Performance differance between the 19 and 16

BX Tech talk
mckenzig
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:42 am

Performance differance between the 19 and 16

Post by mckenzig » Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:10 am

I can buy a low milage BX16 manual, and am wondering what differance peformance and economy I would find against a BX19?

User avatar
Kitch
Over 2k
Posts: 6205
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants
x 49

Re: Performance differance between the 19 and 16

Post by Kitch » Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:50 am

If they're both manual, the 19 has more grunt, deals with hills and overtaking better without resorting to revs and drops about 5mpg over the 16. I'd have a 19 over a 16 all day long, but I'd also have a 14 TU over a 16. This is coming from someone who has a 16 :lol:

If it's autos, the 19 is much, much quicker and (in my experience) more frugal, as the 16 just doesn't have the grunt to run the auto box and you end up being flat out everywhere.

User avatar
JayW
1K Away
1K Away
Posts: 1590
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: Now listen here you mullet...
x 13

Re: Performance differance between the 19 and 16

Post by JayW » Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:00 am

I'm running the 16 with Weber twin, i've got no complaints about the performance, in fact it was surprisingly quicker than i expected. It's more than adequate both in town and with it's legs stretched, will happily hit 100mph with a bit left and return 50mpg if you're frugal. Normally though, it's 35mpg round town and 45 on the rest.

In my opinion, you'd gain nothing by choosing the 19 purely for the extra power when the 16 is more than fine, is more economical, generally cheaper to insure and you've got the decent 16 available.

That said, if it's got the Solex, it may well be a different knicker of kippers if the discontented rumblings are accurate!
I have zero patience for your tedium.

User avatar
Kitch
Over 2k
Posts: 6205
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants
x 49

Re: Performance differance between the 19 and 16

Post by Kitch » Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:41 am

Oh that's true - if you've found a decent 16 I wouldn't turn it away hoping you'll find a decent 19. It'll be a while before you do.

The 19 is very similar, just has more low/mid-range grunt. Out of the two, the 19 is better though like Jay says - if you've found a decent 16.....

Tinkley
1K Away
1K Away
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:27 am
Location: N Hants England
x 6

Re: Performance differance between the 19 and 16

Post by Tinkley » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:57 pm

I've got the same car as JayW 16TGS Athena but with the Solez Z1. It gave 72 hp on Kitch's rolling road, end of last year. For me it's fine and as economic or better than the 14 with 150C engine. Much better at towing a dinghy as more torque. For where I live around lots of small lanes, it's great. Gear ratios are good - BE3 box manual. This motor is not enough for an auto box, I'd concur with Kitch on that. If you are sitting in traffic a lot, the 1.6 will be a better option. If you are driving relatively empty hilly roads the 1.9 might put a bigger grin on the face.

User avatar
BXImage
Confirmed BX'er
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:24 pm
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
x 3

Re: Performance differance between the 19 and 16

Post by BXImage » Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:17 pm

Since I have 16 with Marelli monopoint and my friend has 19 with Solex Fenix 1B monopoint, tried them both, and I can say I'd always choose a 19 - it gives more power (especially when overtaking) and can be driven almost like a diesel (moving from the parking in 3rd without noticing). :lol:
Wener/Solex twins didn't turn out to be the best solution on 16 engine in my opinion. It seems like carb is feeding the engine with too much petrol that is hard to be combusted. But "twins" on 1.8 XU ZX engine or 19 is good hit - fuel consumption is lower, agility is improved and car drives like it's been bit by a bee or something. 8)

Since carbs are known for their problems with auto-choke and adjusting the mixture, I prefer monopoint. When everything is working as it is supposed to, monopoint gives more power (but have to notice that both 16 and 19 I drove have catalytic converters removed) and lower fuel consumption , plus the system is almost maitenance-free. Also to mention, that injection models have electrical instead mechanical fuel pump, so there is no risk of pouring petrol in the crankcase and mixing it with oil due to a pump membrane defect.
Only monopoint I would avoid is Bosch injection system, since every single person I know that had car with Bosch injection had some kind of problem (especially on 14 models with TU). Marelli is pretty durable, and parts are still availiable. Notice that there can be the problem with getting crankshaft sensor for Marelli - it fits only 1.6 BX, 1.6 Peugeot 405 and Citroen XM/Peugeot 605 2.0 V6 and is a bit tricky to find. Solex Fenix 1B was used only on BX 19 and Peugeot 405 1.9 SRI with DDZ engine, and parts are almost impossible to find.

kiwi
Over 2k
Posts: 2380
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:20 am
Location: Nouvelle Zealande
x 4

Re: Performance differance between the 19 and 16

Post by kiwi » Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:55 am

After moving to NZ I have had hardly any experiance of a BX16 other than the one I got for scrap. I would guess due to the roads here and the fact Kiwis have to match the Aussies V8s that the BX19 was seen as being a small engined vehicle back in its day.

I have a BX19 Auto and compared to the manual we find it underpowered for what ever reason. Fuel consumption also seems heavier on the Auto however I would contribute that to having Air Conditioning as the other TZS manual we had was just as bad on fuel compared to the non aircon 19TRS.
1991 BX19 TZS 04/01/91 (Deceased)
1990 BX19 TRS 27/10/89 (Reborn)
1992 BX19 TXD (Ex UK - K 744 SDF) 15/06/92
1990 BX19 TZS Auto 06/11/1989
1992 BX TZD Turbo Estate (Ex UK) 1/07/91