|
Does anyone know anything about citroen ax cars .Namely the 1.4 diesel variety. My stepdaughter wants to buy one (1991 model with low mileage and no pas). I aren`t keen as they strike me as bean tins held together with chewing gum and ricepaper.. Also is there an issue with the 1.4 diesel engine?. Any help would be appreciated
|
|
All the crash protection of a paper bag, but cheap to run.
|
|
|
Red,
I had one for 7yrs, 1.4 diesel, yes a bit of tin held together, but that's why they were absolutely brilliant on economy due to their light weight and being a diesel and that's the exact reason I bought one.You could drive it as hard as you liked and it would alway return around 60 MPG.
I always read that the 1.4s were a bit weak in the head dept, but due to a leak which I never did find, mine was run around sometimes with almost no coolant in it at all and never did it any harm !
Mine eventually die when the clutch gave out for the second time in 3yrs and I could not be bothered to do it.
I loved it due to the cheap running costs and it was a car you simply park and not worry about it getting dented or anything as the value was so low.
My advice do not go near it as it will be your loved one driving this and I would not like to see one of these cars after a serious accident !
Spend the money and get something newer and stronger so that also rule out 106's as they are just as weak.
|
|
Not bad in their day but it's a 20 year old design. Zero safety features compared to a modern Citroen. Best left IMO. Buy a Polo, at least it's stronger.
|
|
My son had the Peugot 106 version. (same basic mechanicals). It was reliable in everyday running and did about 60mpg. The steering was Heavy(with a capital H!) His had about 90000 miles on it when the head gasket failed between the cooling system and the front cylinder. If she is keen on it, I would check that she is happy with the steering and that the head gasket is ok.(look for bubbles in the header tank) It is quite a sluggish drive. Crash protection is obviously not as good as modern cars but in my opinion that has to be taken into account and is not the only factor involved in the buy or not buy decision.
|
If you can cope with the lack of safety features ( its a calculated risk that many millions of people have taken and not everyone dies in an horrfic car crash ), then they are good little cars, basic but always sought after used by people who know them - I tried to buy one and there was almost a fight to get hold of the car, which I lost unfortunatly.
Dont worry about the flimsey nature of it - most superminis of this era are useless in a crash as were many up until the mid-90's infact, so its not a question of any other supermini rival being better in the real world.
I would say buy it if its a good example and spend some money giving your daughter some Pass Plus lessons and perhaps some skid pan training, give her some better driving skills as most accidents are driver error, esp with the young.
|
|
I spent about an hour checking over one of these, jacked it up, crawled all over it, liked what I saw. Got in it to give it a test drive, and wedged my head firmly against the sunroof! Another afternoon wasted.
|
one with the later engine would be preferable
however if this car is still going strong after 15+ years then it will surely do for another year till something a bit safer comes along
|
I inherited my daughter's ex 'studentmobile' 1.0 petrol AX over 4 years ago as a temp stop gap pending buying my new car. Still running the AX ( it sails through it's annual MOTs) and will get my new car when this one eventually gives up the ghost. It is now 12 years old, has about 90k miles on the clockI. It is used every day and only being worth about £300 tops! it is great for carting rubbish to the local tip etc and you can park it anywhere and no self respecting 'tea-leaf' would give it a second look. Wind-up windows and a three speed 'box...sheer luxury!
|
If going for the diesel it would be more advisable to opt for the 1.5 iron block engine rather than the 1.4 alloy - the latter is more prone to head gasket failure as far as I remember. Neither will be quick (0-60 in 18 seconds!) but your fuel costs will be minimal.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
Be better off & far safer with a 205 diesel with PAS if your lucky.
1.9 XUD lump is bullet proof if looked after, the 205 is basic to work on, not much to go wrong & if your handy with a socket set & multimeter easy to keep on the road when it does.
|
|
205s never had the 1.9 - they got the 1769 XUD7 - have a look at Ebay item 200090284602 - a 205 STDT, perhaps the best 205 oil-burner - it'll go for £900 odd I expect.
|
The STDT is the 1.8 TURBO diesel.
Im talking about the 1905cc non turbo diesel 205's
|
The only 1905 cc 205 was the 205 GTI petrol. All the diesels were 1769, with/without turbo.
www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/data.aspx?model=646
|
Just looked on my Peugeot parts cd rom & the 205 came with both the XUD9 & XUD7T lumps.
So thats the non turbo 1905cc diesel lump & the 1769 turbo diesel lump.
|
|
CD rom is wrong, the 1.9 diesel was never fitted in the 205. At least not in Western Europe anyway.
|
|
I've not known Parkers to get UK models wrong before. The 1905 diesel might not have been made in RHD, or not sold in the UK.
|
Be better off & far safer with a 205 diesel with PAS if your lucky.
Safety is marginal as in most impacts, the result will be the same. The 205 is an early 80's design and is not endowed with any safety features whatsoever. It is visably more solid, but folds up virtually as quickly and with same fatal results. Think of it in terms of this: you get run over buy a bus wrapped in tissue paper ( Citroen ) or carboard ( 205 ) - either way its gonna hurt. Its just degrees of flimsiness.
Agree that the 205 is the better car though.
|
One thing not yet mentioned is that the AX (and 106/Saxo) have a rather awkward driving position, due to the front footwell pushing the pedals to the left of where you expect them to be. I remeber going to use the clutch for the first time, hitting the brake instead, and head-butting the windscreen.
But they are good cars. Best to try one for size.
|
|
|
Mrs H had a 1.4 5-door diesel for a few years. As others have said, they have excellent economy. I could coax 68 mpg out of it on a main road/motorway commute. I haven't noticed anything wrong with the driving position; the brake is under the centre of the steering wheel which is near enough central to the driving seat. Cars without sunroofs have more headroom. I prefer the cloth upholstery to the velour which is grippy enough to stop you getting out easily. The 2-door models have swing open rear windows with plastic catches at the leading edge which tire with age and let water in. This means a wet seat belt if it's been raining. Hardly catastrophic.
We have had Mrs H's diesel and 2 of my childen have 1.0 petrol cars. The handbrake cable outers have failed on all of them leading to stiffness and uneven braking; a hardly taxing DIY job. I have a personal bee in my bonnet about modern drivers expecting to see central brake lights so they have all had those fitted. The petrol ones do 45-48 mpg, even when my son gives lifts to his burly college mates. As with all small cars, they attract bullying a small percentage of other drivers. I find the petrol cars better handling than the diesel, but underpowered in today's traffic. If you could guarantee never having an accident in one, I would recommend them unreservedly for cheap, basic but civilised transport.
Hawkeye
-----------------------------
Stranger in a strange land
|
"they attract bullying a small percentage of other drivers"
edit; "they attract bullying from a small percentage of other drivers"
Hawkeye
-----------------------------
Stranger in a strange land
|
|
|
|
