BX power question

Tourist · Post by **Tourist** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:37 pm

I'm just wondering how the 1.7 TD [it should be 1.8] has 90bhp, which is the same as the 1.9 TD? Does it use a different turbo?

jonathan_dyane · Post by **jonathan_dyane** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:35 pm

Other than very late 1.9TD's both were fitted with the same turbo, either Garrett or KKK depending on luck.

Although the power is almost the same (actually 2bhp more for the 1.9) there is a useful amount of extra torque with the 1.9, and low speed response is considerably better too.

Tourist · Post by **Tourist** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:43 pm

Where can I find some stats for the BX TD, and what is the difference between the 2 turbochargers?

jonathan_dyane · Post by **jonathan_dyane** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm

The Garrett is less of a fiddle to increase the boost on, but I don't thing there is a lot in it; certainly not really enough to choose one car over another on the basis of type of turbo.

Scan from 1989 BX brochure follows...

DavidRutherford · Post by **DavidRutherford** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:08 pm

Is it only 2bhp? I was under the impression that the 17TD was rated at 88 and the 19TD at 92? The torque figures are something like 132 lbft and 149lbft

AFAIK the garrett turbo boosts from lower RPM, and is definitely the one to have for low down torque. When they get to 4000+rpm, the boost is the same (as they are wastegate controlled now) and hence the power is the same, but the spool-up and low-rpm performance is definitely not the same!

Post by **mat_fenwick** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:11 pm

From memory, the 1.9TD engine has 148 lb ft of torque...which does make a difference!

Definately picks up well from idle, although as I fitted a N/A cam at the same time I did the engine swap I can't put the change solely down to the increase in capacity.
The differences between the turbos are explained in a little more detail here.

Tourist · Post by **Tourist** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:41 pm

Thanks for the info

DavidRutherford · Post by **DavidRutherford** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:48 pm

Tourist wrote:the 1.7 TD [it should be 1.8]

Not quite.. it's a 17 engine, as the first two numbers of the engine's cc are 17. If you round it to the nearest number of litres, it is indeed 1.8 though.

Much like the identification of the engines. XUD7 is the 1769cc engine, XUD9 is the 1905.

I know, this doesn't quite work for the XUD11, or the BX16, which has an XU5 and so on...

Kitch · Post by **Kitch** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:00 pm

I'm with the tourist young david, by general rule it should be classed as a 1.8.

By the same logic, the BX 14 should be the BX 13.

And yeah, I believe the BX TD is 88bhp/134lb ft and the 1.9TD is 92bhp/148lb ft. But from what I've recently learned, the turbo/pump combo will have more of an effect on the performance of the car overall.

jonathan_dyane · Post by **jonathan_dyane** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:07 pm

As shown in the scan above, it would seem Citroen claimed 90bhp out of the 17TD...

Kitch · Post by **Kitch** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:09 pm

They might have done, but I'm pretty sure that Peugeot (who made the engine) said it was 88.
Citroen always seemed to be a bit optimistic with their power claims IMO anyway.

jonathan_dyane · Post by **jonathan_dyane** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:23 pm

Extensive googling gives the figures:

XUD7TE 90PS/88hp/66kw
XUD9TE 92PS/90hp/67kw

Kitch · Post by **Kitch** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:26 pm

Ah, so its the old PS or BHP thing thats got people confused? In short, they all have not alot of power basically! I've been told the XUD7TE is better to drive as it's more flexible, but ultimately not as torquey

Anyway I never got 'PS'. We had some Aussie bloke in today who kept reffering to his transit having 135PS, when in fact it's BHP. I kept saying BHP as you do and he said he says PS cos thats what they say in Australia.

I had to refrain from saying "yes but you're not in Australia YOU NUMPTARD!!!!"

jonathan_dyane · Post by **jonathan_dyane** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:58 pm

Kitch wrote:Ah, so its the old PS or BHP thing thats got people confused? In short, they all have not alot of power basically! I've been told the XUD7TE is better to drive as it's more flexible, but ultimately not as torquey

Anyway I never got 'PS'. We had some Aussie bloke in today who kept reffering to his transit having 135PS, when in fact it's BHP. I kept saying BHP as you do and he said he says PS cos thats what they say in Australia.

I had to refrain from saying "yes but you're not in Australia YOU NUMPTARD!!!!"

I don't really get the whole PS thing either, gives for a situation like DIN versus SAE bhp ratings (which you never really see stated now; I wonder which standard won...)

On which of the two engines is 'better' it is difficult to say, and I guess depends somewhat on taste. I have not sampled the different engines in the same model of car either (perhaps David R could comment on his 405 experiences) but based upon driving behind the 1.7TD in a couple of BX's and the 1.9TD in a 306 and a Xantia I have to say that the 1.9 seems to have a rather flatter powerband, and the extra grunt on takeoff is much appreciated. Despite this, the 1.7 somehow feels more eager when moving, and provided you keep it in the powerband somewhat punchier and more responsive. This could however be due to the BX's lightness however; I believe even the ZX and 306 were somewhat heavier.

Tourist · Post by **Tourist** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:23 pm

I know that the last BXs had steel where the plastic once was, how much heavier does this make them and does it effect performance?

Still more questions sorry ... v/interested.

BX Club Forum

BX power question

BX power question

Re: BX power question