An interesting comparison

Anything about BXs
tom
Citroen Sorceror
Posts: 1246
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: straddling the channel
x 3

An interesting comparison

Post by tom »

Citroen BX TZD Turbo Estate: 90 BHP 1077Kg.
Ford Focus Diesel Estate: 90 BHP 1295Kg.

tim leech

Post by tim leech »

Even more so VW PASSAT Estate tdi 1568kgs/105bhp!

Theer getting heavier and slower!

User avatar
Philip Chidlow
Over 2k
Posts: 11592
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:08 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex
x 22

Post by Philip Chidlow »

Check this out:

http://www.worldofmotorsports.com/car/m ... ?makeID=54

gives lots of specs...

but I don't know if I'd trust some of them - especially, for example Visa GTi power output figures or indeed there's an AX 4x4 listed. Was there one?!
• 1992 Citroen BX TZD Turbo Hurricane
• 2006 Xsara Picasso 1.6 16v

User avatar
Kitch
Over 2k
Posts: 6373
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants
My Cars: Too many to list
x 74

Post by Kitch »

Yeah there was an AX 4x4. Only abroad though.

The Focus' are surely more powerful now though? 90bhp these days is gutless for a modern 1.8 diesel.
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)

M

Post by M »

Philip chidlow wrote: indeed there's an AX 4x4 listed. Was there one?!
Yes indeed, but it never made it into right hooker format or over here.

tim leech

Post by tim leech »

The old TDdi is pretty much the same as fitted to he previous mondeo/escort is only 90bhp as its just a 1.8 diesel engine with a turbo and intercooler and direct injection on the later models. However from about 2002 onwards they introuduced the TDci which is the much cleverer and more powerful common rail diesel which produce 90/110/115/130bhp and 150bhp, available in 1.6/1.8 (focus) and 2.0/2.2 (mondeo/transit and Jaguar X type).

You could still buy a focus with the old td-di engines on the lesser models until last year when the all models were brought out and the engine was dropped in favour of a 1.6tdci (90bhp) althought the same power as the old 1.8 it was much cleaner and quieter.

jeremy
Over 2k
Posts: 2112
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Hampshire UK

Post by jeremy »

Modern TDCi Ford engines are Peugeot engines anyway aren't they?

User avatar
Kitch
Over 2k
Posts: 6373
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants
My Cars: Too many to list
x 74

Post by Kitch »

The 1.4 and 1.6's are
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
cavmad
Keeper of the site Goat
Posts: 7857
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 9:13 am

Post by cavmad »

I think Mercedes started all this `common rail` technology didn`t they? Tim, this Sharan thing pulls like a train and is badged as TDI so assuming it`s 130BHP engine?

From Tom`s post it would appear that things have stagnated/gone backwards but don`t forget all the airbags, side impact bars and cup holders will add to the weight. Doesn`t say much for engine performance though: it`s one thing having `luxuries` and another when you haven`t got much of an engine to pull it round.
Vauxhall apologist.

User avatar
Kitch
Over 2k
Posts: 6373
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants
My Cars: Too many to list
x 74

Post by Kitch »

cavmad wrote:I think Mercedes started all this `common rail` technology didn`t they? Tim, this Sharan thing pulls like a train and is badged as TDI so assuming it`s 130BHP engine?

From Tom`s post it would appear that things have stagnated/gone backwards but don`t forget all the airbags, side impact bars and cup holders will add to the weight. Doesn`t say much for engine performance though: it`s one thing having `luxuries` and another when you haven`t got much of an engine to pull it round.
It'll be 110bhp if its a red I
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)

jeremy
Over 2k
Posts: 2112
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Hampshire UK

Post by jeremy »

Weight of modern cars is getting to be a real problem - mainly caused I suggest by lazy engineering.

Want more strength - and the easy way is simply to increase the amount and gauge of metal used.

But - suppose you want to stop intrusions into the side of a vehicle - one way is to put a steel beam there - and the other is to use a strong wire and be ingenious about mounting it, so that it pulls on other parts of the structure.

The simple demonstration of excess weight is the BX and the ZX - a plain 1.9D weighing about the same as a TD BX estate - which is about 16 inches longer. A C4 weighs about another 250Kg for a big diesel engined one. a C1 weighs about 1 tonne - same as a BX saloon diesel!

So far this weight increase has been hidden by the advances in diesel engines - but they will tale off as the major improvement has been the huge increase (5 - 7 times) in injection pressures producing better atomisation - and the abandonment of the Ricardo Comet indirect engines (a design coming from the 40's at the latest) in favour of direct injection.

tom
Citroen Sorceror
Posts: 1246
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: straddling the channel
x 3

Post by tom »

I tried to compare like with like. I have no idea of luggage capacity of the Ford, or its drag coefficient but the power to weight ratio is significantly worse. Depending upon the gearing, it will be either slow or thirsty compared to a BX, maybe both. I'll leave you to speculate on tyre life! Air bags weigh very little, certainly no more than the weight increase due to HP suspension.

Further bad news: Spillers, makers of Winalot have announced poor figures and may have to call in the retrievers.

User avatar
cavmad
Keeper of the site Goat
Posts: 7857
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 9:13 am

Post by cavmad »

tom wrote: Further bad news: Spillers, makers of Winalot have announced poor figures and may have to call in the retrievers.

I`m having that! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Vauxhall apologist.

User avatar
docchevron
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 »

tim leech wrote: and Jaguar X type
You mean a ford mondeo in a shell suit surley?!?!? :D

Cheers
Chris G
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...

User avatar
cavmad
Keeper of the site Goat
Posts: 7857
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 9:13 am

Post by cavmad »

docchevron1472 wrote:
tim leech wrote: and Jaguar X type
You mean a ford mondeo in a shell suit surley?!?!? :D

Cheers
Chris G
And when combined with one of the worse engines ever made (Ford`s 2.5 V6 24V) I think it`s just asking for trouble.
Funny how the Focus (and their ilk) don`t seemed to have moved forward ref power per weight (and surely economy?), yet this big lump of plastic Sharan thing with the aerodynamics of a block of flats pulls like a train and does 53+mpg.
Vauxhall apologist.