1.9 or 1.7 ZX TD?

adamskibx · Post by **adamskibx** » 26 Sep 2005, 06:09

Was wondering what engine the ZX 1.9 TD has in it- I know the 1.7 TD BX actually has a 1.8ish engine but have been told this is a different engine altogether than the 1905cc normally aspirated BX engine. How come the 1.9 ZX TD has exacly the same BHP (92) as the 1.7 TD BX, and has the same top mounted intercooler? Just need to know as my friend is thinking about searching for one as the BX is a bit too flimsy looking and oddball for his taste. Cheers, Adam

Post by **RichardW** » 26 Sep 2005, 13:31

Adam,
XUD engines come in 3 sizes: 1769cc, 1905cc and 2100cc, badged as 1.7, 1.9 and 2.1 (not sure of the exact number for the 2.1!). 1.7 and 1.9 were both made with and without turbos, 2.1 is turbo only, and has a 12 valve head. 1.7 and 1.9 turbos both make around 90HP, depending on installation - there was no increase in max power for the larger displacement (achieved I think by increasing the bore) - it just makes a bit more torque (145 lbf ft vs 133 lbf ft - or something around those figures). 1.7TD was only fitted to the BX and 405 (and some Rovers, but we won't go there!) - all ZXs and Xantias are fitted with the 1.9 (except the 2.1 TD Xantias obviously!).
The ZX TD is really a cracking car. Spirited performance, and good economy possible (if you're gentle with the loud pedal! - this seems to be the main difference between the 1.7 and 1.9 variants - the 1.9 is much less tolerant of heavy throttle use - the BX would never drop much below 45mpg, whereas the ZX will easily go below 40 mpg if you cane it - which you will[:o)]). You will probably find any that you look at are knocking at the back - new rear subframe mounts will cure this. Avoid any that are creaking at the back, or have negative camber on the rear wheels, in this case, the rear arm bearings are shot, and they're considerably more difficult to change than BX ones. There's a rust trap behind the PAS tank, but this is not too difficult / expensive to repair. The radiators go along the bottom edge, replacement is a bit awkward due to the stupid clip on the bottom hose. It uses the pull type clutch which is a bit of a pain to replace, so knock down any that have a heavy clutch, or one that comes in near the top of the travel.
For reference I got a very tidy 94M TD Avantage with only 65k miles for £800 earlier this year. Bargain!
Still got to change the subframe mounts though....[}:)]

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 26 Sep 2005, 13:38

Just for completeness:
2.1TD is 2088cc, 110BHP.
1.7TD is 88BHP, 1.9TD is 92BHP
There are also some odd installations, like the 205/309 TD installations that didn't have an intercooler. They were the 1.7 engine and had 80-ish BHP. The other odd one is the "SD" Xantia, which is a 1.9TD with a light pressure turbo and no intercooler, which only makes about 75BHP.
A ZX TD is indeed a cracking car. I think it's one of the smallest/lightest cars to come with a 1.9TD from the factory. Just check for symptoms of head gasket failure very carefully.

Post by **Peter.N.** » 26 Sep 2005, 15:12

I wonder if I could raise a point while all you experts are on line. My wife had a BX TZD turbo estate for some years (enough for the cam belt to break, I dont want to do that job again) My son has it now and uses it in preference to his 2.8 Capri, performs nearly as well and uses a lot less fuel, and yes, it goes like stink, that of course has the small engine. My wife now has a ZX estate with the 1.9 turbo engine and complains that iy doesn't go as well as the BX, which is true, is the ZX that much heavier or whats the problem? I have checked the usual things like the throttle opening fully. I await your wisdom.

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 26 Sep 2005, 15:48

ZX is indeed a fair bit heavier than a BX, not because the ZX is heavy, simply because the BX is surprisingly light for the size of car.
Having owned and driven both 1769TD and 1905TD engines in identical cars (both Pug 405 estates), the 1769 engine does seem a little more eager, and revvy. The 1905 in comparison can seem slightly sluggish, but definitely has more torque, is the better tow-car, and is much more powerful at high speeds. They are surprisingly different engines to drive, especially considering that the only difference is 3mm in the bore diameter.
It might be worth connecting a pressure gauge to check that the turbo is producing full boost. Also, check the injection timing. A little while ago I discovered just how much of an effect having the injection pump badly timed has. (I think this is why the electronic timing models were introduced.)
It may also be just the fact that the ZX will be quieter, smoother, and generally more modern. This may be hiding the performance, making the car feel slower, when in actual fact it isn't. I've been caught out with this a number of times: "this car doesn't feel very fast....Oh, we're doing 110... are you sure that speedo is reading correctly? it doesn't feel like 110" says he, howling past everything else on the motorway. Slow down to 70, and it feels like about 20.

jeremy · Post by **jeremy** » 26 Sep 2005, 15:49

ZX saloon 1.9D weighs about the same as a DTR Turbo Estate (TZD is the same beast) So yes Turbo estate is a bit heavier still and of course saloon BX is a bit lighter than the estate.
Jeremy

Post by **Peter.N.** » 27 Sep 2005, 00:44

No, the peformance is definitly not as good. We have a road near us(the Axminster bypass) which, if any of you know it, will appreciate that it is a long steep hill, the BX would accelerate up it at 60 mph in 5th, the ZX just about holds its own as does my XM 2.1 td estate. The timing sounds about about right on the ZX, after years of running Perkins 4/108 engines which break the crankshaft if they are over advanced, I can tell fairly well by the sound if the timing is right. What I havn't checked is the fueling but the BX had pretty clean exhaust. The ZX has only done a bit over 70k so should be in fairly good nick.

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 27 Sep 2005, 03:48

Ah.... in gear performance may be different, as differing engine capacities had different gear ratios. I've experienced 5th gears ranging from 21mph/1000rpm up to about 28mph/1000rpm, all in BE gearcases.
It's entirely possible that the ZX has higher ratios, as it's a torquier engine. Will it accelerate up said hill in 4th? I know my 405 1.9TD doesn't like to have 5th until at least 55mph, and even then it's below peak torque. 60MPH in 5th is 2250rpm(for me) which is peak torque, but nowhere near any kind of power output. 4th at 60mph is nearer 3000rpm, which is 1.3 times more power for (roughly) the same torque.

Post by **Peter.N.** » 27 Sep 2005, 13:40

Hadn't thought of that, thanks.

adamskibx · Post by **adamskibx** » 28 Sep 2005, 18:32

Cheers guys thats cleared that up for me-So the ultimate car would be a BX with the 2.1 engine then! If it fits. Since sorting out the pedal box and doing something accidental to the infjector pump on mine ive started to enjoy diesel power- im seriously thinking about scrapping my idea to get a fast petrol BX next and just go with a Turbo D 1.7. Would be far more ecconomic too

jonnydrumm1967 · Post by **jonnydrumm1967** » 29 Sep 2005, 04:42

I had a BX TZD hatch 12 years back and my Dad had a ZX Turbo D.There was virtually nothing in it, but there were both excellent cars, I remember latching onto the tail of a 4.6 V8 Range Rover on a twisty road and having to brake through some corners because it was holding me up! Fantastic suspension system,refined further on my current Xantia.[:)]

adamskibx · Post by **adamskibx** » 07 Oct 2005, 23:45

He's bought a ZX. I have to say im very impressed with the way it drives and accelerates. It performs identically to my BX non turbo until it gets to about 2200 RPM, then its like a second engine kicks in as the Turbo starts doing its work. You can definately hear its the same engine but the ZX suppresses the higher frequency sounds better, yet exagerates the boomyness when compared to the BX.

adamskibx · Post by **adamskibx** » 07 Oct 2005, 23:56

RichardW wrote:You will probably find any that you look at are knocking at the back - new rear subframe mounts will cure this. Avoid any that are creaking at the back, or have negative camber on the rear wheels, in this case, the rear arm bearings are shot, and they're considerably more difficult to change than BX ones. There's a rust trap behind the PAS tank, but this is not too difficult / expensive to repair. The radiators go along the bottom edge, replacement is a bit awkward due to the stupid clip on the bottom hose. It uses the pull type clutch which is a bit of a pain to replace, so knock down any that have a heavy clutch, or one that comes in near the top of the travel.
For reference I got a very tidy 94M TD Avantage with only 65k miles for £800 earlier this year. Bargain!
Still got to change the subframe mounts though....[}:)]

Yeah:- The car he got was a 1997 Elation TD which has thise nice ZX alloys added to it by the last owner. 70,000 miles, mint interior and body, colour coded bumpers, foglights etc. It was £1100 but had the rear subframe mounts and arm bearings done recently apparently. However the clutch action is high- Do you know if its adjustable? Also, I found that the pedal has massive travel compared to the BX. Id imagine thats to make it lighter (more leverage), and I would have thought that the gearbox is of the same type but with different ratios to the N/A BX's. Only faults weve found on the car are a collapsing lateral force cussion on drivers seat, wear on steering wheel, slight dent on front of bonnet (very minor), and a suspect glowplug problem (2 seconds of misfire on cold start).