2.1 Autos- are they really that slow?

[Dieselman]

My manuals are perfectly capable of rapid progress. Having said that I'm more used to a much more powerful diesel, so notice it more.

The specs aren't wildly different for the 2.1 or 2.5.

• Bhp
  |2.1|2.5
  |110|130
  
  Torque
  |2.1|2.5
  |245|280

[citroenxm]

Keep that up russ or change every 15k and it will certainly help prolong the life of the box....

[robertmnorton]

Hi John, i appreciate the point made, and i did make it clear that i have a performance enhancement device fitted. Anyone looking at any 2.1 should be aware it is a stock XUD, of 110hp, not in the realms of modern DI technology.
Heavily modified ? Hardly, no. The stock air filter, simply replaced with a re-useable K&N, a good investment.The full s/s exhaust system, including cat, replacing corroded tacky old m/s system 6 years ago, another good investment.
The electronic performance mod was a freebie anyway, but i understand a software upgrade is also now available, both claiming 135hp and subsequent increase in torque. Whatever it is, it translates into a different driving experience on the road for much less that a set of tyres, exhaust system, Bendix abs sensor or Morette headlamp conversion.
robertm

[andmcit]

Yes. Total slugs.

Plus the significant Achilles' heel of the auto anyway is its TOTAL unsuitability to the abstract bands of enforced
speeds our urban roads all dictate (usually at a voluntary 5mph less than the actual limit by all the neurotic
silver tops making things even more frustrating) that are completely at odds with the speed required by the
damned box to get into top and lower revs and more economical. On the longer open roads at higher speeds
forget about getting performance out of the 2.1 - it feels under engined in the saloon bodyshell so Godforbid
an estate 2.1TD auto? Don't get me started on the permanent siege mindset required living with the will it or
won't it die/permanent servicing required to keep it all working internally.

As far as I can see there's little benefit in mating an autobox to a 2.1: least a smarter later auto adaptive makes
a 194bhp V6 hit the optimum purple patch of the engine at any speed getting the best mpg and performance.

Thinking of a 2.1 auto? Just don't do it. Get a 2.5 with its gorgeous hydraulic clutch and precise light gearchange.

[xmexclusive]

So there we have it then.
A 2.1 is the perfect version of the XM.
It just comes with a screw loose.
Tweek that screw so it gives the same bhp as a 2.5 and you will have the perfect XM.

John

[xmexclusive]

Hi Andrew

Nice to see you posting again.
Funny how ownership of a sorted 2.5 suddenly seems to change peoples XM perception.
Even seems to kill the "it must be a Mk1 bug" that afflicts most XM owners.
I am still amazed how easily Robert Smart converted once he stopped cutting them up to sell the spares.
Now a chipped 2.5 should give another 20% if the 2.1 chippers are right.
155 bhp with improved fuel consumption must be better than 130 bhp.
Cannot think why it has not been done before.

John

[citroenxm]

To be honest when opinoons start goong to wards .. dont get that its too slow.. dont consider this it doesnt go well it starts to pea me off a bit as it starts sounding like top gear!! some of us dont want to go fast all the time or at all.. some of us cannot afford to go fast and need economy so need as high mpg as we can get to enjoy our favorite car.. the 2.1 td is the perfect all rounder.. kind on the pockets.. goes adequetly enough..

Gets a bit top gear ish.. if its slower then a ferrari no one sbould buy it..

sounds like that here dont get anything except a 2.5..

im very compement in what i can do mechanically. but really I wouldnt touch a 2.5 they scare me.. so for the extra mpg.. the adiquet performance qhich in manual form is not that bad.. and the ease in the engine bay its a 2.1 for me all day long... the 2.5 is just too complex and i would not reccomend one to a new commer either..

[Dieselman]

The reason I went for 2.1's is the ability to cover mileage on a sniff of fuel, they are significantly more economical than a 2.5 and go well enough.

As far as the series 1 issue, every time I go in a series 2 it reinforces my view of the series 1 being an aesthetically more pleasing environment. That's just personal preference though.

[robert_e_smart]

2.5s aren't scary! Honest, you have all been brainwashed by John for too long and it has worked rather well!!

If I'm honest, I find the 2.5 slow, and theres nothing wrong with mine either, its as it should be. I'm thinking of chipping mine. Most mundane crap on the road can out run the 2.5 now. Think of all that VAG stuff from 10 years ago, 1.9 TDI Golfs and Borings with 130 BHP, better gearing, ligther bodies etc.

I still like the 2.1 for what it is, it was a major step forward from the old 1.9 XUD that started it all, but the 2.5 is another great step ahead of the 2.1. The real precursor to the HDI technology in my opinion.

I like the 2.5 ability for comfortable overtaking, the 2.1 Auto isn't in the same league here.

Fuel economy between the 2.5 and and the 2.1 Auto are similar, more in favour of the 2.5 actually.

The old series 1 series 2 debate. I don't care what it is, as long as the car is immaculate! As a daily driver, the series 2 wins hands down. Better sound deadening, better plips, better door mirrors. Same great seats. Ohhh and I want them to be covered in dead cow skin as well!

[andmcit]

Paul, it's the autobox I despise, not the 2.1!

As soon as these both get together, if you've got such a car,
you're always going to be pressed into justifying it by mpg!
Just how in God's name can you without breaking the speed
limit?? It's interesting to see those who do have the apparent
strongest support of the 2.1 run manuals!!

As for s1 and s2 - simple, buy both!