Citroen C1, Peugeot 107, 108 & Toyota Aygo Owners Club. (Discount code for CityBugStore: C1OC)

It is currently Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:30 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:27 am 
Offline
Full Member

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:06 pm
Posts: 38
Drives: 2006 Pug 107 1.0
PetrolDave wrote:
OP will be amazed to learn that until 2016 as well as my Citroen C1 (which I sill own) I owned an Audi RS4 Avant - why did I enjoy driving most?

Neither! - I loved them both for different reasons, here's why...

The RS4 had ridiculous performance (more than a Volvo 850 T5...) and just "went" but without too much real "driving" and you could never be in the wrong gear as the torque band was 600rpm to 8600rpm (yes really!). The stability system made sure you could safely be a hooligan without crashing or spinning.

The C1 is an "old school" driving experience where you have to listen and feel what the engine and gearbox are telling you, do that and learn how to maintain momentum and it becomes a n excellent way to hone your driving skills. The lack of electronics means you can control the car right to the limits (a 4 wheel drift can be real fun - and achievable at low speeds).



Not a valid comparison, the 850 is 25 years old with less in the way of electronic assistance than the C1 (I don't have ABS, let alone traction control). It's torque band is obviously wider but its a very laggy turbo so requires lots of maintaining and good gear selection to keep it on boost and hence keep making progress. It has 60/40 weight distribution with no front diff and a power value that is able to spin the wheels in third without much effort, so requires considered approaches to maintaining momentum through the corners. The RS4 has hybrid turbos with low spool speeds, a closer weight distribution, much wider torque bands and as you said is so utterly riddled with electronics (not to mention 4WD) that you don't have to do anything other than plant your foot.

I learned to drive in a Fiat 500, then another 107, and my first car was an old 1.2 Corolla, I'm fairly versed in maintain momentum as all of these weighed about the same with the same torque and power bands (and values for that matter). The majority of my mileage was also always on twisty B roads and fast A roads so its not as though I only ever sit on the motorway. In the 850 I have also been doing nothing more than maintaining momentum and avoiding braking/accelerating as much as possible to get most mpg out of the thing on the commute.

I do appreciate your point however, and I genuinely much prefer older cars with less in the way of electronic assistance. Why do you think my (now) weekend car is a 25 year old car with no assistance and a very laggy turbo?

The engine in the Pug I can deal with, around town its actually perfectly suited to its application - its pretty nippy up to 30mph. Unfortunately most of my commute nowadays is motorway driving, where the endless drone from sitting at 3.5K is a bit much, as is having to downshift into fourth every time you reach a slight incline just to maintain 70mph. I acknowledge that this is not a design flaw as I am using the car outside of its intended applications, but that doesn't stop it from being a drag.

Speaking of that gearbox, it's hardly precision engineering is it. Massive throw, vague gates and oh so much slop. I did state in the first post that my opinions on this car would not go down well. What can I say, it works for its intended purpose of hustling people around a city centre, but it is by no means a good car, it is by no means a good driving experience (how can it be with that gearbox, and engine that requires revving but doesn't want to, a clutch as poorly designed as it is, and steering that is so utterly disconnected that there is no feedback). Maybe this Pug of mine is more shagged than it should be, maybe its a proper lemon with an awful lot of wear in bushings etc, who knows. One positive of the drive train is that rev-matching is exceptionally easy, and pedals are reasonably located for heel toe, so there is that.

Exterior will be cleaned as soon as the new bonding on the rear window cures - Peugeot advised at least a week for this. As Steve says the one advantage of hard plastics and cheap carpets is that they are very easy to clean and so turning this thing around doesn't take much effort. I'm also with you Enjay, I do enjoy both tidying up and fixing the mechanicals on cars - my 850 was beyond a lemon when I bought it. Needed new discs, calipers and pads all round, 2 new hard brake lines, struts dampers and shocks all round, shock mounts, new vacuum lines all round, new coolant temp sensors, new control arms, new drop links, new spark plugs, dizzy, rotor arm, and leads... pretty much everything haha - but it means I got it cheap and its now worth vastly more than when I started.

_________________
1995 Volvo 850 T5 (Rolling daily project for the last year)
2006 Peugeot 107 1.0 (Soon to be daily!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:40 am 
Offline
Area Rep
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:31 pm
Posts: 4605
Location: Motherwell
Drives: Citroën C1
I does annoy me when people bash on these car for being slow and being low spec. It is a car that was bought brand new in my case for £5995, yes it is the base model and has nothing in it but that’s brilliant.

Especially when trying to compare it to the like of a 3 series or Audi. Complete polar opposites it cannot be compared. I completely agree with petroldave.

I have driven lot of cars, and the one that I enjoy the most is the C1 because it is simple and make no pretence about what it is. A cheap city car.

Enjoy the car for what it is not for what you wish it was.

_________________
John - Mechanical Guru :ugeek:
Scottish Area Rep
Citroën C1
Alfa Romeo 159 Turismo Sport
Renault 5 Auto


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:54 pm 
Offline
Full Member

Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:57 am
Posts: 18
Drives: C1 2008
Somwhere you wrote that the rain gets into the car.

There are some posts in this forum on how to get the car tight and the expense is just some silicone.

Regarding the comfort of the bug, I agree with your observations. However my conclusions are very different.

What I am very happy with:
1) The economics
2) Size: It is easy to find a parking spot
3) Ease of maintenance and repair
4) The feeling of driving


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:58 pm 
Offline
Full Member

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:06 pm
Posts: 38
Drives: 2006 Pug 107 1.0
wee mac wrote:
I does annoy me when people bash on these car for being slow and being low spec. It is a car that was bought brand new in my case for £5995, yes it is the base model and has nothing in it but that’s brilliant.

Especially when trying to compare it to the like of a 3 series or Audi. Complete polar opposites it cannot be compared. I completely agree with petroldave.

I have driven lot of cars, and the one that I enjoy the most is the C1 because it is simple and make no pretence about what it is. A cheap city car.

Enjoy the car for what it is not for what you wish it was.


Dont recall calling it slow at all, or indeed calling it low spec'd. I said was gutless and required constant use of the box to maintain momentum and make progress on inclines - is that what you'd care to dispute? I also said its pretty nippy up to 30mph - perhaps that's what you're disputing? Regarding low spec, I reported on the spec my example had - didn't say I expected anything more, I didn't say these cars should have more or are poor in comparison to rivals, so I'm not sure where you've gotten that from.

I don't wish it was anything. I also don't intend to enjoy it. If I start to enjoy it I'll start to spend money on it, and that entirely defeats the purpose of shedding a car to save money.

I'm staggered though, that after sitting in one and presumably test driving it, that you thought it was a good way to spend £6k, as opposed to getting a 2-3 year old example of the next step up - a Fiesta or Yaris for example, which are much nicer places to be and indeed drive. But its hard to comment on given I don't know your situation or quite what you were looking for when purchasing. It is good around town, due to its short wheelbase and being relatively nippy up to 30, I won't argue that, so perhaps if the intended use is just to nip to the local corner shop to grab some Werthers then it is probably a sensible buy. Probably also sensible as a first car due to its small stature and relatively low insurance group.

RainerK wrote:
Somwhere you wrote that the rain gets into the car.

There are some posts in this forum on how to get the car tight and the expense is just some silicone.

Regarding the comfort of the bug, I agree with your observations. However my conclusions are very different.

What I am very happy with:
1) The economics
2) Size: It is easy to find a parking spot
3) Ease of maintenance and repair
4) The feeling of driving


Thank you for the info, I think I've seen the post you're referencing and I'll certainly get onto sorting it out if the recall didn't address it!

Economics I won't debate at all, parts and consumables are especially cheap - tyres in particular. It is undoubtedly small and so easy to park, but then I've never had an issue parking my 5m long Volvo so this one doesn't hold much personally. Ease of maintenance I'm hoping I won't have to look into too much - though admittedly the plugs and oil filter were very easy to get at (though they tend to be on most cars); beyond that I hope there won't be much to do! The feeling of driving I will have to disagree on, for reasons outlined previously (gearbox, engine unwilling to rev, rubbish engine note, poor clutch, vague over-assisted and feedback lacking steering) but these things are naturally subjective and my clapped out example probably isn't a fair representation of one from new.

_________________
1995 Volvo 850 T5 (Rolling daily project for the last year)
2006 Peugeot 107 1.0 (Soon to be daily!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 5:34 pm 
Offline
Full Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 7:29 pm
Posts: 806
Location: South Molton
Drives: 2008 Citroen C1 Code
Cookeh wrote:
The RS4 has hybrid turbos with low spool speeds,

Not true for the B7 version I had - which was a 4.2litre normally aspirated V8, no turbos, no supercharger, just good old fashioned cubic capacity with the ability to pull from below tickover to hard against the redline in any gear :D

The B5 was a 2.5litre V6 twin turbo, there was no B6 RS4 and the B8/9 are 3 litre V6 supercharged.

_________________
2008 C1 Code 1.0 I3 petrol
2015 Skoda Octavia 1.4TSI Elegance estate


Sadly missed - 2006 Audi RS4 Avant


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 5:49 pm 
Offline
Full Member

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:06 pm
Posts: 38
Drives: 2006 Pug 107 1.0
Apologies, thought you had the B5 for some reason - way off with my dates. Thought the B5 went all the way up to 2006, but they were EOL in 2001. Makes it even less comparable then, with completely linear throttle response making handling even more predictable, and ridiculous amounts of torque throughout the whole rev band! Great sound though, and great for making 'lazy' progress. Great chassis in those too, I remember them being hailed as the best handling car for UK roads that Audi ever made.

Would love to see some pictures of it - its honestly one of two Audis I've ever actually wanted, the other being the original Quattro of course.

_________________
1995 Volvo 850 T5 (Rolling daily project for the last year)
2006 Peugeot 107 1.0 (Soon to be daily!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:16 pm 
Offline
Full Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 7:29 pm
Posts: 806
Location: South Molton
Drives: 2008 Citroen C1 Code
Cookeh wrote:
Would love to see some pictures of it - its honestly one of two Audis I've ever actually wanted, the other being the original Quattro of course.

These were taken after I had it detailed prior to selling it (retirement means I had to get sensible...)

P.S. Sorry they're so big :cry:
Image
Image

_________________
2008 C1 Code 1.0 I3 petrol
2015 Skoda Octavia 1.4TSI Elegance estate


Sadly missed - 2006 Audi RS4 Avant


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 7:51 pm 
Offline
Full Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:59 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Aberdeenshire
Drives: C1 2012; 107 2009
Cookeh wrote:
What can I say, it works for its intended purpose of hustling people around a city centre, but it is by no means a good car, it is by no means a good driving experience (how can it be with that gearbox, and engine that requires revving but doesn't want to, a clutch as poorly designed as it is, and steering that is so utterly disconnected that there is no feedback).

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise (probably couldn't) but, for what it's worth, I love driving my C1 and my 107. Most of the things you said about them are probably true - at least up to a point, but in some ways, they are part of why I like driving them. Noisy? Yup. Not exactly powerful? Check. High clutch biting point? Sure is. Sloppy gearbox... actually, I've not found that too bad, but, yeah, not tight. And sure, the handling could be better too.

However, to me, all of those things are part of the car's character. I have always felt that driving my C1 is like a bit of a throwback to the early cars that my mates and I owned "back in the day" - just cheap and cheerful motoring with no frills that I can enjoy simply because it is cheap and cheerful. I drove my MX5 last weekend, and took my MR2 to work most of this week (which is, of course, always good fun) but I was quite happy to jump in my C1 this morning and take it to work instead. I do around 60 miles in my C1 most days and have toured on the West coast of Scotland with it. Honestly, I enjoyed every mile. Around town, and parking, it's great. The only time I found driving it a bit of a chore was a motorway run of a around 300 miles. That was a bit wearing, but it's also not what the cars are meant for. They are, after all, classed as city cars (though most of my time is spent on rural roads).

Like I said, I'm not really trying to change minds; I'm just saying that it can be fun to drive them. It just depends what you want to get from them I guess. :)

I would contend that it is a good car though, in as much as it is exactly what it is meant to be; nothing more, nothing less. So, by that metric, it's good. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:28 pm 
Offline
Area Rep
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:31 pm
Posts: 4605
Location: Motherwell
Drives: Citroën C1
Cookeh wrote:
I'm staggered though, that after sitting in one and presumably test driving it, that you thought it was a good way to spend £6k, as opposed to getting a 2-3 year old example of the next step up - a Fiesta or Yaris for example, which are much nicer places to be and indeed drive. But its hard to comment on given I don't know your situation or quite what you were looking for when purchasing. It is good around town, due to its short wheelbase and being relatively nippy up to 30, I won't argue that, so perhaps if the intended use is just to nip to the local corner shop to grab some Werthers then it is probably a sensible buy. Probably also sensible as a first car due to its small stature and relatively low insurance group


I feel that you are perhaps ignorant to circumstance. I have owned the car for 9 years, I didn’t buy it brand new, I was just stating the book price from new, so when you think they are making a mark up by selling at 6k what are they building it for? 2-3k?

I own 3 widely different cars. So for me it’s not a financial choice to drive it.

Why do you own a 25 year old Volvo Sh!tbox and spend a lot of money putting it right when at the end of the day is still a 25 year old sh!tbox? Because it’s you it is your choice. :thumbs:

Enjoy!

_________________
John - Mechanical Guru :ugeek:
Scottish Area Rep
Citroën C1
Alfa Romeo 159 Turismo Sport
Renault 5 Auto


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:15 pm 
Offline
Full Member

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:06 pm
Posts: 38
Drives: 2006 Pug 107 1.0
No need to get upset. You say its down to choice but can't accept that I don't enjoy the car for my uses, that's just a smidge illogical. I am ignorant to circumstance, I made that perfectly clear in the post you have quoted. I also made no reference to your financial situation. This is now the third time you have put words in my mouth, and I would suggest you work on your comprehension skills ;) What both preceeded and followed it, however, are still accurate. I cannot think of a reason why - based on my experience with the car - a person would opt for one of these over the class up - which would offer all of the benefits (low running costs, high mpg, low insurance, small size and so on) without the negatives in terms of comfort, spec and refinement. This is all the more true for the used market, where ones budget, regardless of size, can go significantly further and differences in RRP are largely negated by the 2-3 year old point in depreciation.

The Volvo was bought purely as a project to learn basics of mechanics. Cant do that without a car in need of work. Said Volvo is also a much more entertaining, practical, comfortable, refined drive than the car you are so vividly defending - not to mention the fact that its current market value is over 5x that of the Pugs/C1s (despite being double the age), with a market that is increasing in demand and value. That the 850s were also a poster car for me due to their BTCC era, and that the 850s were the only turbo'd 90s Volvo wagon I didn't have as a child was definitely a bonus. This thread is about the bugs though, so lets not derail it in its entirety.

PetrolDave wrote:
Cookeh wrote:
Would love to see some pictures of it - its honestly one of two Audis I've ever actually wanted, the other being the original Quattro of course.

These were taken after I had it detailed prior to selling it (retirement means I had to get sensible...)

P.S. Sorry they're so big :cry:


Excellent stuff, second best colour for them too. Definitely need to get into a V8 at some point in my life.

Enjay wrote:
Like I said, I'm not really trying to change minds; I'm just saying that it can be fun to drive them. It just depends what you want to get from them I guess. :)

I would contend that it is a good car though, in as much as it is exactly what it is meant to be; nothing more, nothing less. So, by that metric, it's good. ;)


I don't entirely disagree with you. As I've said a couple of times now, they are okay at what they were designed to do - ferry people around the a city centre. My comments are relating to my experience and usage, which has been and will continue to be, on a 60 mile commute, mixing motorway and stop start city centre traffic. I also echo the idea that it is refreshing to have a car that is rather more minimalistic - without a nanny state of electronics over-ruling your entire input. Unfortunately I feel that experience is let down by some things I've mentioned in before, namely the disconnected steering, poor gearbox and terrible clutch design - all of which do really impede on that feeling of being 'connected' and in control of the car.

_________________
1995 Volvo 850 T5 (Rolling daily project for the last year)
2006 Peugeot 107 1.0 (Soon to be daily!)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group