscreen.

I'm not sure how it handles towards it's limits .... It bores me to much to even try driving it hard :roflmao: The ISOFIX seats mounts however at brilliant, there is no other way to describe them.

next time you think about performance.... think how good the early cars would be with this drivetrain in them.... Decent suspension *and* that late model deisels.... what a brilliant combination that would be (I'd LOVE to put the 2litre HDi and 6spd manual into a CX :evil: ). They weigh 1.7tons, yet drive effortlessly, mines only a 2litre, yet it happy to roll along in 6th gear at 1400rpm with the cruise control on at 80km/h using about 4L/100km. Imagine this in something decent like a Citroen CX that weighs 1.4ton fully loaded.

I don't think there very quiet at speed, there's considerable wind noise around the sunroof (it'd be 100% quieter without a sunroof) and the tires do roar a bit. The tire roar however is absolutely nothing compared to the C4 and 307 .... there bloody horific... The C4 was so bad you couldn't hear the radio without it screaming at near maximum volume on some road surfaces.

seeya,
Shane L.
 
Thanks Rod and Shane, great essays. Those two posts almost make this thread worthy of being a sticky.

next time you think about performance.... think how good the early cars would be with this drivetrain in them....
Click to expand...

Yep... I would love Paris Jansen's 505 GTI with a 2 litre HDI engine and a 6 speed auto or manual. Getting back in a nice 505 I was so impressed.
 
Ah Shane! I hear and respect the passion for the old ones, and in some respects I agree, but in others I don't.

My place actually has a rough as guts 250 foot dirt and gravel driveway on a 1 in 8 slope. Its hell in dry weather and most vehicles need a decent run-up just to get up it. The postie won't come up it. Delivery drivers curse whenever they see our name on a package and even the god-botherers have given up and headed for less Corolla breaking potential convertees. The DS wasn't too bad on it. It tended to spin wheels on a particularly nasty little hump of dust if you took it too slowly, and you'd have to back down and have another go, but the cushioning suspension mean't you didn't feel the effects unless your spheres were getting a bit flat. The 505 sLi wagon needed some speed, too, but gave you a harder, somewhat bouncy ride, up the hill. The 406 handled it a bit better. You didn't need as much run-up and could take it at a pace that was a bit less wearing on suspension, your stomach and any eggs that happened to be in the shopping basket as long as you got the line right. Still didn't like you going too slow, though. The 307 hates it. Primary reason it has a fractured exhaust pipe at present I suspect.

But, and it surprised me, too, the 407 simply drives up it without a run up and without scrambling the eggs. Maybe it is the heavier motor in the SV keeping the wheels on the ground. Maybe its the fatter rubber. Maybe its all that torque. Maybe its the traction control. Most probably its all combined.

Mine's an auto, of course, (the only way the SV Diesel Touring came in Aus AFIK) so I'm not having to play the clutch on gravel. Maybe the manual tranny isn't so forgiving.

Our back entrance is actually off a genuine dirt road (no horror strip, but the next door neighbour but one is trying to gee up a possie to convince the council to seal it and claims it damages the tyres on his wife's 4x4 Merc - personally I want it to stay dirt to deter people from using it as a short-cut. The postie and other delivery drivers I like use it in preference to our front driveway). I drive on it every day. Yes, it is rougher in the 407 than in the 406, or than it was in the DS. The 407 is less fussed by it than the 307, or the 306 was, or the 505 sLi (live rear axle to be fair) wagons were , though.

To be fair again, I doubt that it will be as happy on the track into Wingan Inlet (I broke a rear DS suspension pushrod on that one once) , or the back road between Ali Kurang and the Sandover Highway in the NT, as some of my old Peugeots were, but most of my miles these days are on the bitumen. On the bitumen it leaves most of the vehicles we've mentioned for dead.

The B-pillars, by the way are actually narrower than on the 406. The SV Touring DOES have an athermic windscreen (didn't realise some of the others didn't). The (non-opening) moon roof on the Touring doesn't seem to produce noise at all, the SV seats do have adjustable lumbar support, etc.

Yes, the idea of bunging the 2.7l twin turbo V6 diesel from a 407 SV into a CX etc has some appeal, but, of course, you'd have to stiffen up the suspension, beef up the brakes and drive train, ..... and then you'd be sacrificing most of the virtues that make the CX appealing in the first place. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's the electronic dampers, which only the V6 petrol/diesel models were equipped with.
 
Diesel_vert said:
Maybe it's the electronic dampers, which only the V6 petrol/diesel models were equipped with.
Click to expand...

They might make it ride better. But the main thing is it sounds to have a lot more ground clearance. The sedan here really is crazy low. I fear checkng under it after it's been up and down my sister inlaws driveway a few times. The CX and XM would cruise up it at 60km/h in comfort. The 407 does it at 5km/h with horrible crashing and banging noises the length of the car. I'm surprised when the car "still works" when we leave her place. The sister inlaws Saab did used to break it's undertray and bits 'n' pieces on the driveway too........... That's 'cos should an insane crazy person and would smash/bash the car up there at insane speeds..... Infact there is only one turn in the drive and she stuck the car sideways through a fence (and almost into the dam) off it. If she drove the 407 up the drive just once. There is no doubt in my mind she'd smash the sump out, remove the exhaust and destroy every frail plastic "cover" (not bash guard ... "cover" ) under the car.

407-T.jpg


It looks if anything lower than the sedan :eek:

I'm not at all biased, but I reckon the CX rides better, handles better, steers better, has better suspenion geometry, is faster, has better seats, has better brakes (none of this grabby shit of modern PSA vehicles), the clutch pedal is a fraction of the weight and a 1/10th of the travel.

You wouldn't beef up anything if you fitted the modern diesel drivetrain to a CX ..... everything is already stronger and better in the CX to begin with :roflmao: driveshafts, brakes, suspension .... all bigger and better. See told you I'm not biased, my wifes opinions don't compare to mine at all :clown:

Does the wagon have more headroom than the sedan, with a sunroof my hair is always touching the roof in the front..... And I don't fit in the back (I'm only a little guy too). I have to sit with my head on an angle to fit in the back.

seeya,
Shane L.
 
Last edited:
Could be, Diesel. Bunging it on the "sports" suspension setting on a mediocre road certainly gives you a bumpy ride!
 
406's are getting old for family use.

Buy a Commodore Sportswagon on LPG - all the family car you'll ever need.
 
It's alright Shane. I used to feel the same way when those tarty 504's with their fancy independent rear suspension replaced the 404s. ;-)
 
I thought I must be going insane .... how can anyone drive a 407 on a gravel road and think it's ok :confused: .... Maybe it just me ... :confused:

attachment.php


Yeah crazy low ..... yep look at that, smashed plastic hanging down after driving up the sister inlaws drive last week..... AAARrrrrrhhh..... Is it worth welding up that plastic POS undertray again, or do I just chuck it to the tip where it belongs :confused: I've been driving CX's for 22years and never had anything break under one. I've done serious offroading in them too... .none of this "slightly rough gravel drive damage".

Hey Rod, if you want to be impressed, chuck the 407 up on ramps .... turn a blind eye to all of the broken plastic and look at the HUGE alluminium crossmembers.... The massive crossmembers under it's nose are very impressive.

My old man tows a huge twin axle van with a territory that has the same engine in it as your 407 .... he reckons it's brilliant... it effortlessly hauls the big van along.

seeya,
Shane L.
 

Attachments

  • 407.jpg
    407.jpg
    66 KB · Views: 3,354
And make sure you start saving the $2500 for timing chain.A guy who I knows relo's were offered $6500? for their "Commodore" -one owner with round 100 k's-as a a trade in because the red light was on.$18,000 if the red light was out.
Remembering also that the front struts were failing from 3,000 on.
Your money-spend it where you like.
Cheers.

Pekay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top