Wanted: Series 1 V6 24v

[citroenxm]

I Think this HALF of the original POST SHOULD Be moved to its own!!

Its become a Tourque comparison posting and NOT A "Wanted S1 24v manual " posting, these post will get lost here at some point??!!!!

Do we need a "Cleaner" or an "organiser" on here to sort these "Lost" posts out.. or is it something we circome too?

Paul

[xmexclusive]

Hi Paul

I do not think that is a problem at the moment.
Your post will act as a reminder about wandering and when David posts the details of his new cars we will be right back on track.

John

[jorgy]

Hi Andrew, Derek, and John (in order of appearance ) and all

Glad we can finally nail down the discussion to the quality and detail required.

Anybody that has driven a diesel will tell you how much they enjoy driving one compared to a petrol and that "it feels way stronger than on paper". It's precisely because power (and loads of it) is delivered from low, almost from "start", while an atmo petrol sees its power increase as revs go up -not ideal, if u think about it-. That's why buses or lorries will never have petrol engines, they just wouldn't be able to set off. Especially as modern cars become heavier and heavier, it's a bonus to have a diesel under ur bonnet. The low end torque of a 70hp ZX 1.9d is the reason why it feels more like a petrol 90hp 1.6, and, for the same reason, a lengthy trip beyond city boundaries with a 70hp 1.4 petrol ZX will have u feel like u have been through a boxing fight. So no doubt a 2.5td will be a very pleasant car to drive.

I personally have only noted 2 *very* specific things in my msg that sparked outrage , 1/that the manual 12v PRV is crispier in gas pedal response (okay, that's not too important in general), and, 2/that at around/below 1,500rpm, the 2.5 engine just wasn't taking off at the hill -no doubt if I had done the same at 1,800 or 2,000, it would fly, but I specifically did it as ridiculously low bec I was curious to see the behaviour.

I'm perhaps getting silly into discussing "torque below 1,500rpm", but to me it's important to have plenty available from as low down as possible (when driving a Manual car): it makes that in city driving u can forget about 1st gear. Also, equally important for myself, it makes for quiet/comfortable driving, as u rarely need to pull any gear above 2,000rpm (if u got 3 liters of that!); 2,500rpm at full throttle "racing" mode. This 12v PRV is the "bestest" engine I've ever driven in this respect, so I just have to note this admirable technical fact as much as 2.5 owners enjoy noting the tsunami of torque at 2,000rpm. One of the reasons that all these years I'm not as eager as I should to fly to Germany and snatch a 24v PRV for eu400, is just this fact -the 12v beats it for power up to precisely 2,000rpm, and I can predict the difference it'll make in driving just by looking at the graphs, and not sure I'd enjoy it in practice as much as the 200hp denote. I think I'm even more obsessed with low down torque than diesel drivers...

The only other engines that felt similar in this "basement torque" delivery pattern, were the ZX 1.9 NON TURBO with 70hp (or was it 71? ), and a '91 Clio 1.4 8v -but this would peak at 3,500rpm, your typical old 8-valver delivery pattern, while the 12v PRV strangely peaks at 4,600, like a multivalver.

Performance-wise, I have these to offer, not having any gear ratios affraid:


S1 XM









S2 XM







Suprisingly enough, from a standstill, the S2 2.5 is exactly as fast as a S1 2.1td at the 0-400m and 0-1,000meters accelerations: 17.7" vs. 17.8", and 32.8". While an S2 2.1td is slower, whith 18.1" and 33.7". All probably due to weight differences between S1+S2 -have not checked.
[S1 V6 12v Manual: 16.2", 29.6"; Auto: 17", 31.1"]

I also note a 2.5td carries by default 160kg extra compared to a Manual S1 12v PRV (1420 vs 1580kg), this makes me wonder if it'd beat it in any kind of in-gear acceleration, unless it was relatively shorter-geared (because obviously it *has* to be longer geared in absolute terms) ??? We need test-drive data!!!! (or a meeting hehe )

Also, I was wrong at estimating the 130hp 2.5 top speed, think I said 128mph, Citroen says 123mph (201km/h). Citroen gives almost 126mph (205km/h) for the 135bhp 2lt 16v, and also almost 126mph for the old 130hp 2lt 8v. I'm a bit surprised at this data. I think it must be due to aerodynamic differences rather than gearing differences -i.e. the 2.5 having been purposively short-geared in 5th so that it pulls better -"torque on road" as Derek says. What I know is S1 2lts had a low Cd of 0.28 while an S1 V6 had 0.30 due to larger engine cooling openings mainly (and also alloys, and fatter tyres). An S2 2.5 would also probably have larger engine cooling openings at the bumper than an S2 2lt, and fatter tyres also.

So, anybody has the gearing facts? Only this will tell us if a 2.5 puts more torque on the tarmac to pulling a caravan than an S1 Manual V6 on A-B-C gear at X-Y-Z mph. Then, we need to factor weight differentials.

Remember, the V6 has an added advantage here as it also looses weight from the petrol tank as you compress the gas pedal The heavier the caravan, the greater the advantage!!


BTW, as we speak engines, see what this mad (?) (greek) guy has come up with:

http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonRod.htm

[removed this as not relevant and I opened a thread for it]

cheers
George