BX estate loadspace question

Anything about BXs
User avatar
djoptix
BXpert
BXpert
Posts: 890
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:48 pm
Location: Bristolcestershire
x 2

BX estate loadspace question

Post by djoptix »

Can anyone with an estate (or without an estate but with an encyclopaedic knowledge of BXs) tell me what the dimensions of the loadspace in an estate are?

In fact the main thing I need to know is the length - what's the longest the loadspace can be with the seats folded and pushed as far forwards as possible? Without the front seats being ridiculously far forward that is. I'm wondering is a table football table will go in the back of one.

And what's the economy like? I'm thinking about bidding on that white TGD in Liverpool, but I need something significantly less thirsty than the valver...

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

Post by jeremy »

The problem with the BX estate is that the rear seat bases tip up and the backs then fold down to make a nice flat floor. The distance between the tailgate and the back of the seat bases (ie the flat floor) is about 5.10 - just under 6ft. The rear seat bases can be taken out without much trouble which would give a few more inches to the front seat backs.

Fuel consumption - I suppose really our BX TD estate and ZX 1.9D use about the same - say 40 around town and high 40's - low 50's on a long run. The ZX actually weighs about the same as a BX estate!

User avatar
Kitch
Over 2k
Posts: 6238
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants
x 57

Post by Kitch »

Its quite a narrow boot area, but its still plent big enough although I couldn't measure it right now.

Economy on the 1.9 N/A is usually pretty good if you drive with a steady foot. It does drop to the 40mpg mark with a heavier foot and town traffic, sometimes even lower. But on a long gentle run it's touched 55mpg a couple of times. Combined average was around 45mpg, taking into account pretty much every situation you could come across :lol:

In short, if you put in £10 worth of diseasle, you can nearly always get 100-110miles from it. Got 140miles once, but it was a tedious journey!
The national BX register - click to submit a car!

1983 16TRS (Sunrise red) - 1987 DTR Turbo est (Venetian red) - 1989 16 Valve (Venetian red) - 1990 16 Valve (Venetian red)

User avatar
djoptix
BXpert
BXpert
Posts: 890
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:48 pm
Location: Bristolcestershire
x 2

Post by djoptix »

Kitch wrote: In short, if you put in £10 worth of diseasle, you can nearly always get 100-110miles from it. Got 140miles once, but it was a tedious journey!
Hmm, doesn't actually sound that much better than the 16v. How is your 16v economy Kitch?

Is the TGD n/a?

User avatar
Philip Chidlow
Over 2k
Posts: 11585
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:08 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex
x 19

Post by Philip Chidlow »

djoptix wrote: Hmm, doesn't actually sound that much better than the 16v. How is your 16v economy Kitch?

Is the TGD n/a?
Our TXD (like TGD) is n/a and even when pushed fully loaded (four passengers, full boot - which is twice the volume of a hatch) will achieve 42mpg plus. On a good long haul, with a fair amount of motorway, we were getting 47-52 mpg.

Like no 16v I am aware of. :lol:

What is nice is that we are filling up half as often as we did with any of our previuos (petrol) BXs...
• 1992 Citroen BX TZD Turbo Hurricane
• 2006 Xsara Picasso 1.6 16v

User avatar
Philip Chidlow
Over 2k
Posts: 11585
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:08 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex
x 19

Post by Philip Chidlow »

Oh, and don't forget the additional 4 inches plus of head room for the back seat passengers. I feels generally more roomy in the back. It's the relative narrowness that counts against the BX, hatch or estate, so that little bit more 'air' is appreciated.
• 1992 Citroen BX TZD Turbo Hurricane
• 2006 Xsara Picasso 1.6 16v

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

Post by jeremy »

As a comparison I'd say that diesel BX do 40 when my previous 1.7 Renault 21 would struggle to do 25 and 50 when the Renault would have done 43. For its class the Renault was quite good and I can think of a number of similar sized petrol cars that probably didn't make 20 in general use, the worst being an 1800 Firenza which was so bad that we used to use a late series 2 4.2 XJ6 for economy (Late series 2's had an extremely thirsty and low powered engine)

Come to think of it the wife's mini 1000 was considerably thirstier than the BX TD which is one of the reasons it was replaced by the ZX 1.9D

User avatar
Kitch
Over 2k
Posts: 6238
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants
x 57

Post by Kitch »

The estate is noticably more ecnomical than the 16v, but thats due to the fact its nigh on impossible to resist booting the 16v around everywhere.

Best I've got out of the valver is around 38mpg, and I had to be very boring and tweedish to do it. The n/a diesel (and turbo for that matter) aren't light years ahead of the valver, despite what many think....160bhp doesn't have to work very hard to move a car that weighs 1070kg, yet 71bhp/88bhp has to work alot harder, torque or no torque.

But then I read comments about 16v's on here that really make me laugh, so I don't think you'll ever get a fair comparison.

What I will say though, is that the diesel is far easier to drive....doesn't bog down, no power bands etc and its surprisingly refined on the move. They just keep going, I was really impressed with mine. I'd recommend one, they're great cars and the only reason I don't use one daily is because I want something totally different to the valver.
The national BX register - click to submit a car!

1983 16TRS (Sunrise red) - 1987 DTR Turbo est (Venetian red) - 1989 16 Valve (Venetian red) - 1990 16 Valve (Venetian red)