Xantia D's ........? what are they all about?

vince · Post by **vince** » 28 May 2008, 20:30

Boys and girls....

What are the 1.9d's like in comparison to td's?

I know the BHP figures are lower but are they still as reliable, and what average mpg do you get back? Didnt someone say they were more economical than the td's

Post by **Peter.N.** » 28 May 2008, 21:18

Very slow and I would think if pushed hard, less economical. The only upside is that they are easier to work on.

deian · Post by **deian** » 28 May 2008, 21:18

they are more economical, if u can get an auto one it should be more economical from what i've heard

they are probably more reliable as they aren't stresses as much as the turbo ones.

if not driven one myself, but they will be slower than the td, probably too slow for my liking... i have driven the 2.1td, so going to a 1.9td and then down more to a 1.9d would be horrid.

it's probably not as slow as i expect though

Post by **myglaren** » 28 May 2008, 21:40

I have sort of driven one when the hose came off my turbo.
Disappointing in comparison.

I have a colleague with a 406 1.9D and although I haven't been in it he finds it very slow and unwilling, not economical either.

On the other hand, I had a BX 1.9 RD that was both willing and economical.

Make of that what you will.

Post by **CitroJim** » 28 May 2008, 21:42

Colin (Admiral51) has one and I'm sure he'll be along soon with all the gen.

I had a 405GRD with the same engine for a good time and found it incredibly economical. In those days I had a 40 mile daily commute along fast A roads and country lanes and used to recoord mpg very carefully. If it ever dropped below 50 it was time to service it

It averaged 53-55mpg.

I did not find it slow at all but did find it ran out of puff a bit quickly and took a while to get to crusiing speed. I even used to tow a 17 foot 1200Kg caravan with it, albeit a bit slowly. In general, it's not an engine you'd choose if you enjoy a bit of performance but it's more than adequate for normal use. They have different characteristic to the TD. Lots of low-down torque. In fact the 2.1TD just feels like a more powerful version of it and shares many of its good traits.

They usually have Lucas pumps which in some ways improve them from an ease of repair point of view but precludes the use of any veg oil in them.

vince · Post by **vince** » 28 May 2008, 22:11

Cool thanks guys...i'll hang out for a TD

XantiaMan · Post by **XantiaMan** » 28 May 2008, 22:24

My only experience with the engine in question was fitted to a Rover 218 SD, and it was a slug, compared to the 1.9TD its not the bhp its the lb ft thats missing, in the mid range.

It has a higher compression ratio than the TD, and without all the excess intercooler piping doesnt have the same low down lag you can sometimes get.

Its still a good engine though, and if you can find a ATMO Xantia i wouldnt dismiss it if it were a good example.

lexi · Post by **lexi** » 28 May 2008, 23:00

Have experience with two ZX n/a. Nice simple setup. Without aircon and intercooler there is tons of room. Very few HG issues. I have found they are not as noisy on start up as TD but they don`t quieten down when warm the way a TD does. Slow as a week in jail

Will cruise once they get up to speed. Daughter has an auto........very economical.......she loves it.

Post by **admiral51** » 29 May 2008, 00:35

I have the good fortune of having a 1.9 n/a and a 1.9TD and drive both during the week on a regular basis (i dont get to choose SWMBO does that

) but as my journey is the same i can give a fair comparison
1. the n/a is actually better on fuel by about 5mpg around town
2.its like going back in time when looking in the engine bay yoiu could almost stand in there compared to the TD
3.it does seem to have more "lugability" at lower revs quite happy in 3rd at 20mph whereas the TD wants to drop a gear maybe just me being a hgv driver getting lazy and not wanting to change down

I have taken the n/a on a 1000 mile round trip to Scotland and with 2 adults,1 teenager and a dog i returned just under 48 mpg at an average speed of 68.78 mph so i wasnt driving for the sake of the planet. Not had chance to do that sort of journey yet in the TD (Mother In Law so no rush yet

) so cant give a comparison
In general round town driving the lower revs/speed is about 500rpm in favour of the TD at 70 2850 TD 3400ish n/a but its all about how you get there you cant thrash the n/a it just doesnt do it.had thought of timing the 0 - 60 but couldnt get the sundial to work in the overcast skies

At the end of the day i would cast the n/a in hgv terms as a "gaffers" motor it does the job cant be rushed gives good fuel economy and is pretty much bullet proof.A lot depends on what you want as the engines may be different but its the car that it sits in that can make the difference

The 1.9n/a has a Bosch pump factory fitted although i did have another earlier(1994) one that was a Lucas pump so im not sure if mine is an oddity or if it has anything to do with early/late MK1 fitted with A/C

Hope this helps in some small way

Colin

bigjl2 · Post by **bigjl2** » 29 May 2008, 03:07

Bloke at work has a 94L VSX, lucas pump, he hammers his everywhere and reckons he fills up so little that he has to check which side the caps on, he says he gets high forties all the time, and when his wife used it for a month she reckoned it was even better than that, remember with a TD you have forced induction, drive with a light foot and you will nearly match a n/a, but as soon as you start to use the power then your fuel consumption will drop, and with an n/a there is little if any unburnt fuel being chucked out the exhaust. We have zafira cdti's at work, driven slowly you will get 35mpg, drive them even remotely hard and you get a cloud of smoke and 17mpg, these figures are the same over the 6 that I have driven. I have to admit that I had thought about getting a n/a 306, as they are nippy enough but much better on fuel.

XantiaMan · Post by **XantiaMan** » 29 May 2008, 07:41

admiral51 wrote:
The 1.9n/a has a Bosch pump factory fitted although i did have another earlier(1994) one that was a Lucas pump so im not sure if mine is an oddity or if it has anything to do with early/late MK1 fitted with A/C

Hope this helps in some small way

Colin

Colin are you sure yours is a true ATMO and not the low pressure SD model they did around 96? That had a Bosch pump too, with no intercooler at first glance they look quite similar to a ATMO.

Post by **CitroJim** » 29 May 2008, 08:18

bigjl2 wrote:I have to admit that I had thought about getting a n/a 306, as they are nippy enough but much better on fuel.

Dad has an N/A 205D with the 1.7 engine. That's incredibly nipply and nimble and returns about 60mpg the way he uses it.

myglaren wrote:I have sort of driven one when the hose came off my turbo.
Disappointing in comparison.

Not a fair comparason at all Steve

An engine designed to run with forced induction will feel as flat as a pancake if it looses it. The turbo is a considerably different engine and has a significantly lower compression ratio and very different cam timing. If you blew an N/A XUD would would indeed very quickly blow it, destructively! Without the turbo running, the 1.9TD is in a very, very mild state of tune and with a very much less than optimum compression ratio.

Although I have no practical experience, a known mod to boost the 1.9TD performance a little is to fit an N/A cam. It's a bit hotter than the true turbo cam.

XantaiMan583 wrote:Colin are you sure yours is a true ATMO and not the low pressure SD model they did around 96? That had a Bosch pump too, with no intercooler at first glance they look quite similar to a ATMO.

I'd love to experience an SD. Depending on how they did the CR and cam timing, it should give the best of both worlds. Good low-down grunt (which the 1.9TD lacks in my opinion) coupled with reasonably lively mid-range performance coupled with good fuel economy and a bit more up top.

jgra1 · Post by **jgra1** » 29 May 2008, 09:49

(Mother In Law so no rush yet )

I think I get that...

Dad has an N/A 205D with the 1.7 engine. That's incredibly nipply and nimble and returns about 60mpg the way he uses it.

ditto

... was a good car, thought the engine suited it well...

I had some horrible N/A 405 once, an early one.. IIRC I put the engine from my dads 205 in it, was a bit painful, with all the extra weight of the 405.

THELABMAN · Post by **THELABMAN** » 29 May 2008, 23:02

I'd a 1.9D ZX Avantage a few years back and whilst I agree it was great on economy, mid to high 40's with no trouble at all, you just didn't get any where fast in it, and that was just me in it....

Load it up with the wife and two kids and drive to Skye for a long weekend and the holiday was almost over before you got there....and it's a darn site lighter than a Xantia.

steelcityuk · Post by **steelcityuk** » 30 May 2008, 09:22

My brothers wife has a 306 1.9 NA. I drove it after fitting a cambelt, etc. It seems ok but I couldn't help thinking how much better it would be if it was a turbo. As others have commented it's a very clean setup the XUD without a turbo.

I've driven 405 1.8 and 1.9 TDs. I found the 1.8s a bit sharper than the 1.9. I owned a 405 1.9 TD which was a great car until some chump shoved a Punto into the back of it. Great engine the XUD, the 2.1 being the peak of it's development.

Steve.