Should it stay or should it go?

Post by **Peter.N.** » 30 Dec 2009, 12:32

That's right, the TDDi is a modification of their old engine to use higher injection pressure, probably not as economical to run but you would probably pay the difference many times over in maintenance costs on the common rail one!.

It amazes me to read on 'Honest Johns' how cars less than ten years old and with very modest mileages are being scrapped because either no one can find out what is wrong with them or the cost of repairing them exceeds the value of the car, we have gone back to about the 1960's level of reliability.

I think that the Mondeo is a very nice car and thought seriously at one time about getting one, a friend bought one and when I enquired about its reliability at abouit 30k he said it was fine, no problems at all, at 60k he got rid of it, need I say more.

I think that the VAG engines are good, but only beacuse they were late in coming into the common rail market,. if you want a late'ish car, they are the ones to buy - if you can cope with not having any suspension

A Mondeo with a 2.1td would probably be good, but so would most cars.

Peter

jonathan_dyane · Post by **jonathan_dyane** » 30 Dec 2009, 13:33

Citroenmad wrote: The VAG 1.9TDi is possibly one of the most bomb proof modern diesel engine, though thats because its actually quite old in design. Though ive heard of more recent ones having problems since they started using some 2.0TDi parts on them.

The myth of VAG durability

I have to say I have difficulty seeing the VAG 1.9TDI as 'bombproof'; it is a far more lightly built engine than the XUD/early HDI and prone to stupid faults (like the crank pulley fretting on the crank and destroying it) and really does wear out, whereas the wonderful XUD lasts an awfully long time (I have never seen bore wear in an XUD, and the bearings only seem to go if you run out of oil...) I will say that the TDI injection system was rather more rugged than the HDI, but the engine itself was inferior. It's all academic to me though; as far as I am concerned the mechanical injector pump is king

The first 2.0TDIs had terrible trouble with the cylinder heads (all of the first type of heads cracked, then most of the second redesign, then a fair portion of the third redesign...) the problem may be sorted, but why bother? I'm with Peter; the nineties were the golden years...

deian · Post by **deian** » 30 Dec 2009, 13:52

I would say the XUD 9 and XUD 11 are great diesel engines, i've also heard the VAG 1.9TDi of the same era was also a good engine (probably using the same bosch pump as the XUD 9 did), the Lucas EPIC of the 2.1 was also great.

I would buy a golf with a 1.9tdi engine in it, it can't be much worse than the XUD9, the golf is still a good car, even if the engine is a little inferior to the citoren one.

My dad has a TDDi Mondeo and it goes well for him, that is also chain driven like the TDCi.

Another car you could look for is a 406 2.1td Executive, they are as good apparently without the suspension trickery of course.

I also prefer older cars, at least there isn't too much electronics in these older cars, the coolest thing about my mk1 Xant 1.9tdi VSX is, the ONLY ECU in it is the hydractive 2 ecu and if that decides to die then it's no biggie is it. Other than that, there is little else that cannot be worked out with a bit of basic electronics and a logical mind. The best part is, the engine works with no electronic trickery, no spark, no ecu, no major sensors etc. great stuff.

As much as I wouldn't mind a modern diesel, say a BMW 530d for instance, I would feel sick if it broke down with an engine electrical fault, at least if there is a fault with these older diesels you have mechanical warning and it won't leave you completely stranded.

As long as you have a good battery, good electrical connections/earths, good belts, fluids topped up and your accumulator sphere is healthy you are good to go, anywhere with no worries.

Post by **Peter.N.** » 30 Dec 2009, 14:13

I would agree with all of that, in fact I think the best value for money car that can be had at the moment is the 405td. They don't rust, have the best engine of the time and are relativly simple to repair, plus an excellent ride (for springs). The 406 comes a close second but its a bit heavyweight for the 1.9, the 2.1 being a much better bet, although they use the EPIC pump its still much more reliable than a modern system. If I could't run XMs for any reason the 2.1 406 would be my next choice - with some decent seats in it, the standard ones are far to short for me.

Peter

Citroenmad · Post by **Citroenmad** » 30 Dec 2009, 17:25

I ddid nearly buy a 406 recently, it was one of two cars i had my search narrowed down to. However it would have been a HDi ... didnt look into getting a 2.1TD in a 406 at all, not sure why really.

Ive heard many mixed reviews of mondeos, a friend bought one new and had nothing bu trouble, it had to have all 4 doors replaced under warranty due to rust as well. To be honest id rather have mechanical/electrical problems than rust, i hate it, and can be just as costly to repair.

Engines are becoming ever more complex with silly trickery to help reduce c02 emissions, such as the FAP filter etc. So many new cars hold so little oil too, which isnt a great idea. Oil is not only used for lubrication but also to an extent cooling. The 1.6HDi uses 3.7L or oil which isnt a great deal, however some Toyota diesels use around 2.7L of oil. Now given that so many people never check their cars oil level and its a common breakdown when cars run out of oil, these low oil amounts sound even worse. As there is less oil to get through and more likely for it to run dry.

One thing which does attract me to modern diesels is their economy, its very good really.

I used to have a Seat with the 3 pot 1.4TDi engine, i never had any problems with that car, it was excellent, performed fantastically, really was a nippy little car. Though fuel economy ranges greatly, from 47-60, usually averaging at about 54-55. Which is good but it was a tiny car built for economy. My C5 does 45-50 on average, it about twice the size, just as nippy but only slightly down on economy. I did drive the seat very hard though, the C5s not reall intended for that so thats a big factor i guess.

Yes i agree, VAg cars have a suspiciously high reputation for reliability, which they often dont deserve. I cant say ive heard of many 1.9TDis going wrong, mainly EGR related if so, but later ones are problematic and id not buy a 2.0TDi, so many problems.

I think very few car makers offer a totally reliable car now. Best stick with the 90's cars for all out reliability.

deian · Post by **deian** » 30 Dec 2009, 17:36

Talking about Mondeos are, the front spring on my dad's car has just broken in hald this afternoon, he was NOT impressed whatsoever, common faults apparently!

I Told him that could never ever happen on my car cos it rides on nitrogen, he told me shut my mouth cos i was lying, I laughed in his face!

Why does the forum filter out the above car model to non-citroen, when we can clearly type other car makes and models? The above car model only works because it's got an s on the end of it to make ir plural (minus the apostrophe).

Back to the subject...

falling-out-with-my-car · Post by **falling-out-with-my-car** » 30 Dec 2009, 17:55

Mondeos, Hmm I went looking around at a few of the diesel variety of Mondeos for a friend who wanted a ford diesel estate car, most of them were absolutely gutless engines and had no pull.

one we looked at had had the front springs replaced the rear suspension replaced just about everything connecting the body to the road had been repaired and it really made you wonder why.

in the end he bought a citroen xantia 1.8i estate and he is chuffed to bits with it even though its not a diesel.

mind you I have to add that I do like the look of the most recent mondeos they have come a long way from looking like the inside of a sierra.

A ford mechanic once told me when the sierra was entering the market that the engine blocks used were old stock that were probably made way back in the 70's. so much for new technology.

deian · Post by **deian** » 30 Dec 2009, 17:55

Citroenmad wrote:Best stick with the 90's cars for all out reliability.

You have to hand pick the models, and then hand pick a good example from within that model.

Some combination of engine/spec/year/factory made can mean the difference between the sourest lemon and the best car you've ever had.

For example, with bmw's some engines had terrible problems with the nikosil linings, mainly v8's and some 6cyls, bad fuel would eat it away and the engine would be useless, knowing what batch/year/models these engines came in could mean the difference between believing bmw are good cars or avoiding them forever!

falling-out-with-my-car · Post by **falling-out-with-my-car** » 30 Dec 2009, 18:10

all this electronics gagetry is totally unecessary look at the GSA its total wiring harness consists of about half a dozen leads that connect to the engine, timming is possible with a strobe its set by moving the distibutor back and forth, not by a a box of chips called a computer.

there would be a lot more of the modern cars about if they didnt rely on a computer to set the timming and control advance and retardation of the engine.

I think personally manufacturers have got lazy its is far easier to plug in a box of tricks which will set the engine up for running rather than a team of factory workers setting up the timming manually, how it used to be done.

Look at PUGS they wouldnt even guarrent tee the engine management systems in the early 90's and and customers found they had to pay out another 6 grand for a new computer only three months after buying a brand new car., today warrentees are a little better.
the addition of computers in modern cars is either born of lazyness or someone thought it would make lots of proffit.

we didnt need computers in out vechicles in the 70's so why now, it cant be because it is supposed to make our engines run better can it?
they are doing less to the gallon than 1970's engines of equivilent size.

with fossil fuels running out maybe in 50 years or even less isnt it time we went back to cars that could timmed manually like a GS or GSA if done properly you will get 50 MPG out of it, Id like to see a modern citroen petrol engine with a computer do that.

deian · Post by **deian** » 30 Dec 2009, 18:18

it's all about emissions isn't it!

electric cars will soon take hold, now that will be fun, instant torque and instant problems, forklift at work has it's fair share of electrical gremlins, and it's only got 600 hours on it.

XantiaMan · Post by **XantiaMan** » 30 Dec 2009, 19:19

In the Fords defence...

The Puma TDDi/TDCI(2 litre) is basically a good engine, designed for use in both the Transit and Mondeo, and then in the Jag X-Type.

The car version has different pistons and rods, and other minor mods to make it quieter and more muted, but in all other respects is the same as the Transit.

The first versions were all TDDI using a Bosch VP30, then upgraded to TDCI common rail later on, TDDI was dropped after a while in the Mondeo.

Numerous power outputs were available, anything from 90ps to 130ps in the Mondeo. The 2.2 ST Mondeo was 155PS ish.

If you see a smokey one (i see smokey diesels of all makes, even 58 plate Mercs) its probably just the EGR, which is a common fault.

The TDDI is more durable injection wise, the injectors do not fail for starters. Very little difference in economy, my Transit does about 35mpg overall which is great for a high roofed, 2+ton plus van. Starts first time everytime even with dead glowplugs. Uses no oil, now at 114k and on 5w 30 oil.

Other common faults - Timing chain tensioners, electronic actuators on the TDCI 130. Bosch pumps on these do not like dirt, regular filter changes essential, they can fail and spit fillings everywhere.

Its not as refined as an HDI but is capable of very high mileages if looked after, which could be said of any engine with regular oil changes and mechanical sympathy.

The new Mondeo uses a PSA, and they are more troublesome. They are built well though, massive car too.

Bren · Post by **Bren** » 30 Dec 2009, 19:41

My car has the 2.0 TDDi engine - 113 hp and 240 N/M of torque.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear - I am NOT the worlds biggest ford fan. Although they can be nice to drive I think mechanically they are quite crude and yes, they do have issues with rust ( my mondeo has more than my previous xantia, which had none), to me the end result is always greater than the sum of its parts where fords are concerned.

The reason I chose not to purchase another citroen centered on their complexity and unreliability. My xantia had the XUD lump and would run forever with the correct maintainence, also lacking the complex electronics of a HDI xantia or C5.

The chap whom I sold it to looked after the car for me. I did mention maybe changing it for a HDi xantia but he said "I would'nt bother - you have got the best one" Suffice to say he chose to purchase the car when I offered it to him

XantiaMan · Post by **XantiaMan** » 30 Dec 2009, 19:49

Bren wrote:My car has the 2.0 TDDi engine - 113 hp and 240 N/M of torque.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear - I am NOT the worlds biggest ford fan. Although they can be nice to drive I think mechanically they are quite crude and yes, they do have issues with rust

The 'Puma' engine is crude and agricultural, because of its roots. Really it was a van engine, made more refined for the car. I like it though, it sounds unique like the old Perkins Prima and its a gusty, willing lump.

I wasnt aware of any rust issues on the mk3 Mondeo, except on badly repaired examples. Rust resistance wise, you wont get much better than a Xantia, they are top notch.

Post by **Peter.N.** » 30 Dec 2009, 20:23

The CX diesel engine of the '80s was by far the most refined of the time, I think Peugeot/Citroen diesels hav always been the market leaders - until now. The last all mechanical diesel you can get is in the Jan'96 reg 2.1 XMs, unfortunatly there are not many left now - I've got most of them

Peter

Citroenmad · Post by **Citroenmad** » 30 Dec 2009, 20:40

I would say citroen is still way up there with the competition with its diesel engines. After all PSA diesels are used in many cars now. Fords, Minis, Jags.

The new HDis are very refined, very economical and drive lovely. Our 2.0HDi 16v 138 C5 is a fantastic engine, pulls so strongly, requires very few gearchanges, even in 6th is will drop right down to 40 and accelerate away from there. Mid raneg pull on the motorways is great. The engine is very quiet and no diesel rattle at all. The 1.6HDi sounds imilar, very smooth and has a reasonable pull.

I would never be put off by any HDi engine (well i dont think it have a 1.4 actually, especially not the 90 version) however they seem good engines and are used in all sorts of cars. Ive never had a problem with one, yet.

Things move on i guess, mainy to do with emissions, i cant see an Xm being £125 a year to tax had it been in the modern catagories. Performance is improved on modern engines and they are becomming ever more refined. Some old diesels are awful things. The 2.1TD is just a very good engine.