Help me make my mind up time then.

C.J. · Unread post by **C.J.** » 15 Mar 2011, 08:57

1.9, 2.0 or 2.1.

The way I see it with my limited mechanical knowledge is:

1.9 for:
sturdy, bullet proof, easiest to work on, plentiful supply of cheaper parts and will run on bio/veggie.

against> a bit agricultural now, noisy..ish, ponderous...ish, not as economical.

2.0>for: Quieter, more economical,quicker, reliable.
against> Doesn't like bio or veggie, possibly more difficult and expensive to maintain and repair?

2.1> Haven't got the foggiest what this engine is all about tbh. Seems to be slightly quicker and less economical.

Lets be hearing YOUR opinions on the 3 then, and why you chose the one you did.

Feel absolutely free to correct me on any of my possible misguided opinions. I won't be offended, in fact it'll probably help me finally make my mind up which Xantia or whatever I'm going to buy.
Have actually considered the Picasso too, and that 1.6 HDi emgine looks sweet on the face of it, but probably still out of my price range at the moment.

Xaccers · Unread post by **Xaccers** » 15 Mar 2011, 09:05

You've got the 2.1 round the wrong way; slightly slower and slightly more economical (unless you try to drive fast)

As an engine it is sound, lots of low rev pull, and in an xm with a bosch pump is reportedly fast and economical and can be veg powered.
Its the lucas epic in the xantias that ruins it, though with enough effort a bosch swap should be possible.

C.J. · Unread post by **C.J.** » 15 Mar 2011, 09:12

Xac wrote:You've got the 2.1 round the wrong way; slightly slower and slightly more economical (unless you try to drive fast)

As an engine it is sound, lots of low rev pull, and in an xm with a bosch pump is reportedly fast and economical and can be veg powered.
Its the lucas epic in the xantias that ruins it, though with enough effort a bosch swap should be possible.

I thought ALL 1.9 TD's Xant's were pumped by Bosch, which makes them the automatic veggie and bio choice?
Correct me if I'm wrong, which seems might be the case?

Xaccers · Unread post by **Xaccers** » 15 Mar 2011, 09:40

Yes 1.9td's have bosch making them sporty and veg happy.
2.1 has lucas making it good for towing and pootling about taking it easy getting 50mpg on diesel only.
The bit you got the wrong way round was saying the 2.1 is faster but more thirsty, when its slower and less thirsty

lexi · Unread post by **lexi** » 15 Mar 2011, 10:07

If you can get a GOOD 1.9td then that is the one. Cheaper for lots of bits like steering rack discs etc. Less complex overall but thinner on the ground for clean examples.

A really good one is becomeing a rare and desirable car imo.

Unread post by **citroenxm** » 15 Mar 2011, 10:09

Wouldn't say the 2.1 was slower at all Xac.

Ive a 2.1 in my 1990 XM SED, but with mechanical Lucas, and shes more ecomonical then a Xantia, and a little bit more livley!!

As for choice... 2.1 with a BOSCH Conversion.

The XUD 1.9 stunning as it is does NOT drive like a DERV engine should, they need revving. Yes all 1.9 TD Xants had Bosch for Veggie, but 2.1's are very convertable...

HDi 2.o - Id say these were getting more common now, as the XUD starts to dissapear. Im a big fan of the HDi, thought Peugeot HAVE stated that the HDi is fine on VERY WELL produced Bio! The mix has to be very thin and run freely... it cannot be too think like straight Veggie.

Im going to end up dooing a Bosch (from A Xantia) conversion on my 2.1 XM ..

We cant really make your mind up for you, as well all have different opinions and all like the different Engine setups etc..

Paul

Unread post by **Peter.N.** » 15 Mar 2011, 10:10

The 2.1 in the XM is streets ahead of the 1.9 in anything else both in power and consumption, so I don't know what makes it so slow in the Xantia.

Peter

Unread post by **citroenxm** » 15 Mar 2011, 10:11

Peter.N. wrote:The 2.1 in the XM is streets ahead of the 1.9 in anything else both in power and consumption, so I don't know what makes it so slow in the Xantia.

Peter

Thats easy Peter - Two things!

LUCAS EPIC and EGR Systems!! Simple.

Paul

Xantidote · Unread post by **Xantidote** » 15 Mar 2011, 10:18

Hi Colin,

I tend to agree with your general summary, though that's based on my 13 years with a 1.9TD, and a bit of general knowledge acquired from following the forum for a year.

If I had to replace my Xantia, I'd have exactly the same quandary as you now face, though I'd make it more difficult by also probably considering the 110 C5!

I nearly said this in reply to one of your ealier posts, but perhaps you could approach from a slightly different angle, and look for a Xantia in really good condition, whatever the diesel engine in it, test drive it, and then decide if it's the car for you. If you purely want a work horse, then probably the TD would be best? I await recrimminations from HDI owners

1.9 models are older, and seem to be in more plentiful supply. If you found a good and cheap 1.9, you could try it for a while and see if it's what you want. If not, then you've not lost too much. Personally, I would prefer to have a 2.0 110 for the extra horses and torque, but I've got reliability in my 1.9, plus I know all I've done to maintain it, so I keep going with it.

Unread post by **citroenxm** » 15 Mar 2011, 10:25

So far soo good as for HDi's Ive done 11k in 4 months without a single hiccup!

My taxi man has done 135k in his (Car is now on 235k in total, 103k when he had it)

Onlythings to watch on the HDi are the Tank Pump, engine pumps, and the flywheel sensor on the gearbox can get gummed up and stop them starting!

Paul

P616VKX · Unread post by **P616VKX** » 15 Mar 2011, 11:13

The thing with the XUD19 is that it's hard to find with a decent specification. Add that to the 8 or 9 MPG you lose in a 1900 compared to a 2000HDi... The HDi comes out on top. However, you can't get a HDi into an S1 Xantia which is my personal choice of Xantia.

The HDi to me feels quite slow compared to a TD... But I've only had a 2.0HDi in a Picasso which found it very difficult to top 100mph... My Mum's XUD9 405 would do 115 happily and seemed more economical when being treated badly...

But then, they're two completely different cars!

Unread post by **citroenxm** » 15 Mar 2011, 11:33

U need to try a 110 then ib a xantia. Ok the s2 xant is heavier but 120 is reached but with a tuning box on a 110 i got an indicated 140mph!

Xaccers · Unread post by **Xaccers** » 15 Mar 2011, 11:42

My old 2.1 struggled to get up to 70 let alone 100 while my 1.9s will happily do 110/115 on veg.
Had the Xant 2.1 been fitted with a bosch pump I'd put money on it being more popular than the 1.9td was. Such a pity they clipped its wings.
Have to say I agree with the comments about the 2.0 hdi being sluggish with 90hp, mum's xsara has it as did dad's old picasso, both were horrible to drive due to the lack of oomph.

If you are willing to run on veg then the 1.9td is the most economical, if you only want diesel then it is the least.

C.J. · Unread post by **C.J.** » 15 Mar 2011, 12:15

Now a word mentioned about the poor ole 1.6 Hdi.
Hasn't anybody got one under their bonnet?

Some crackin' reviews and opinions here btw, and most interesting, especially when you start disagreeing with each other.

Unread post by **Peter.N.** » 15 Mar 2011, 12:22

I very relectantly bought a 406Hdi a few months ago, I say reluctantly because of all the horror stories I have heard about common rail engines but I must say that it has exceeded my expectations, not only has it done 190,000 miles and still sounds a sweet as a nut but its regularly doing 50 - 60 mpg. I saw several advertised with in excess of 300k on them, that went a long way to convincing me plus Paul's experiences with them, it doesn't have hydropnumatic suspension of course

and the even the 110 engine isn't as flexible as the 2.1 below 1500 rpm, but for what it is - I like it.

Peter