Wanted: Series 1 V6 24v

[jorgy]

Hi David

I am surprised at the extent of Georges negative comments. These seem to be based on a single drive.

John

Hi John, yep indeed comment is just from a drive. We drove each other's car. Judging by the owner's profile, I expect the 2.5td was well/very well maintened, he didn't mention it had any fault either. But there was just no comparison in the responsiveness from the gas pedal. V6= u go, no matter 900rpm or 5,000rpm. 2.5td = wait for turbo. "Wow that's pretty sporty" was exclaimed in the first deep blip of the throttle from the 2.5 owner once on motorway -he just didn't expect it to be as such, neither did I expect he'd think so -I still remember, he floored it on 3rd and we immediately shot ahead. Bear in mind he has owned Porsches, Nissan 300zx, etc, and even Ferrari I think. We also did a comparative exercise on a long steep hill on motorway: floor it from about 1,500rpm in 5th, the V6 opened up way faster -still remember how not much was happening in the 2.5td for quite a while, with me being on the fast lane , okay was early quiet Sat morning but....

Indeed I wonder why the PRV is been branded as a "bad-ancient-lazy-untorquey" engine from any Press I've read, UK or French. A case of cognitive bias to do a PhD on, if u want my opinion, especially if one keeps in mind that all these were written in the early 90s -just unbelievable. I can't imagine how good it'd become just with 1-2 degrees extra spark advance. As it is, you couldn't ask for more torque from idle (my XM will keep on moving on a slight slope in 3rd gear idling) and it continues for a useful 4,600rpm following! In contrast, I need to rev the s**t out of our atmo 20v Fiat Coupe to go fast -still it does much better than other 90s Jap multivalvers I've driven -these are dead below midrevs. Also seen my friend's succesive 5-series BMWs and not impressed either -at a similar kg/hp car, u equally need to rev the s**t to get anything -but economy is their greatest point. Response- PRV 12v is surprisingly good also, faster than other similar tech (clio 1.4 8v, Volvo 460 1.8 8v), or same as not-sporty modern multivalve-tech engine's (Clio 1.4 16v, Suzuki SX4 1.6 16v vvt) I've driven. Of course the Coupe is in another class in this, feels more like a motorbike by comparison, but expected -must have a flywheel 1/5 of the weight of the PRV -unfortunatelly, it doesn't have 6 gears like motorbikes and once on motorway still after a year of ownership u r looking for that 6th gear to drop rpm TBH, best all rounder engine I ever driven was the 1.129cc boxer-4 GS/Axel engine...still can't believe it was just an 8-valver with a carb...

Interestingly John, keep in mind that I had never driven a turbo'd car before, and didn't expect the effect to be as marked. *That* was the day I understood the meaning of what they say "there's no substitute for c.i.s" As I said, if u were e.g. to drive everywere full throttle all the time, then the 2 are nearer -and prob the AUTO V6 and manual 2.5td are equal, depending on engine condition as u say, maybe V6 even slower in some tasks, I just don't know, I imagine it's very sluggish from some numbers I've seen.

Also, and perhaps most importantly John, bear in mind my comment refered to a MANUAL V6 12v -autobox is prob a different story, way longer gearing (3 or 4?), auto-losses, not really fair to compare it to a 5-manual 2.5td. I wouldn't touch an auto V6 PRV XM myself, waste of energy in my opinion, when u can have the manual with 5 gears -that's why I went as far as Germany to pick one. Manual 12v does 0-60 in 8.5", auto in 9.5" (+, in test drives), this says much.

Now, remembering that David is used not just to a 12v, but to a 24v PRV , which I assume to be an enraged engine, that's why I said "don't think about it"...-I also now he's just been driving a Golf 4x4 with about 250hp, so even the 24v PRV might feel bit slow for him!

I also assumed cost is not a factor for David. Now, if discussion is for a stop-gap, a 2.5td sounds fantastic, why not...You can always remap it also...You could also fall in love with it once u realise what a good allrounder is -PRVs are crap for economy-.

cheers
George

[andmcit]

The 1130 engine wasn't a patch on the 1222 and with the earlier carb, the 1300 - still rate the 1222 highest.

Seen this BTW:

http://www.marche.fr/petite_annonce_aut ... 77291.html

And just check out the cars in the background!!
Holy Cow!! 400 euros for an easy restoration!!



I have crazy thoughts running through my mind and wish i hadn't
looked now.

Andrew

[jorgy]

Hmmm not driven the 1222 or 1300, will always regret for not having got a 1300 Axel I guess, that would have been a mini-GTi !

Hmmm already checked if Ryanair flies to Nantes Andrew?

Easy resto it seems yes, nice condition original paint!

Wow that CX is great -what about a debate Black, White, or Silver on a S2 CX now?

cheers
G

[andmcit]

My x2 early 1974 Gs's are both from Nantes; it's meant to be...

Oh god!

As far as Cx colour goes, don't fight it, there's no debate!
An easy solution = one of each. Works for me!!

Andrew

[DJGLW]

As the owner of the 2.5 and the person George refers to, allow me to correct his obvious early onslaught of altzheimers.

His 3L was faster accelerating from rest. However accelerating from 50mph in 5th the 2.5 eats the 3 litre for breakfast
I specifically tried his on the steep hill on the M77 and was not impressed. Obviously, my politeness, for which I am not renowned, was being over exercised in the interests of diplomacy that day rather than upset a young lad who loves his car and wears blinkers.
The fact is that a turbo is generally accepted as giving the equivalent of a 50% increase in cc, what we actually have a 3.75 litre vs a 3 litre. The 3 litre is a lighter engine and easier to rev but lacks torque. The 2.5 frequently can spin its wheels in third gear going round roundabouts.
Other than rarity value and the engine noise I cannot think how anyone could prefer the 3L to the 2.5TD.
I've driven a 2.5 from Glasgow to Cardiff in a running time of 5 h 28m returning a shade under 37mpg. No 3L V6 XM will come close. George is right, I have raced and driven high performance sports car for nearly 40 years but never owned a Porsche. The Ferrari, 300Z TT, 350Z, 3 Astons, etc. etc. qualify me to comment I believe from knowledge and experience rather than fanciful wishful thinking.
Granted, George's 3L struck me as pretty tired, but I have driven several other 3 litres and yes they have a nice spec bit thanks, I'll have a 2.5TD every time.
When it comes to towing, the results are even more disparaging. In short, for every day use, try a 2.5 and be amazed.

[andmcit]

I've not driven a s2 Xm 24v but do have a s1 which I believe was the reason that triggered the original thread by David.
I own x2 Xm 2.5TD's, several manual s1 v6's and a Xantia autoadaptive 24v and can see the charms and arguments from
both sides. The 2.5 reminds me of the original totally fabulous Cx 2.5 DTR as it does drive like a swift petrol engined car
although a 12v will match it but at the obvious detriment of mpg. A 24v of either variety will eat it alive performance
wise and combined with the ever so clever autoadaptive will try and give a usefully decent mpg. When driven hard, I tend
to find all the diesels I drive suffer markedly dropped mpg yet no lie, the dropoff with the petrols isn't so severe even
starting at a bigger handicapped original position v's the TD. I can get a Xantia TD to consume more under similar cross
country skiddlies as a v6 engined auto or a well fettled 2.0i TCT Activa Xantia. At the end of the day its going to depend
on how you want to use the car and the style of driving you have.

Until a year ago, I largely despised diesels and automatics yet now have newfound respect and dare I say liking for them
having bought two nice 2.5TD's and the HP20 Xantia. I'm still in my comfort zone with a petrol any day though and adore
my Xm s1 24v v6 and Cx GTi's but should I need to, would happily run a 2.5TD too: the hydraulic clutch is another newly
found pleasure being smooth and precise - not something always found on all Citroens!!

In the end everyone's going to have their own thoughts/champion and favourite so there's no good to be found having
an argument over which is the no1!!

Andrew

[citroenxm]

As the owner of the 2.5 and the person George refers to, allow me to correct his obvious early onslaught of altzheimers.

His 3L was faster accelerating from rest. However accelerating from 50mph in 5th the 2.5 eats the 3 litre for breakfast
I specifically tried his on the steep hill on the M77 and was not impressed. Obviously, my politeness, for which I am not renowned, was being over exercised in the interests of diplomacy that day rather than upset a young lad who loves his car and wears blinkers.
The fact is that a turbo is generally accepted as giving the equivalent of a 50% increase in cc, what we actually have a 3.75 litre vs a 3 litre. The 3 litre is a lighter engine and easier to rev but lacks torque. The 2.5 frequently can spin its wheels in third gear going round roundabouts.
Other than rarity value and the engine noise I cannot think how anyone could prefer the 3L to the 2.5TD.
I've driven a 2.5 from Glasgow to Cardiff in a running time of 5 h 28m returning a shade under 37mpg. No 3L V6 XM will come close. George is right, I have raced and driven high performance sports car for nearly 40 years but never owned a Porsche. The Ferrari, 300Z TT, 350Z, 3 Astons, etc. etc. qualify me to comment I believe from knowledge and experience rather than fanciful wishful thinking.
Granted, George's 3L struck me as pretty tired bit I have driven several other 3 litres and yes they have a nice spec bit thanks, I'll have a 2.5TD every time.
When it comes to towing, the results are even more disparaging. In short, for every day use try a 2.5 and be amazed.

David!

WELCOME to the newer fourm! I was wondering how long it would be before you arrived! (Paul, from North Wales, here)

I have to say the PRV on an autobox IS QUITE SLOW! The manual box makes a big difference to the PRV - but I think John has only driven Auto PRV's and I would tend to think too the 2.5 would be quite an equal comparison, though in motorway driving a quicker car in - ingear acceleration! I had trouble in myPRV auto keeping up with the DERVs on the motorway..

Of course the PRV 24v Manual is a different kettle of fish

Paul

[robert_e_smart]

I have driven 2.5TD xm once, and was very impressed with it, the power delivery was excellent, it was very smooth and torquey. I would love to get one to replace my 2.1TD with, but that might have to wait.

As for the PRV V6s, I can't comment, but having driven a Series 2 24V XM, and a Xantia with the same engine, I found it very impressive too. But I think the 2.5TD would be a very good compromise for every day use.

[xmexclusive]

Hi All

The input here has been most interesting.
I am pleased to see David has found a rather different solution to his need for a replacement car.
Adding to the UK stock by importing is usually discounted on cost grounds.
Hopefully Davids new cars are XM's. No doubt we shall know before long.

John

[DJGLW]

Hi Paul and thanks for the welcome.
Only joined because I felt the need to put the record right. This particular episode has been referred to many times over the last couple of years and the 3L performance has grown legs with every reiteration.
However when words are attributed to me which are not words I recognise as my own, unfortunately the point is reached where myths, dreams and pure fantasy has to be corrected. The danger nowadays is there is too much opinion written on the internet which may be referred to in the future as fact, when in truth it is totally erroneous.

Hope this has made my position on this topic abundantly clear and apologies for joining only to have to disturb calm waters.

DJ