1992 ZX 1.9D

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Lynyrd Skinhead - 06 May 2004 23:04 GMT

Hi gang,

looking to buy one of these for the wife. Are there any inherent problems I
should be aware of?

It's a non-turbo by the way. She previously had a 1.4 petrol ZX, how will
the performance of the two cars compare?

Ta,

M.

Signature

"My cat's breath smells of cat food" - Ralph Wiggum

Reply to this Message

Adrian - 06 May 2004 23:41 GMT

> looking to buy one of these for the wife. Are there any inherent
> problems I should be aware of?

The usual 12-year old used car stuff. Watch the rear subframe bushes, too -
they can part company. ZXs are fairly simple to sort most things on.

> It's a non-turbo by the way.

So at least you don't have the head problems to worry about.

> She previously had a 1.4 petrol ZX, how
> will the performance of the two cars compare?

I've never driven a 1.4 petrol ZX (I'm not sure I've ever driven *any*
petrol ZX), but I can imagine they'd be fairly similar. Don't expect any
speeding tickets, and don't expect to get too many customer loyalty points
off your local service station.

Reply to this Message

DervMan - 08 May 2004 07:43 GMT

> Hi gang,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> It's a non-turbo by the way. She previously had a 1.4 petrol ZX, how will
> the performance of the two cars compare?

How keen a driver is she? They both share pretty much the same blend of
great ride and peppy handling, although the diesel is a bit heavier up
front, which is detrimental to handling.

Neither is what one could consider quick, but the 1.4i is quicker than the
1.9d on paper. It's a couple of seconds quicker to 62 mph (more or less)
and a few miles per hour faster at the top end. However, the performance
differential is in how they're driven and whilst most people would think
that the 1.9d was sluggish, checking their speedos there would be very
little in it.

The 1.4 needs revving for full performance, especially when heavy, whereas
the diesel can provide most of its performance without exceeding 3,500 rpm
(again, more or less). The heavier the cars get (i.e. the more people and
luggage you put in there), the quicker the 1.9d gets relative to the 1.4i.

Finally, that 1.9d ZX has a wonderful "diesel lope" ability. It's lovely
and flexible, so on many trips once outside of the city one can leave it in
top.

Finally, for fuel consumption, the 1.9d should be around 25% more economical
than the 1.4i.

Signature

The DervMan
www.dervman.com

Reply to this Message

Adrian - 09 May 2004 22:37 GMT

> The 1.4 needs revving for full performance, especially when heavy,
> whereas the diesel can provide most of its performance without
> exceeding 3,500 rpm (again, more or less). The heavier the cars get
> (i.e. the more people and luggage you put in there), the quicker the
> 1.9d gets relative to the 1.4i.

I've just done the thick end of 500 miles following a ZX 1.9D with a 2cv on
a car trailer behind it - and it did BLOODY well. Sure, some of the steeper
hills dragged the speed down badly, but all things considered, I don't
think a 1.4 would have done anything like as well.

Reply to this Message

Jose V. Gavila - 10 May 2004 07:34 GMT

Hello!

I got a '97 ZX 1.9D in 2001, with 75.000km. Now it has close to
150.000km and only fault so far is that a %!$&%$& mechanic decided it
would run just fine with petrol (!). That was about 20.000km ago so it
seems no damage was done despite wife running about 30km with it.

I have done a couple 2.000km trips (fully loaded) and car has perfomed
flawlesly. I wish I could say the same about my XM ;-)!

Regards,

JOSE

> Hi gang,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> M.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE V. GAVILA
La Canyada - Valencia (Spain)

Citroen XM 2.0 CT Turbo (1992) http://jvgavila.com/xm.htm
Opel Astra 1.6 16V (1995)
Citroen ZX 1.9D (1997)
Yamaha FJ1200 (1992) http://jvgavila.com/fj1200.htm
Honda Foresight 250 (1997)

Reply to this Message

Rate this thread: