HDI versus XUD Xantia estates

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 03 Jul 2007, 13:37

Peter.N. wrote:I have not had experience of the HDI but I can say that the 2.1 is a much better and more efficient engine than the 1.9.

According to Citroen's figures for the Xantia, the 1.9 is more economical than the 2.1. Even when the 1.9 got the catalyst and EGR it still maintained a gap between it and the 2.1, albeit a small gap. The thing that confuses things is that according to Citroen's figures, the XM is more econmical than the Xantia when both have the 2.1, although the 1.9 still beats both a 2.1 Xantia and 2.1 XM.

So, on paper, the 2.1 is beaten on economy, but it is a better engine in other ways, e.g. 110bhp instead of 90bhp etc

lolingram · Post by **lolingram** » 03 Jul 2007, 13:43

The XM has an unbelievable cx, which explains this.

When on the autobahn (PC rearing its ugly head!), clog an XM to maxi and see how long it takes to slow down; quite remarkable!

according to Citroen's figures, the XM is more econmical than the Xantia when both have the 2.1, although the 1.9 still beats both a 2.1 Xantia and 2.1 XM.

deian · Post by **deian** » 03 Jul 2007, 15:53

2.1 - mine had 215k miles on the clock when I sold it, it has Lucas Epic and the hydraulic tappets weren't noisy, I had a good experience from it, and no trouble whatsoever.

As for it's fuel economy... i've never driven a 1.9 to compare it, but I would say it's more economical on the long run, maybe a bit heavier around town, so overall for MPG i would guess it wins... and I'm sure power difference is quite noticeable.

I would like to try a 2.1td XM or a 2.5td XM, not to buy (maybe the 2.1 tho)... just to see how it performs and costs to run with the lower cx. Of course my XM of choice would be a V6 one, manual, series one. I know of two, and they won't let them go! I think an XM is looming in the future, I can see myself in one right now.