This review was of particular interest to me, as I owned several 404s, two of which had the automatique, ZF’s new three-speed torque converter automatic, in other words. I didn’t really know much about them, except for their characteristics, obviously, which were mostly very good, with one exception. This review had the same impressions I did, but it provided some explanation and technical details.
Obviously the 404 was getting a bit out of date visually by 1967, having arrived back in 1960. Seven years were an eternity back then, stylistically. But the 1967 model year was a good one for the 404, as it received a number of improvements, along with the availability of the new ZF automatic.
The 1.6 liter engine’s compression was raised, upping hp to 80 (gross). The interior upholstery got a new perforated vinyl, and there were other detail changes. The 404’s stellar reputation made up for the obsolete narrow body with its fins. But then there were benefits to that too.
Up to this time, Borg Warner’s Model 35 had a virtual monopoly on the automatic market in Europe, with Mercedes being a key exception. The 35 was never a loved thing; “a marginal proposition” as R&T called it. I couldn’t agree more.
The ZF was decidedly more advanced, and had a number of features specifically targeted to the European market. Its torque converter was relatively “tight”, meaning a low stall speed, low maximum torque multiplication, and minimal slippage as a result. Also, the torque converter had a locking feature, so that once it attained the speed where there was no more torque amplification, it locked up solidly, eliminating slip. Both these features were made for the purpose of increasing efficiency, a key factor in Europe, where automatics were considered gas hogs, among other things.
I did not know these things, but I certainly felt some of them, most notably the low stall speed/torque multiplication. Our big 404 wagon had this transmission, and there were a time or two when I seriously wondered whether it was going to make it up a very steep hill when starting out from a stop. Admittedly, the time I wondered this the most, it was pretty full of passengers and lots of luggage, and it was in the Sierras, at high altitude. But it explains why.
The main issue is that Peugeot specified the control aspects of the transmission, choosing to have it start in second gear in D range. Given the “tight” torque converter and the none-too torquey 1.6 l four, that inevitably meant leisurely take-offs. Yes, giving it full throttle did result in a downshift to first, but that’s not suitable for normal driving. The other option was to put use L range, which meant first gear starts, but also shift points at maximum engine speeds. Also not suitable for normal driving. The only good solution was to engage L at a start, then shift into D once underway. A semi-automatique, in other words.
R&T said that Peugeot chose this to increase efficiency, but they questioned it, as it took essentially full throttle to have a reasonably normal getaway from start. It was a much more pleasant and involved less engine effort to have it start in first. FWIW, R&T noted a 5 mpg fuel economy penalty compared to the four speed version they had tested previously, resulting in a tested mileage of 19-21 mpg.
I picked up a 1967 sedan automatique with a bit of rear end damage for next to nothing, and got it running sweetly in short order. I already had my 4-speed sedan, so I “leased” it to a coworker, who needed wheels. She was happy enough with it, and never bothered to downshift.
A year or so later, when Stephanie finally was ready to drive, I picked up a ’70 wagon with the automatique. Fortunately, by then Peugeot had revised the shift pattern, and it always started in first. Good thing, as the wagon was a fair bit heavier than the sedan. It always shifted very cleanly, crisply but not harshly. I was quite impressed; it was a good or better than any of the vaunted Big Three automatics.
Beyond the automatique, R&T again noted all the qualities that made the 404 such a fine car: the extremely comfortable seats and attractive interior, superb visibility, and an “outstanding” ride quality that was the equal or better of cars weighing 1500 lbs more. The steering was noted to be a bit heavy at slow speed, but quickly lightened and was very accurate. Noise level was low. Handling was significantly better than the soft suspension would suggest, albeit with the customary French body roll, but the Michelin X radials held on tight.
The manual 404 was obviously a more satisfactory choice for the engaged driver, but for Americans in particularly, having the option of an automatique was important, and other than the second gear start, suited the general characteristics of the 404 quite well. It preferred to waft, even if it was a brisk waft.
Related reading:
Curbside Classic: 1969 Peugeot 404 Sedan – The French Mercedes And Just Like Mine PN
Roughly how many of these sold in the states?
Hard to say. You mean all 404s or just the automatics?
Peugeot was a steady but modest seller from the mif-50s through the mid ’70s, slowly increasing sales. Then after the energy crisis, the 504 diesel became significantly more popular.
Obviously the number of Peugeots was concentrated on the coasts, especially the West one. Quite a decent number in So.Cal. Not likely to see a 404 in the Midwest and such.
I had to a 64 stick and a 67 stick shift my second and third cars I love them
From what I can tell, Peugeot sold about 4,000 cars in the US annually in the late 1960s. The precise number for 1967 was 3,917 – though that’s total, and not broken down by model or equipment. Peugeot sales were stronger during the late 1950s import boom, and then increased again in the 1970s (by the late ’70s, Peugeot sold about 10,000 cars annually in the US).
Thanks for that info. Do you have that for all imports? I’d love to add sales stats to our database on domestic cars.
For this Peugeot information, I used a 1981 US Government report, which can be found here:
usitc.gov/publications/332/pub1203.pdf
This is from the US International Trade Commission, and they put out occasional reports on automotive trade. This publication has US sales numbers for most imported makes from 1964-80 (but not broken down by models in most cases).
The data itself came from Ward’s, and was just compiled by the USITC, but since I can’t find an online source of Ward’s Automotive Yearbooks, this is the best easily-accessible alternative.
For Peugeots, the US sales figures are on page 25 (p. 25 of the document, not of the pdf).
When researching imports of the ’60s and ’70s, it’s a great resource.
Wow, that’s an interesting document! Perusing it, I love the disclaimer at the bottom of page number 9 after trying to figure out how Belgium figured into things: “Note.–Data for West Germany and Belgium are combined since both countries produced Opels for export to the United States during the 1964-76 period. Although Belgium has produced Saabs and Volvos for export to the United States and although Canada also produces Volvos for export to the United States, for the purpose of this table all Saabs and Volvos are considered to be Swedish. Small quantities of the Volkswagen Thing were produced in Mexico for export to the United States during the 1972-76 period; for the purpose of this table, however, the Thing is considered to be West German.”
And hence the stats are sort of juked, I wonder how these days they account for Jeep Renegades made in Italy and shipped to the US for example…But it’s a very interesting read.
Looks interesting. I don’t have time to dive in right now, but I’ve bookmarked it.
I would really like to complete our database/spreadsheet.
The B-W 35 was widely used because it was available, not because it was a great transmission.
I am too young to have much experience with the 404 but I did spend a fair amount of time in both the 504 and 505. The 504 was a much nicer car than the 505 in my opinion. The beautiful interior of the 504 was cheapened for the 505 and that was a big loss.
The article states a 0-60 time of 20 seconds. That’s pretty slow even for 1967. My gf’s 505 had the two litre four and an automatic. It was not fast but it didn’t feel dangerously slow, either. The ride and seats were sublime.
Popular Science tested a 505 2.0 but with a manual and recorded a 0-60mph time of 17.6 seconds in late 1980. I’d guess the automatic would add a few seconds to that and be around 20 (or more?). I would not have thought it would be that slow, interesting. At least the driver was comfortable.
Popular Science, Nov 1980 – Comparison test of Peugeot 505, Audi 5000 Turbo, Rover 3500, Volvo (244) GLE and for some reason the Datsun 200SX. One of these things is not like the others…I guess the story was about testing five “imports” although four of them could conceivably be cross-shopped and the Datsun not really.
All these Peugeots were fairly leisurely in acceleration. The problem was that although the engines got bigger (1.8, 2.0) the cars got heavier and the emission controls sapped power.
Keep in mind that approx. 20 seconds to 60 was quite common both back in the 60s with six cylinder American cars, ans well as even with some small V8s in the malaise era.
The truth is, 0-60 times are not really the be-all, end-all yardstick. There’s more to life than accelerating full-on to 60. Like how the car feels at 60, or at 80, on less than stellar pavement. And other criteria.
I owned a 505 pushrod auto, and it was definitely a good 20-seconder. It was even injected, and the same engine US ones got, but it always felt like a soggy carbie in responsiveness. Unleaded fuel and emissions requirements didn’t mix well with late-’50’s engine tech, let alone aircon and electric windows and power steering and such.
Very nice car when wound up, but was frankly a bit of a pain to drive round town.
Opposite to Canucklehead, I say the first 505 dash (by Paul Braq, no less) was really elegant and the 504’s was tizzy, but I agree the 504 was a better car. The 505 looked elegant, but never felt as strong or unified as its predecessor.
Pretty much all the European cars of that era really struggled with autos. Built to a price, like everything, they were set up tight, likely to help with longevity of the autobox, which they weren’t great on anyway, so they were a total mismatch to the engines in front of them. Limited slippage with a low torque engine makes for terrible driving. Oh well, different era.
I don’t quite agree. Obviously a car with a small engine is going to lose a bit more in the inevitable losses of an automatic, but there is a corresponding gain in convenience. I found this transmission surprisingly agreeable in our 404 wagon, once Peugeot changed the shifting parameters to always start in first gear. The second gear starts in the early versions as tested here was Peugeot’s mistake, which they later rectified.
Obviously if one didn’t want the convenience of an automatic, the manual gave better performance and fuel efficiency. But that was essentially the case with all automatics until the more recent era.
My eyes always love wandering over any example of Pininfarina’s work from this era. Perhaps they just encapsulate an era, but they never cease to give visual pleasure – in overall line, and in many details.
Yes. I love the “cove” effect of the backlite on the 404.
These were all over Africa when I was a child. My cousin had a grey one and my parents in law had a yellow Familiale. So tough and yet smooth to ride in! And the pickups (“bakkies”) proved almost indestructible. Somehow the design, despite the commonalities worked so much better than the Farina BLMC cars – much better proportioned.
Great cars – I had the pleasure of riding in one in France a few years ago and it didn’t disappoint.
Garlic flavoured Austin Cambridge !
But much nicer!!
BMC really got the rough end of the pineapple from Pininfarina here, as the Pug is a lot sweeter than any of theirs. It’s amazing how a few details of line make the Froggie look quite formal and elegant, and the others narrow and a bit saggy (and in the case of the early oversized BMC fins, somewhat ridiculous).
Mind you, I am not suggesting the 404 is much of a good looker: “from another, less graceful period” for sure, particularly when you think of the really beautiful US cars in existence by 1967.
Was this the first mass-produced automatic with a locking torque converter? As to the 404 itself, I haven’t seen one in many years, and in fact these are the first photo’s I’ve paid attention to in a while. In my opinion, it was really the best-looking of the several Pininfarina “clones” of around that time: BMC, Fiat etc.
Packard’s Ultramatic, which debuted in 1949, featured a locking torque converter.
So did the B-W/Studebaker “DG”, which in retrospect Packard perhaps should have used instead of spending all that capital (and customer-led testing!) on the Ultramatic
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-studebakers-automatic-drive-borg-warner-dg150200250-advanced-in-some-respects-not-so-in-others/
I saw a good blog post about the 404, who also show a photo of a pick-up version.
https://www.carjager.com/en/blog/article/peugeot-404-prudence-and-toughness-to-counter-the-ds.html
No need to link to other websites. We’ve covered the 404 in great detail here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/curbside-classic-1969-peugeot-404-the-cc-holy-grail-found/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/the-worlds-greatest-wagons-peugeot-203-403-404-504-505-an-illustrated-history/
One thing is sure, maybe Columbo might have enjoyed a 404 as well. 😉
Coincidentally, a close friend just picked up a very nice 404 saloon this pas weekend. Will try to do a post on it sometime. The 404 has interested me quite a bit as well, almost bought one myself recently but ended up going in a different direction.
R&T’s data panel says the 404 required premium fuel…on an 8.3 to 1 compression ratio? Seems odd.
We had a 1967 Mercedes 250SE with 9 to 1 compression (if I recall correctly) and it ran fine on the regular fuels of the day.
I never used premium in any of mine.
My first 404 was an early one with generator, 7.6 compression ratio, and, in RHD, a complete mental-case of a gearshift pattern that couldn’t be rushed even when you remembered it right. I mean, really, how many cars have towards-you-and-up for second gear AND top?! So I would have loved an auto on that , but they never got here.
Steering was indeed a bit stiff to park, but odd of them to say the steering’s not “overly slow” – it was pin sharp, very feelsome, just 3.4 turns on a 10.5 ft turning circle, and amongst the car’s finest features.
Such nostalgia for the solidity and superbly-integrated abilities of these things, but glad to be splashed with the cold water wake-up that I never want to drive a 20-second car in any reality of traffic today.
Did the French have a hot rod community or aftermarket parts that bumped up the hp of their underpowered cars? Not necessarily for racing, just more spirited driving.
Interesting article, I didn’t know the 404 automatic was also offered in wagons in some countries. In South Africa we also had 1800cc 404s with both manual and automatic, I currently own an 1800cc automatic 404, very torquey 1st gear(I believe it’s the later automatics) that start at 1st gear(1974 model) the extra displacement helps. I’ve heard folks say the automatic was very slow in the standard 1600s