405 mi16 89-??
  • Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: 405 mi16 89-??

  1. #1
    Tadpole
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2

    Default 405 mi16 89-??

    Guys done alot of searching and i'm in the market for a new car, read about everything I can on here and now I have a few questions.

    Aftersomething thats not exactly fast in a straight line, but it needs to be quick through the twisties and feel stiff and stuck to the road. I currently am in the process of selling a 91 Nissan Maxima thats got a fantastic spring/shock/rubber setup and the handling is terriffic.

    But I want to drop back a few cylinders and a bit of power to save money on insurance, fuel and rego.

    Whats the differences in 2nd hand prices for the 1.9's and 2.0 mi16's?
    Does the upgrade in torque/power translate to much on road performance?
    What should I be looking for when searching for a 2nd hand mi16? rust? problems etc?
    I only intend to modify the car minimally (good rubber, decent spring/shock, maybe breathing mods). How well do they resopnd to just this?
    What can I expect from these cars fuel economy wise, with a small amount of spirited driving just around town etc?

    Thanks in advance

    Cracka

    Advertisement

  2. #2
    Fellow Frogger! Cubits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    555

    Default

    If you think the Maxima has teriffic handling, wait until you get a drive in an mi! I do like the whole package the Maxima offers, awesome V6, and quite neat handling for it's purpose, but the 405 is on another level. Not only do they offer the luxury of space and comfort, they'll hang onto 205's on the track, which is saying a lot!

    If i'm not mistaken, the 405 is galvanised, so rust shouldn't be a problem unless the car has been shunted. Check the usual places for accident damage (wheel arches, b-pillar, boot floor). I'm sure there's a website "buyers guide" that someone will fire you a link to...

    The 1.9's don't look quite as nice as the later series cars, but they are more umm... "spirited driving" oriented. Revvier, lighter, stiffer. They should sell for a bit cheaper than the late model cars, but the difference between 89-94 is now long enough ago that it'll just be about quality of the independant car. The later model cars have a slightly more relaxed engine with probably just as much pace.

    All cars respond to good rubber! There's not much purpose in super-sizing the wheels for some skinny profile jobbies on these cars, just whack some decent 15" tyres on and you'll have grip coming out of your ears without destroying the ride.

    You can stiffen the suspension with Koni's, and lower it if you wish, but the basic suspension is already very well balanced. You'll have to be a track-head to really want more.

    Breathing mods do bugger all, really. The exhaust is well tuned, and the intake is quite efficient. You'll see easy gains from upgrading the cams though! PeterT is the resident guru in that field. I believe you can even see a good gain on the stock ECU.

    I think the Mi16 has a baffled sump already, so it should handle long corners at the track as long as the oil is of good quality. You might want to chuck in a quaife LSD, they kick ass for the tight stuff!

    Seeing as the car weighs just over a tonne, fuel efficiency is quite good. It'll sip noticeably less than the maxima.
    1987 205 GTI - Graphite Grey - 206k km's
    1988 MR2 Supercharger - Mica Blue - 114k km's

  3. #3
    Fellow Frogger! enthused!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sinney
    Posts
    439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cracka
    What can I expect from these cars fuel economy wise, with a small amount of spirited driving just around town etc?
    Hi Cracka, welcome to the lifestyle

    I think Cubits has covered most of your questions already, but some extra info:

    If you're looking for an mi16, try for a 1992 model (series 1.5). These were still the series one (with the sexual 1.9 litre donk), but scored the newer 15 inch aloys and a new gearbox - so it's the best of both worlds.

    Some easy ways of differentiating between an S1 and S2 car:
    - s1 has a grey/black plastic louvre bit between the taillights, on s2 its body coloured.
    - s2 has headlight washers mounted in the front bumper

    As for fuel consumption... I'm normally grinning too much to actually notice! nah seriously... I find my mi's consumption is very dependant on your driving style - i can go for a quick fang and use a lot of fuel (being a 16 valve the power is all high-up in the revs, so on a spirited drive you use lotsa revs = lotsa fuel). On the other side - I can get up to port macquarie (from sydney) on just over half a tank.. thats about 500kms on about 40 litres.

    I only use 98 octane fuel though.

    good luck - hope to see more of you on here...
    1992 mi16 1.9 litre - it's a love hate realtionship.

    whatever you do NEVER tell anyone your car is reliable. doesn't matter how much wood you touch!

    previous cars: peugeot 306xt, peugeot 205si, renault 20, renault 12 - sedan and wagon, renault 25, alfa 155 twin spark

  4. #4
    Member eMi16's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brisbane Australia
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cubits
    The 1.9's don't look quite as nice as the later series cars, but they are more umm... "spirited driving" oriented. Revvier, lighter, stiffer.
    Correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't stiffening up and improving the chassis something that was a significantly noticeable change on the series 2 car ???
    Ralph
    '93 Mi16 serII EMI16

  5. #5
    Fellow Frogger! Roland's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enthused!
    . . .
    If you're looking for an mi16, try for a 1992 model (series 1.5). These were still the series one (with the sexual 1.9 litre donk), but scored the newer 15 inch aloys and a new gearbox - so it's the best of both worlds.
    . . .
    Couldn't agree more - I have one of the last of the Series 1 cars (late '92) (commonly called Series 1.5) with the bigger wheels but still with the alloy engine. Goes great.

    Quote Originally Posted by enthused!
    . . .As for fuel consumption...
    Mi16 - fantastic car - handles very well. Great to drive. Fast if you want to drive that way. Economical as well (depends on driving style).

    I got 35 Mpg recently on a country trip, (about 8.1 litres/100Ks) and that was with 4 on board and a full boot.

  6. #6
    Fellow Frogger! Roland's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eMi16
    Correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't stiffening up and improving the chassis something that was a significantly noticeable change on the series 2 car ???

    I understand that is correct.

  7. #7
    Tadpole
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2

    Default great

    Well the maxima is probably one of the best all round cars I've come across without spending over 20k. More than plenty of grunt, and with my suspension setup it keeps up with most of the rexes through mount glorious/cunningham's gap. Then I'm happy to drive my grandmother around in it as it soaks up bumps like the best of em.

    The 405 seems like the absolute guns though for what I want..IE less fuel use, cheaper to run/rego.

    Whats the insurance like compared to other cars you guys have owned? And if I'm correct, I should be looking ideally for a 1992 model mi16?

    Whats the differences in the gearbox between s1 and s2 you mentioned? and is the 2.0litre not an alloy block?

    As for mods, I'd only probably lower it around an inch, with kyb/koni's and springs. As for cams and ecu, what sort of gains are available from just these? I'm not much of a fan of the whole tin of bee's note that almost every 4cyl makes hence exhaust probably staying as stock as possible.

    Rubber and brakes are big on my list of must have's...Whats the standard rotor sizes and caliper arrangements? Can they be upgraded at all if need be to a larger size from a bigger pug?

    Its all pretty new to me.

    As for the front LSD's, whats the quaife's go for? I had to keep the slippery diff in the max as you can only LSD the manual's, which wernt released in australia till the bigger 'porka' weight maxima's.

    Thanks in Advance.

    Ian

  8. #8
    1000+ Posts PeterT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Castle Hill, Sydney
    Posts
    7,487

    Default

    What you want is a '90 to mid '92 1.9L. They have 15" wheels and the BE3 gearbox (reverse under 5th). Some may have ABS and leather options.

    Have you read this test of an '89 model?

    http://www.aussiefrogs.com/articles/mi16/index.htm

    You won't need to modify the suspension. The Quaife ATB is a good idea. They're approx. $1300 new.

    The BE1 gearbox has the same ratios but has a lift up reverse, next to 1st gear.

    '92 205 Mi16
    '90 Mi16x4

  9. #9
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    172

    Default

    But I want to drop back a few cylinders and a bit of power to save money on insurance, fuel and rego.
    If you're driving a 91 model car, you should not be comprehensively insuring it, unless you are an incompetent driver who has an at fault crash at least once every 2 years. In that case, insurance should cost you the same amount for ANY car, something like $200 a year for third party, which is bugger all. Even if you were insuring it comprehensively, I'm not sure an mi16 would be much cheaper, if at all, than your maxima.

    Rego will be slightly cheaper but not much, maybe 100-200 a year.

    You might save 30% on fuel at the ABSOLUTE MAX, if you do 10,000 kms a year thats roughly a $300-$350 saving at the most.

    Then you think you're going to put performance tyres, a quaife and maybe new shocks and intake on the car. Dude, go drive an mi16, and if you really want one by all means go and do it, they are a fun car to drive, but I doubt its going to save you truckloads of cash in running costs each year.
    1984 505 STI

  10. #10
    Demannu-facturing! Demannu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Menzies Creek
    Posts
    2,541

    Default

    The series 2 cars did recieve some additional chassis stiffening, but this is completely offset by the heavier engine and additional chassis weight. The series 1 is a much better drive overall.

    They also dropped max power and torque in the series 2 motors, but the torque range is lower, far less peaky. Almost boring to drive.

    People keep referring to 1992 model Mi16s as series 1.5. This, I don't understand. After December 1989, all Mi16s had BE3 gearboxes and 15" wheels. After June 1991, ABS was dropped from being a standard item in an attempt to lower the price, as that was considered to be the prime deterrent to many prospective buyers. It became an option that was not often fitted. They brake better without it, anyway.

    I wouldn't touch the suspension either. Every Mi16 I have driven with modified suspension has been ruined, they become too skittery and too much like a honda, very understeery on power but uncontrollably oversteery during throttle liftoff.

    The series 1 engine (1.9 litre) is an aluminiumm block with cast iron wetsleeve liners. It is lightweight, and aftermarket components are easily obtained, particularly in the UK. Someone once said that it was basically a race engine that just happened to be in a road car.

    The series 2 engine (2 litre) is almost identical to look at from the exterior, except that it is made from a single piece cast iron block, without removable liners. Aftermarket support is increasing, but still nowhere near that of the 1.9 litre.

    I really don't think you'll see the value in upgrading to larger brakes. The S1 Mi16 will stop all day long on a dime.

    Mi16s do not have baffled sumps from factory, however they are an excellent idea for track work. This is how I destroyed my first Mi16 engine, at the long, tight, right hand U-turn at the western end of Mallala. After that when racing, I always ran 500ml more oil than the full mark, as well as a baffled sump (total 5.8 litres). Never had a problem after that.

    I always wanted to put an LSD in mine, but sold the car before I got around to it. I've heard only good things about LSDs in Mi16s.

    On a completely unrelated topic, buy my Mi16!
    Scotty

    Melbourne - Dandenong Ranges

    1956 Peugeot 403 - 'Francois' - resto project

    1969 Peugeot 504 - 'Pascal' - daily driver project

    1970 Peugeot 404 Utility - 'Brutus' - resto project

    1978 Peugeot 604 - as yet unnamed - V6 on straight LPG

    1987 Peugeot 505 - as yet unnamed - project car

    1999 Peugeot 406 Coupé - 'Chloe' - 5 speed manual

    2011 Peugeot 3008 XTE HDi - 'Zoe' - hatchback on steroids

    2014 Peugeot RCZ - 'Remy'

    1999 Range Rover 4.6 HSE - 'Grover' - tow car

  11. #11
    Fellow Frogger! Cubits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    555

    Default

    By the way, when i first said "stiffer" i was referring to the suspension/damping, and not the number of welds in the chassis. The S1 i drove felt less "relaxed" at low speeds. Unless the dampers were shot on one of the cars i drove, i assume there was a change made between S1 and S2 that tended towards improving "comfiness".

    I thought i read in one of the many improvement threads that mi's already had a baffled sump, i must've misread it... I know it's a must-have item for the 8 valves, especially in Queensland with our silly paperclip track.
    1987 205 GTI - Graphite Grey - 206k km's
    1988 MR2 Supercharger - Mica Blue - 114k km's

  12. #12
    1000+ Posts PeterT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Castle Hill, Sydney
    Posts
    7,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demannu
    People keep referring to 1992 model Mi16s as series 1.5. This, I don't understand.
    what's there to understand?

    S1 - 1.9L, 14" BE1
    S1.5 - 1.9L, 15" BE3
    S2 - 2.0L, 15" BE3

    No 1.9L had a baffled sump (except for 309 GTi 16V). All 2L engines have a baffled sump.

    '92 205 Mi16
    '90 Mi16x4

  13. #13
    Moderator Alan S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    8,923

    Default

    There's been a few advertised on this board in recent weeks.
    There's one not far from you that is due to come up any day now.

    mi16


    Alan S
    If it ain't broke, use a 12" shifter.....that usually does the trick!!

  14. #14
    Fellow Frogger! John505's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Morwell, Victoria, Australia.
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Cracka,
    I owned a S2 1995 MI16 2 L - best Pug I've ever owned! I agree with Demannu - don't alter the suspension as you will ruin the balance - the French suspension designers don't need their geometry ruined! You will regret it! If the MI you buy needs new shocks get the factory ones - Peugeot makes their own shocks & they are bloody good. Koni are good but you will pay a premium price for the name!
    The S2 interior is better than the S1 - far better plastics & materials. Also it does not have a dash that gets the "squizzles" like the S1. On the oher hand I have driven a S1 & it turns into corners just a bit better - ride height is a bit lower. However that also means extra care parking & going over wretched speed humps!
    The S1 engine is more peaky & needs to be revved. It is all alloy so the history of coolant changes is a bit more vital than the S2 which has a cast iron block & no wet liners. The S2 engine has more low down torque - but they both have a very sweet close ratio 5 speed box so the outright differences are not going to be that marked. S1 produces 107Kw, S2 produces 116Kw but S2 is heavier than S1. Both benefit I believe a lot from chipping if you want more go - Powerchip I have experience of & I was very satisfied with their Gold98 chip.
    Change the standard pads to Greenstuff which provides better braking & a lot less abrasive brake dust. You can get many aftermarket drilled rotors that fit if you need to - EAI here in Melbourne sll them. Tyres - my son had a set of 195/55R15 Michelin Primacy on his MI & they had phenomenal grip without too quick a wear rate - certainly better than the Michelin SX GT's I had on my S2 as standard fitment. Continental make a very grippy performance Cup tyre in the OEM size that is very grippy. Continental tyres are not much mentioned on AF I notice, but I believe they are exceptional tyres & you do see the German car makers fit them to all their big performance machines!
    The MI won't be as quick in the straight line as your Maxima, but in every other way it would leave it for dead!
    John505

  15. #15
    Tadpole
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Well I took an mi16 for a test drive today, was a series 1 and had nothing done to it at all except 15 inch multi (like 20) spoke wheels, sorta OZ racing replica's. It had dunlop sp3000a's which I know very well as I've had two sets. I was impressed, I love the turn in, its fantastic, can keep on the brakes deep and power out early.

    Still going to be stepping down both power/handling. The brakes on the mi were fantastic though for standard.

    The benefits in rego/fuel economy of the mi16 will pretty much sell me. Only thing left for me to do is get a test drive of a 4cyl Calibra when it isnt pouring with rain and I think I'll make my mind up. The last I drove I almost boughgt before I found the maxima. Had aftermarket springs/shocks but it was just fantastic.

    So its gonna be a toss up between the rebadged opel and the pug :p God what will the girlies think of me if I drive a peugeot.

    On a side note, has anyone got a link to some pictures of the 405's in the aus super touring or TOCA series? I'd love to see some.

  16. #16
    Member franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    82

    Default

    forget the calibra dude, the Mi16 is in a field of its own, leave the calibras to the hairdressing fraternity.
    1991 Peugeot 405 Mi16 sports saloon
    Boge shock absorbers all round
    K&N panel
    FOR SALE: $4800 NEGOTIABLE
    http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/cars-sale-wanted/32141-sale-1991-405-mi16-s1-5-adelaide.html

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    39

    Default

    LOL, yeah I thought about a Calibra. They have a bad reputation but generally should be a good car. They use a common GM 2L engine or at least it is used in 1 or 2 other models and they are the most aerodynamic Opel ever made. However I learnt that they are built on a Vectra chassis so handling isnt great. But all in all if you want a cheap car to run they're good. However a 405 Mi16 will get the respect of all AussieFrog members making to choice easy for you. Good luck in finding one.

  18. #18
    Fellow Frogger! Dijon16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    381

    Default

    John 505 wrote: S1 produces 107Kw, S2 produces 116Kw

    I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that most of the press on the S2 was that it had LESS power, with the aim of making it more tractable around town, less peaky.

    I recall that the figures went from 160hp to 150hp, which I think must have been Peugeot stats and not Aussie ones, because on this very list I have read that local ones only had 148hp to begin with.

    The rest of the write-ups were on the one-piece, no squeak or rattle dashboard, as well as the tiny things such as external thermometer, and headlight washers. The rear panel cut-out boot lid also got a mention for its stiffness, as has already been written about.

    Chis

  19. #19
    Fellow Frogger! Cubits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cracka
    Still going to be stepping down both power/handling
    Holy crap, i want a ride in your Maxima!

    Sure, the Maxima has more torque than the Mi16 (80Nm more), but it has a lower power/weight ratio, and weighs in at 300kg heavier (1100 vs 1400). If it outhandled a 405 on similar rubber i would be extremely impressed!

    The mid 90's Maxima i drove a few times had a love of mid-corner understeer and was endowed with rock-solid composure, meaning it wasn't quite as tail-happy as i'm accustomed to, but was stable at speed. It wasn't as much fun to punt through corners as i like a bit of dynamic instability (heck, i own a 205 which sets the bar for that!).
    1987 205 GTI - Graphite Grey - 206k km's
    1988 MR2 Supercharger - Mica Blue - 114k km's

  20. #20
    1000+ Posts PeterT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Castle Hill, Sydney
    Posts
    7,487

    Default

    XU9J4Z - 108kW
    XU9J4 - 160hp
    XU10J4 - 116kW

    '92 205 Mi16
    '90 Mi16x4

  21. #21
    Budding Architect ???? pugrambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Parkes - N.S.W - Australia - Earth
    Posts
    12,269

    Default

    the S2 i was always lead to believe had softer suspension than the S1

    i know my S1 was stiffer than a low mileage S2 i drove and i am sure the road tests said the same

    not saying the S2 is soft just not as hard as the S1

    ny pick of the Mi-16's is the S1 lux pack which was dropped to get the cars under the luxury car tax bracket at the time
    3 x '78 604 SL

    1 x 2018 3008

    1 x 2000 Citroen XM,

    1 x '98 306 GTi6 sadly sold

    1 x secret project

    1 x '98 406 STDT troop carrier and i don't care if it stinks, i don't sniff it's arse Death by wank tank

    1 x '99 406SV 5spd wagon, time to burn more fuel

    1 x 1994 605 SV3.0

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •