|
I had a ZX TD Volcane. Loved it. In terms of driving pleasure one of the best cars. Great fun maintaining speed and it was relatively quiet and free revving. Unfortunately, as someone else mentioned, failure to change/flush coolant killed it. Got a 306 DT with the same engine/gearbox and it wasn't a patch on the ZX, but thrashed around and sold on without trouble. Glof GT TDi nowadays, which is lovely, but that old Citroen is up there with a Capri 2.8i as some of my best loved cars.
|
Nostalgia rules...
CR diesels are far smoother and better . Period.
|
I have seen 96/97 models badly rusted......seems the early citroens were built better.
Annual coolant changes and proper bleeding should ward off any HG problems.
|
Peter I've only serviced a couple of Berlingo vans with the 1868cc engine (pretty sure they were non-turbo). They were at less than 40k mls so no issues and couldn't really judge the drive compared to a car with the older engines... but broadly similar feel.
madf I know the thread says "best diesel ever" but I think all the posts are judging it in the context of probably the first acceptable mass market diesel in a car. For that it deserves great praise.
It's true to say the whole power delivery of the VW TDi 110 (I test drove in a Skoda Octavia last weekend) was far better than the Citroen Xsara TD I've been driving this week.
I would judge the early 1990s XUD with no electronics to be one of the most maintainable and long lasting car diesels around without going back to the rugged but wickedly unrefined lumps of the early days.
As always though the current improvement in efficiency is tainted with the threat of electronic gremlins biting the private owner.
David
|
madf I know the thread says "best diesel ever" but I think all the posts are judging it in the context of probably the first acceptable mass market diesel in a car. For that it deserves great praise.
I completely agree.
The turbodiesel 306 and it's Citroen ZX sister were certainly the first mass market diesels that were enjoyable to drive, too. A gutsy, smooth and economical diesel engine installed with great care and expertise into a great chassis.
Edited by DP on 09/12/2008 at 10:57
|
|
|
Yes I had a Peugeot Partner a few years back and it still did not seem to give that much away to newer units.
As you say the introduction of turbos and electronic engine management to more recent diesels does not bode well for longetivity. Perhaps Peugeot should consider re-introducing a simple 1.9/2.0 litre diesel as an option in these troubled times. If they kep the overall weight of the car down it could still work.
However most of the failures mentioned above suggest that owners expected to do zero maintenance and get 250k miles. If they are not prepared to change oil, change the cambelt, check and maitain the cooling system what can they expect.re
|
Perhaps Peugeot should consider re-introducing a simple 1.9/2.0 litre diesel as an option in these troubled times.
Fantastic idea, but Euro IV (or even III) emissions compliance is a pipe dream with old school diesel technology.
Its appeal would also be almost exclusively restricted to used car buyers, as ease of DIY servicing simply doesn't register on the radar of most new car buyers.
It would need to be in a small, lightweight car, which is extremely expensive and difficult to produce in today's crash test sensitive climate.
Cheers
DP
|
DP you commented on the small rev range of the XUD. I understand what you mean because it can be annoying to have that flow of power chopped off short. However I think the reality is better than the feel becausae you actually are pulling some quite high speeds before this happens.... I noted yesterday in the Xsara that using 3rd & 4th in a typical pressing on cross country manner (on my private test track of course!) you could go from 25mph to 83mph in a big whoosh punctuated by just one gearchange.
I have always thought the 1993 era model would rev more freely to their max at 4600rpm whereas the newer models do seem to have a falling off of urge from 4000 onwards.
David
|
I find servicing a well designed CR diesel very easy. little to do and everything accessible.
No cambelts, No spark plugs, all filters accessible from the engine bay, a owners manual which tells you what to do.
As for people's concerns about electronics, if you buy a MB or Renault I agree. Neither can build or design anything properly .
BMW and Toyota seem to be able to get it right.
If you insist on buying cars from makers whose history of design is poor, you get poor cars.
Edited by madf on 09/12/2008 at 12:52
|
|
|
Hi David,
Yes I agree, and found the same difference between older and newer models. My brother-in-law had an L reg 306 XTdT which was a lot more driveable than my later R reg example. It was actually the hole at the bottom of the rev range I found more annoying, particularly around town. Once out on the open road and in the longer gears, it was much less of a problem to keep the engine in its sweet spot. And boy, did it pull between 2 and 4k. Felt genuinely fast at times.
As a mark of how good the chassis on the 306 was, I went from a 90,000 miler to a brand new Focus and was actually disappointed.
|
Excellent engine in 1.8 form in the 205 and the D Turbo version of that car flew. I too have heard that the XUD was prone to gasket failures.
From what I have seen Mercedes Benz Indirect injection non turbo engines of the 80s take a lot of beating. Not fast but more refined than any current Diesel. I know one guy with a 190D 2.5 withover 300K on the clock and the engine is still going strong, another guy i know has a 300 TD Five pot (W123) estate with over 200K and another has the 6 cylinder 300D with close to 200K as well. The W123 is a bit of a rattler but the encapsulated engines in the 190 and 300 are unbelievably refined, hardly any rattle or thrash at all even from cold.
|
>>From what I have seen Mercedes Benz Indirect injection non turbo engines of the 80s take a lot of beating.
Yes, I agree. They have in-line injector pumps which are like scaled down versions of the types of injector pumps fitted to trucks, a duplex chain drive, and with reasonable care will cover huge milages.
The later engines, OM603 and afterwards are fitted with hydraulic tappets, which removes the chore of valve clearance adjustment (via threaded valve stems and upper spring keepers!)
They do have a serious weakness though. The vacuum pump is driven from a face cam on the injector pump chainwheel. If the vacuum pump fails mechanically, the resulting debris can ruin the timing chain, and cause serious engine damage.
One odd feature of these engines is that shut down is actuated via a vacuum capsule on the injector pump. When you turn the key off, a valve on the ignition barrel admits vacuum to the stop actuator. So, if you lose vacuum, you can't stop the engine! (in fact, once running, there's no reliance on the vehicle's electrical system at all!) For this reason, one these cars, there's either an accessible stop lever on the injector pump, or, a fuel stop tap atop the fuel filter!
Another odd result of this method of stopping the engine is that if the crankcase breather blocks, and pressure builds up in the crankcase, this acts on the other side of the stop diaphragm, and stops the engine!
As prior to the W210 (or so), MB didn't go in for electronics in a big way, many functions are vacuum powered (even headlamp levelling!), and there's quite a complex assembly of valves and restrictors to mimic the inlet manifold vacuum of an equivalent petrol engine, to provide the correct load signal to the modulator valve on the automatic transmission - a vacuum leak here gives hammer hard shifts!
The engines have a 2 part oil filter, which is part full-flow, as per most modern engines, but there's also an integral bypass filter which is much finer, and through which oil flows much slower.
|
Interesting post. The OM 603 was rather a triumph of development over common sense. It didn't have enough power to give a really useful performance and was not very economical either. (I tried one as a towcar - hopeless). Skin and rice puddings come to mind.
The so called longevity benefits of an in-line fuel pump, duplex camchain and pneumatic everything on this engine just didn't stack up. The chain drive is not reliable if the Pierburg vac pump on the face cam puts in its usual performance. The Bosch in-line pump is indeed reliable but the pneumatics really are a triumph of development over original thinking. It's a bit like using gas to light your home - there are better ways...
The VAG PD is a far more useful engine in every respect. If you are prepared to change the cambelt you get a complete new timing drive each time, the Bosch unit injectors last as long as an in-line pump (the elements are similar and lubricated in oil as in the OM 603 pump). Above all else, the magic ingredient of a variable geometry turbocharger and useful electronic control means it actually goes - very well. It's also frugal on fuel.
The first generation 1.9 litre EuroCat III VAG PD engines gets my vote.
659.
Edited by 659FBE on 09/12/2008 at 18:05
|
>>Skin and rice puddings come to mind.
Yes, until MB decided to make a turbocharged version of these engines available in the UK, there wasn't a huge amount of power available - the best of the naturally aspirated ones being the OM606 24 valve engine, which does go a bit better if you're prepared to allow it to rev.
I'm not a great fan of the vac pump either, but it's quite easy to access - I intend to change the one on my OM606 at about 200K, when I'll probably roll a new timing chain in too.
>>there are better ways...
It's quite surprising how well it works. The first 1 - 2 shift when everything's a bit cold is a bit hard, but, once warmed up a bit, the shift quality is good, which when you consider that there's only the input and output shaft speeds, the vacuum signal and the "kickdown" cable letting the gearbox know what is going on is quite remarkable. To get better shifting you would need electronic signalling between the gearbox and engine.
|
|
Forgive me, I'm not up on my Merc engine numbers, is the Om603 the 96 BHP 3.0 5 cylinder or the later six?
Edited by mattbod on 10/12/2008 at 11:17
|
>had an L reg 306 XTdT which was a lot more driveable than my later R reg
Yes. I regretted swopping a great M-reg XRdt for a Mk-1 run-out P-reg car. I think they fitted a different turbo around the N-plate. It didn't matter what I did to sweeten the running, the newer car was less exciting. In the end the HDi came right - for me anyway.
|
Must admit I liked the 2 XUD engined BXs we had - one did 170k (sold on - I know it topped 200k) and the other did 140k. The only work done on the engines was a few glowplugs (though I did change the oil every 5k.
Oddly enough I saved this from a now defunct French Car Forum in 2002 (M.M. might remember it - I'm sure he was a regular contributor!) . It was written by someone under the name of Mike 1703:-
"I drive a BX diesel which I use as a taxi. It's my 5th. BX 19 diesel & all gave me the greatest satisfaction in both reliability & economy. I still have my 1987 BX which I cannibalise for spares, not that I need many. It was retired for 'scrap' after a crash @ 350,000 miles. It's replacement was sold off for less than the value of its parts @ 450,000 miles; one has been retired to my driveway @ 740,000miles & my current workhorse is now @ 380,000 miles. I've never changed a wheel-bearing, only one gearbox and a few suspension bits; one major engine overhaul; two head-jobs but never a tow-home failure [unless you count the one time I let the cam-belt snap!]".
The number of miles boggles the mind - I make it about 130k a year!! Is that normal for a taxi driver??
|
I vote for the 2.0 HDI 110 as fitted to Pugs, Cits and even Suzukis.
The engine pulls cleanly from just above tickover all the way to 4500 rpm, responds well to tuning boxes, gives 45mpg with ease in the C5. Plus it is a hoot to drive in heavy traffic as there is no need to use the throttle.
|
|
Another vote for 2.0 HDI 110. Smooth, frugal (even with my heavy foot + remap), responsive, refined at speed and doesnt cost much to maintain.
|
I agree with SeeFive. I have this engine in my 14 yr old LWB Vitara with autobox.
At 109K it's smooth, quiet and very frugal with lots of power for my 17ft caravan.
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
|
