And we thought Activas and TCT XMs were at risk...

robert_e_smart · Post by **robert_e_smart** » 03 Feb 2011, 23:33

And we thought Activas and TCT XMs were at risk...

http://belfast.gumtree.com/belfast/57/73141357.html

Now the humble 2.1 TD Xantias are at risk from the puggerisers!

Sl4yer · Post by **Sl4yer** » 03 Feb 2011, 23:46

OMG! Looks like a sunken Xantia - the ride must be shocking. Do love Volcane alloys though.

Of course, the Xsara was available with the 110bhp HDi, so I've no idea why someone would retrofit a 2.1TD...

James

andmcit · Post by **andmcit** » 04 Feb 2011, 00:01

Too many diesels on the road anyhow; one less is good!

Stuff a 2.1TD in an Activa if you must (but I reckon I won't like you), although I'm prepared
to be be convinced. Maybe were I to try one mind, I'd not be totally opposed
to the conversion and the thought even crossed my mind with a poorly Activa
and spare 2.1TD engine I have.

Better fitting in a v6 with a manual box I reckon although the autobox is
pretty damned good.

I'm NOT a Xsara fan either - sorry but I think it's just a "poor man's Xantia"
- almost in it's size, style, and suspension. No thanks.

Andrew

Chlorate · Post by **Chlorate** » 04 Feb 2011, 10:58

If I'm honest, I did give a bit of consideration to sticking a 2.1 into my ZX for a little while.

Although I came to the conclusion that for an extra 16ish horsies it was far too much like hard bleedin' work.

Haha my favourite bits of the advert:

2 spoilers

!! Twice the cosmetic downforce!!

hid xenon lights

With stock housings I would wager.

Engine 1905 - converted to a 2.1 td

One wonders how much the DVLA or his insurance company knows about this car...

Dommo · Post by **Dommo** » 04 Feb 2011, 11:40

There's a couple of chaps on pug306.net with 406 2.1TD engines in their 306's, I wanted to have a go at them but what's the point, they'll still do it anyway.

steelcityuk · Post by **steelcityuk** » 04 Feb 2011, 14:21

Hi Andrew,

Do you reckon you could fit a 1.5D into the GS engine bay?

Steve.

Post by **Peter.N.** » 04 Feb 2011, 19:48

They obviously know a good engine when the see one

In addition to my 2.1 XM's I now have an HDI 406 and very nice it is too but it doesn't deliver its power anything like as smoothly as the XM, the 2.1 is definitly a nicer engine to drive, much more very low down torque.

Peter

Post by **CitroJim** » 04 Feb 2011, 20:20

I'm surprised you say the 2.1TD has more low-down torque than the HDi Peter.

I have driven a 2.1TD (which as you know I think is the absolute best diesel ever) and A 110 HDi back-to-back and found them very similar, the main difference was that the HDi was more willing to rev higher and rev a little more enthusiastically.

For my money, the 110 is nearly as good as the 2.1TD

citroenxm · Post by **citroenxm** » 04 Feb 2011, 20:33

Peter

You cannot be driving the HDi 110 properley then!

I think the HDi low down pull is astonishing! EVEN more so with a tuning box.

Theres no point going past 3k, but they pull hard from 1500k to 3k... I have, though got a 2.1 12v in an XM with Lucas fuel, and found that they seem to pull 2k to 3k only... again no need to go over 3k.

I also found the XM 2.1 had a rather sudden thrust rather then gradual...

The HDi also has more torque (Which is what counts NOT the BHP in a DERV) low down....

People used to the XUD 1.9 TD do not know how a "Proper" DERV engine should drive... As the XUD has Petrol character and not DERV character. The HDi 110bhp is a completely different kettle of fish and I urge XUD drivers to try a HDi 110bhp..

Paul

Diabolical · Post by **Diabolical** » 04 Feb 2011, 22:33

steelcityuk wrote:Hi Andrew,

Do you reckon you could fit a 1.5D into the GS engine bay?

Steve.

Unusual but brilliant idea, I always think D15 has a lot in common with GS.

Can still buy new D15 Vans from Citroen UK. Berlingo sucks

Citroenmad · Post by **Citroenmad** » 04 Feb 2011, 23:29

In my opinion the HDi beats the drive of the 2.1TD, just. While i agree the 2.1 is a fantastic engine, its not as flexible as the 2.0HDi 110. The HDis pull from very low revs and will happily rev higher, giving it a more wide spread range than the 2.1.

They both perform almost exactly the same when you need to accelerate hard, but the HDi is more refined more of the time and better one fuel too.

I can't really see the point in that 2.1TD Xsara. The HDi 110 was not that common in the Xsara and not in that year either, but still, thats a lot of work to end up with something virtually the same as a HDi spec Xsara. Though maybe its owner was fond of veg oil!

Peter, have you tried disconnecting the EGR on your 406? This usually makes them pull harder from lower revs. Though i find performance is very strong from low revs anyway, better than the 2.1.

Post by **Peter.N.** » 05 Feb 2011, 00:18

Hi Jim and Paul

The real difference is at 1,000 to 1,500 rpm, the 2.1 pulls smoothly all the way, the Hdi has little power at 1000 but rises sharply after 1500 and pulls like mad at 1750. I think maybe the flywheel is lighter on the Hdi and of course it only has four inlet valves. The 2.1 pulls from tickover very smoothly and progressively, the Hdi vibrates - its much better than the BMW though

I suppose it could be due to the XM being heavier

Peter

Chlorate · Post by **Chlorate** » 05 Feb 2011, 00:40

I should imagine that's more to do with the turbocharger on the HDi being better matched to the engine than it is in the XUD series.
HDi turbos spool up at just over 1000 RPM whereas you're looking at more 2500 for XUDs.

Post by **Peter.N.** » 05 Feb 2011, 10:20

The 2.1 has very good torque even before the turbo spins up, courtesy of the two inlet valves I would think, max boost comes up at 2000 rpm but it pulls well from 1000 which the Hdi doesn't, well at least mine doesn't. The characteristics of the 2.1 engine are very different to the 1.9, that, you do have to rev.

Peter