>>what's really done it is the 110HP mondeo estate I drove felt like it had a better spread & this Pug doesn't feel like it's has an extra 25 odd horses pulling it>
The Mondeo 2.0 is either 115 or 130ps however the main issue is torque not power, the 2.2HDi produces, IIRC 280nm torque, the same as a 115ps Mondeo where as the 130ps Mondeo produces 350nm, assuming it was the 115ps Mondeo that you drove what you have noticed is the flat spread of torque this engine produces over a wide rev range.
|
>>what's really done it is the 110HP mondeo estate I drove felt like it had a better spread & this Pug doesn't feel like it's has an extra 25 odd horses pulling it> The Mondeo 2.0 is either 115 or 130ps however the main issue is torque not power, the 2.2HDi produces, IIRC 280nm torque, the same as a 115ps Mondeo where as the 130ps Mondeo produces 350nm, assuming it was the 115ps Mondeo that you drove what you have noticed is the flat spread of torque this engine produces over a wide rev range.
I think your figures are innaccurate, as it is very unlikely the Ford 130 bhp engine is going to produce around 50% more torque than the PSA unit. I don't have torque figures in Nm for the respective cars but I do have them in lbft. The 2.2 HDI produces 236 lbft, the Ford 115 bhp engine produces 210 lb ft, and the Ford 130 bhp engine produces 243 lbft.
Having just visited the Citroen UK site to check data, it is interesting to see that the 2.2 HDI has now been dropped from the C5 range. Only the auto had it anyway but it is now replaced with the 136 bhp 2.0 HDI engine.
|
I think your figures are innaccurate, as it is very unlikely the Ford 130 bhp engine is going to produce around 50% more torque than the PSA unit. >>
350 v 280 is actualy 25% more, not 50%.
I dont think that the 2.2 HDI produces as much as 236 lbft, yes the Ford 115 bhp engine produces 280nm/210 lb ft though the 130 bhp engine produces 350nm/258 lbft.
However the new Ford/PSA 2.0 HDi you refer to as also used in the C-Max and Focus is more torquey than the old HDi's producing 340nm/243 lbft.
Having just visited the Citroen UK site to check data, it is interesting to see that the 2.2 HDI has now been dropped from the C5 range. Only the auto had it anyway but it is now replaced with the 136 bhp 2.0 HDI engine.
Intersting, I though that the gearbox did not fit the new engine, perhaps it is a new gearbox, if so might be offered in C-Max and Focus as alternative to the 1.6 CVT.
|
350 v 280 is actualy 25% more, not 50%. I dont think that the 2.2 HDI produces as much as 236 lbft, yes the Ford 115 bhp engine produces 280nm/210 lb ft though the 130 bhp engine produces 350nm/258 lbft. However the new Ford/PSA 2.0 HDi you refer to as also used in the C-Max and Focus is more torquey than the old HDi's producing 340nm/243 lbft.
>>
Yes, I did get my calculation wrong, as I was using my lbft figure for the 2.2 HDI and your Nm figure for the Ford engine. However, your figure for the Ford engine is still wrong, according to the Ford web site, which quotes 330 Nm for the 130 bhp engine.
With regard to the new Ford/PSA 2.0 HDI/TDCi, Ford quote two figures for this engine, the higher torque figure of 243 lbft being achieved with what they term 'transient overboost'. This is slightly higher than the torque quoted by PSA. Both Ford and PSA quote the same power output at 130 bhp.
Finally, back to the 2.2 HDI. Until recently, Citroen were quoting virtually identical power and torque figures for this engine and the new 2.0 HDI. I haven't got the spec sheet for our C5 any longer but could probably get one for our local dealer. If you have any officially quoted figures for this engine, which are different, I would be interested in knowing where they came from.
|
Yes, I did get my calculation wrong, as I was using my lbft figure for the 2.2 HDI and your Nm figure for the Ford engine. However, your figure for the Ford engine is still wrong, according to the Ford web site, which quotes 330 Nm for the 130 bhp engine.
If you delve deep into the Ford website or better still look at a brochure you will see that Transient Overboost (marketing speak) raises the 130 to 350nm and the Ford PSA 136 to 340nm.
|
If you delve deep into the Ford website or better still look at a brochure you will see that Transient Overboost (marketing speak) raises the 130 to 350nm and the Ford PSA 136 to 340nm.
>>
I stated that the Ford web site quotes a transient overboost figure for the Ford/PSA engine. I cannot find any such quote for the 130 bhp engine, where I am referring to the engine data listed by Ford.
As a matter of interest, going back to the 2.2 HDI, the Car-by-Car Breakdown on this site quotes the torque figure of this engine as 234 lbft, which is not significantly different from the 236 lbft quoted by PSA for the new 2.0 HDI.
|
I stated that the Ford web site quotes a transient overboost figure for the Ford/PSA engine. I cannot find any such quote for the 130 bhp engine, where I am referring to the engine data listed by Ford.
It doesnt immediatly come to hand on ford.co.uk, it mentions the T/O on the 2.2 though not the 2.0 however look at Mondeo specs on:
www.ford.ie
That mentiones it, otherwise the brochure will clarify the point.
|
|
|
|
A 2000? 30k Miles? 6k miles a year?
You see this kind of thing on BMW's quite a bit - obviously we don't know the original purchaser here (and maye it was originally a demonstrator or something), but I wonder why people spend the (not inconsiderable) extra cost on a diesel when they're only doing 6K/yr?
|
I wonder why people spend the (not inconsiderable) extra cost on a diesel when they're only doing 6K/yr?
Probably because they prefer the way a diesel drives and sounds, and have the added benefit of knowing that when they sell it, it will have held its value better than a petrol-engined car.
|
>>Probably because they prefer the way a diesel drives and sounds<<
Huh??
|
>>Probably because they prefer the way a diesel drives and sounds<< Huh??
A diesel offers more realxed power, and makes a throbbing noise rather than a whine. Some people prefer that, tho I know that many prefer petrol.
Each to their own. Think of it as being like how Ford sells lots of pretty hatchbacks, but sells a few saloons to the minority who like that sort of thing :)
|
I see.....
You stick to your Massey Fergusons and I'll stick to my booted refinement ;-)
|
|
I have driven a lot of cars, with petrol engines, that are a lot more intrusive at motorway speeds than the PSA 2.2 HDI, which is an exceptionally quiet and smooth engine. I wouldn't say that there is any throbbing sound at all.
|
|
|
You stick to your Massey Fergusons and I'll stick to my booted refinement ;-)
I drove a very nice early-1960s Massey Ferguson last weekend. It was still just as good as I remembered them from my youth! Modern tractors aee nowhere near as nice.
|
|
|
|
>but sells a few saloons to the minority who like that sort of thing :)>>
Like my VW 1.6 16v Bora you mean?
I also seem to recall that virtually all the 405s and 406s I've seen lately are saloons (and very good looking ones as well).
If it was only a minority who like that sort of thing then it would only be the sale of a few saloons...:-))
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
I also seem to recall that virtually all the 405s and 406s I've seen lately are saloons (and very good looking ones as well).
There never was a hatchback version of the 405 or 406. The only alternatives (apart from the 406 Coupe) were the estate versions. It is the same with the 407.
|
Good. There are far too few saloons around.
Incidentally, I saw another new C5 today or rather it saw me and then blinded me with it's xenons but they're growing on me. Growing on me a lot.
|
|
|
>>There never was a hatchback version of the 405 or 406>>
I never said there was a hatchback - it was tongue in cheek.
I've been on enough 405 and 406 Press launches to know what's on offer...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
