2.0 ZX 8V vs ZX 16V

pumbaah · Unread post by **pumbaah** » 14 Jul 2004, 13:14

Guys,
new here, i'm in the process of buying a Citroen ZX, apart from the maintenance being more expensive on the 16V.
what are other points that I have to look at before deciding between one or the other.
i like the 2 door 16V more, but the power only comes in in high revs after 4.5K RPM till redline.
an 8V perform better at low RPMs.
handling should be the same right?
I'm in a crossroad, can any help with some inputs or does anyone have a torque/bhp chart that i can compare...
Thank you.

VisaGTi16v · Unread post by **VisaGTi16v** » 14 Jul 2004, 15:44

16v is stiffer and lower as far as I know. It has bigger front brakes. My 16v is weird as unlike all others ive read about its power comes on at 2900 and absolutly flies off then. The difference is almost like when a turbo comes on in forced induction cars. However at the other end of the scale its gutless at high revs and has no increasing power. Wondering if the previous owner had it chipped to make the power more usuable. Its great down twisty roads etc as you dont need to work the revs but on a open dual carriageway or something its a bit dull as approaching the red line doesnt make any difference to acceleration.
If you find one of the late mk2 16v's which may have gone to your country, with the older style aluminium inlet manifold instead of the massive black plastic one then its one of the 167bhp models which is even quicker.
The 16v also looks a bit better with its side skirts and wheel arch extensions and comes with 15" wheels with wider tyres as standard. The maintenance should be the same although the 16v does have a few extra sensors and rubbish in the engine which have been known to go wrong
I guess its down to you, the 8v will probably be a lot cheaper and as quick down low (unless you find a weird one like mine, have to try some i guess) but wont be as unique, bit slower high up and not look quite as good

Toddman · Unread post by **Toddman** » 14 Jul 2004, 16:57

Not an expert on Zxs but AFAIK the 1.9 volcane is quicker then the 2.0I because of emissions.
Personally I would go for the 16v everytime but there are 2 or 3 different engines as the early ones didn't produce the goods.
Not an awful lot between the 1.9 8v and the 16v as far as acceleration but the 16v has the legs.
My parents had a 1.9 volcane and so did my bro and his mate had the 16v in Triton green absolutely gorgeous.
Cheers
Luke

VisaGTi16v · Unread post by **VisaGTi16v** » 14 Jul 2004, 17:06

yer the 1.9 didnt have a cat unlike the 2.0 8v. Also the 1.9 volcane was 100kg lighter than the 16v!!! alot of this because it had the earlier ally engine and not the iron one hence not much diff accleration wise however the 16v has more poke top end and I did achieve the book max speed coming back from le mans last year in france

pumbaah · Unread post by **pumbaah** » 14 Jul 2004, 17:24

Guys,
thanks for the prompt replies.
still have been seraching for the torque /bhp chart of the net, can't find any??
any chance, u guys have a copy??
generally, we have only the XU9J4 150/155bhp ones down here i believe its the mkII version with the km/h speedo, we do not have the 167bhp running around, would love that though...(found in the 306Gti-6 and Xsara VRS 16v)
say, is there anyway to improve on the power of the 150bhp without major mods??
appreciate any inputs..

VisaGTi16v · Unread post by **VisaGTi16v** » 14 Jul 2004, 17:42

Hi
Nope, only chart I saw was of one that had been slightly modded which may do for you actually because of your last question. Not much you can do to them but standard things like filter/exhaust/superchip will give you a bit more power. Re-chipping it after having the Cat removed would help a fair bit more but over here it would mean putting the Cat back in for the yearly MOT test.
I will try and find the link to that print out

VisaGTi16v · Unread post by **VisaGTi16v** » 14 Jul 2004, 17:47

Here we are, scroll down the page and you can click on the printout image from his rolling road session. It says he has a different exhaust and a chip however hes only getting around 153bhp at 6500 which is roughly what the standard one gets, its just that his revs a bit higher
http://www.cardomain.com/id/tito_oktaner

gradeafailure · Unread post by **gradeafailure** » 14 Jul 2004, 17:49

i have a haynes manual for the zx that has a page or so listing the torque and bhp for each engine - will try and scan it in and email if you like?

Toddman · Unread post by **Toddman** » 14 Jul 2004, 22:14

Check out Mikko and Harrys site - very usefull.
http://koti.mbnet.fi/css/
Cheers
Luke

VisaGTi16v · Unread post by **VisaGTi16v** » 14 Jul 2004, 22:21

Good site but I seriously question their figures for the zx 16v. Never seen ones like that written anywhere and I have a number of magazines ive bought on ebay with road test reports. All put it around 8.4 seconds. I believe citroens figure was 8. No idea for the 167 model but seeing as the xsara vts does it in 8 and is 100kg heavier you have to believe the zx dipped into the 7's
Side note: Visa Mille Piste Evo, ultimate car heh, only 20 built :p

oscarloco · Unread post by **oscarloco** » 15 Jul 2004, 03:42

1.9 8v ZX is definetly quicker than the 2.0 because of the less restrictive exhaust. However, the 2.0 has better torque.

goose · Unread post by **goose** » 15 Jul 2004, 15:07

the 16v is miles ahead!! the 1.9 8v is quicker that the 2.0 8v but id still go for the 16v!! u cant beat the twin intake u get a burst of torque at about 2900rpm's then another at around 5500rpm's i find u can take the car to just under the redline (6900rpm's) and it will still pull. it will bounce of the limiter all day long!! in experience of driving a 1.9 volcane and owning a 2.016v then id say defo go for the 16v aswell as the speed theres also the extra kit u get with it!!

VisaGTi16v · Unread post by **VisaGTi16v** » 15 Jul 2004, 15:19

6900? My red line starts at 6500 where apparently the max bhp is and it hits the limiter around 6650-6700

oscarloco · Unread post by **oscarloco** » 15 Jul 2004, 20:39

With the 2.0 8v there is no point in revving it beyond 5750 - 6000 rpm since it doesn't produce more power or go faster. But off the line, a around 2500 RPM, it gets a very big push since the most torque its around that point.

Kowalski · Unread post by **Kowalski** » 15 Jul 2004, 20:44

There is point in going above 5750 rpm, since if you change gear early the engine is producing less power at the lower rpm than it would be if you kept it spinning. Unless you've one of those turbo diesels where the power fades away to nothing at the top of the rev range you'll go fastest if you aim to be bouncing off the rev limiter.