Talk:Peugeot 106

I think this article should be polished... We're talking about two different cars:
 * Peugeot 106 MK1 thant is in fact the very same car as Citroen AX MK2 (AX MK1 had minor body restyle and commplete interior restyle plus fuel injection engines compared to AX MK1); they share engine, trasmission, all the mecanic parts, some interior and some body parts
 * Peugeot 106 MK2 (longer, rounder and a little bit heavier than MK1) that surprise surprise is the very same car as Citroen Saxo, I don't know which came first but they are based on the same project, they share again engine, transmission, mecanic parts (that are different from MK1 model, even if very similar in design, they have different sizes) ans some interior/body parts.

Because of this lack of distinction i think some of the information provided is inaccurate; plus comments on quality of the make of the car compared to citroen cousins (or twins??) are not justified or at least inappropriate for an encyclopedia. NullPointer 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

engine ranges are not quite right
as someone else has stated we are talking about two different cars, the Mk1 and Mk2. There are several errors, the first i noticed was that the engine range inclused a "1.5L diesel".. this was only available in the Mk2, the Mk1 had a different 1.4L diesel.

The phase/mk.1 WAS fitted with the 1.5L Diesel engine (TUD5). This change happened in mid/late 1994 and the 1.5 was used until the last of the mk.1's rolled off the production line. It continued to be used in the phase 2 with minor alterations (and subsequently the in the Citroen Saxo). I have changed the main article to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.16.33 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

also i dont think the interior space is limited, its excelent, and rear passenger room was considerably better than most MODERN hatchbacks such as the VW Golf.

signed elastoplastscavenger (i will register one of these days!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.229.170 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

also the Mk1 1.1 had two diffrent engine sizes, the Aztec had the 1124cc and the Inca had the 1142cc but the 1124 had the better power output than the 1142 due to diffrent gearboxes

It's not at all true to say that the 106 facelift and Saxo were the same car. There were in fact fairly substantial differences, and remarkably few common components. Jean-Marie Folz, then PDG of PSA Group, stated in a management meeting that this was precisely the wrong approach - two cars that looked close to identical, yet were very different under the skin. (Actually, even the skins were different - there were no exterior panels in common.) There were precious few economies of scale, yet the public perception was of the most basic form of badge engineering.

As to the original version, although based on the AX platform with similar drivetrain there were again a large number of different components, including all the skin panels and the majority of internal panels.

An important detail: In some markets like Greece, Phase II 106 rallye lived two sub-phases. From 1996-1998 it came with 8V engine (105hp) and was painted blue, white or black. From 1999-2003 it came with GTi's 16V engine (122hp)with red and yellow added to colour choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikossfy (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

106 Owners Club link
the link to the 106 Owners Club is a duplicate of the link above it. It should point to http://www.106owners.co.uk. -86.151.236.40 22:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

S16
I noticed the S16 version isn't mentioned anywhere. I think it's somewhat "stronger" than the GTi, it's a sport version.

This comment is not quite right. S16 had exactly the same horsepower as the GTi. The letter "S" stood for "soupapes" (valves in French). The car was launched under the badge "S16" in some markets and as "GTi" in others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.3.182 (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Engine performance
Every good engineer knows that power is not very significant as it only represents an automobile's capacity to accelerate. This is actually not that important.

We would like to see engine performance to include the most important one: torque as it represents the real capacity for work of the motor. The larger a torque is, the stronger the engine.

It would be nice to have also the engine curves for torque and power. Again, the best value comes from engine which can offer a flat torque curve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.58.169 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

unmentioned trim levels
How come there is no mention of the Inca or Aztec trim levels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.157.220 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)