Citroen AX 1.5D - what are they like?

One of my driving instructors had a new one, many years ago.

Utterly horrible. Very slow, unrefined. 1st gear only takes you to about

5mph, and it struggles to pull away in 2nd, so you're constantly fighting the 'spoon in porridge' gearbox.

To put it into perspective, I ditched that instructor for one who had a Metro 1.1S, as I much preferred the feel of the Metro.

Mind you, my final lessons and test were in a 111i Kensington, and I particularly liked that one.

Yeah a bit flimsy but the newer 92 on cars have nicer interiors. The 1.5D has reasonable performance and rides nicely, but a bit nose heavy.

Perfomrance wise should hit about a ton and do 0-60 in 12(ish) seconds....the 1.4 is much slower....

MInd you, the 1.0i petrol I currently own handles better, is just as fast and does almost as much MPG....I'm not sure if diesels a real advantage in tiny tin boxes....

I found Metro's ghastly things in comparison (learnt to drive in one, yuk....) Probbaly coz I'm nearly 6"4, the AX is one of the few small cars I feel reasonably comfortable in, only prob is the pedal spacings a bit tight for my size 11's.....

Incidentally the gearbox is the same as the newer Metro/Rover 100's, shiftings not bad when new but a bit sloppy as the miles pile on...

I've heard somewhere that the 1.5 is definitely the one to go for over the

1.4D, which are apparently quite weak and have head gasket problems - are the 1.5s fairly strong in comparison?

Call me mad, but I'm actually quite looking forward to the prospect of owning one of these for a little while (just to see what sort of fuel ecomony I get) - who knows, I might end up really liking it and ditching the A6!

Any opinions, and could anyone hazard a guess as to what sort of economy I'm likely to average out of it, driving in quite a bit of city traffic (the A6 is averaging 38-42mpg, with equivalent driving, as a guide).

Peter

Pedals are quite close together - don't drive with boots on! Definitely go for the 1.5, expect 50mpg. Local independent uses one as a courtesy car -

145k miles and no problems.

-- Neil McDonald ("Reply to" is spamtrapped).

I owned one of these (1996 N reg) for three months earlier this year, it had a few minor niggles but that was down to mileage and lack of TLC - for what it was, I thought it was a tidy little car. It cruised comfortably at 80mph and was no better or worse on acceleration than my

1.3L Skoda Favorit, if that's any indication. I'm told the engine is actually a Peugeot, the same one used in the 106 and Rover Metro/100. Dunno what economy you'd get on an urban cycle, but without trying hard I achieved 50+ mpg on mainly-dual-carriageway use. No rust whatsoever, looking at other AXs they don't appear all that rust-prone. It was pretty easy to work on. I'd happily have another one. That's all I can think of really!

Cheers, Nick snipped-for-privacy@DELETETHISBITiee.org.

Probably the lightest most naff looking grandmas shopping trolley ever made. Therefore, its the ONLY choice of car to go around humiliating bmw drivers with. Ohhhh the shame ... not being able to keep up with one of those 'orrible ugly things. Of course, judicious use of bhp is required in such a light foil box. Whatever a 122 bhp mk2 golf gti can do, a lighter 122bhp ax does better!!

They can't corner as well as a bmw 730i though!!

-- (Scum Mail Bouncer In use). (Remove "n" from email address to reply directly).

Regards..... Steve.

In article , AstraVanMan writes

I test drove one last year. It was appalling - soggy, uncomfortable seats with no support, no power to speak of, noisy, and so flimsy I didn't feel safe in it at all.

I learned to drive in a 106 1.5D when they had only just been launched. I remember it feeling quite gutless and as someone else has said, first gear gets you nowhere and second is a struggle. I remember taking off on steep hills was a challenge, especially for a leaner! I've also owned 2 AXGT's in the past. To be honest, I loved these cars solely becasue of their speed. If they had been 'normal' Ax's, I think I would have hated them. Very flimsy, quite ugly, and things constantly falling off. So going by the bad points on both cars (i.e. engine in the 106 and the AX as a car), I don't think I would ever look at an AX diesel. But each to their own as they say, that's just my opinion,

PS, is this a replacement for your recent BX already? Neil

I don't think many Beemers would struggle to keep up with the 1.5D version though!!

Peter

Its probably got a higher power to weight ratio than the smallest engine "new" seven series.

If i stood my ax on the roof of my old seven series, that combination would be about the same weight as the new seven series.

Bmw lost their way methinks!!

-- (Scum Mail Bouncer In use). (Remove "n" from email address to reply directly).

Regards..... Steve.

Na, every class of car has got heavier due to tougher safety regulations and ever increasing levels of standard equipment. Hence now a 2 litre hatch is just 'quick' at best, whereas the 80's 1.9 litre 205GTi for instance was a loony beast of a machine that was virtually uninsurable at one point.

They are also bigger. Maybe if each class had stayed the same size, they might not be quite so heavy. I recall reading a test report of the current VW Polo when it was launched - the reviewer remarked that the previous Polo had been larger and heavier than the original Golf, which granted was not large, and that the incoming model was larger and heavier than the Mk2 Golf, which itself was distinctly larger than its predecessor. A Golf is now a Polo :-)

There was a thread hereabouts recently where someone observed that the latest Mondeo estate is larger all round than a Volvo V70.