Another cheap estate

[robert_e_smart]

The 2.0 16V is light years ahead of the TCT. As Will says, it has most of the go, but it is more refined and economical.

I have driven a 2.0 16V Auto on and off for a while before I converted that one to a TD lump after the 16V lump expired due to inadequate oil pressure. I remember coming on here singing its praises when I first drove it. A lovely combination.

No sandles here Dean! I don't live on a tropical off shore Island!

The 2.1 TD, is a favourite of mine. I like 'em. Adequate performance, reliable, reasonably economical, easy to live with.

[Dean]

The tct is bad on fuel for its power there is no doubt about that but thats citroens fault for de tuning it so much, the tct sat in the range like a fart to be honest, if you were stupid you bought the 2.1d if you done huge mileage you had the 2.1td, if you done huge mileage but had to have good performance you got the 2.5, if you were buying the car yourself and done average mileage you got the 2.0 and if it was your treat to yourself you got the V6......................notice i didnt mention the tct...............all i can think is they must have priced it cheap to be worth buying and kept the power right down to give Constantly no Torque and not get too close to V6 performance, the TCT will easily and reliably outwit the prv 12v just by keeping standard boost and ditching citroens ecu boost control for something a bit more competent.

I dont see when the 24v psa unit came out to replace the prv why the tct wasnt allowed up to 175bhp to justify its existance, economy is actualy better without that rubbish boost controller and max torque is even lower down the rev range than the stock 2400rppm

i prefer derv from a NON laughing point of view... um. no plug... no spark.. no electronics.. 200% less chance of a breakdown... better fuel consumption...much longer engine life.... better in gear acceleration.. no need to mess with the gear stick... and as far as im concerned at 40k in one year 20 - 25 mpg just cannot be justified compared to 40 - 45 mpg even with the difference in fuel price... a derv engine is much more relaxed.. non of this rev the balls of crap to get going either..

If reliablity is your goal i hate to disapoint but dervs just are not more reliable than petrol, even from the xud days, and derv performance is not better in gear or at revs, you show me a 2.1td and i will show you the same size petrol that will be faster, quicker and stronger in gear accelleration.
I have always run more dervs than petrols, i had BX TD's, escorts (please dont laugh i will not include these in my arguement) shoguns, a mazda, and pugs, all gave problems, petrols have more electricals but they give much less trouble and modern dervs are worse from experience.

D

[citroenxm]

must have been problems with yur dervs then dean... all mine.. and that too is bx tzd turbo.. a sierra yes dont laugh.. a dx n a derv.. visa dervs... xantias dervs have ALL been cracking cars with minimal problems..

so i dont buy the petrol is more reliable argument.. it cant be... i know newer engines now use wasted spark ajd dont have dizzys and leads.. but in the days of dizzys and ignition leads how can eliminating them with a derv make the petrol more reliable.. dizzys wear out.. crack.. leads can break down.. plugs get wet and wont spark.. dervs.. well.. other then air intake a sealed system..

[robert_e_smart]

TCT is a waste of space. The 2.0 8V N/A was perfectly adequate, and the 16V lump supersedes it nicely. I drove a 2.5 Petrol Safrane the other weekend, and though how nice it was, and why we didn't get anything like that instead of the TCT. Granted the Safrane had a 5 Cylinder Volvo lump in it, but it was nice.

2.1 N/A I would like to have a drive in one of these to see how slow they are.

2.1TD Auto was a fairly popular choice as well. I like them, and have got used to the gear change points that irritate so many.

2.5s are magic when they are going well, but when they don't! Arghhh!

Engines have rarely given me problems with any of my cars, its usually other crap that spoils the fun.

The 2.0 8V I ran for 20K miles only failed to proceed once, that was a failed ignition amplifier module.

2.0 TCT I ran last winter was fine. No problems.

2.1s of various descriptions only had a couple of air ingress problems on a couple of cars that gave trouble.

2.5s ask me in a few months time!

[xmexclusive]

Hi Robert

Scrap it.
Take the loss on the chin now and give me a few extra spares.
It will save you time money and grief.
That 2.5 has everything wrong that could be wrong.
Everything from colour through to clutch via crap performance.
The fact that it performs like a 2.1 and needs its 3rd clutch should have rang warning bells.

John

[robert_e_smart]

Don't tempt me John! A 2.5 Estate has since appeared on the radar and looks a more attractive proposition!

[minijet]

.
I thought my days commenting on here were over, but I just have to speak out in defence of the unfairly slated TCT.

TCT is a waste of space. The 2.0 8V N/A was perfectly adequate

.

Robert, that statement makes no sense. The 8v n/a is just a TCT without the turbo. It's totally gutless.

Also, the TCT is second only to the V6's on horse power, accelleration and top speed.
It's equal to the 2.1 on torque, only slightly higher up the rev range.

Lets face it, the only reason people (including me) buy diesels is for economy. There's absolutely no other reason.
Petrol engines are smoother, quieter, produce more power and don't need a turbo to get them moving - but stick a turbo on and the petrol will easily out perform the turbo diesel engine.

Paul

.

[citroenxm]

OF Course a Petrol will out perform a DERV... But this is missing the point!

You plant your foot in a DERV at 60 and see HOW much quicker it gets to 80 WITHOUT changing down to fourth... were in a Petrol Turbo becuase all the power and tourque is much higher you need to change to fourth, rev them up, which in the 8v TCT can get thrashey! My Onyx TCT was like that..

Its the relaxed driving atmosphere AND Economy I love with DERVs..

[robert_e_smart]

I liked my 2.0 Si. I thought it was quick enough. No ball of fire, but it shifted on nicely.

[Dieselman]

Having owned an XM 2.0i and a 2.1td from new, I can definitely say the 2.1td is a nicer drive overall. I can't make a direct comparison as the petrol was manual, the diesel an auto, but performance was very similar and economy was streets ahead in the diesel.

Reliability.?
The diesel was my first ever car from new that didn't have any faults in the time I had it.