HDi or old skool diesel?

robster_1981 · Post by **robster_1981** » 01 Jan 2009, 22:01

some very interesting posts here, and i'm more confused now than when I started lol

A few colleagues of mine have had problems with their 'modern' diesels and have indeed spent fortunes resolving problems, but i'm pretty sure a well looked after HDi should be ok (famous last words!!)

Whenever I see a 2.1 I must admit that my eyes open up a bit, but i've always thought they'd be thirsty compared to the HDi. I don't really think i'm skilled enough to try and fit a bosch pump to a 2.1 (or is it an easy job?)

Think i'll just stay open minded between the 2.1 and 110 HDi and just buy the next decent one that comes up!

deian · Post by **deian** » 01 Jan 2009, 22:08

Well one thing is for sure, my old R reg xantia 2.1td clocked up 216k miles before i sold it. The engine was sweet as a nut, it was swift, reliable, quiet and had the power when u needed it without too much fuss.

Would a Hdi with their precission components stand the test of time as the old skool ones do? If I was after one again, I would go for the 2.1 over the hdi again!

Post by **myglaren** » 01 Jan 2009, 22:16

There is a guy near me runs a taxi business, services and repairs his own and others vehicles.
He used to have a fleet of Mondeos but bought a C5 against his better judgment.
Was very surprised that the C5 looked after itself in the main, as long as basic servicing was attended to on the dot.
Meanwhile he realised that the non-citroens were giving him much grief. Only minor problems but many, many of them resulting in significant downtime - they run 17 hours a day.
The C5 wasn't without problems and they were fairly expensive ones when they arose, but it was so seldom and usually so easy to remedy that the C5 was costing appreciably less than the Mondeos to run and was a hit with the clients.
Last I heard he had ditched the Mondeos completely and runs only C5s, all second hand. One has clocked up >440,000 miles with no significant problems.
All HDi's

deian · Post by **deian** » 01 Jan 2009, 23:44

Lots of Xantia's are used as taxi's around Bangor, my father used to be a public transport/entertainment licencing guy for the local council and heard good things about xantia taxis when he spoke to the taxi operators. It seems C5's are getting more popular too.

Post by **myglaren** » 02 Jan 2009, 00:05

As there is an age limit on taxi's around here Xantias are rarely if ever seen but since I said I hardly ever see any C5s I have noticed increasing numbers of them especially among the taxi fraternity.

Post by **CitroJim** » 02 Jan 2009, 08:19

robster_1981 wrote: Whenever I see a 2.1 I must admit that my eyes open up a bit, but i've always thought they'd be thirsty compared to the HDi. I don't really think i'm skilled enough to try and fit a bosch pump to a 2.1 (or is it an easy job?)

The 2.1 is a very good engine and not thirsty at all if you are a bit restrained with the old right foot

Not quite as outright frugal as the HDi but not so far off. As Dei has already said, they are very frugal when running around town and have such stonking torque you can almost treat them like they have an automatic gearbox. All this comes, I beleive, because of the fragile but brilliantly performing EPIC pump.

Generally, the 2.1 is a a tough engine and is actually deceptively easy to work on. Cambelt and water pump changes are a doddle and generally they're reliable. The big problem is if the EPIC pump bids a fond farewell; they are rare and expensive to have repaired; that is, if they are repairable.. Costs there on a par possibly with HDi injection components but then it seems that area of the HDi gives very little trouble as does the HDi generally.

The subject of replacing an EPIC with another, either Lucas or Bosch, mechanical pump is one of those things that is thought to be possible but to my knowledge, not yet done. Discussed at length in several forums byut no reports of anyone actually doing it. Mechanically I know it's possible but the real problems might come with the ECU. It does much more than just control the pump.

Hopefully, as I say, one day I hope to find out but I'm not going to use my own very sweet-running 2.1 as a test bed...

steelcityuk · Post by **steelcityuk** » 06 Jan 2009, 15:06

There was a posting some time ago on a XM forum where a member had swapped the EPIC for a Bosch. He said in the main it was straight forward but needed the accompanying injector pipes and that the tacho and fuel computer no longer worked.

Steve.

Old-Guy · Post by **Old-Guy** » 06 Jan 2009, 18:15

I agree with UncleBuck's view.

As I do all my own maintenance and repairs, when looking for a Xantia diesel estate a couple of years ago , I ruled out an HDi engine for the following reasons:

1. HDi engines are a lot more complex than the older 1.9 XUD.

2. HDi engines (of Xantia vintage) are troublesome if used for constant short journeys and/or stop-start traffic.
Without frequent hard work, the particulate filter gets bunged up, the engine management system goes into limp mode and the only solution is to hand-over obscene amounts of hard-earned money for 'diagnosis' by simple-minded software operated by a parrot unable to use what little is between his ears. A typical bill for 'fixing' the result of too many short trips is £500-600!

3. 1.9TDs (pre-98 I think) have NO engine ECU at all. The only electronics are the ABS, and the alarm/immobiliser. Consequently, with a reasonable tool kit, a little ingenuity and the collective wisdom available from the forum no job (on diesel Xantias of this age) should be beyond the capability of a reasonably competent amateur mechanic.

4. Parts are cheaper and more widely available - the XUD engine was manufactured in huge volumes for Citroen, Peugeot and Fiat light vans (mostly) and cars.

As someone else has pointed out, a 5% (ish) improvement in fuel consumption (HDi v XUD) is easily wiped out by higher maintenance/service costs.

Our mileage is composed of very roughly one third each - short local delivery/collection trips barely long enough to get the engine up to temperature, cross-country journeys, long motorway blasts. Despite owning diesel cars for the last 21 years, neither my wife or I drive 'economically'.

I might add that despite a life-time in IT and electronics, I would still far rather fault-find on mechanical/hydraulic than electronic systems any day!

Guy

deian · Post by **deian** » 06 Jan 2009, 19:20

3) My previous ZX had one of them. It was an un-ecu'd and un-immobilized bosch one, the only real management wires being for the starter, glow plugs, lights, rev counter, and stop solenoid. No abs either. It did have power steering. I had it on veggie too. And the pump was very tunable.

Now why did I sell it? Why did I sell my Xantia 2.1td Exclusive? I'm silly at times.

DickieG · Post by **DickieG** » 06 Jan 2009, 19:23

I feel there are a few misconceptions here Guy

Old-Guy wrote:2. HDi engines (of Xantia vintage) are troublesome if used for constant short journeys and/or stop-start traffic.
Without frequent hard work, the particulate filter gets bunged up, the engine management system goes into limp mode and the only solution is to hand-over obscene amounts of hard-earned money for 'diagnosis' by simple-minded software operated by a parrot unable to use what little is between his ears. A typical bill for 'fixing' the result of too many short trips is £500-600!

You're confused here as particulate filters weren't fitted to any Xantia's or even 2.0 HDi C5's.

Old-Guy wrote:3. 1.9TDs (pre-98 I think) have NO engine ECU at all. The only electronics are the ABS, and the alarm/immobiliser. Consequently, with a reasonable tool kit, a little ingenuity and the collective wisdom available from the forum no job (on diesel Xantias of this age) should be beyond the capability of a reasonably competent amateur mechanic.

Ecu's were fitted to XUD's from 96 onwards.

Old-Guy wrote:4. Parts are cheaper and more widely available - the XUD engine was manufactured in huge volumes for Citroen, Peugeot and Fiat light vans (mostly) and cars.

No doubt changing by the day as fewer XUD's remain on the road as they are replaced by HDi's!

Old-Guy wrote:As someone else has pointed out, a 5% (ish) improvement in fuel consumption (HDi v XUD) is easily wiped out by higher maintenance/service costs.

Personally I find the difference to be significantly greater than 5%, my VSX hatch with the XUD 1.9TD averages 43mpg with servicing scheduled every 6,000 miles compared to 50mpg and 12,500 miles for the heavier estate. The HDi is also significantly quieter, quicker and has far greater flexibility particularly at slow speeds, for me the old XUD is a real "Old School Diesel" (what's all that waiting about for the glow plugs to warm up prior to starting?).

I have both of these engines in Xantia's and whilst my VSX has only done 33,000 miles, the HDi with 130,000 miles is by a wide margin a far nicer engine.

XantiaMan · Post by **XantiaMan** » 06 Jan 2009, 19:36

In reality its more than 5% better on fuel than the idi XUD, how is it more expensive to service? The XUD9 is a great lump, even greater when tweaked and full of charisma, but on paper its obvious the HDi has the advantage.

Post by **CitroJim** » 06 Jan 2009, 19:46

DickieG wrote:... the HDi with 130,000 miles is by a wide margin a far nicer engine.

Yes. I concur very strongly. The HDi is a lovely engine. In fact you can see a very clear progression in PSA diesels and how they have improved over the years.

Compare a 1.9TD to a 2.1TD and then to an HDi and the difference is astounding. The difference between the 1.9TD and 2.1TD is huge but less so between the 2.1TD and HDi. Compare an HDi to the original XUD9 NA

If you were choosing an engine in terms of NVH (Noise, Vibration and Harshness) the HDi wins hands-down, feeling like a petrol engine. If you are looking at it in terms of flexibility and rev-range, the HDi has it. It just has a little less grunt at low revs than the 2.1TD but far more urge above 3000rpm when the 2.1TD is all but done. The 1.9TD revs like an HDi but lacks any meaningful torque at the bottom of the rev range.

An HDi is always going to be more economical than an XUD simply because it's a DI engine. An IDI can never equal a DI for fuel economy even a DI on mechanical injection beats it.

There seems no reliability issues with the HDi. Car electronics are now so reliable as to be of no consequence. When did you last hear of an ECU falling over?

The biggest advantages of the XUD is their time-served, proven ruggedness and their ability to run on cooking oil with the right pump. Another advantage of the XUD in this current weather is that it does actually warm it's coolant and the occupants within the car unless you have a mini central heating boiler in the car as Richard has

Play "Spot the HDi Driver" at this time of the year. He looks like Scott of the Antarctic

My workmate who runs a TDCi Mondy came in looking like a polar explorer this morning but it does go to show how thermally efficient these modern DI engines are.

EDIT: I do love my 2.1TD to bits and would not swap it for the world but I have to be objective and say the HDi is a better performing engine overall. I love the grunt it has at low revs and how easy it is to work on; two things the HDi does slightly loose out on in my opinion.

Post by **CitroJim** » 06 Jan 2009, 20:24

Old-Guy wrote:I might add that despite a life-time in IT and electronics, I would still far rather fault-find on mechanical/hydraulic than electronic systems any day!

Despite me being a time-served electronics engineer right back to the days of valves I'll strongly agree Guy

I'd far rather trace a fault on something mechanical than chase after errant electrons any day

In fact, such was my innate distrust of anything electronic in cars I ran a car with points ignition long after electronic ignition became the norm and ran a carburettor engined car long after injection became widespread. In fact my first injection car was my Pug 205GTi in 2004 and even then, such was my distrust that I never ventured far in it without a spare ECU and Tachy Relay in the boot

To this day I still carry a spare double injection relay in the glovebox of my Activa; old habits die hard

I do agree that there is little that can stop a mechanically pumped XUD in it's tracks and a roadside fix is more than possible so for all-out reliability and dependability a pre '96 XUD is king. It was indeed with some trepidation that I took on an EPIC-pumped 2.1TD as my daily driver knowing full well it's ability to run was critically dependant on a fully functioning ECU and electronic pump but I've sort of got over that now - or have I? I have all the bits stashed away to do a mechanical pump conversion on it should my still fragile faith in electronics be shattered one day...

I did not go fully electronic in my cars until very late 2007 and if push comes to shove I still have a fully mechanical 1993 1.9TD Xantia in the fleet!

Xaccers · Post by **Xaccers** » 06 Jan 2009, 21:09

Both my parents drive 2.0Hdi 90s, mum in her Xsara, dad in his Picasso, and frankly they're bloody awful.
Jim's 2.1 had more oomph.

Compared with my Laguna 1.9DCi (which had the obligatory French electrics problems with it's ECU - "Fuel injection system faulty" happened at least once a week) which was much more on a par with the XUD9TE, one of the reasons why I'd love to fit a 6 speed gearbox to Cassy!

As for quiet? Who wants a quiet engine? I want one that roars when I put my foot down, purrs when I cruise, and most importantly doesn't keep quiet when something isn't quite right.

Old-Guy · Post by **Old-Guy** » 06 Jan 2009, 21:17

I was put off HDIs by the experience of a friend in the trade. His Pug 406? 2.0HDi landed him with 2 bills totalling nearly £1,000 in under 12 months to fix particulate filter and a persistent engine management 'fault' that couldn't be found/cleared without Peugeot diagnosis.

My personal requirement is for an unsophisticated non-electronic lump that I can fix, even rebuild, myself. Like Jim, I prefer not to be chasing invisible electrons - especially not multiplexed data.

I haven't found Xantia spares to be any more expensive than anything else.