HDI versus XUD Xantia estates

Unread post by **lolingram** » 02 Jul 2007, 18:57

As an owner of a late XUD 1.9DT (1997), as well as a high mileage (205k) 1999 HDi 90, I feel that it might be of intrerest to make a comparison.

Both of mine are Xantia Estates, so weight is a fairly important factor. Essentially, the XUD seems to have the edge in terms of grunt above 2000rpm, but in realy motoring terms the HDi has it on all counts. The flexibilty below 2000rpm is very apparent with a payload - the XUD needs rowing along on the gearlever.

Fuel consuption is a no-brainer... the HDi will do 45+; the XUD rarely better than 37mpg - both with air-con working.

Thought that this might be of interest...

deian · Unread post by **deian** » 02 Jul 2007, 20:03

I've never driven a HDi, but I would be comparing my old 2.1 XUD to the HDi 110. Yes the HDi will win on fuel consumption all round. But I think the 2.1 'can' be more economical on a long tun than the 1.9. Is this the case with the HDi 90 vs 110?

What type of fuel consumption do you suggest here? combined?

The HDi are the modern natural replacement to the XUD units. Personally I think (yet again), it's all down personal taste as to which one wins or one prefers. I will happily sit on the fence on this issue until I get a HDi.

Lets not forget the HDi is quieter, so although I'm sitting on the fence with a smile after my last faultles bullet proof 2.1 XUD, i'm lookin towards the HDi, I wonder if the 110 ones can do big mileages like your 90. I wonder if the hatchback will get better fuel consumption over the estate.

steelcityuk · Unread post by **steelcityuk** » 02 Jul 2007, 20:41

I've had a 405 1.9 TD which seemed ideal for the size and weight of the car, good on fuel too. Next was a Xantia 110HDi, was slightly better on fuel and high speed cruising but didn't accelerate as well of the mark due to higher gearing. Then a 2.1 TD XM which pulls like a train and far better than either that went before it but did somewhere in the region of 8-10 mpg less. Now I've just got a 2.5 TD XM but it isn't pulling as it should, the 2.1 slaughters it.

There all different cars/engine combinations but each engine seems to have a character that's very different to the others. I would imagine a 2.1 TD in a 405 bodyshell would be a good combination.

Steve.

AndersDK · Unread post by **AndersDK** » 02 Jul 2007, 20:46

Unfortunately the TD's have left the PSA programme for good, so there are no more homepage data to find on these diesel engine. You must rely on haynes or other data sources to find specs on the XUDturbo's.

The specifications on HDI's you can find in all versions on Citroens homepage.
The relevant engine sizes (for Xantia sized cars and up) are 1.6, 2.0 & 2.2. Tuned to various Bhp ratings.
The one and most outstanding difference from the XUD engines are the torque figures at very low rpm's - even from a 1.6HDI compared to a 1.9TD.
This is where the HDI outperforms the old style TD by several arm lenghts, together with much less noise and vibrations.

The Bhp figure is mostly set by the ECU.

deian · Unread post by **deian** » 02 Jul 2007, 21:37

The 1.6Hdi is quite impressive indeed.

Unread post by **lolingram** » 02 Jul 2007, 21:39

I am comparing a 1.9TD XUD Xantia Estate with a 90 HDi. The fuel consumption comparison is the same mix of motorway/town/air con. The 2.1 XUD is clearly superior to the 1.9 given how well it propels the XM... the 1.9 XUD TD - even in the lighter Pug bodyshell has never been an economy leader in real terms. The Xantia - even hatchback - is clearly a lot heavier. The ZX with 1.9TD goes like the clappers, but just look at the weight difference!

I have no experience of the HDi 110 - except in a 406 Pug - went like the proverbial.

I've never driven a HDi, but I would be comparing my old 2.1 XUD to the HDi 110. Yes the HDi will win on fuel consumption all round. But I think the 2.1 'can' be more economical on a long tun than the 1.9. Is this the case with the HDi 90 vs 110?

What type of fuel consumption do you suggest here? combined?

Lets not forget the HDi is quieter, so although I'm sitting on the fence with a smile after my last faultles bullet proof 2.1 XUD, i'm lookin towards the HDi, I wonder if the 110 ones can do big mileages like your 90. I wonder if the hatchback will get better fuel consumption over the estate.

Unread post by **Peter.N.** » 02 Jul 2007, 22:01

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.

AndersDK · Unread post by **AndersDK** » 02 Jul 2007, 22:45

I forgot to mention that the fact the HDI's are so fuel efficient, it causes problems defrosting the car on frosty winter mornings around here. Just about every HDI here have an auxlillary cabin heater for this purpose.

Have no personal experience on HDI mpg, but its got to be better than earlier TD's - except for the cabin heater (diesel fuel burner) consumption

Evolution : solve one problem to get 2 new problems 8)

Xaccers · Unread post by **Xaccers** » 02 Jul 2007, 23:08

Course, there is one major advantage of the 1.9 XUD over the HDi, it can run on veg oil so even though it's marginally behind with fuel consumption, you can still make huge savings, both to your wallet and to your CO2 emissions.

The only HDi's I've had the displeasure of driving are the 90BHP ones in my mum's Xsara and dad's Picasso.
Both I have to say are pathetic in comparison to my 1.9TD

AndersDK · Unread post by **AndersDK** » 02 Jul 2007, 23:23

Xac wrote:Course, there is one major advantage of the 1.9 XUD over the HDi, it can run on veg oil so even though it's marginally behind with fuel consumption, you can still make huge savings, both to your wallet and to your CO2 emissions.

The only HDi's I've had the displeasure of driving are the 90BHP ones in my mum's Xsara and dad's Picasso.
Both I have to say are pathetic in comparison to my 1.9TD

2 things Xac

1) the gearbox determines how the engine 'feels'
2) the veggie oil messing about is quite unique for UK I think. Its not even known hereabouts - as the general approach here is 'you have to modify the engine - wont ever pay off'.
Might be common with veggie in France as well - but I dont recall reading anything on the web in french or german on veggie issues.

Unread post by **lolingram** » 03 Jul 2007, 07:11

Better...?

Hmm, depends on what you mean.

As far as longevity, it is a no-brainer. The 2.1's hydraulic tappets will be making a racket when the simple bucket cam followers of the original XUD will be going quietly on their way to well over 3 - 400k miles. It is a nice engine however, despite the relative complexity and notwithstanding the awful Lucas EPIC injection pump which caused me to throw away my XM estate at under 200k!

Certainly more fuel efficient, as well as more grunt, but of course it has 10% more displacement and does not require rowing along on the gear lever to the same extent - boost comes in significantly earler.

As far as the (dis)pleasurable driving of an HDi, IMHO this is where it excels! I simply cannot equate to Xac's 'pathetic' rating. To be able to smoothly accelerate from 1200rpn in any gear, with oodles of torgue beats changing gear continuously and wins hands down in my reckoning, but as deian says: personal taste comes into it and is often hard to explain.

The estate version will deifintely use more fuel than a hatchback - it weighs significantly more as well as having a higher cx.

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.

howiedean · Unread post by **howiedean** » 03 Jul 2007, 07:19

I've just replaced my Xantia 1.9 td with a HDi Xsara Estate. The engines are worlds apart, it is a much nicer engine to drive with plenty of grunt from low down in the rev range. I''ve previously owned a 110BHP Xantia estate which again was lovely to drive being fantastic on the motorway.

HDi's can sound quite harsh when revved hard but generally most of the power is low down, so there is no need to venture too high in the rev range. I'm getting around 46 MPG which although not fantastic does reflect my heavy right foot!!!

Unread post by **lolingram** » 03 Jul 2007, 07:54

The 2.5 will blast past a 2.1 when working correctly...

Now I've just got a 2.5 TD XM but it isn't pulling as it should, the 2.1 slaughters it.

Unread post by **Peter.N.** » 03 Jul 2007, 11:13

With the XM you get the best of both worlds, most 2.1 td's have mechanical fuel injection, even my '96's. As for longevity, admittedly the hydraulic tappets will require replacement at about 150k, along with the head gasket, but they will then go on quite happily to do another 150k. My last one I sold at 292k and it didn't have noisey tappets!

Xaccers · Unread post by **Xaccers** » 03 Jul 2007, 13:28

AndersDK wrote:2 things Xac

1) the gearbox determines how the engine 'feels'

I know, just compare the early 205D's to the later ones

AndersDK wrote: 2) the veggie oil messing about is quite unique for UK I think. Its not even known hereabouts - as the general approach here is 'you have to modify the engine - wont ever pay off'.
Might be common with veggie in France as well - but I dont recall reading anything on the web in french or german on veggie issues.

1.9TD with no mods and a Bosch pump can run 100% veg in the summer (I've run 100% down to 15C). Winter its worth mixing diesel in, just incase.
I believe in Germany it's legal to pour SVO into your car without having to pay any duty.
Europe also doesn't pay nearly $2/L for diesel.

The XUD9TE has fewer electronics to go wrong, can survive being filled with water, and is easy to repair if the cam belt snaps.