2.1 XM - V - 110hp 406

Unread post by **Peter.N.** » 31 Jul 2011, 22:33

Hi Folks

I have made mention of this before in regard to low speed flexibility as I find the XM is much better. Now I have another question and I am hoping that someone has driven both and can give me an answer regarding hill climbing ability.

I have covered about 10,000 miles in the 406 now and have been very pleased with it - apart from the ride

Most of that mileage has been done on fairly flat terrain but yesterday I drove a very hilly route and was surprised to find that hills the XM romps up in 5th, which is most of them, can be a bit of a struggle for the 406 in fact sometimes I have to change down.

As the 406 is somewhat lighter than the XM (they are both estates) I would have expected the 406 to be at least as good if not better. I know it is a little higher geared, is that the reason or is there a problem with it, if so what? The fuel consumption is excellent.

Peter

Unread post by **citroenxm** » 31 Jul 2011, 22:39

Must be you Peter!!..

I dont find the Xantia 110 has a problem in 5th on hills at all...

Are you CERTAIN its a 110bhp 406?? I have to say though, I am cheating as I have a tuning box which is astonishing!

Paul

DickieG · Unread post by **DickieG** » 31 Jul 2011, 22:43

It'll be due to the longer gearing on the 406, what rev's are you getting on the two car's at say a constant 50mph?

Unread post by **citroenxm** » 31 Jul 2011, 22:45

50 should bring around 1500 revs or so.. not much more, but thats off the top of my head... My Xantia doesn't see 50 much... not got the time!

Paul

DickieG · Unread post by **DickieG** » 31 Jul 2011, 22:48

citroenxm wrote:My Xantia doesn't see 50 much... not got the time!

Ruddy hooligan

Unread post by **citroenxm** » 31 Jul 2011, 22:52

DickieG wrote:
citroenxm wrote:My Xantia doesn't see 50 much... not got the time!
Ruddy hooligan

......... and im proud of it... with a constant average of around 70-75mph and still 43mpg, theres NO CONTEST!

But, thats Not peters Q... I find the Hdi much more flexible.. Ill find out myself soon too I hope when I get the XM SED all welded up. Being a 2.1 Manual Lucas mechaincal setup, it would be good to compare.. as the HDi 110 replaced the 2.1..

I STILL think the XM should have got the HDi..

Paul

Unread post by **Peter.N.** » 31 Jul 2011, 23:19

Hi Paul

Yes its definitly a 110hp, intercooler pipe along by the air filter. I will check the RPM but the XM is definitly the lazier of the two to drive, seems to go anywhere in 5th and will pull from tickover.

Peter

Citroenmad · Unread post by **Citroenmad** » 01 Aug 2011, 09:36

My experience of the 2.0HDi 110 is that they often differ slightly. One of our 110 C5s was very slow and I had to work the box quite a bit more than the other 2 110s. Our current 110 C5 is fairly lively and will climb hills fine. I recently took it to Scotland with 3 bikes and 4 people it didn't have any problems on hills.

The 2.0HDi 110 is definitely the more flexible than the 2.1TD. Though there is very little in it and the 2.1 XM estate is extremely close to the 2.0 110 C5 in terms of performance. I have tried and neither car was pulling away. Our 2.1TD is a Bosch pump and it seems to like revving, which surprised me, I gater the Lucas version doesnt as much. The pull starts higher in the rev range than the 2.0HDi but it revs to about 4000RPM without losing power, as does the 2.0HDi. If anything I would say the 2.1 revs better than the HDi.

Economy between them I find very similar, the HDi is slightly better on fuel but the 2.1 can be very good too. The later 138 16v 2.0 HDis beat both of them for economy, they are far more efficient.

Overall I prefer driving the 2.0HDi engine to the 2.1, the 2.1 is still very enjoyable and it does have its merits.

I wish they had kept the XM on a little longer and put in the HDi 110, that would be the car to have for us Citroen enthusiasts

Unread post by **Peter.N.** » 01 Aug 2011, 09:55

Thanks for that Chris. I find just the opposite, the XM pulls well enough that I rarely have to exceed 2000 rpm, it will even go round corners in 4th, that has a Bosch pump. the 406 doesn't feel comfortable at below 1500 rpm. Maybe the XM is exceptionally good and the 406 not so, but it doesn't really matter they are both nice to drive.

Peter

DickieG · Unread post by **DickieG** » 01 Aug 2011, 10:07

Peter.N. wrote:Thanks for that Chris. I find just the opposite, the XM pulls well enough that I rarely have to exceed 2000 rpm, it will even go round corners in 4th, that has a Bosch pump. the 406 doesn't feel comfortable at below 1500 rpm. Maybe the XM is exceptionally good and the 406 not so, but it doesn't really matter they are both nice to drive.

Hmm, strange that your 406 isn't happy below 1500 rpm, either its got very long gearing or,,,,,it makes me wonder if somethings not as it should be,,,

Unread post by **citroenxm** » 01 Aug 2011, 10:08

Peter.N. wrote:Thanks for that Chris. I find just the opposite, the XM pulls well enough that I rarely have to exceed 2000 rpm,

Peter

Oooeerrrr Peter, I wouldn't like to buy a DERV off you, the exhaust will be soooo choked up she wont go very well, you certainly NEED to blast a HDi once in awhile to clean it out otherwise the CAT gets clogged up, I know the XM wont have one, like a recent 110 HDi xantia I bought in... which is now sweet as a nut without the CAT which was completely blocked!

Paul

DickieG · Unread post by **DickieG** » 01 Aug 2011, 10:14

Italian tune up required

Unread post by **citroenxm** » 01 Aug 2011, 10:15

Comes as standard with me...

Paul

Citroenmad · Unread post by **Citroenmad** » 01 Aug 2011, 10:33

Your right Peter, there is ample power from the 2.1 Bosch under 2000rpm, though it goes well above it and when pressing on its quite a fun engine to drive, for a diesel.

The HDi should pull from just about rest, have you tried disconnecting the EGR? That usually gives it a bit more pull low down, though the HDi should be good anyway. Its worth noting that the HDI seems fussy about MAF sensors, I have replaced a couple now with very good results.

citroenxm wrote:Comes as standard with me...

Paul

Yes, me too

Unread post by **Peter.N.** » 01 Aug 2011, 12:16

That uses fuel

I have actually given the 406 a short blast at full throttle and it did eject a bit of soot so that maybe the problem, I will try it again when I can afford it

The 406 will pull away well at tickover but if you drop to about 1200 rpm when driving its gutless whereas the XM will pull quite well from that speed.

Peter