Peugeot 106 XT (Peugeot 106 XT)

Member Name: tony-lewis

Product:	Peugeot 106 XT
Date:	21/04/01 (1716 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Handling, Looks, Practicality

Disadvantages: Parts Cost, Exhausts

I had a 92J 106 for about 12 months. It was a 3-door 1.1 petrol version. The XT is quite a smart little version - remote central locking, body-colour bumpers, tinted glass, 4-speaker stereo, split rear seats. The engine was the carburettor type used in the very first 106's. It was quickly replaced in 93 (I think) by the injection models.

Economically, for a car of its age, it was good: around 300 town miles to the tank. Inside, its a big little car - there's plenty of legroom for all, front and back, and the boot is, well, its the boot of a supermini, but its good. What there is not is plenty of space between the pedals - I wonder if Peugeot designed the 106 with the ladies in mind - As a bloke I found it hard not to catch the brake when pressing the clutch.

My particular model was actually very reliable, I didn't have any trouble starting in the morning. The shock came when service time came around. The price of Peugeot parts is phenomenal. In comparison to, say, Ford or Rover Parts, I quickly discovered that the common replacements, like radiators, brake sets, clutch sets, a cambelt, were 50% more expensive. Why? Due to the whole Peugeot-Renault-Citroen Stranglehold on parts apparently - No I didn't understand it either.

Still, apart from the running costs in terms of maintenance, it was a great little car - good looking, good performance (better road-holding on the bends due to the anti-roll bars on the XT) and reasonably practical for a super-mini.

One last warning - mine went through exhausts like there was no tomorrow - go to a place where they apply a 12-month warranty on exhausts - 11 months later you'll be back, warranty in hand, with your little 106 sounding like a tractor.

Summary: