Worth saving?

Philip Chidlow · Post by **Philip Chidlow** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:17 am

kermit the frog · Post by **kermit the frog** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:08 pm

Having had a look at this advert it is a saver if ever i saw one someone with more room than me needs to get in there quick.

Regards Kermit

Post by **Tim Leech** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:22 pm

It does drive but the clutch slips under hard acceleration and is quite stiff he says. Could be a very nice car for someone and the body looks very clean.

Anyone?

Ian_Fearn · Post by **Ian_Fearn** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:52 pm

Clutch isnt a huge job. Took me about 5 hours on my TZD the other week

Philip Chidlow · Post by **Philip Chidlow** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:22 pm

Someone get this and prepare it for the BXagon Challenge! Go on, we can't have all diesels

Kitch · Post by **Kitch** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:03 pm

Don't know why he's saying the 8v is rarer....they sold way more 8v's than 16v's because the 16v was £3k more new!!
Could be a tidy car, but you've got to ask...is it worth saving? I mean to me, a 1.4 BX is cool and dodges tax to an extent. A 1.9D is brilliantly reliable and economical. A valver is obviously the choice of champions. But to me a GTi 8v has always been a bit pointless, unless perhaps you softened it up a bit and made a tourer out of it?

Either way, although a prick of a job a clutch is fairly cheap to put right. Skim the flywheel too, give it a polish and then see what it fails on.

Philip Chidlow · Post by **Philip Chidlow** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:37 pm

A bit unfair, Kitch, the GTi isn't a bad drive in my opinion. Nice (and utterly different from the 16v and the TZD Turbo) in automatic form. The GTi is well equipped too. Just not the most economical BX!

But any BX fan must think if the car's got a good provenance and is generally in good order then it's got to be worth considering at least?

Post by **Tim Leech** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:37 pm

I agree Phil, the GTi is a nice car in its own right and a great motoway car.

Post by **Tim Leech** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:26 pm

I agree Phil, the GTi is a nice car in its own right and a great motoway car.

Philip Chidlow · Post by **Philip Chidlow** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:29 pm

I wonder how pink this one is?

Kitch · Post by **Kitch** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Don't think I'm being unfair Phil, it's just my opinion. I never realy saw the point of the GTi. The GT was a tourer, and was set up as such. The valver is stiffer and could keep up with all the 80's hot hatches. The GTi kinda sits in the middle for me, unsure of what it is. The seats aren't soft and comfy enough as a tourer (I know, I've got the leather versions in the valver), the suspension isn't as soft as a regular BX, it's not powerful enough to be a sprinter or a proper GTi and it doesn't really look sporty. Most had wheeltrims!

Don't get me wrong, I'm probably in the minority here. Its just a personal thing, I've never really got what they were trying to achieve with it.

Philip Chidlow · Post by **Philip Chidlow** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:17 pm

And what's wrong with wheels trims?

Fair enough, and certainly in the context of the BX model range it seems to work best (from my experience) in auto form as a sprightly cruiser, although a certain chipped GTi manual I once owned was triffic...

If the GTi is a bit confused what's the GTi 4X4 all about?

Back OT. Anyone approached the guy about this? It's not for me, although it's in Essex, somewhere (Essex is big!).

Kitch · Post by **Kitch** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:28 pm

Don't get me started on the 4x4! I appreciate a rare Citroen, but its rare for a reason

Same as the 1.8 n/a diesel and 1600 auto's...IMO a complete waste of materials. The diesel, although frugal is too underpowered and the 1.9 works better as it doesn't have to work as hard to haul the body about. The extra small bit of poke makes a massive difference.
The 16 auto is too gutless for an auto box, and too ineffecient to be economical. I agree the GTi makes the best auto, but then I wouldn't want a BX auto

This one could be a tidy car though I agree. Just not for me.