1992 ZX 1.9D

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




Add pictures here
‚úĖ
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lynyrd Skinhead (the_ghost_of_PORK snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

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.

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

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.
Add pictures here
‚úĖ
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
‚úĖ
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DervMan ( snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

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.
Add pictures here
‚úĖ
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Lynyrd Skinhead wrote:

-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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)
Add pictures here
‚úĖ
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.