Xantia 1.9 vs. 2.1

deian · Post by **deian** » 08 Jul 2006, 19:07

Just out of curiosity really... how much faster/better is the 2.1 over the 1.9. I know I could just go to the user manual and see the figures, but what about real life experiences? Thanks

f00lzz · Post by **f00lzz** » 08 Jul 2006, 20:04

Of course, faster doesnt necessarily mean better!!!! ease of servicing, replacing components like head gaskets and clutch components etc etc all go towards determining the 'better' car which of course may all come down to personal preference at the end of the day (I still wish I had the 2.1 instead of the 1.9 tho')

np · Post by np » 08 Jul 2006, 21:11

I really wanted a 2.1 when i got mine 4 1/2 yrs ago.But the cost of a 2.1 Xantia,insurance,less room under the bonnet & all that was too much.So i got my 1.9TD & had it boosted to the same BHP & torque as a 2.1,but with out the extra cost.
Still wish i had a 2.1TD though!

Quackers · Post by **Quackers** » 08 Jul 2006, 23:09

If i had to have a diesel xantia it would be the 2.1, the 1.9 would not even not even enter my head. Main reason would be that the 2.1 has the hydrolic clutch pedal thing instead of a clutch cable now i'm on my 4th petrol Xantia i would not want to go back to the cable clutch. Can you get 1.9TD Exclusives? I've only ever seen the 2.1 in exclusive and with the current cost of Xantia's i would not toy with anything less of a trim. Plus the 2.1TD is almost as fast 0-60 as my 2.0i Turbo Activa, so performance would not be a great loss if i had one.

deian · Post by **deian** » 09 Jul 2006, 09:51

almost as fast as turbo activa? maybe a 2.0 non turbo, but surely not a 150bhp activa?

f00lzz · Post by **f00lzz** » 09 Jul 2006, 16:49

Hmmm perhaps the Activa is in need of a tune up

Quackers · Post by **Quackers** » 10 Jul 2006, 00:09

deian wrote:almost as fast as turbo activa? maybe a 2.0 non turbo, but surely not a 150bhp activa?

yep it is, the 150bhp activa engine is seriously tuned down.

2.0i Turbo Petrol Activa - 0-60 9.2 sec, 132 top speed, 28mpg avg
2.1 Turbo Diesel - 0-60 10.8 sec, 118 top speed, 40mpg avg.

its not that much slower is it?

KP · Post by KP » 10 Jul 2006, 12:26

Well the 118BHP isnt that accurate to be honest

And ours feels a lot quicker to 60 than that. Its changing up earlier that helps though as if you hold it to the redline its poo.

Also teh engine is a lot free'r revving than the 1.9td and ours is on 160k now. we bought it for £220, put a new turbo on it, new discs and pads, new front spheres and accumulator and fluid so about £500 all in and shes SX trim with AC and pulls like a tank as well with a trailor and a coupe on the back

f00lzz · Post by **f00lzz** » 10 Jul 2006, 19:55

KP wrote:Well the 118mpg isnt that accurate to be honest

Wow I want one !!

Well the 118BHP isnt that accurate to be honest

Edit..... wow now it's got 118bhp I don't want one lol

Post by **Peter.N.** » 10 Jul 2006, 21:41

I have owned both but the 2.1 only in the XM. The 2.1 is more complicated and not so easy to work on, but it is a much more refined engine and almost bomb proof. The last XM I sold had covered 292k and was still going

One main diference is that it has hydraulic tappets, which means its quieter as the valve clearances are allways correct and of course it automatically compensates for valve / seat wear.

Secondly, it has a completely redesigned cylinder head with 12 valves, and the thermostat in the return from the radiator, located at the bottom offside of the engine. The effect of this is that air cannot get trapped in the head, a frequent cause of failure in 1.9s

I would think because of its increase in efficiency it should give better mpg than the 1.9, I am sure someone will dispute this because if you use all the extra available power it wont be, but in normal driving it should. My XM estate averages 40 mpg + and will return 50 + on a long journey, and that's heavier than the Xantia, in fact I have recently returned from the north of Scotland with 4 adults, 2 dogs and all our luggage and it sill averaged 50 mpg, but to be fair I dont drive hard or all that fast.

deian · Post by **deian** » 10 Jul 2006, 21:49

i drive quite hard, but not fast, i don't like to mollycoddle my engines, so from time to time i will open them out all the way, maybe about 10% of the time when from standstill i will take her over 4000rpm and 5% of the time over 4500rpm. And I still manage to get to work and back (125miles a week) on £20 - £25 a week, marginally more than my air driven 106 1.4d. Plus it's quick and comfortable, I've been in my bro's ZX 1.9td and that was quick. I'd say my 2.1 xantia would beat the ass off the ZX though.

f00lzz · Post by **f00lzz** » 11 Jul 2006, 16:37

what's the story with the 2.5td.... it was quite popular in the XM back in 'M reg' days, Tow Car of the year etc.... but never heard of on the forum!!!

deian · Post by **deian** » 11 Jul 2006, 20:11

thats quite meaty apparently, 135bhp i think, but rather big, would love to drop one into the xantia, not sure about the figures and relaiability of it, i'm sure it was a solid workhorse.

KP · Post by KP » 11 Jul 2006, 21:53

I had heard they werent that solid and that repairs are even harder than teh 2.1 let alone parts....

f00lzz · Post by **f00lzz** » 11 Jul 2006, 22:12

Same block just bored out then?