Thinking of buying a 57 plate vectra as they are pretty cheap and will make a great car for doing the miles. Are these engines chain or belt and are they anygood? Do GM produce these engines themselves? Looking at an auto 150bhp CDTI. Has anyone had any experience with the auto boxes. Opions welcomed.
Thanks
|
I read a long term test of a Vectra CDTi Auto a few months ago (can't remember which output though) and whilst the car was more than capable the engine/gearbox combination was a dog.
I'd want a very long test drive.
|
|
|
The engine is basically a Fiat unit, and has a cambelt.
The autoboxes that Vauxhall use are generally robust and reliable. Early ones *could* suffer water contamination from the oil cooler and a breather vent pipe that was in the wrong place, but this won't affect a 57 plate auto.
More info in HJ's car by car breakdown, www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/index.htm?md=526
And over on www.vectra-c.com
|
|
|
I believe the 1.9 diesel is a belt cam engine but also that it is pretty reliable. Can't comment on the auto box.
Just to throw in a wild card, have you considered the 2.2 petrol ? Reason I chuck that into the mix is that I have recently bought a 2.2 petrol Signum. It replaces/substitutes a 2.0 TDCi Mondeo estate. Some interesting maths emerge. I do a fairly high self-funded mileage.
The fuel cost of the petrol Signum works out at a short 13p per mile. The diesel Mondeo costs 11.5p per mile. As you will know, it is possible to buy second hand petrol cars considerably cheaper than diesel ones. Even with a VED of £220 pa on the Vauxhall as opposed to £140 on the Ford it now becomes marginal on cost difference if you look at total ownership costs.
The 2.2 unit is very smooth and torquey and drives a bit like a quieter diesel. It does lose out on urban fuel consumption over the diesel but if you are a high mileage driver it is actually very frugal for a reasonably powerful petrol engine. Chain cam too.
The factor which may swing it, is of course depreciation, which will take a worse toll on the petrol of course but if, like me, you were to planning to run it to very high miles anyway, the effects become less painful as both options will be vastly depreciated.
The other factor is of course that although the life costs may now be similar-ish, you are not paying in advance for the economy. The small additional cost of the fuel has only to be funded on a pay as you go basis.
The simple maths are that over 100,000 miles I will spend £1500 more on fuel. I'd like to bet it's possible to save at least that on the purchase price by going with a petrol.
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 15/10/2008 at 11:22
|
Good point there Humph Backbridge. I had an asta 1.9cdti as a company car and enjoyed the engine, although the gearbox like all GM cars was a bit notchy.
Has anyone driven the 150bhp? is it on par with the 2.2tdci mondeo (old shape)? as that was a cracking drive.
|
I used to have a Vectra 1.9 cdti 150 (manual) and it was very good, apart from the swirl valve actuator failing (under warranty). Lots of performance and 50mpg+ easily obtainable on the motorway.
I've also driven the same car with an auto box a couple of times and wasn't as fond of it. The noise level was higher and fuel economy was sharply down (struggled to get 40mpg!), performance was still OK, but it didn't feel right somehow.
I've nothing against diesel autos (I've got an S80 D5 auto now, and that's great) but I don't think I'd have a Vectra 1.9 cdti auto, I just didn't like it much myself.
|
Having driven both a 150 Astra CDTI and the 2.2 TDCI mondeo, I'd say they were evenly matched so I cant see that the heavier Vectra being able to match the Mondeo performance wise.
On the 2.2 tdci mondeo, funnily enough, I thought the 6 speed box was dreadful, baulky and sticky in operation, not at all smooth. Plus, the performance is limited in 1st gear so it feels held back which is annoying. It does go well though albeit gruffly.
|
|
I owned a petrol 2.2 (make sure it's a 'direct' engine). Bomb proof engine and more than adequate for families needs. Still not sure why I ever sold it.
|
It's sort of your fault that I've got that engine MLC !! Pleased that I have mind you...
Did you find that it drives a bit like a diesel too ? What I mean is it seems to be happiest rolling along on the sub 4000 rpm torque. Smooth as chocolate actually.
|
|
Yes.The performance was good and there was plenty of ooomph if needed for overtaking. While the 1.9 diesel seems to be a bit of a 'marmite' engine on Vec-C.com, the 2.2 direct gets universal praise. (Along with the seemingly very reliable 3.0 diesel)
|
|
Haven't VX been having pump problems with the 2.2 petrol lump, i've heard of quite a few probs?
|
|
The 3.0 cdti looks quite tempting. Is this another GM unit? They average about 40mpg which isnt too bad for a V6.
|
|
The 3.0 ltr diesel is an Isuzu lump, very good by all accounts
|
Although the 3.0 V6 CDTI seems to be trouble free in the Vectra, the same engine in the Saab 9-5 had lots of problems.
Maybe they fixed that issue before the Vectra got that engine, or maybe it was a Saab 9-5 specific issue (airflow around engine bay is one explanation I've heard), but I wouldn't be 100% confident that the V6 diesel is bullet proof.
|
Wouldnt the 3.0 V6 diesel make the nose a touch heavy? I thought about the 3.0 Vectra diesel but felt that it fell between two aims - do I want performance OR economy. I wasnt entirely sure that the 3.0 would satisfy on either count being neither a massive step up on the 1.9 performance wise, yet being noticeably thirstier/more complex (leaving aside any known issues)
The 1.9 150 diesel would definately give you the economy and would be lively enough. Wether it'd pay to get one over the 2.2 direct petrol would be debateable if you are using the car on the motorway. Urban running and the diesel would make a big saving.
|
David, that pretty much echos my thoughts too. Add to that the fact that the 1.9 can be tuned to around 180-200 bhp (even when tuned the 3.0 V6 doesn't really do much better than that) and the case for the 3.0 really looks poor. You'd *really* have to want a V6 to choose the 3.0 over the 1.9.
Compared to the BMW 3.0 straight-six diesel, the Vauxhall/Isuzu 3.0 V6 diesel is a bit of a joke, to be honest.
I read on the news a few months back about how the Met had taken a few Vectra 3.0 V6 cdtis on and the guys were moaning about how uselessly slow they were and that the BMW 530d would be much better...of course the price of the 2 cars is quite different!
|
|
4 cylinders + diesel + auto makes for a constant drone which you need to make sure you can live with.
My last car was a Mercedes B200 CDI with CVT which I tried to live with, and failed to after 18 months. Previous A4 2.5 TDI with 6 cylinders was very quiet, and what noise there was, was pleasant. I should think the same applies to a 5-cylinder Volvo.
Current Golf TDI is a manual and although the 2.0 VW engine isn't naturally quiet it's only loud under hard acceleration, very quiet and unstressed at motorway speeds, and I have no trouble living with it.
So if you want a diesel Vectra, maybe think about a V6 auto or a 4-cylinder manual. Or a suggested above, the 2.2 petrol which ahould be quite lively in the medium-sized Vectra, given that Humph seems well satisfied with it in the Signum.
Edited by Avant on 15/10/2008 at 21:31
|
|
|
