I have a 1991 1.6 bx and it takes 1l/10km, it has always been consuming that much and i thought it is normal, but a guy here said his bx is consuming a lot less (1/13) is it because the 1.9 bx's take less fuel?
BTW, when i bought the car it's carb. was a subaru one, and it still is, the last owner said he changed it to save on fuel....
BX fuel consumption
Moderator: RichardW
I think this is about 28 MPG - too be honest about what I would expect for general use of a 1.6 BX and slightly better than I used to get out of my 1.7 Renault 21. This however would do 43 MPG on long fast runs and could be persuaded to do 48 when driven at about 55 MPH.
consumption depends on so many things including temperature, driving style, traffic conditions, speed . . . .
Subaru carbs should be interesting - horizontally opposed engines (yes like a GS but they don't sound the same do they!)
I'm sure Citroen's budget for developing the carburrettor for the BX was greater than that available to the person who decided to fit the Subaru carb - so he obviously new better than them. Is this really likely? - I'd put the correct one back!
jeremy
consumption depends on so many things including temperature, driving style, traffic conditions, speed . . . .
Subaru carbs should be interesting - horizontally opposed engines (yes like a GS but they don't sound the same do they!)
I'm sure Citroen's budget for developing the carburrettor for the BX was greater than that available to the person who decided to fit the Subaru carb - so he obviously new better than them. Is this really likely? - I'd put the correct one back!
jeremy
My BX 1.6 absolutely drank petrol when I first acquired it, and was prone to flood on starting. It had the original carb, and I found that checking and resetting the carb's float-level made a huge difference. It's also worth checking the ignition timing, since this model has a distributor it's always possible it's been turned at some time in the past.
These cars are never very economic for urban driving, BTW. However I got around 38mpg on steady runs.
These cars are never very economic for urban driving, BTW. However I got around 38mpg on steady runs.
Citroën's figure for fuel consumption from 1991 for the 1.6 is 0.78l/10km for mixed driving. That equates to 36.45 mpg. Of course, if you drive it in town traffic all the time, or if you have your foot to the floor all the time, you will get far worse consumption. But properly adjusted carb and ignition should give you around that average figure.
//NiSk
//NiSk
I used to have a 16Trs that was originally an auto but was converted to a manual.
When I got it the consumption was woeful but I found the jets were incorrect and the carby and associated plumbing had been fiddled with.
I brought it all back to original & used to get 7.2 L/100Klms on a run wiythout the air/con, 7.3 with but this rose to around 10L/100klms around town.
I am of the opinion that we possibly don't get the fuel consumption you guys get in certain situations here due to the higher temperatures and thicker air.
I'd suggest getting rid of the Subaru carby and replacing with an original Weber but just be sure that the jets are correct as mine started out when I got it with the two centre jets back to front and the idle jet that should have been a 45 actually having a 70 fitted.
However, once I sold it, the new owner took it to a "specialist" who criticised all that I'd done to the carby, "modified it so it worked better" and managed to achieve it getting 13.5 L/100 klms again...ahh, no wonder they charge like they do; it takes talent to do something that stupid.
Alan S
When I got it the consumption was woeful but I found the jets were incorrect and the carby and associated plumbing had been fiddled with.
I brought it all back to original & used to get 7.2 L/100Klms on a run wiythout the air/con, 7.3 with but this rose to around 10L/100klms around town.
I am of the opinion that we possibly don't get the fuel consumption you guys get in certain situations here due to the higher temperatures and thicker air.
I'd suggest getting rid of the Subaru carby and replacing with an original Weber but just be sure that the jets are correct as mine started out when I got it with the two centre jets back to front and the idle jet that should have been a 45 actually having a 70 fitted.
However, once I sold it, the new owner took it to a "specialist" who criticised all that I'd done to the carby, "modified it so it worked better" and managed to achieve it getting 13.5 L/100 klms again...ahh, no wonder they charge like they do; it takes talent to do something that stupid.
Alan S
My BX 16 TRS takes 6.5 l/100 km while driving on a freeway with speed within 110-120 km/h, around 7 - 7.5 l/100 km in mixed traffic, about 10 l in town. Original twin-chamber Solex with automatic choke had been replaced with Weber 36 TLP single chamber, manual choke one by previous owner. This carb (as far as I know) was standard with BX 16 RE. However, the improvement of economy decreased performance - instead of top speed of 170 km/h, I get only 140 - 150 km/h. I am fine with that - the top speed allowed on freeway here is 130 and the fines are enormous...
I think Elad was asking if it affected the 'pulling' power as in accleration or ability to pull loads or go up steep hills.
I would suspect that if a different manifold was used, it would have followed the old idea of increasing its volume capacity.
As a rule of thumb in competition engines, it usually works out that the bigger the intake the higher the overall revs and therefore top speed but the power lower down is lost.
Decreased, the power at lower speeds is increased but at the cost of the top speed and top end power.
We've used this principle in the past on industrial engines to shift the power band more to where we need it. This principle can be used on either intake or exhaust sides.
I have a slasher that I fitted a new exhaust system to that became useless due to the system that was fitted being too open so I welded a washer across the face of the end of the short exhaust outlet past the muffler. This gave it extreme power down too low, so I just kept experimenting by decreasing the amount of backpressure until I had it exactly where I needed it and it performed like the engine size had been inceased by about 25%. That was on the outlet side, but basically same effect on the intake also. Once they start playing with this power band, cars often become a bit uncomfortable to drive in normal circumstances as it needs to be remembered that in Industrial applications as well as competition, these things are done to achieve certain goals whereas normal driving conditions need a compromise of several.
Alan S
I would suspect that if a different manifold was used, it would have followed the old idea of increasing its volume capacity.
As a rule of thumb in competition engines, it usually works out that the bigger the intake the higher the overall revs and therefore top speed but the power lower down is lost.
Decreased, the power at lower speeds is increased but at the cost of the top speed and top end power.
We've used this principle in the past on industrial engines to shift the power band more to where we need it. This principle can be used on either intake or exhaust sides.
I have a slasher that I fitted a new exhaust system to that became useless due to the system that was fitted being too open so I welded a washer across the face of the end of the short exhaust outlet past the muffler. This gave it extreme power down too low, so I just kept experimenting by decreasing the amount of backpressure until I had it exactly where I needed it and it performed like the engine size had been inceased by about 25%. That was on the outlet side, but basically same effect on the intake also. Once they start playing with this power band, cars often become a bit uncomfortable to drive in normal circumstances as it needs to be remembered that in Industrial applications as well as competition, these things are done to achieve certain goals whereas normal driving conditions need a compromise of several.
Alan S
that's what i was refering too, thank you Alan.
the ability to pool loads uphills and to accelerate is important to me not for racing or competing - just because i live in the 'Golan heights' which is a long chain of mountains and if the car becomes to weak to go up the hills then it's a problem to me..
the ability to pool loads uphills and to accelerate is important to me not for racing or competing - just because i live in the 'Golan heights' which is a long chain of mountains and if the car becomes to weak to go up the hills then it's a problem to me..