Well the diesels I have had were:
Citroen ZX 1.9D - slow but great economy
Citroen ZX 1.9TD - much more punchy, still great economy but was the estate version so not as nippy through the bends
Scenic 1.9TD - the original Turbo diesel, fantastic engine, great mpg consistently in high 40s, very nippy, quick from standstill. Liked it so much that I went for the new fangled dci engine next....
Scenic 1.9dci (105) - just like the OP, an absolute nightmare of a car. First gear took you to a mximum of 4 mph and then you had to switch up the gears, absolutely no grunt, no surge of torque in third, just nothing! Was going to chip it, but then traded it for a new shape
Scenic 1.9dci (120) - great engine, 6 speed box but disappointing economy, only getting low 40s on long motorway journeys
Have also had
Saxo 1.5 D - 0-60, well forget about that, top end speed about 78 unless downhill, plan your overtaking with a diary. However, fantastic economy and that was what it was bought for. Consistently between 65-70 mpg and as I was getting 33p a mile from employers, it paid for itself.. Put it in to National every 6k miles for oil change and did no other "preventative" maintenance.
And finally......
Fabulous Fabia vrS, brilliant engine, so full of torque, economy mid to late 40s, fantastic all round car.
Anyway I have digressed, to summarise, I agree with OP, the original dci105 Scenic engine was a howler!!
|
|
|
Worst diesel I had was a 1.8 non turbo in a 92 Fiesta, very poor, very agricultural.
In contrast, I replaced it with a 93 Tipo 1.9 TurboDiesel (which was actually in better condition and was less than what I sold the Fiesta for). Now that was a great diesel engine. So much power and acceleration.
Since then I've always had Fiat diesels.
|
|
I borrowed a D reg 1.6 fiesta diesel a few years ago, and it was a stinker, just sooo slow it was seriously dangerous! Got embarrassing when kids overtook you on their skateboards!
|
A Dodge walkthrough van like door to door mobile shops use to use.
Restricted to 42 mph, drum brakes all round, horrible, horrible, horrible.
MTC
|
Didn't own it, but back in about 1982 the boss had a PUG 60* Turbo Diesel barge
Crikey!, this thing was so slow a snail could have beaten you away from the traffic lights.
Without the "turbo" it would probably been quicker to get out and push it.
|
Well it would have to be 306 seeing as I've only owned two.
Fail to see what difference common rail made to this engine other than potential repair costs. 90bhp but noisy, not as economical as I'd hoped (Although not too bad) and the torque only really seemed to be useful as 80+mph.
I don't think it was running at entirely 100% but sold it before I could find out.
|
I didnt own it but by far the worst diesel ive ever driven was a 1998 Mondeo 1.8td Ghia X.
Lovely car in many respects but the engine was pathetic. The powerband was so narrow that when you accelerated, you got nothing at the bottom end, then some weak midrange punch before it started running out of steam and just making lots of noise.
It was very hard to find a space big enough to overtake anything because you dropped it down a cog, floored it, got halfway past the car your overtaking and it reached the redline, so you change up and no power again until the turbo woke up again but even when it did it had no guts at all.
It was the sort of car that needed a ten speed gearbox so it was always at the right engine speed!
A truelly awful car that made a Rover 400 diesel look like a powerhouse.
I must admit, I never minded the old style noisey diesels as atleast they sounded like they would run forever, unlike todays CR jobs. They usually had very good 'plodding' ability which is what you expected from them.
|
4 year old Peugeot 405 estate GLX I think. Bought to replace an ultra reliable Cavalier 1.7 TD because I wanted aircon and a bit more space. Bit quicker, nice ride, quite economical but hopelessly unreliable. Faults many repeated over the short time I owned it, with electric windows, blown bulbs, aircon, radio, lights, fuel pump, blown head gasket (covered under 3rd party warranty) loss of turbo pressure, broken seats. All in a car with under 40,000 miles and FPSH.
I had also owned a ZX TD which really was excellent and hoped/believed that the Peugeot because of the PSA links would be a decent car. Never again!
|
|
Mondeo 1.8TD GLX - N Reg. Not bad ride, etc. but engine was very rough and not very economically. Woke all the neighbours up when I went to work. I beleive these engines are the same as the ones in Transits!!
|
My present diesel is the first I've owned but I've driven quite a few. The only real duffer of recent vintage (and my sample includes a non-turbo Seat Ibiza, which did a fine job on Spanish mountain roads in1997) is the 2.2 TiD engine that Saab found in a GM skip when it decided it ought to make a diesel version of the 9-5. This is such a pity - I love the 9-5 estate and would really like to have one, but common sense dictates a diesel in such a big car and the 2.2 is truly horrible. It's slow, unresponsive and the noise it makes turns the civilized experience of driving a petrol-powered Saab into something verging on an ordeal.
Of course, the latest 9-5s have a much better engine, but they also have that - ahem - challenging new front end and, alas, a speedometer with a white needle, not an orange one. Little by little they're diluting the Saab experience and that's a pity - ironic too, at a time when Citroen (see other thread) is re-asserting its individuality.
|
A 2001 Citroen Xsara Estate 2.0 HDi. Was a high mileage ex-fleet car, with full service history, bought from auction. Ended up being no end of trouble. The engine was actually pretty good - could get about 45mpg on a run, and had enough torque for the job. The rest of the car was the problem.
First of all I found it had a noisy transmission. No-one could ever find out what the problem was. The lights failed almost immediately ( new electronic control box - £200 ), then several months later it 'went dead' while on a garage ramp while having the brakes done. Turned out to be a dodgy fuel pump connector, but the whole service ended up costing £500.
Then I had a flat tyre, went to change it and found the spare was the wrong type! (No not a space-saver - a completely different wheel). It had been swapped over before I bought the car. So that's why the spare wheel cage rattled... Luckily managed to get one from a breakers for £60.
Then just before I was due to travel to an old friend's 40th birthday both front springs failed. (Another few hundred pounds). had to cancel my trip. Then it failed its mot due to a leak in the fuel tank seal. Cost even more money.
Then the front bumper fell off. (Though I think my wife might have had something to do with that) Luckily a local garage fixed it on for £100 compared to the £500 another one wanted for a new bumper.
Bought the car for £3000 (Thought it was a bargain), but probably spent £2000 fixing it over the year I had it.
I part exchanged it for £1200 when I got my C-Max, and was glad to be rid of it. I had no confidence in the car at all.
|
The only real duffer of recent vintage is the 2.2 TiD engine that Saab found in a GM skip when it decided it ought to make a diesel version of the 9-5.
Hey don't knock it Will ! ;o)
You're not the first person to slate this engine, I used to hate mine until I got it chipped, which totally transforms it. Its now quicker than my Dads Audi A4 PD 130, and does 45mpg (50+ on a steady 65mph run). Yes it rattles more than most do when cold, but its a lot better when warmed up. Mine used to vibrate so much at idle I could see the dash moving 5mm; but I had the idle adjusted and its fine now. Its rough but has better power/ torque as standard than the VAG 110 Tdi engine I was considering at the time I bought it.
I've done 50k miles in mine without a problem, and have no reason to sell it in the near future. So what if its an Isuzu van engine with an injection pump that can be temperamental; balancer shafts... what balancer shafts?!
The worst two diesels I have driven (not owned) were both Ford 1.8 TD's, in an Escort and a Mondeo. Turbo lag time you could measure with a sundial...
|
The worst two diesels I have driven (not owned) were both Ford 1.8 TD's, in an Escort and a Mondeo. Turbo lag time you could measure with a sundial...
I should really add though that one or both the Fords I drove may have been somewhat neglected in terms of maintenance; so they could have been worse than normal.
;o)
|
|
by far the worst diesel ive ever driven was a 1998 Mondeo 1.8td Ghia X.
I agree with much of what you say, but I guess I've learned to drive around most of these problems, as I don't really notice them any more.
I think this engine gets a lot of unfair criticism when many diesels of the same era were no better. It performs a hell of a lot better than the 1998 406 TD 90PS (last of the XUD engines) which I had as a company car, is less lethargic off boost, and returns a good 5-7 mpg more under similar driving conditions. It's much less refined than the Peugeot unit, but that's about it.
Don't get me wrong, it's a shocking engine by modern standards, but I don't think it's any worse than a lot of other stuff around at the time. Also hasn't missed a beat mechanically between 101k and 130k and uses no oil.
Worst diesel I have owned was a 1998 VW Polo 1.9D. Truly horrible little car - badly made, painfully gutless, and returned around 42 mpg despite being outpaced by wildlife. Also had constant niggling faults and had rot in the arches at 7 years old.
Cheers
DP
|
I will add my criticism for the Ford 1.8TD. A vile engine beyond description. Its only saviours were its reliability and economy. But what a price to pay.
A Rover L Series was a far better engine and was introduced in 1994. Even the rough old Perkins things in the Maestros and Montegos were preferable to the Ford effort.
Now a new TDCi - that's a different matter...
|
|
|
You cant expect a 90 bhp XUDT lump to lug a 406s lardy body around, even the 135 bhp 2 litre 16 valve petrol engine struggles.
It could have been a lot worse though, thank god the sloth slow 1.6 petrol 8 valve 406 never left France.
|
It was a lot worse. They made 1.9D Xantias, and then stuck auto boxes on them. Walking must have been faster!
--
RichardW
Is it illogical? It must be Citroen....
|
You cant expect a 90 bhp XUDT lump to lug a 406s lardy body around,
I was just using it as a direct comparison with the Mondeo 1.8td mk2 which also has 90 bhp and weighs about the same.
|
|
The 2,3 non turbo Sierra has to be the pits. It made my son's 1,4 Pug 106 seem like lightening.
|
Both cars I have owned have been Peugeot XUD diesels- a 309 1.9D and a 306TD, the latter of which I still own and is still going strong at 190k. The 309 was the best in terms of reliability, was a bit better on fuel than the 306 due to no turbo and was pretty nippy for a normally aspirated diesel, although there were times where I missed the turbo- such as long hill climbs with 5 on board!
I do prefer the 306 overall, as it's a much nicer and easier drive, with plenty of torque for easy overtaking and still returns at least 45 mpg when driven at a steady 70-75 on the motorway. It is true to say that mpg on these does suffer if you constantly floor it around town or cane it down the motorway at 90mph.
I've not owned any other diesel, but the worst one I have driven has to be an Escort 1.8D. Noisy, horrible and slow are the only words to describe it! The Astra 1.7D wasn't much better by comparison.
Martin
|
I drove a Mercedes W123 300D (at least I think that was the model number) in 1986-7. Slow ,cumbersome, noisy and lethargic. Felt like a Ferguson tractor of the mid 1960s.
madf
|
|
Mines got to be 407 1.6 Hdi. Lovely car but just had no power, it sounded really horrible outside too, very quiet inside though, if the company could have stretched to the 2.0 i would not have swapped for the Saab i've got now engine is amazing (150bhp) if a little noisier, but the whole car rattles and creaks!
|
|
Cheers DP
Im afraid it was far worse than the Rover 420 TDs I was used to driving which had huge reserves of punch and torque. They were nearly a match for the 2.0 petrol, noise aside.
The Mondeo TD is useless because the trade off for extra noise and lower power is supposed to be torque and drivability, but it has neither of them. Economy was not enough by the late 90's.
Yes there may be other cars which were the same, but it wasnt the norm. By 1998, the standard was much higher than this.
|
Well here goes - I thought the Maestro diesels provided a wonderful heavyweight sense of indestructability. 2 litres of van sized crunch in that body meant a fairly decent response and, when younger [me, not the car], quite liked the roar. I bought one, greatly comforted by the AA using them. Noisy, not quick, but did what they were supposed to. An undervalued car I reckon, however tinny by today's standards.
The design was brilliant, providing huge internal space, and they were light inside with low window sills and none of the pill-box slits nonsense we have now.
|
I am glad someone else agreed that the reanult 1.9DCI 105bhp was a plug. Interesting reading everyone's comments/opinions. The diesels myself and my wife have owned and my opinions of them are below:
Cavalier 1.6, 2yrs - slow but almost enjoyable.
Vectra 1.7TD 1yr- not a bad car and ok to drive.
Golf GT TDI, 7yrs- great and good mpg, never below 40mpg even when thrashed..
Audi A4 TDI, 110bhp, 3yrs - good car and averaged close to 50mpg. Bother with front suspension arms led me to flog it to buy...........................
Renault Scenic DCI, 3yrs - say no more. My first and last french car.
Mondeo Zetec 130TDCI, 1yr and still have it - excellent to drive, fast and 47mpg average.
Touran 2.0TDI Sport 140bhp - early days but really pleased with handling. averaged 48mpg on a 475 run with cruise set at 78mph. It is fast!!!!!!!
I have to say that the VAG diesels are my favourite and i also like the build quality of their cars and also the residuals. Granted they can have some annoying faults and my experience of VW dealers regarding servicing is mixed!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
