2.5TD vs 3.0V6

[White Exec]

Hello, PasqualeN - and welcome to the Forum!

[HowardChen]

Hi Prem,

What a question! - But a good one, all the same.
I think owners of each will cheer for what they have, and I suppose that's understandable. They'll have chosen best otc phentermine it, got to know it, and probably got pretty involved with what makes it tick. Some folk are incurable collectors . . . and often of the same type.

Power figures tell a story:
3.0i V6 / 2.5TD

bhp: 194 @ 5500rpm / 130 @ 4300rpm
torque: 197 ft.lbs @ 4000rpm / 217 ft.lbs @ 2000rpm
weight: 1591kg / 1580kg

The V6 can get to 60mph quicker, and top speed is 18mph more than the 2.5's listed 125mph max, but who drives like that? or can afford to?

The V6 is smoother at very low revs (eg hard throttle below 1500), but the 2.5 smoothes out perfectly by 1200, and then peak torque available at 2000, no need to run the engine up to twice that (or to hold a lower gear) to come into the peak torque band. Both engines are equipped with balancer shafts, so are smooth and vibration-free in all normal circumstances.

With lower rpm comes longevity, and with the gearbox too. Forum pages detail the need for on-going care of the automatics, costly repairs, and the need to be super-vigilant over fluids and filters. In contrast the 5-speed manual box (option on the V6, no choice on the TD) is a splendidly reliable and long-lived piece of engineering. The manual change, together with its upmarket pull-action clutch, offers some of the easiest manual changes to be had (for the era), especially with the correct GL-4 oil in it.

Fuel consumption. Our 2.5 averages 32-33mpg (mixed urban, mountain track and motorway), and 38mpg on local motorway commuting. For international travel, it returns 41-42, and that's at speeds averaging 60mph. Others will be able to list V6 figures, but they won't read like that.

Lots of cylinders is wonderful, and I look back fondly to the sound and smoothness of a Rover V8 - both auto and manual. But I don't look back with fondness to the 17-24mpg that went with it.

We decided we preferred diesel a long time ago now. First was the BX19RD - our son had a BX19GTi - and the comparison was interesting, as was the amount of fettling needed to keep the GTi mobile. 44mpg from the RD, a bit over half that from the GTi. Hmm...

So, I'm glad not to have to look after plugs and leads, HT and distributor, ignition modules, in-tank fuel pumps, and all those bits. Exhausts on diesels last longer, and pumps and injectors are fairly bombproof, if you keep the air out. Routine servicing almost boils down to just two items: oil + filter.
Put aside an auto box, too, and the transmission is almost forgettable.

But it's not a simple as that. Just look at the numbers on our Members' Cars list...
http://www.club-xm.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... aga#p81829
Out of the 63 XMs there, petrol and diesel split almost equally, 33 vs 30, just like global sales (181k vs 151k).
19 are V6s, 14 are 2.0i
25 are 2.1TD, and only 5 (8%) are 2.5.

This small number of 2.5s is interestingly almost exactly the same as the global proportion of 2.5s produced (7%)...
http://www.club-xm.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... res#p93060
...22,785 hatch and estate.

Easy to work on, and access? No, but neither is any XM, with well-stuffed engine bays. The 2.5 is towards the sod-awkward end, with a good few jobs (new belts, replacement starter, turbo access) not a lot of fun. The upside is that these jobs don't need tackling very often, and overall reliability - if you look after basic servicing - is extraordinarily high.

I'll let someone else tell the V6 story. They'll be no shortage of detail, I'll bet!

Parts are probably about the same between 2.5 and PRV now, scarce to impossible.

[ul9601]

Can't comment on diesel but I absolutely loved ES9 when I had Series 1 C5. I should have gone with the same when bought C6.

...But it's not a simple as that. Just look at the numbers on our Members' Cars list...
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=7089&p=81829&hilit=malaga#p81829
Out of the 63 XMs there, petrol and diesel split almost equally, 33 vs 30, just like global sales (181k vs 151k).
19 are V6s, 14 are 2.0i
25 are 2.1TD, and only 5 (8%) are 2.5...

Don't forget 2.0 carb!!!
I should add my car to the list...

...Easy to work on, and access? No, but neither is any XM, with well-stuffed engine bays....

I think I can sleep in my engine bay

[citroenxm]

The esj in the Xm only came in auto from factory.. The hp20 box is fine up too 100k then a ticking time bomb thereafter..

The hp18 box on the end of a v6 12v is not that hard to look after untill they stop all together.. But they can last a lot longer then a hp20. However they do sap some power from the prv. However.. I loved mine to bits when I had it..

[herberthaul]

Hi Prem,

What a question! - But a good one, all the same.
I think owners of each will cheer for what they have, and I suppose that's understandable. They'll have chosen Phentermine it, got to know it, and probably got pretty involved with what makes it tick. Some folk are incurable collectors . . . and often of the same type.

Power figures tell a story:
3.0i V6 / 2.5TD

bhp: 194 @ 5500rpm / 130 @ 4300rpm
torque: 197 ft.lbs @ 4000rpm / 217 ft.lbs @ 2000rpm
weight: 1591kg / 1580kg

The V6 can get to 60mph quicker, and top speed is 18mph more than the 2.5's listed 125mph max, but who drives like that? or can afford to?

The V6 is smoother at very low revs (eg hard throttle below 1500), but the 2.5 smoothes out perfectly by 1200, and then peak torque available at 2000, no need to run the engine up to twice that (or to hold a lower gear) to come into the peak torque band. Both engines are equipped with balancer shafts, so are smooth and vibration-free in all normal circumstances.

With lower rpm comes longevity, and with the gearbox too. Forum pages detail the need for on-going care of the automatics, costly repairs, and the need to be super-vigilant over fluids and filters. In contrast the 5-speed manual box (option on the V6, no choice on the TD) is a splendidly reliable and long-lived piece of engineering. The manual change, together with its upmarket pull-action clutch, offers some of the easiest manual changes to be had (for the era), especially with the correct GL-4 oil in it.

Fuel consumption. Our 2.5 averages 32-33mpg (mixed urban, mountain track and motorway), and 38mpg on local motorway commuting. For international travel, it returns 41-42, and that's at speeds averaging 60mph. Others will be able to list V6 figures, but they won't read like that.

Lots of cylinders is wonderful, and I look back fondly to the sound and smoothness of a Rover V8 - both auto and manual. But I don't look back with fondness to the 17-24mpg that went with it.

We decided we preferred diesel a long time ago now. First was the BX19RD - our son had a BX19GTi - and the comparison was interesting, as was the amount of fettling needed to keep the GTi mobile. 44mpg from the RD, a bit over half that from the GTi. Hmm...

So, I'm glad not to have to look after plugs and leads, HT and distributor, ignition modules, in-tank fuel pumps, and all those bits. Exhausts on diesels last longer, and pumps and injectors are fairly bombproof, if you keep the air out. Routine servicing almost boils down to just two items: oil + filter.
Put aside an auto box, too, and the transmission is almost forgettable.

But it's not a simple as that. Just look at the numbers on our Members' Cars list...
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=7089&p=81829&hilit=malaga#p81829
Out of the 63 XMs there, petrol and diesel split almost equally, 33 vs 30, just like global sales (181k vs 151k).
19 are V6s, 14 are 2.0i
25 are 2.1TD, and only 5 (8%) are 2.5.

This small number of 2.5s is interestingly almost exactly the same as the global proportion of 2.5s produced (7%)...
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7833&p=93060&hilit= ... res#p93060
...22,785 hatch and estate.

Easy to work on, and access? No, but neither is any XM, with well-stuffed engine bays. The 2.5 is towards the sod-awkward end, with a good few jobs (new belts, replacement starter, turbo access) not a lot of fun. The upside is that these jobs don't need tackling very often, and overall reliability - if you look after basic servicing - is extraordinarily high.

I'll let someone else tell the V6 story. They'll be no shortage of detail, I'll bet!

Parts are probably about the same between 2.5 and PRV now, scarce to impossible.

Same here, that PRV is......!

[Stickfinger]

ANY car the size of the XM is always better with a Normally Aspirated petrol V6.
The ES9 engines are fine with a manual box (if your Auto dies) and a rust free XM v.6 would be worth the conversion time/cost (just/with man maths)

[citroenxm]

I did a manual conversion on an esj v6.. It was brisk in manual form. And geaechange was also nice as it was cable change...it also uses an, aincient Zf4hp20 box.

[Dieselman]

The esj in the Xm only came in auto from factory..

In Uk spec.
In other markets manual was standard, auto a cost option for Es9j-24.
Once auto became available it was a no-cost option for all Uk spec Xm, where applicable, hence there are so many of them.
Exceptions were, no auto for Prv6-24, no manual for Es9j-24.

The hp20 box is fine up too 100k then a ticking time bomb thereafter..

Sealed for life...well, just the filter...which then blocks.

[marc61]

I did a manual conversion on an esj v6.. It was brisk in manual form. And geaechange was also nice as it was cable change...it also uses an, aincient Zf4hp20 box.

And a very good thing it was Paul . Plenty of acceleration, plenty of top end performance and a nice drive, so much better than the auto IMO. I had about five 2.5’s which had heavy use and would say it’s a pretty close thing overall. The 2.5 gear change is better, the economy is about 10mpg better on average but it’s a pain to work on (squealing/fraying aux belts, head gaskets, oil cooler leaks stick in my memory), whereas the 24V just kept on going and was very reliable.

[citroenxm]

I did a conversion from auto to manual for someone and the manual box transformed the esj performance.