BX driving comparisons

Anything about BXs
User avatar
The Immoderate half of the admin team
Posts: 7524
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:03 pm
Location: A Bucket of Fish
x 7

Post by docchevron »

KevR wrote: I know some people who like oysters, others who are into custom Harley Davidsons, or dancing or religion or children – all things I find repellent. It doesn't necessarily mean they're bad people... :lol:
good lord, I'm beginning to think we were seperated at birth!
MULLEY wrote:Everyone raves on about the turbo models, but i think quite a few people who wouldn't give the n/a the time of day are missing out on some potentially very nice, much easier to fix examples. Mind you, leaves more choice for the n/a crowd
I've had both, several of both actually, including the red shed that was Na and now isn't. I have to say I preferred the indestructability of the na, and it's simplicity, but I do like having the extra torque of the turbo, that and I find I get more to the gallon from a TD than I ver could in any of the NA's I've had, and I'm not a fast driver..
Smokes lots, because enough's enough already!

Far too many BX's, a bus, an ambulance a few trucks, not enough time and never enough cash...

Over 2k
Posts: 5916
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:02 pm
Location: Harwood, Bolton
My Cars: Land Rover Discovery Series 1 200tdi 3 door
Land Rover Discovery Series 2 Facelift TD5
2020 Fiat Panda cross 4x4 twin air.
x 26

Post by Defender110 »

docchevron wrote:got more to the gallon from a TD than I ver could in any of the NA's I've had, and I'm not a fast driver..
So taking this into account the standard auto box is definitely just too weak for a TD then even if driven cautiously?
1997 Mercedes C230 W202
2003 Land Rover Discovery Series 2 Facelift TD5 - Daily driver / hobby days and camping.
1993 Land Rover Discovery 200tdi Series 1 3 door - in need of TLC
2020 Fiat Panda 4x4 Cross Twin Air.

User avatar
The Immoderate half of the admin team
Posts: 7524
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:03 pm
Location: A Bucket of Fish
x 7

Post by docchevron »

dunno mate! My TD is a manual! Not sure what Dad gets out of Phoenix..
Smokes lots, because enough's enough already!

Far too many BX's, a bus, an ambulance a few trucks, not enough time and never enough cash...

Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:55 pm

Post by B-Hive »

my 2 cents

These summaries are based upon the cars as they were..Not young nor fully sorted.

MK1 16 TRS auto...painfully lethargic from standing start.. clumsy and noisy and breathless around the city.. Once on the move on the highway quite lovely..just dont show it a hill.. steering dead until moving briskly.

Mk1 GT..Despite the current cacophony coming from the HP pump, its high torque and responsiveness make it a very rewarding enjoyable car to drive. Close ratio gearbox is a delight..Large front spheres that need a regas actually give it a really incredible degree of grip and fun factor.. Mid corner tuck in is always a smile producer.. This is a well designed car..brakes like a proper citroen..sounds lovely throaty..Its an experience every kilometre. Inviting and welcoming interior..Jury still out on the economy..

Mk2 Tri....You can feel the generational difference immediately.. unbelievably responsive and quick motor...so fresh and brisk but ultimately lacks the torque of the GT..Very very frugal.. smaller front spheres, the suspension is well sorted is as close to a CX and almost better in some regards... sounds efficient/fuel injected... a better appliance than the GT but not as rewarding nor special to drive. Steering/wheel is too light and lacks feel.
Easiest to drive in city and on highway...but lacks presence or the perceived presence of the MK1..plastics even worse than Mk1!!
85 BX GT Mk1..
86 BX TRS Mk1
87 BX TRi

85 BX TRS mk1 auto... SOLD
90 BX TRi..parts....cubed

User avatar
Tim Leech
Over 2k
Posts: 15469
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:12 am
Location: Derby
My Cars: LOTS!
x 120

Post by Tim Leech »

Just drove the 19TZD, 16TRS and 19TZI back to back as im shuffling them round for winter.

The difference between the TZi and TZD is quite astounding. Horse for coarses though.
Lots of Motors, mostly semi broken....

Confirmed BX'er
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Post by scooters »

I've owned a BX17 TZD turbo, a BX117 TZD with a 1,9lt and a turbo in it (it lunched the original engine, a Gti and the current one the 16 Meteor

Here's my impressions:

17TZD Turbo - great engine, great car, economical, turbo lag could make 1st gear very steep hill starts interesting and the car was at its bect on the open road witht he incredible 50mph-90pmh torque

19 tzd Turbo - owed from new the car lunched it's 1.7 engine 18 months olb, the dealer in Dunfermline fitted a 1.9 diesel engine and bunged the turbo on top - made no discernable difference other than being a bit quicker between 50 and 70 mph

19 Gti - a very good all round car - not too bad on the gas if driven with alight foot and quick and capable when floored. My one had the harder spheres and 16V wheels which squeezed under the arches - just and this didn't give it a very 'citroen' ride - I would probably buy an 8V Mk2 Golf GTi instead.

1,6 Meteor - a very capable car indeed - out of all 4 it has the most traditional 'citroen feel' to it - ie floaty and you get the impression that every ounce of the 1.6's power is being put to good, efficiant use. If you drive it witha light foot you can get 38-40 on a run - in town a bit less but the car is sprightly when pushed and on the open road seems to cruise best at either 65, 72 or 83mph. I like the car because it gives me the option of driving to save cash or throwing it aout a bit which it handles with aplomb. anyone looking for a reponsive 'sporty' model without going down the GTi route I think it is a good choice - it has the added benefit of the 1,6 engine and a carb so it is pretty easy to maintain - it reminds me very much of my old CX22
1991 BX16 TGS Meteor (arriving soon)
1996 306 TD
1997 Subaru Legacy 2.5 Quadcam

Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Nuneaton

Post by christhelion »

I'm no fan of TDs at all. I hate the narrow torque band and that everyone who has them says "any gear and they just chugg away". It's not true, they just slow down unless you're on the boost. I borrowed a 406 HDI 110 (fair enough a big car) for a weekend and was swapping cogs all the time. And that's not trying to go quick, just driving around. I like keeping in engines in the torque band and at small throttle openings coz for me it makes for more relaxed driving and saves fuel. Plus I think it's coz I'm more often on a bike and I tend to ride that between 4,000 and 8,000 (even though peak torque is at 9,000) when I'm just relaxing, it means I can just tickle the throttle but have enough torque for unplanned lazy overtakes.

My 4x4 if I remember had a good spread of power unlike my mates 16valve I spent half an hour driving a few weeks ago. He said it wasn't running right and the exhaust was starting to blow but it was REALLY flat below 4,000.
It has Xantia 2.0 turbo brakes too and they're brilliant. A bit sharp to me at first but jumping back in my winter-hack diesel Saxo (it had to be a citroen) made me remember how much I hate brake servos. I still can't get used to it now. The last car I owned before that was the 4x4 and I love that solid pedal. Might be another bike thing with just having a lever and some pistons and hoses but I can't get used to a car slowing before I feel resistance at the pedal. the brakes on my Saxo are really good but spirited driving did make them fade quite recently.

There's not a lot wrong with BXs and how they drive. I'd love another :( I've only ever driven my 4x4, that 16valve a few times and a brief go in a 1.9RD (think it was).
My favourite thing about the 16valve (and presumably all BXs) is the steering though. I noticed it this time driving my mates. It's SO direct. It does have all new bushes front and rear but still, it's far better than new euroboxes I've driven.
1992 BX GTi 4x4 in silver with all the extras. (sold and missed)
2000 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-9R E1
2000 Gilera DNA 50
2000 Ford Focus 1.8 Zetec
2009 Ford Focus ST-3 225
Borrowed 2006 Kawasaki ZZR 1400

Over 2k
Posts: 3940
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:25 pm
Location: Wales

Post by Dollywobbler »

Oddly my Mk1 seems to have very direct steering. I actually find myself over-steering at times. The 16v is always rather dead below 4000rpm. They're just waking up when the diesels are running out of puff! Get a 16v above 4000rpm and the world gets very blurry, very quickly. That said, I always found them pretty tractable at lower revs, just not very willing.

User avatar
Over 2k
Posts: 6353
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants
My Cars: Too many to list
x 71

Post by Kitch »

16v's have the same steering rack as all other PAS equipped BXs, but they do have thicker anti-roll bars and stiffer spheres, so you lose less lateral energy to the suspension, transmitting it instead back into the steering.

Below 4k revs they are pretty flat, although comparitively they're not really any less grunty than a GTi, it's just that once you hit 4500rpm it comes alive, which the 8v models don't.
You're never left wanting at low revs, it's very easy to make progress under 3k revs and keep up with traffic. It's just that if you want to start going much faster than traffic you have to rape the engine a bit! Luckily it loves it.

Agree with the TD comments. I don't get the hype over them. Yes, in the 80's they were much better than most of the competition, but that doesn't say much. They always feel laggy and flat to me - I prefer the n/a diesels. Always found them better on fuel and the power is more linear. I don't think the speed is an issue, because a TD is no speed merchant either. An n/a diesel is adequate enough to use daily on the road, and anyone who says a TD is quick would shit themselves in a 16v!
CCC BX monthly column writer bloke thingy - bx@citroencarclub.org.uk

The national BX register - click to submit a car!

1983(A) 16TRS (Rouge Valleunga) - 1987(E) GTi 16v (Noir) - 1990(H) 16Valve (Rouge Furio)

User avatar
Over 2k
Posts: 8406
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:10 pm
Location: Derbyshire
x 8

Post by MULLEY »

Driving the TD's requires a slightly different driving technique to the N/A, when on boost its quite nice, but as Kitch say's, its not a quick car. However, it was a very quick diesel back in the day compared to the competition which was frankly hopeless, less power, larger engines & worse fuel economy.

I enjoyed my TD when it was working, so it would be interesting to see which one of my cars i'd prefer once its back on the road? I suspect the TD is a bit quieter & has better gearing for a long run compared to the n/a, but for ease of maintenance & for less to go wrong, the n/a is great. Just need to add some NOS & then you don't need to hanker after a TD anymore :lol:
2002 C5 2.0 HDI Estate - Jasmine - Now SORN
2011 Mini Cooper D Clubman - SOLD
2016 Mercedes A180D Sport - Auto refinement
1992 TZD Turbo - Bluebell - My daily
1991 Gti 16V - Blaze - crash damaged, will get repaired.
1990 Gti 8Valve SOLD - looks like it's been scrapped
2002 Mini Cooper S - SOLD - i miss this car
1992 TXD - Scrapped in March 2014
1988 CX 25 GTI Turbo2 - SORN
1996 - AX Memphis 1.5D - Dream - SORN

I'm not just a username, i'm also called Matthew.

User avatar
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:44 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by maxgreenwood »

I enjoyed my TZD turbo estate, great on a run but a bit laboursome stuck in traffic. I've tried 3 or 4 others and none were as fast as mine. I think some of them seem to get slow for different reasons.
I briefly had a 17TGD, that was pretty slow but I'm sure it would be relaxing on a long trip.
The 16 carb engine I think is great, when the suspension is set up properly with soft spheres, I'd echo Scooter's comments and say it has the proper Citroen feel. Absolutely great round town.
The GTi I have found to be much more solid feeling car and much more relaxing to drive, as less work to do with the gear lever. In the 16 carrying stuff in the back on a run I really wanted some extra power on hills and country roads so the GTi ticks those boxes. Unfortunately the GTi's brakes seem to have a more conventional feel than the 16, which had proper on-off Citroen brakes.
The GTi doesn't seem too bad on fuel to me, it's easy to drive maintaining revs around 1500rpm cos of torque so that's probably why it doesn't seems to be too much more thirsty than the 16 to me, which needs to be revved a bit more.
'92 16TXS (m), Dark metallic green, 74k
'90 16TZS (m), White, 86k
'89 19TRS auto, Olympic Blue, 133k
'88 Saab 900 8v Turbo (auto) 107k Red with Tan leather, lovely drive and well maintained.
'07 Hyundai Santa Fe 2.2 CRDi 85k (m). Practical family wagon

User avatar
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:02 pm
Location: London

Post by cacaolat »

I just wanted to add. I just find my 1.6 TGS automatic perfect for my occasional trip to the supermarket, even though a nice CX or DS would be my first choice.
The reason why I started to like citroens in the 80s is the floaty comfortable quiet feel. Thats why I still prefer petrols and an automatic is even better, just comfortable.
former BX 16 TGS Meteor Auto owner. No space or time to do own repairs. My BX is now owned by another member of this forum.

Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:35 pm
Location: Northamptonshire

Post by Rich »

Dollywobbler wrote:
I'd like to try a 1.9 petrol, in non-GTi flavour. Rich's TZS auto sounds a dreamy combination of slush box and torquey motor. I've still never driven a BX auto. Would like to try a diesel slushbox too.
It's going to be at RSA Ian as it's the only old Citroen I have on the road at the minute (apart from the HY and that's too slow for RSA) so give it a go then :)
'86 2CV Dolly
'81 2CV 007 Drummer
'82 HY Shorty
'77 Smurf blue Ami8
'92 TZD Hurricane (keeping it safe for a mate)