93 Gti

Barnsley BXer · Post by **Barnsley BXer** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:59 am

With sunroof deflector

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Citroen-BX-1-9-GT ... otohosting

Philip Chidlow · Post by **Philip Chidlow** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:56 am

That looks like a nice one. A Hurricane?

tim leech · Post by **tim leech** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:11 am

Well spotted phil, it is indeed a hurrcane, a nice car to own, Starting price osis a tad high but I expect its eorth that easily!

Mike P · Post by **Mike P** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:35 am

Price seems reasonable to me and always a fan of the Triton Green.

Mike P.

Cornishbx16v · Post by **Cornishbx16v** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:53 pm

why do people insist on putting (more torque than the 16v) when it hasnt! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Way2go · Post by **Way2go** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:35 pm

Cornishbx16v wrote:why do people insist on putting (more torque than the 16v) when it hasnt! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Doesn't the 8v have more torque at lower revs and the 16v more torque at higher revs?

tim leech · Post by **tim leech** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:07 pm

Dont worry cornish its only a advert!

Cornishbx16v · Post by **Cornishbx16v** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:12 pm

hahah! besides the point tim! the 16v has 133lbft the 8v has around 120lbft iirc! (working of the stats of my old 1.9 8v 309 gti!) it is relatively unheard of to have a petrol engine producing more torque than bhp without a turbo in todays market let alone 12 years ago! so his advert is misguided! lol!
its one of those things thats annoying thats all!
it feels like it has more torque because its more evenly matched than the 16 in terms of figures but it simply doesnt have any more torque than the 16v at all!

the 8v's torque is lower down in the range but then it doesnt rev so freely so highly either so its much of a muchness!

tim leech · Post by **tim leech** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:00 pm

Thats us told!

Way2go · Post by **Way2go** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:32 pm

Philip chidlow wrote:Citroen literature (1990 brochure) says the BX GTi (and4x4) has (had!) 124 bhp @5500 rpm and 123lbs/ft of torque @ 2750 rpm. The corresponding figures for the 16v are: 160 bhp @ 6500 rpm and 133 lbs/ft of torque @ 5000 rpm.

Two different animals as this shows. And as has oft been said on this forum, the GTi's the better everyday car and the 16v's by far the quickest, but you have to keep the revs up.

I wonder if anyone has the power/torque curves for both - and we can superimpose... if we really should be bothered (shouts of 'get a life!' )

Fair comment & as we know the 8v GTi is no slouch.

Cornishbx16v · Post by **Cornishbx16v** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:57 pm

the gti is no slouch indeed! after driving my old gti (309) very hard for 4 years and then doing exactly the same in the 16v its clear to me its no slouch but as said, they are completely differnet animals!
the 16v is by far the better car on my experience!
as for easier round town, i dont think it makes a lot of difference! the 16v can be driven very sensibly with great ease much like the 8v, for me it would be 16v all the way! sorry but thats me loL!

i took the ol girl on a good run week before last due to issues with the fiat and returned a very nice 374 miles on £38 of fuel working out at 35mpg thats taveling at a constant 80 for best part of 300 of the miles! not bad conmsidering! (i have also had her down at 18mpg after some very spirited driving!!!!)

Way2go · Post by **Way2go** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:13 pm

That's an excellent economy figure, Cornish. Not sure I could match it in the 8v even, due auto. Although the final drives in auto 4th & manual 5th are similar, the time the auto is held in 3rd is the killer in my view.

MULLEY · Post by **MULLEY** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:14 pm

I'm a bit puzzled by BX prices, low mileage examples seem to go for between £1-1.5k (this is for the 8v Gti model recenlty on e-bay), but anything that has below average miles on them but around 90-100k on the clock seems to struggle to realise £500?

I would have thought that a car that has been run regularly & has had all its problems attended to is a far better proposition than some low mileage one that could potentially have stack loads of bills around the corner.

Am i missing something really obvious?

Philip Chidlow · Post by **Philip Chidlow** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:25 pm

Not really, Mulley. The only reason a 'minter' BX will reach let alone get over £1000-£1500 is if it's a bl**dy good valver or an ultra low mileage one. I do however believe prices have bottomed out, and what would have struggled to make £250 a while back will be making £350 now. The ropey old dogs will either not sell or go for peanuts, but a car - even with high mileage - will start to fetch better money now so long as it is well maintained (and has to have a ticket on it).

A good example might be the GTi Hurricane on the 'bay at the moment. I see that getting a 'good' price compared with a year ago. My GTi auto has 160k plus on it now but I keep it well and make sure things get fixed on it when necessary... the fact it has working aircon means it is probably worth around the £450 mark, but if it had half that mileage maybe it'd fetch only £50-80 more? Odd to think really

MULLEY · Post by **MULLEY** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:39 pm

Only reason why i mentioned it was that once i have sorted out the struts on my Gti (assuming the fault lies with them) i will have to sell on my Gti.

Its got 91k, everything electrical on it works, the bodywork is in fine fettle (metalic grey/anthracite) except from a few carpark dents & stone chips on the front. Its got mot til next August (no tax), interior is excellent, dash is immaculate (no cracks), working glovebox with light. Its got 5 new spheres with a 3yr transferrable warranty on them, ive got stack loads of history paperwork. It is an excellent car.

The only thing it will need doing is the heater, it only blows hot air, no cold & it could do with some alloys as it sits on steelies. How much do you think i should get for her?

It will be coming with the following spares as well, a few litres of oil, oil filter & brand spanking new radiator.