Vsx Turbo Petrol On Autotrader

check out autotrader 96vsx turbo petrol 50,000 miles sorry cant get pictures i cant even get printer to work

Well spotted!

Just 3 miles from me - even closer to Dr Tim!!!



I would like a nice low miles auto. I can't afford any more cars at the moment though.

This post has been edited by mouseflakes on February 25, 2009 02:15 pm

1996 P Reg CITROEN XM 2.0i VSX Turbo

£695

http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es-uk/www/c...200909329491196

Looks as though it's at least missing a nearside front indicator

Tut Tut!

Thats a side light!! We should all know that by now!!

Paul

Meant to add - lots of options but no air con? I'm kinda tempted to replace my 2.0i SX with it, but I'm not sure if the turbo, cruise I'd never use and vulgar faux wood dashboard would actually make it worthwhile.

Looking back at the performance stats someone posted a short while ago, there isn't actually THAT much difference between the two cars. It would surely make overtaking easier though.

This post has been edited by ThwartedEfforts on February 25, 2009 03:48 pm

I think that it's real wood. My '96 VSX has real wood. You can tell the fake wood, it looks shiney and is a darker colour than that.

Hi all

I have driven both and believe me there is a very big difference in performance, you only get about 5bhp extra with the turbo but its the extra Torque that is making me go through the effort of doing the conversion on mine, well ok its because i want a project , but to drive the turbo is far smoother with good in gear exelleration.
You should have a test drive, the only downside i can see if you do a lot of miles is economy .

D

This post has been edited by dean on February 25, 2009 07:00 pm

I second everything you've said Dean, there is real performance there if you want it and the economy only suffers if you use the performance.

Only 5hp difference though? Surely it's 20+? and as you say, lots more torque.

Derek

Never seen an XM with real wood, they used grained and coloured plastic throughout the production run of all Mk1's and Mk2's. Now there were at least three different plastic wood finishes used at different times.

John

Derek

The 8v n/a with motronic 5.1 management produces 130bhp the 16v is 135bhp and the turbo was 140bhp then the later MK2 turbo engine had another few bhp again going by what John has dug up on them but with as you say lots more torque.
I could be wrrong of course, it seems most performance figures for these engines where different to each other and as such, wrong


D

It uses a LPT to increase torque but not really power.
As pointed out torque is what you want for road use, power is for racetracks only.

I can't see why there's such a big deal with the 2.0 TCT. It's OK, and I'd probably rate it higher
than Paul citroenxm. I own a few Xm's with this engine but I do have misgivings about it and
would actually say the normal 2.0i 8v is the sweeter engine - so long as it breathes without a cat.
I just hope the benefits of the conversion are rewarding for Dean, especially after sacrificing that
nice looking estate. Guess the finished article has been sampled before...

Andrew

This post has been edited by Andmcit on February 25, 2009 09:31 pm

I don't know what you mean by 'sweeter' Andrew, and I'd be interested to know what your misgivings are.
The only misgiving I can think of is the cost of replacing a knackered turbo.

I've had an S1 2.0 manual and I hated the noisy gutless lump.
I've had two S2 TCT's, one manual and one automatic, and I love them.
The manual seemed a lot faster than the auto, but I'd still prefer the auto box 90% of the time. I'm sure the XM was designed for an auto box......who would put that rediculous parking brake on a manual car.
I also have a 2.1td and while it's ok, it's not a patch on the TCT (except mpg of course).

I think the conversion will be worth while Dean.

I'm not raining on anyone's party - far from it - I just like the 8v 2.0i's I drive MORE than the
TCT's. I think the immediacy and simplicity of the 8v is far better and by sweeter, I feel I find it
less fraught and calmer on the nerves to thrash about and the fuel economy on the TCT is grim
when/if you use the turbo - great if you don't but then what's the point! May as well get a V6!

Mind, I won't touch an auto by choice so a gutless 8v auto is a rarity in my selection - IIRC,
I do have one mind...

Andrew

Andrew, i actually find the turbo unit to be more refined and quiet than the N/A version and ive had 4 N/A's all are no where as nice as this turbo lump. I can see where ctroenxm comes from with his views on the turbo, because he's a V6 lover and compares them, and the 6cyl will always be better than any 4cyl for smoothness, i know mine were but that isnt the point, its like saying i hate V6's why not have a V12 because they are quieter and smoother, they may be but i have to use what i got and i got the turbo . (wait for the LPG argument now sorry citroenxm )
The other advantage with the turbo engine is the ability to increase power with minimal effort, so i will be rebuilding with a metal head gasket, just in case the mood takes me later.....

I sort of understand what you mean though Andrew, but i love the turbo so far and am not in the mood for V6 pita engine bays anymore

D

This post has been edited by dean on February 25, 2009 10:10 pm