Hi all ,as previously mentioned over 800 miles to the tankfull is readily attainable in the 2.1.Again you all know i trundle back and forth from Grantown-on -spey to Toulouse in one or other of my two auto's. the 94 BOSCH and the 00 EPIC, nothing really to choose between them in the economy, but performance, the EPIC leaves the BOSCH behind and with almost no smoke.It is though not as quiet, the EPIC can fair bellow when you use the loud pedal!

Hi Sam.

If your point about engine tune is aimed at my comments, I can assure you that the car / mechanics have always been maintained in top condition by our local [ alas now retired ] Citroen Guru - Citroen Sid [ Redditch ]. I owned that car for 9 years and covered over 150K miles in it - quite a "road test" to form my opinions.

In our family we have had 4 x 2.1 TD's - 2 x estate and 2 x hatch.

ALL - WITHOUT EXCEPTION HAVE BEEN SLUGS [ comparitively], and NONE ever approached 50 mpg in other than "ideal" conditions. ALL were superb cars overall.

Forget what the "papers" say about perfromance / fuel consumption / 0-60 times - it's the REAL WORLD driving experience which is the best comparison.

I had my VSX petrol Turbo at the same time as the 2.1 TD [ both estates ] and there was noticeable difference in the driving experience.

Without getting the stopwatch or calculators out - the Petrol version was "quick" the TD was "slow". Both statements are in the context of XM overall perfromance - which in itself - is adequate.

As I say "in context" . as much as it pains me to admit - my Volvo T5 Turbo Estate with only an extra handful of cc's IS fast.

Never the less - the XM is obviously our transport of choice - otherwise we wouldn't be on this forum and we chose them because they're the best of all compromises. As yet I have found nothing suitable to replace it - and thankfully at 110K miles - it's got plenty of life left in it!

BTW - here's one for the "experts". When I engage the auto from standstill [ foot on footbrake ] - the N/S mirror dips slightly and then returns to it's original position !!!!!!!!

When this first started [ or when I first noticed it ] I really thought I was seeing things - but HONEST, this does happen EVERY time I engage the gears?????

Beachcomber

Hi Beachcomber

I agree that the 2.1 doesn't exactly set the road alight but having driven such things as Morris Minors and Oxfords and even Vauxhall Cresta's for a lot of my life, for me, the performance is more than adequate and I would very surprised to know of any other car of that size and weight and fuel consumption, that performs any better.

Regarding fuel consumption, yes its mostly down to how you drive but I can assure that my average consumption is always between 40 and 50 mpg, and often over 50, but we are talking manual here not auto. Admittedly I live in a rural area and as I am retired am usually not in to much of a hurry. If I drove in the way I did as a teenager there is no doubt that I wouldn't get that sort of consumption.

My son drives the red estate, and niether him or his wife drive as gently as me, but they also are getting in excess of 40 mpg. All these figures have been checked by brim to brim refills.

I reckon it would be possible to get 1000 miles on a tankfull and if someone would like to challenge that and pay my expenses I would be happy to give it a go

Peter.N.

Hi Beachcomber

Does your passenger side wing mirror dip correctly when reverse is selected?

Regards

XMexc

Hi Beachcomber - the general feeling of performance is clearly subjective, the consumption not so. Mine got 50.8 with me driving in what for me is a relatively lead-footed way, over 610 miles. All but 100 miles of that were motorway, so it's totally safe to assume that it would not be so good if I was driving round town, but it's not an estimate; I filled the tank, drove that distance, filled the tank again, and calculated. I'm fairly confident that I could get in the region of 55 mpg if I drove gently. I'm going to try my office round trip of 260 miles at a steady 60 in both cars, with a light foot on acceleration - then I'll know what they really CAN do. All I can say for the performance is that by the standards on which I judge, my car is not slow; I'd even call it relatively fast. Your mileage may vary.

Everyone has a good stab at MPG figures..

I see MANY people boast that the Xantia TD's will manage 45 to 50mpg! Which is ABSOLUTLY rubbish. Xantias struggle 45 mpg, and will average 40 mpg.

ALL 5 I have been involved with have never done any more then 45mpg. The best I've had was from a S2 1.9td, on an S, which got me 43mpg.

I think that the Lazy 2.1td and weight of the car are a perfect match, so the unit can be lazy and not work hard to lug it about, hence the high figures..

The trouble with Xantia XUD9's is they rev soo freely and go so well, you tend to foot it a bit more, and the Xantia body is not light either... so it works a bit harder.


Rgds


C

I had always thought that my 2.1 TD's were quite frugal at early 40 mpg's - on reading about mid 40 's as being "normal", I'm wondering what I had been doing wrong for the 9 years that I had my last TD.

Actually, even 40 mpg would be acceptable for such a big / useful car - a pity that our tax system is such that we get hammered on our fuel costs and especially diesel.

LPG is looking better by the day and I seriously regret letting that VSX estate slip by before Xmas.

There doesn't seem an aweful lot of sense in buying a new system at £1000 + when a complete LPG car is around £500 -£600 !

I'm getting around mid 30's on my turbo VSX estate - please don't tell me I should be expecting 40 mpg !

Beachcomber

Hi all
When I had my 2.1 estate it would do 48-50 on a run.It was a bit of a dog though.I have had my 2.5 for almost 2 years now and I am coming up to 60K in it.I can get 45-50 mpg on a run in.My best economy was an average of 54mpg driving at 50mph around the French country lanes for a 200 mile round trip.The most I have ever got from a tankful is 874 miles and this was actual miles driven,not drive 250 miles with the computer still showing 620 to go.
A manual 2.1 I am sure would go at least another 100 miles plus than this and the economy could be 55-60mpg.
Mind you I drive quite slowly at 65-70mph on the motorways.Since I discovered my trip computer,my economy has improved as you can see the effect of accelerating hard etc and can moderate your driving accordingly.
Put your foot down and the economy unsurprisingly drops right down to low 30's.The economy is decided by your style of driving,the condition of your car and the type of journey you do.Did anyone watch the Quentin Wilson programme with the Rugby Club members?It was about fuel economy and unsurprisingly the biggest savings were made by changing from Petrol to Diesel and also by having the latest model of a car.However these savings had to be offset against the cost of buying the car.
Regards Rob

Hi Rob

Your driving style is obviously similar to mine so would expect similar mpg. Mine will quite often do 800 miles + on a tankful but I reckon 1000 is possible. Any sponsers?

What citroenxm says regarding the 1.9 engine I know to be true. My wife has a ZX estate which I would think is considerably lighter then the XM and the fuel consumption is nothing like as good, probably because you don't get any power out of it until you reach 2500 rpm - very wasteful.

As I have said many times before, I think the 2.1 was the best IDI engine ever produced.

Peter.N.

a point on the exhaust samwise.........mine has a stainless steel straight through exhaust......theres a small "box" just after the downpipes then it goes straight through to the back tail box. the huge center box is missing......its just gone through a government testing station with flying colours all bar a 1 min stop to change a tail bulb wich blew on the way to the station (dammit). the whole thing is a custom welded job and very professionaly done.....its a 2.1td and returns around the 60mpg on the flat on the motorway......its had allsorts of other mods but i,m just saying that it is possible to "do-away" with the large "box" in the middle. tends to add some more horses and makes the diesel sound a little more "throaty" but works a treat. plus the fact it reduces costs imensly by how much i,m not sure cos i didnt do the job. i i had i would have fitted a better rear box on the back and stainless as it is it has the standard one.