2.1 Autos- are they really that slow?

[Rommel]

Right gurus, I've heard time and again that the 2.1 auto is painfully slow. The performance figures do look painful, but does anyone's real-world experience belie the data? I'm interested to hear what owners have to say. 0-60 isn't really a useful figure, things like 40-70 are far more so. I have already been offered what I would imagine to be a good 2.1 Auto, but the perceived sluggishness really puts me off.

A manual 2.1 would be great (performance figures seem acceptable) but they aren't exactly plentiful.

Am I correct in thinking that the Lucas-equipped cars are more sprightly (at the expense of SVO/WVO use) than the Bosch-equipped ones? And can be chipped, as Lucas is electronically controlled? I am aware that tinkering with the mechanically-equipped Bosch is possible to improve things.

[Dieselman]

2.1 Auto's are ok for general use, though I noticed mine being a bit slower than the 2.0i manual I had before it.

[robert_e_smart]

There are 3 fuel pumps available on the 2.1.

First off was the Mechanical Lucas. Second the Mechanical Bosch - This is your veg oil pump, and the most reliable. Finally the Lucas Epic electrical, the least reliable!

I have had all 3, and like the Bosch most. Its the nicest all rounder; its quicker than the lucas mechanical, but not as quick as the Epic.

Performance is perfectly acceptable, and the autobox configuration is nice in the Xm. Given the heavy traffic conditions now a days, you would be seldom punished for having the 2.1 auto unless you like to overtake stuff.

The manuals are quicker, but not as agreeable to drive in my opinion. I really don't like the gear change in them. The only Manual XM for me is the 2.5 TD.

[russ92xmsed]

I agree with Robert. I have a 2.1 Auto with a Bosch pump and find it more than acceptable.
The only thing I have found is that you need to plant your right foot if you want to over take on Motorways ect.
Mind you it cruises fine at 70-80 but if heavily loaded will need winding up!
Citroens are all about wafting, autos do this the best.

All the best

Russ

[robert_e_smart]

Citroens are all about wafting, autos do this the best.

I agree! But you can waft and fly if you have a quicker car!!

[russ92xmsed]

Very true. Although I have never been in one let alone driven one, I suspect a V624v would do just that....not forgetting the 2.5 TD of course....another one I have never driven!

[robert_e_smart]

If you like your 2.1, stay away from the 2.5!!!!

[Peter.N.]

I don't like the auto's not just because they are slower but because you can't drive them for economy, on my manuals I like to change up at or before 2000 rpm, the auto doesn't change up until about 3000 which makes it noisy and thirsty, additionally manual boxes usually last longer than the rest of the car the same can't be said of the auto, the cost of replacing it will likely be more than the car is worth.

I can see the case for an auto if you are driving in town all the time and have plenty of money but they are not for me.

Peter

[ragger]

I haven't any experience of a 2.1 auto, but I have driven a 2.1 manual estate and I decided that it wasn't quite quick enough for the sorts of journeys I want to do in an XM.

My first XM was a 16 valve petrol auto and that was a good compromise, on reflection, it went reasonably well without being sparkling and it returned some very creditable fuel consumption - about 32-35 and better on a long steady run if I recall correctly. I now regret parting with it, but that is how we learn.

My last XM was a 12 valve V6 with bags of performance and not very good fuel consumption - low twenties, pushing low thirties on a gentle tour.

The ideal spec for me (even though auto is not an option) is the 2.5. I briefly owned a cosmetically challenged example and did a lot of miles in it in a few weeks, mainly visiting universities for my daughter's benefit. I was impressed with both the power and the economy but couldn't live with the scabby paintwork and the LHM drips.

Rob

[Dieselman]

I've only driven one 2.5 and it was nice being quiet and smooth, but it still only produces 130bhp and uses more juice than a 2.1 manual.
A 2.1 could easily be adjusted to give more than 130bhp and still give economy.
I drove on that had had the fuelling adjusted enough to give black smoke. It shifted well and pegged the turbo gauge right against the stop...