All-new Peugeot 5008 SUV

AstraMonti

Sorry I am not following the motor industry too close, what's the reason behind choosing the 1.2 petrol instead of the 1.6 diesel? Is it just a newer/cleaner engine or is it better performing?

Gwynston

grogi wrote: »

Torque figure is absolutely irrelevant. There is a torque multiplier device between the engine and the wheels called the gearbox.

What a load of nonsense!
Why do you think diesel engines are used for commercial vehicles where torque is important? Changing gear all the time is not a substitute for pulling power at low revs.

I know these small modern turbo petrols have changed the picture somewhat, but I have personal experience of driving high-revving, powerful petrol engines and also turbo diesel-engined MPVs with a full load and I can assure that torque is not irrelevant!

Gwynston

I don't want to change this in to yet another petrol vs diesel debate, because I appreciate the pros and cons of both. But discounting diesel engines in 7-seater MPVs on the grounds that torque is irrelevant is fatuous.

Having said that, I looked up the figures for the new 5008 and was impressed that they've reduced the weight from the old model. And as you say, the new petrol engines are light too. The 5008 is certainly a lot lighter than our S-Max, which even with its 180PS/400NM engine feels quite heavy with just me in it!

I wouldn't fancy having Ford's 1.5 petrol engine which has similar figures to the PSA 1.2.

Shefwedfan

AstraMonti wrote: »

I just did a test drive of one in Bluebell. It had the 1.6 manual diesel and it was the most basic version. I am well impressed by it. The GT-Line is by far more attractive in the eye. Quality is great all around and the space is massive. I am 6'1 and I was able to sit on the 3rd row, something impossible on the X-trail for example. I wouldn't say that i can do a long trip sitting on the back, but for short trips it would be perfect.

I doubt it was the basic version, was it not the Active?

AstraMonti

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I doubt it was the basic version, was it not the Active?

I stand corrected, it was the active. It had the rear camera and the 180 degree view as well.

khamilto

grogi wrote: »

Torque figure is absolutely irrelevant. There is a torque multiplier device between the engine and the wheels called the gearbox.

What really is important is the shape of the torque curve - and all of them look the same in turbocharged engines - it is flat in majority of the engine working range.

1.2 Puretech is turbocharged - so it will "pull" from low revs like a diesel. Well - kind off, you will not get the vibration and rattle sound sensations.

The newest EMP2 platform is very light - C4 Grand Picasso (5008 older brother) is lighter than C3 Picasso built on the old EMP platform! 1.2 engine itself is lighter than any diesel too - which also help with the performance and handling...

If the 5008 was available with 1.2 PureTech + EAT6 gearbox, that would be an absolute winner for me...

Torque is irrelevant, but then you talk about how torque is relevant and that somehow magically gearboxes mean you can have one Nm of engine torque and that's enough.

What? Do you have even the most rudimentary grasp of how torque x rpm = power? If both cars have 6 gears, then the car with less torque is going to produce less power at the same RPM (and thus vehicle speed, if gear ratios are similar).

When cars are offboost (e.g. <~1,500rpm), extra displacement absolutely matters and the 1.2l 5008 is going to struggle more than the 1.6l.

I should add, the 1.6 120 HDi has approximately 30% more torque at 1,750rpm than the 1.2 and only weighs <5% more. You can also search for a few journo reviews who agree that the 1.2 needs to be thrashed more than the 1.6 to make progress.

Lastly, 3 cylinder engines are (and I could be wrong) the most unbalanced of all mainstream engine configurations, even more so than 5 cylinder engines. Unbalanced = more vibrations and noise.

My sister has a new 2008 1.2l gt-line, the engine isn't a patch on the Focus 1.0 125hp I've driven recently and I wouldn't be steering people toward it.

grogi

Don't drag it sideways... I'll answer, but only once.

khamilto wrote: »

Torque is irrelevant, but then you talk about how torque is relevant and that somehow magically gearboxes mean you can have one Nm of engine torque and that's enough.

Torque figure is absolutely irrelevant - if it is 200 Nm or 400 Nm - it does not matter. What matters is max power and shape of the torque. Well, technically what really matters is available power at particular percentage of maximum engine speed (exp. 30 kW at 50% of revs and 97 kW at 95%).

However all the power curves look very similar and it is extremely hard to judge just by looking at it. That's why the max power and torque curve is useful.

What? Do you have even the most rudimentary grasp of how torque x rpm = power?

Clearly not...

If both cars have 6 gears, then the car with less torque is going to produce less power at the same RPM (and thus vehicle speed, if gear ratios are similar).

The gear ratios are not similar between diesels and petrols though. Between the two the petrol will have around 30% more revs than a diesel at the same velocity.

When cars are offboost (e.g. <~1,500rpm), extra displacement absolutely matters and the 1.2l 5008 is going to struggle more than the 1.6l.

Any turbocharged engine is miserable off boost. The intake and exhaust are not designed to work in N/A conditions, it really makes no sense comparing them (and even then I would not be sure which one would be better - diesel generally needs more displacement to achieve same power).

Trying to accelerate from such low revs not only brings disappointment, it also unnecessarily stresses other components, such as the DMF...

I should add, the 1.6 120 HDi has approximately 30% more torque at 1,750rpm than the 1.2 and only weighs <5% more.

And the 1.2 will have ~33% shorter gear ratio thus making a bit more torque AT THE WHEELs, where it really matters...

Tip: to see which drive train accelerates better, you need to compare available power at particular velocity.

You can also search for a few journo reviews who agree that the 1.2 needs to be thrashed more than the 1.6 to make progress.

What do you mean trash? Rev it a bit higher? Sure, never claimed otherwise. But it is not like with N/A engines - with modern turbocharged (or supercharged) petrols you don't need to go past 4000 rpms to actually feel something.

But because the rev range in petrol engine (1500-6500) is so much wider than in diesel (1500-4500), you actually need to shift less frequently...

Lastly, 3 cylinder engines are (and I could be wrong) the most unbalanced of all mainstream engine configurations, even more so than 5 cylinder engines. Unbalanced = more vibrations and noise.

Bringing 5 cylinders as a metric of unbalance must be a joke. 5 cylinders are smooth, not as much as 6, but still much better than 4.
3 are again worse than 4 - but it never really bothered me personally, except for these horrible 3 cylinder TDIs. I do understand however that some might find it uncomfortable.

My sister has a new 2008 1.2l gt-line, the engine isn't a patch on the Focus 1.0 125hp I've driven recently and I wouldn't be steering people toward it.

Why the hell did she buy this miserable motor then? Has she the 82 or 110 bhp version? Remember that 5008 comes with 130 bhp variant.

1.2 wouldn't get the International Engine of the Year award three years in the row (2015, 2016 and 2017) if it was such a mistake...

Gwynston wrote: »

What a load of nonsense!
Why do you think diesel engines are used for commercial vehicles where torque is important? Changing gear all the time is not a substitute for pulling power at low revs.

I know these small modern turbo petrols have changed the picture somewhat, but I have personal experience of driving high-revving, powerful petrol engines and also turbo diesel-engined MPVs with a full load and I can assure that torque is not irrelevant!

I already started, then I'll reply all together...

Diesel engine was initially designed to be simple, reliable and to run on anything. Leftovers from petrol rafination - throw it there... Some vegetable oil - I WANT MORE! It was very simple - no electrical nonsense. That's why it was so warmly welcomed in the field. What followed is that all infrastructure and law were built around diesel at the job - in Ireland companies still can deduct VAT only on diesel, not on petrol. Not to forget about more efficiency of the diesel engine - if it runs 24/7, you want it to be as economical as possible.

You also mention about 'low-revs-pulling'. What is the practical difference between pulling with 800 rpm, 900 Nm and gear ratio 5:1 from 1200 rpm, 600 Nm and gear ratio 15:2? The torque at the wheels is absolutely identical - 4500 Nm, and the wheel rotation speed is identical as well - 160 rpm. If you closed the drive-train in a sound proof black box, you would not be able to tell the difference. But internally they have different speed...

Shefwedfan

To settle it

Diesel is for farming vehicles/large construction vehicles(I include Large Vans here), trains etc..... Not for public users.

Maybe it was the Green Party or I don't know where suddenly everyone in Ireland has decided they need to drive a diesel. It is a complete joke. Thread's on here about doing 250km a week, a bloody week and they are talking about buying a diesel. The sooner the government throw a massive tax bill at public users buying diesel cars the better......

I had 2 diesel cars....like majority of people on here I had no idea....it was only when I started to look into it because I was firing out 180 quid every 2 weeks I seen the issue.....to resolve I swap car 1 for eGolf(50 quid a week saving) and now looking at SMAX. Only issue here is there is no hybrid/electric decent 7 seater available. But do I need a diesel?? No way and neither does 98% of the people that will buy the diesel 5008

You can argue all you want about torque/power blah blah blah but how much good is that when sitting on M50 in tail backs? really a lot of people talk a lot of b**s**t on here about power and then sit doing 20-30kmh each day. While doing that you are killing yourself and your kids with the s**t pumping out of tail pipe.....

You are buying a family vehicle. It will be driving at 60kmph at most majority of the time. So why do people think they need huge engines? your not buying a racing car......If anything I drive more conservative in SMAX because I have my family in it. The current 2ltr engine that is overkill.

I hope this government has the b*lls to finally get rid of diesel out of public use, I don't think they do.....

Gwynston

Very narrow minded.
It was not Ireland or it's tax laws that dictated the trend in the past dozen or so years towards diesel engines. Ireland doesn't make cars and it's market share is practically irrelevant to the people who actually do. The trend all around the rest of Europe has been the same anyway and all arguments about slow urban driving etc. are surely far more relevant elsewhere than in rural Ireland where a fair proportion of the population (outside Dublin) actually do drive regularly across country on a daily basis.

And don't insult people because they want more power and torque just because you think they don't use it. I can assure you that driving a loaded MPV on country roads where I regularly overtake slow vehicles absolutely does benefit from a more powerful and torquey engine.

And please quit with the torque is irrelevant nonsense. When I go to overtake a horse box with my whole family onboard, it is way safer only having to change down one gear rather than needing two to get past in a safe, timely fashion.

AND don't spout about not needing power because it's a family car. What? I'm never going to overtake because I have a family in the car?
In rural Co. Galway where I live, I'd never get anywhere if I stayed behind farm vehicles, horse boxes and buses all the time - I have to drive 3 kids all over the county multiple times a week to training, matches, music etc.

Please don't try to pretend one single engine spec is suitable for absolutely everyone - that's insulting millions of intelligent car buyers and every profitable car manufacturer.

grogi

Gwynston wrote: »

And please quit with the torque is irrelevant nonsense. When I go to overtake a horse box with my whole family onboard, it is way safer only having to change down one gear rather than needing two to get past in a safe, timely fashion.

I don't blame you.

We have been exposed to the 'TORQUE GOOD' propaganda for years. In the times when diesels were turbocharged and petrol engines naturally aspirated, there was some truth to it. Not because it is correct at the principle level, but coincidentally flat torque curve (thus more power at low rev) correlated with high torque figure. Times have changed and petrol engines got turbocharged as well, offering similar power delivery characteristics. But petrol engine are much more flexible and they don't need as high torque figures to deliver same power as a diesel. Nevertheless the old thesis 'MORE TORQUE, MORE PULL' still lives. It is WRONG.

Gwynston wrote: »

Please don't try to pretend one single engine spec is suitable for absolutely everyone - that's insulting millions of intelligent car buyers and every profitable car manufacturer.

But it really is.

I am not pretending that people in Ireland don't need cars. They do - public transport is a joke even in cities... But as long as the car is powerful enough to join the traffic, you don't need more.

We WANT more power. We WANT more gadgets on boards etc. Don't get me wrong - that's nothing bad in pursuing your desires. But when speaking about transportation NEEDS only, one engine per model would suffice. Many more are offered simply to get more money from the buyer for his or her dreams.

5008 is desired. It is nice, shiny. On big wheels. I like it. I want one. I would love to have V6 or even V8 under the hood. But the R3 130bhp IS SUFFICIENT.

AstraMonti

Are there any reviews available for the 1.2 petrol on the 5008?

grogi

AstraMonti wrote: »

Are there any reviews available for the 1.2 petrol on the 5008?

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-reviews/peugeot/peugeot-5008-2017-review/

Shame. Does a petrol engine redeem the 5008?

Oh yes, it feels like a different animal. The top spec diesel in plush GT trim (wonderfully quilted leather/polished steel/appealing pale wood) weighs a hefty 220 kilos more than the base 1.2-litre manual turbo, and the HDI has a distinct, firmer set of springs and dampers, to go with its 19in rims.

Jump into the 1.2 Puretech petrol using the same auto 'box, and the difference is instantly apparent. Turn the wheel (the shape of a fifty pence piece and not much bigger), and the nose responds more eagerly, with a lighter touch and less springy resistance. The ride, on 18-inch rims, is also far more settled, fluidly absorbing the crevices and crests, and with superior body control. The 1.2 just feels so much more nimble, for which you can partly credit the commendably light, 1317kg kerbweight.

And that means the three-cylinder turbocharged engine can cope with the longer SUV's demands, almost all of the time. Two up, the mid-range feels a bit wheezy on the hills (note to Snowdonia dwellers) but otherwise the engine retains the spritely, propulsive urge familiar from the CitroC3, though its goading three-cylinder soundtrack is down in the mix. Throttle response is a bit woolly (resort to the sport button), while manual shifts from the hollow plastic paddles aren't the snappiest.

https://www.whatcar.com/peugeot/5008/estate/review/on-the-road/

You might think that the entry-level 128bhp 1.2-litre would be too small to power a seven-seat SUV, but it’s surprisingly peppy and eager to rev. Both it and the more powerful 163bhp 1.6-litre petrol come available with a choice of six-speed manual or automatic gearboxes. We’ve not driven that engine yet, but with the added cost to buy and run it, we’d expect the 1.2 to be the petrol of choice.

https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/5008-estate-2017/first-drive

At the other end of the range is a three-cylinder petrol. Putting that 130bhp 1.2-litre up against a seven-seat crossover sounds like a tragically uneven match, but the plucky little motor overcomes your preconceptions.

Shefwedfan

Gwynston wrote: »

Very narrow minded.
It was not Ireland or it's tax laws that dictated the trend in the past dozen or so years towards diesel engines. Ireland doesn't make cars and it's market share is practically irrelevant to the people who actually do. The trend all around the rest of Europe has been the same anyway and all arguments about slow urban driving etc. are surely far more relevant elsewhere than in rural Ireland where a fair proportion of the population (outside Dublin) actually do drive regularly across country on a daily basis.

And don't insult people because they want more power and torque just because you think they don't use it. I can assure you that driving a loaded MPV on country roads where I regularly overtake slow vehicles absolutely does benefit from a more powerful and torquey engine.

And please quit with the torque is irrelevant nonsense. When I go to overtake a horse box with my whole family onboard, it is way safer only having to change down one gear rather than needing two to get past in a safe, timely fashion.

AND don't spout about not needing power because it's a family car. What? I'm never going to overtake because I have a family in the car?
In rural Co. Galway where I live, I'd never get anywhere if I stayed behind farm vehicles, horse boxes and buses all the time - I have to drive 3 kids all over the county multiple times a week to training, matches, music etc.

Please don't try to pretend one single engine spec is suitable for absolutely everyone - that's insulting millions of intelligent car buyers and every profitable car manufacturer.

touched a nerve have we. I live in rural area as well. I do work in Dublin so I see both Worlds.

The trend around the rest of Europe is not the same. See below. Look at the ratio in Ireland 3:1 for one of the smallest countries in Europe. We have the highest ratio of diesel to petrol in Europe.

UK and Germany would be biggest land mass and they are nearly 50:50.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Table_1_New_passenger_cars_by_type_of_engine_fuel,_2015.png

In regards to Power/Torque, you are driving on back roads, what do you need Power/torque on a road you are supposed to do 80kph? I drive everyday on back/rural roads and I don't see the requirement for all this Power/torque.

I pass all those "intelligent" drivers everyday in Dublin, driving there 2.0ltr diesel Golf/Audi/Corrolla/Octavia/Mondeo etc etc etc sitting in traffic and polluting the country. Also I did admit I was one of them, in my Audi A6 doing 14ltr/100km till I actually looked into it....

You are 100% entitled to drive whatever you like. This is just my opinion. Unless Ireland makes a change and actually looks out for our children everyone will continue to drive diesels and I can't believe anyone would think that having the majority of cars in Ireland as diesels is a good idea.

Shefwedfan

Back on topic. I dropped into Windsor to have a look. They had it out the back cleaning it, not sure why they need to clean a brand new car. I think it was because the displays seem to be in French

Had a look around, lovely looking car. Seems to have lots of space but I couldn't test the 2 back seats.

The console wasn't working either as they had in recovery mode. Said I would drop back.

Only issue I see so far is no tinted windows in back, that was the spec I was looking for, I know it comes with the pull up shades but I don't like them. I can fix that myself but would be nice to have factory built once. Could be option I don't know, main sales guys wants there so I will drop in again

messermaguire

@ Shefwedfan

I don't think tinted windows will be an option but I could be wrong. If you are however thinking on the line of an Active model and would like to upgrade the alloy wheels to 18", I was advised to go for the "Advanced Grip Control" for 790 euro. This includes 18" Los Angeles alloys"


What did you think of rear view viability? I sat in the middle row and adjusted the head rests etc for myself and eldest son. I then got back into the drivers seat and found rear view visibility not great. I also found that when the head rests in the second row were down the seat became very uncomfortable. Head room is also at a premium in the second row and this is without sunroof.

I think if you are interested in buying this car ( and I am ) bring your family and dog and test the hell out of it.
and for what it's worth, I'll be choosing 1.2 petrol if I go ahead and order one.

hairyslug

Are there any real mpg figures out yet from our French friends. We are torn between the 1.2 petrol and 1.6 diesel, allure or GT line. Mileage is roughly 200km 5 days a week, 95% motorway. Going for test drive on Monday, along with a sorento and Santa Fe

sReq | uTeK

Just back from test driving a 1.6 diesel in gowan motors merrion. Had a gentlemen called Gary take me around. It was the active model which looked good but is be interested in the GT-LINE with leather.

Anyway; big car, seats looked fine, dashboard and console worked and all looked good. Was manual and not automatic.

All in all it just comes down to what sort of deal can be got. He said no scrapoage at the moment on 5008.

He gave me the price list he got today minus 775 delivery I'll post it up shortly when I get back to office

grogi

hairyslug wrote: »

Are there any real mpg figures out yet from our French friends. We are torn between the 1.2 petrol and 1.6 diesel, allure or GT line. Mileage is roughly 200km 5 days a week, 95% motorway. Going for test drive on Monday, along with a sorento and Santa Fe

Not much... Average 7.15l/100km for the 1.2 petrol. But the sample is very small.

https://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/36-Peugeot/1174-5008.html?constyear_s=2017&constyear_e=2017&minkm=500&powerunit=2

messermaguire

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Just back from test driving a 1.6 diesel in gowan motors merrion. Had a gentlemen called Gary take me around. It was the active model which looked good but is be interested in the GT-LINE with leather.

Anyway; big car, seats looked fine, dashboard and console worked and all looked good. Was manual and not automatic.

All in all it just comes down to what sort of deal can be got. He said no scrapoage at the moment on 5008.

He gave me the price list he got today minus 775 delivery I'll post it up shortly when I get back to office

The GT-Line comes with sunroof as standard. You will have very little headroom to play with. If the second row is for kids only then you should be okay.

sword1

hairyslug wrote: »

Are there any real mpg figures out yet from our French friends. We are torn between the 1.2 petrol and 1.6 diesel, allure or GT line. Mileage is roughly 200km 5 days a week, 95% motorway. Going for test drive on Monday, along with a sorento and Santa Fe

I know there are plenty that will disagree but for me 50k is diesel, the petrol seems a good engine when you get into the 100k +I wonder will the extra rpms needed to get the power from small cubic lead to problems. It sounds like a great engine for someone doing less than 20k a year who will have it sold before it gets to the high mileage

sReq | uTeK

messermaguire wrote: »

The GT-Line comes with sunroof as standard. You will have very little headroom to play with. If the second row is for kids only then you should be okay.

Would adding the sunroof not create more space (never had one)

messermaguire

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Would adding the sunroof not create more space (never had one)

No, It takes away about 3 inches.

I have 4 kids, my eldest is 14 and he is already 5' 10". Reviews online have shown guys who are 6' , whose heads are touching the sun roof. To me this was a huge oversight by Peugeot and it's why I'm considering the allure version. ( no sun roof)

Shefwedfan

messermaguire wrote: »

@ Shefwedfan

I don't think tinted windows will be an option but I could be wrong. If you are however thinking on the line of an Active model and would like to upgrade the alloy wheels to 18", I was advised to go for the "Advanced Grip Control" for 790 euro. This includes 18" Los Angeles alloys"


What did you think of rear view viability? I sat in the middle row and adjusted the head rests etc for myself and eldest son. I then got back into the drivers seat and found rear view visibility not great. I also found that when the head rests in the second row were down the seat became very uncomfortable. Head room is also at a premium in the second row and this is without sunroof.

I think if you are interested in buying this car ( and I am ) bring your family and dog and test the hell out of it.
and for what it's worth, I'll be choosing 1.2 petrol if I go ahead and order one.

My test is take out all the car seats and fire them in...see what room is left....that is best test....

As it was in repair garage out the back I didn't really get to look around it. I just sat in, check the driver position. Had a look at console. Sat in first row of back seats and then checked boot.

Going to email now and see if they can get me in tomorrow

Gowan Motor Navan Rd never got back to me....

grogi

hairyslug wrote: »

Are there any real mpg figures out yet from our French friends. We are torn between the 1.2 petrol and 1.6 diesel, allure or GT line. Mileage is roughly 200km 5 days a week, 95% motorway. Going for test drive on Monday, along with a sorento and Santa Fe

200 km a day or 200 km a week? If the former, get the diesel. If the latter, get the petrol.

khamilto

grogi wrote: »

Don't drag it sideways... I'll answer, but only once.



Torque figure is absolutely irrelevant - if it is 200 Nm or 400 Nm - it does not matter. What matters is max power and shape of the torque. Well, technically what really matters is available power at particular percentage of maximum engine speed (exp. 30 kW at 50% of revs and 97 kW at 95%).

Power = torque by rpm. If torque doesn't matter, how can power matter?

Again, you are displaying an abject level of stupidity on the subject matter. You simply cannot have power without torque.

However all the power curves look very similar and it is extremely hard to judge just by looking at it. That's why the max power and torque curve is useful.

Feel free to post the power curves of the 1.6 bluehdi and 1.2 petrol.

The gear ratios are not similar between diesels and petrols though. Between the two the petrol will have around 30% more revs than a diesel at the same velocity.

You're also displaying an abject level of stupidity on what gear ratios are.

A gear ratio is the multiplicative ratio of the input shaft to the output shaft. Petrol cars do not have '30% more revs than a diesel at the same velocity'.

How little is it possible to know about the subject? You seem intent on plumbing new depths.

Any turbocharged engine is miserable off boost. The intake and exhaust are not designed to work in N/A conditions

Turbocharged engines off boost show the same shape torque curves as N/A engines. More waffle.

it really makes no sense comparing them (and even then I would not be sure which one would be better - diesel generally needs more displacement to achieve same power).

It absolutely makes sense comparing how a car predominantly used in the city performs offboost, as the most dangerous manoeuvres are those from a standstill.

Trying to accelerate from such low revs not only brings disappointment, it also unnecessarily stresses other components, such as the DMF...

Slipping the clutch every time you take off in first gear doesn't stress components. Ok, you can know even less! What other components aside from the DMF are stressed by accelerating from low RPM? I can't think of any, and I'm quite certain that you made that part up.

And the 1.2 will have ~33% shorter gear ratio thus making a bit more torque AT THE WHEELs, where it really matters...

Modern turbocharged cars have similar gear ratios to diesels. That is one of the ways how they have managed to get the emissions down.

Tip: to see which drive train accelerates better, you need to compare available power at particular velocity.

More pseudo-science.

What do you mean trash? Rev it a bit higher? Sure, never claimed otherwise. But it is not like with N/A engines - with modern turbocharged (or supercharged) petrols you don't need to go past 4000 rpms to actually feel something.

And? Who wants to rev the balls off a 1.2l engine in a 7 seater car just to make progress at a junction?

But because the rev range in petrol engine (1500-6500) is so much wider than in diesel (1500-4500), you actually need to shift less frequently...

Next you'll be saying that a car with a 3 speed gearbox is better than a 6 speed because you only need to change gear twice.

Bringing 5 cylinders as a metric of unbalance must be a joke. 5 cylinders are smooth, not as much as 6, but still much better than 4.
3 are again worse than 4 - but it never really bothered me personally, except for these horrible 3 cylinder TDIs. I do understand however that some might find it uncomfortable.

A five-cylinder engine gets a power stroke every 144 degrees (720° ÷ 5 = 144°). Since each power stroke lasts 180 degrees, this means that a power stroke is always in effect. Because of uneven levels of torque during the expansion strokes divided among the five cylinders, there is increased secondary-order vibrations. At higher engine speeds, there is an uneven third-order vibration from the crankshaft which occurs every 144 degrees. Because the power strokes have some overlap, a five-cylinder engine may run more smoothly than a non-overlapping four-cylinder engine, but only at limited mid-range speeds where second and third-order vibrations are lower.

Why the hell did she buy this miserable motor then? Has she the 82 or 110 bhp version? Remember that 5008 comes with 130 bhp variant.

I have no idea, I think it's an ugly car, with an awful infotainment system that will age terribly. It's the 110bhp version.

1.2 wouldn't get the International Engine of the Year award three years in the row (2015, 2016 and 2017) if it was such a mistake...

It never won International Engine of the Year. The Ford 1.0 ecoboost won it 2012,2013 and 2014. The BMW 3cylinder won it in 2015, and Ferrari won it in 2016. The Ford engine also won <1,000 CC award 4 years running, the peugeot engine has won 1,000-1,400cc once.

Do you have a disability that renders you incapable of getting anything right?

Diesel engine was initially designed to be simple, reliable and to run on anything. Leftovers from petrol rafination - throw it there... Some vegetable oil - I WANT MORE! It was very simple - no electrical nonsense. That's why it was so warmly welcomed in the field. What followed is that all infrastructure and law were built around diesel at the job - in Ireland companies still can deduct VAT only on diesel, not on petrol. Not to forget about more efficiency of the diesel engine - if it runs 24/7, you want it to be as economical as possible.

It appears that you do indeed have said disability, as again you are posting complete tosh.

Diesel engines were initially designed to replace steam engines i.e. large displacement, high torque, high efficiency - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Timeline. Furthermore, diesel required more complex ignition systems than petrol.

When diesel engines did start to appear is passenger cars, they were in luxury cars such as Packard and Mercedes Benz.

Stop making up nonsense.

You also mention about 'low-revs-pulling'. What is the practical difference between pulling with 800 rpm, 900 Nm and gear ratio 5:1 from 1200 rpm, 600 Nm and gear ratio 15:2? The torque at the wheels is absolutely identical - 4500 Nm, and the wheel rotation speed is identical as well - 160 rpm. If you closed the drive-train in a sound proof black box, you would not be able to tell the difference. But internally they have different speed...

Why are you using the word practical when creating a scenario that does not and will not exist in passenger cars?

You also mention about 'low-revs-pulling'. What is the practical difference between pulling with 800 rpm, 900 Nm and gear ratio 5:1 from 1200 rpm, and having eighteen swarthy sailors pulling your car with a rope?

My god you're some fantasist.

I regularly drive a 1.2 90hp Suzuki Swift, a 2l 160hp Rover 75, and a 190hp 2.5l MG ZT. The diesel Rover is the nicest to drive around the city despite having the slowest on-paper acceleration because you are constantly riding a smooth wave of torque. That's the point of torque and why it matters rather than peak horsepower.

Ah Christ, just saw that you posted more pseudo-science bull****:

We have been exposed to the 'TORQUE GOOD' propaganda for years. In the times when diesels were turbocharged and petrol engines naturally aspirated, there was some truth to it. Not because it is correct at the principle level, but coincidentally flat torque curve (thus more power at low rev) correlated with high torque figure. Times have changed and petrol engines got turbocharged as well, offering similar power delivery characteristics. But petrol engine are much more flexible and they don't need as high torque figures to deliver same power as a diesel. Nevertheless the old thesis 'MORE TORQUE, MORE PULL' still lives. It is WRONG.

More torque does equal more pull, all other things being equal. You know the 90,110 and 130 variants of the 1.2 engine? They're all identical except for having higher levels of torque - which negates pretty much everything that you've wankered on about with regards to torque being pointless.

Torque is good, which is why large displacement engines were the norm for luxury and sports cars - and why american cars (and cars designed for america) have always lived by the "there's no replacement for displacement" mantra. Indeed, that's why displacement was used instead of peak power in the motoring press over there.

Petrol engines absolutely need the same high torque figures to deliver the same power (note the absence of peak) as a diesel. Power is fuel source agnostic because, yet again, power = torque x rpm. A scientific calculation really doesn't care what the fuel source is grogi, though you repeatedly claim that it does.

grogi

Your reply is too rich in nonsense to point out all. You had me on 'ignition elements in diesel engine'...



If you read the complete Wikipedia page about R5 you are quoting and forgot to provide source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-five_engine), you would also find that:

The justification for a five cylinder engine is that it is almost as compact as an inline-four, and almost as smooth as a straight-six engine.

and

Every cylinder added beyond five increases the overlap of firing strokes and makes for less primary order vibration. An inline-six gets a power stroke every 120 degrees. So there is more overlap (180° - 120° = 60°) than in a five-cylinder engine (180° - 144° = 36°). However, this increase in smoothness of a six-cylinder engine over a five-cylinder engine is not as pronounced as that of a five-cylinder engine over a four-cylinder engine. The inline-five loses less power to friction as compared to an inline-six. It also uses fewer parts, and it is physically shorter, so it requires less room in the engine bay, allowing for transverse mounting.

About my disability of getting things right:

http://media.groupe-psa.com/en/groupe-psa-turbo-puretech-gasoline-engine-awarded-2017-engine-year
http://media.groupe-psa.com/en/press-releases/group/three-cylinder-turbo-puretech-petrol-engine-named-2016-Engine-of-the-year
http://www.citroen.co.uk/about-citroen/news/puretech-named-international-engine-of-the-year

In the end let me quote the summary of your post...

khamilto wrote: »

Petrol engines absolutely need the same high torque figures to deliver the same power (note the absence of peak) as a diesel. Power is fuel source agnostic because, yet again, power = torque x rpm. A scientific calculation really doesn't care what the fuel source is grogi, though you repeatedly claim that it does.

You're right here, at last... Petrol, diesel, LPG or bioethanol - it does not matter. I was just simplifying (diesel and petrol engines have some characteristics that everyone understands - diesel high torque, narrower rev band, petrol less torque, wider rev band) to suit the discussion.

However I will repeat that: two engines don't have to produce the same torque to produce same instantaneous power. You have stated many times why, even in the quote above, but you seem not to be able to connect the dots yet. Think about it, draw some charts... You'll get there.



Apparently the only thing you are capable of is calling things stupid and ****. Stop doing that and have a nice day.

ba_barabus

hairyslug wrote: »

Are there any real mpg figures out yet from our French friends. We are torn between the 1.2 petrol and 1.6 diesel, allure or GT line. Mileage is roughly 200km 5 days a week, 95% motorway. Going for test drive on Monday, along with a sorento and Santa Fe

A friend has a 2008 GT line 1.2T Auto since Jan and says the mpg is atrocious

SmithySeller

Gwynston wrote: »

I don't want to change this in to yet another petrol vs diesel debate, because I appreciate the pros and cons of both. But discounting diesel engines in 7-seater MPVs on the grounds that torque is irrelevant is fatuous.

Having said that, I looked up the figures for the new 5008 and was impressed that they've reduced the weight from the old model. And as you say, the new petrol engines are light too. The 5008 is certainly a lot lighter than our S-Max, which even with its 180PS/400NM engine feels quite heavy with just me in it!

I wouldn't fancy having Ford's 1.5 petrol engine which has similar figures to the PSA 1.2.

Good follow on Gwynston

Ive read that the 1.2Petrol is 200KG lighter than one of the 2L Diesels!

SmithySeller

Holy Jesus, Ive just started read page 12 :eek:

medic112

:eek: my head just popped off, after readin all that

Gwynston

Yes, let's pretend that whole diesel/torque debate didn't happen shall we, and stay on topic?

Casual visitors to this thread are just trying to find out about the new 5008 and probably aren't ready for exposure to the usual high-horse, circular, vitriolic arguments that happen in the main Motors forum.

messermaguire

medic112 wrote: »

:eek: my head just popped off, after readin all that

I know, and we haven't gone down the road of "what colour do you prefer? yet

grogi

messermaguire wrote: »

I know, and we haven't gone down the road of "what colour do you prefer? yet

The colour of burning hell... Unfortunately not in the range...

They all look the same to me - just slightly different shades of gray... I really like Metalic Copper from 3008, but I don't se it on 5008 either.





Beige Pyrite I guess for 5008...

sword1

When are they bringing out the electric ones!!!!

messermaguire

grogi wrote: »

The colour of burning hell... Unfortunately not in the range...

They all look the same to me - just slightly different shades of gray...

Beige Pyrite I guess...

Nice, I also like white with the black roof. Or all black

SmithySeller

Call me boring, but I like the Nimbus Grey.

grogi

sword1 wrote: »

When are they bringing out the electric ones!!!!

Not soon. But interesting trivia - Opel are releasing 5-seater Opel Crossland X. They didn't even try hard to hide the 3008.

Amberjack

Im also interested in the new SUV version, I currently have a 131 Family model of the 5008 and love the space and also haven't had any issues with it. I've 3 young kids so need the 3 full seats. While the current model isn't the snazziest, it suits my needs, but I do like the look of the new SUV model and will definitely check it out.

Shefwedfan

They mentioned the finance will be at 4.9% APR....

PCP not announced yet but expect it to be the same

5.9% on Kodiaq so they know who there competition is

Based on the report on the Kodiaq thread and ignorant sales people hopefully everyone will buy Peugeot instead and put them back in there box

grogi

Shefwedfan wrote: »

They mentioned the finance will be at 4.9% APR....

PCP not announced yet but expect it to be the same

New models that attract so huge interest rarely get good financing and scrappage deals. 5008 needs no incentives to go through the door and for the sales match the production...

AstraMonti

4.9% for both PCP/HP.

sReq | uTeK

Price list attached

sReq | uTeK

AstraMonti wrote: »

4.9% for both PCP/HP.

Yup and no scrappage deal which seems a bit mystifying that there is no incentive what-so-ever

grogi

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Price list attached

Quick glance and it seems the same as the one linked previosly http://www.peugeot.ie/brand-and-technology/about-peugeot/news-and-blog/highly-anticipated-peugeot-5008-suv-goes-on-sale-in-ireland.html

sReq | uTeK

grogi wrote: »

Quick glance and it seems the same as the one linked previosly http://www.peugeot.ie/brand-and-technology/about-peugeot/news-and-blog/highly-anticipated-peugeot-5008-suv-goes-on-sale-in-ireland.html

Thank you, hadn't seen that one.

Shefwedfan

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Yup and no scrappage deal which seems a bit mystifying that there is no incentive what-so-ever

No scrappage I dont mind, I can wrangle a deal with my own car then.....:p

sReq | uTeK

Shefwedfan wrote: »

No scrappage I dont mind, I can wrangle a deal with my own car then.....:p

I currently have a 08 Mondeo S*IT BOX

Shefwedfan

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

I currently have a 08 Mondeo S*IT BOX

I bet if you walked in tomorrow with that car you would get the same if not similar deal with scrappage or not. The dealers use scrappage as an excuse for a lot of things. If you car is worth anything up to 6k they automatically fire you into scrappage....

sReq | uTeK

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I bet if you walked in tomorrow with that car you would get the same if not similar deal with scrappage or not. The dealers use scrappage as an excuse for a lot of things. If you car is worth anything up to 6k they automatically fire you into scrappage....

ah to be fair it has a fair few dings and scrapes, I've never kept it too well. 160K on the clock and I was told 2.5k trade in come Jan.

AstraMonti

Can anyone kind enough add/remove/correct the + and - for going with either the 1.2 petrol or the 1.6 diesel for this car from the list below?

1.2 Petrol
+Newer engine
+Cleaner
+Cheaper to buy

-Not strong enough when fully loaded (? not sure if that's true)
-Less mpg

1.6 Diesel
+More mpg
+In my mileage about 550euro cheaper on gas per year (if prices remain as is)

-Older heavier engine

I am just trying to make a balanced decision, I am not a petrol head and I don't have a specific incline in any type of engine. I currently drive both a petrol and a diesel. I prefer the diesel because i can almost do 950kms on avg per tank. In the petrol i can barely do 550. (different engines/cars so not really comparable, but still two saloon cars.)