1905 NA v 1769TD

This is the place for posts that don't fit into any other category.

Moderator: RichardW

tomsheppard
Posts: 1801
Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 15:46
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

1905 NA v 1769TD

Post by tomsheppard » 21 Feb 2004, 18:44

I have been told that the TD is the one to have but
one of my gurus asserts that though the td has more horses (yes and 53% more torque!) it is a rough engine compared to the 1905 diesel and bits rattle off it, usually pipes and ducting.
He also suggests that it is not particularly durable.
He is not a citrophobe and often right, but is he this time?
I liked the 1905 and am hoping to get a turbodiesel soon- What do members with experience of both think?
0x

David W
Posts: 439
Joined: 30 Apr 2001, 17:49
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by David W » 22 Feb 2004, 05:15

Sorry Tom he's completely wrong. Take two engines in comparable condition and the TD will be smoother and quieter. I suppose it is just possible a 1.9 non-turbo may outlast a TD in extreme test conditions. But usually owner neglect is what kills these engines, not the issue of turbocharged or not.
In some circumstances I would have a BX 1.9 non-turbo. With ZX and Xantia models it has to be a TD every time!
David
0x

tomsheppard
Posts: 1801
Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 15:46
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by tomsheppard » 22 Feb 2004, 16:44

Thank you for your welcome advice David; sort of confirms my own guess.
Why would you prefer the 1.9 in the BX? Is it the comparative complexity (surely not, any common nuclear physicist or rocket scientist can maintain a BX)or the fun of accessing components? Towing? use predominantly around town? Servicing costs? I'm intrigued!
When I used to run the Swedish economy (ten years of well maintained Saabs), the turbos needed oil distilled from the hearts of VATmen to stay together. Although diesels don't take such a pounding,I assume that frequent oil and filter changes equal long life (together of course with good turbo management techniques; warm and cool sympathetically and idle before switchoff). Should I be using a synthetic or just a good straight oil? I just re read your posting and I think I get it now. Zx and Xantiae on the 1.9 would go like milk floats 'cos they are a good bit heavier than the BX - is that it?
0x

philhoward
x 48

Post by philhoward » 22 Feb 2004, 16:57

The BX is quite a bit lighter than the Xantia, so will go better for the smaller TD lump anyway.
As for Oil, then regular oil and filter changes are a must on all engines, especially the XUD lumps. The oil seems to go black as soon as it hits the sump, but it'll be fine for a good few thousand miles.
Personal preference would be a multigrade turbo diesel oil; possibly semi-synthetic, if not normal mineral. Going fully synthetic on such an old design engine will only let it smoke like a chimney and rattle its head off. These old lumps used to take straight 30 oil, but i wouldn't put that stuff near a turbo. Go for a Xantia spec Diesel oil (15W40); most oils on the market now are suitable for Turbos anyway as they are so much more common than 15 years ago. Don't waste your money on GTD Magnatec; buy a good, but not gold-plated oil, just regular stuff and do it twice as often. The engine will like it better in the long run.
I've never been a fan of "Pay £35 for the oil and leave it in for 15,000 miles" crowd; pay a third of that and do it 3 times more often.
0x

arry_b
Posts: 519
Joined: 10 Dec 2002, 16:55
Location:
My Cars:

Post by arry_b » 22 Feb 2004, 16:59

Surely nowadays the question is not the engine size or smoothness, it's which one has been the better looked after and what condition it's in.
I can't see many people walking away from a mint 1.9 because they would prefer a 1.7TD. Could be a long wait until the next one.
BTW Tom, as an ex Saab owner myself, isn't it startling how much these Citroens don't cost to run in comparison. These Xantia owners should have a go at running a classic 900T - that'll stop them moaning about their Citroens!
0x

arry_b
Posts: 519
Joined: 10 Dec 2002, 16:55
Location:
My Cars:

Post by arry_b » 22 Feb 2004, 17:08

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by philhoward</i>
Personal preference would be a multigrade turbo diesel oil; possibly semi-synthetic, if not normal mineral. Going fully synthetic on such an old design engine will only let it smoke like a chimney and rattle its head off.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That's not been my experience. I'm running 5W40 fully synthetic and the engine is smooth and doesn't smoke at all at 93,000 miles.
However I do agree with your preference for semi synthetic.
I noticed a big difference in smoothness when I moved from mineral to semi-synth (worth doing), but no difference when moving from semi to fully syn. As for stretching the intervals - whatever you put in will be full of soot in a diesel, extended drain intervals don't work for NA diesels.
0x

philhoward
x 48

Post by philhoward » 22 Feb 2004, 17:38

I tend to choose oils around the £10-£15 mark and change every 5-6000 miles; there are some quite suitable semi-synthetics for that mark (just because it isn't Mobil/Total/Castrol doesn't mean it's no good).
Check the markings on the label rather than look at the glossy words on the front. There have been links here before on looking at the AGI/SP/SD codes and what you will need.
For something of the XUD heritage (read old generation!), then if it's suitable for a turbo diesel and 15W40 it should be fine. Sometimes the oil can be too good. Switching to synthetic CAN sometimes be a bad idea; arry_b - your TD is just about run in, which is probably why yours is fine. If it had done 193,000, then I would be wary about putting fully synth in it. The synthetic switch is more noticable on petrol engines, anyway as they wear quicker.
If it's a new car (to me) with an unknown/chequered service history, then i'd use a mineral oil of the correct spec for just 1-2000 miles to act almost as a flushing oil! More frequent oil changes cannot hurt an engine; it's just a compromise of cost vs. service interval when looking at higher spec oils, added to personal preference.
One time never to use fully synthetic is on a new/rebuilt engine; the excellent anti-friction capabilities of synthetic oils actually prevent the engine from "bedding in"; a process which does require the engine to wear.
0x

tomsheppard
Posts: 1801
Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 15:46
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by tomsheppard » 23 Feb 2004, 00:23

Yes, Cits are relatively cheap to run. and on this TD I propose to use 15-40 semi Synthetic.
I was more interested in the views on the engines. To veer off topic a moment, to reminisce with Arryb:
A home service on a 900t,(engine only, 5,000 miles) would cost £200 in oil, filters and misc electrical parts. I am not pulling your legs. Parts for 911s were regularly cheaper.You didn't notice the sub 25mpg thirst or the 9,000 mile front tyre life at £80 a corner. So why? Huge boot volume and dragster like acceleration. No better motorway car for overtaking, immune to crosswinds and lots of steel between you and the accident- Built like an old Merc, safer than a Volvo, Warm as a furnace and So much cooler than the BMW that is disappearing rapidly in the rear view mirror.
0x

arry_b
Posts: 519
Joined: 10 Dec 2002, 16:55
Location:
My Cars:

Post by arry_b » 23 Feb 2004, 02:51

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tomsheppard</i>
You didn't notice the sub 25mpg thirst or the 9,000 mile front tyre life at £80 a corner.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So you used to drive yours carefully then Tom? I got mine down to 18MPG once and wasn't happy with the front tyres at 7K (Avon ZV1's)[:0]
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
So why? Huge boot volume and dragster like acceleration. No better motorway car for overtaking, immune to crosswinds and lots of steel between you and the accident- Built like an old Merc, safer than a Volvo, Warm as a furnace and So much cooler than the BMW that is disappearing rapidly in the rear view mirror.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes to all of the above - and the ability to get from Bromsgrove to Exeter on the M5 in 90 minutes! (150 miles[}:)])
Instead of having a company car, I run my own and claim a car allowance. The 900T is the only car that actually cost me money above my allowance (and I used to run a V6 XM before the Saab!).
By comparison my ZX paid for two family holidays abroad last year.
0x

tomsheppard
Posts: 1801
Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 15:46
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by tomsheppard » 23 Feb 2004, 16:40

Yes, mine won me enough points to win a bicycle!
0x