Xantia Fuel economy

[whitegoshawk]

My Xanita averages 10.8l/100km in the city. Lead-footed size 9 boots driver in dismal city traffic (sydney) running on 98 octane.

Don't have good highway figures yet; will report back in a week and a bit once I have been driving it a bit on holiday! :adrink:

whitegoshawk (burn those dinosaurs! :burnboun

 

[whitegoshawk]

Ok, got the numbers from some stylin' down the Hume... Try 7.5l/100k on 95 octane

Not bad really, at this was also quite heavily laden with gear.
Probably 2 passengers' worth in terms of weight.

In imperial measure (It does make more sense that way around) my figures are;

21.7 MPG city
31.3 MPG Highway

That's a 2 litre CT Turbo (petrol) engine with A/C on, BTW.

whitegoshawk

 

[helmut]

Hi there

Looking at the sort of fuel consumption various people are getting, I find most of those figures far too high.
With my 1.9l Zx of course without A/C i expect about 100 miles per 10 litre of fuel , at a steady 60-65 miles, this means about 6 l per 100 km.
Of course my ZX is a diesel!!!!!!!!!
cheers Helmut

 

[DoubleChevron]

I've asked this question on the old Anydspares board .... and IMO not many people actually recorded there fuel economy accuratly there. ie: fill tank, reset odometer, drive distance and refil tank totalling the fuel that was put back in to fill the tank and the milage done.

The ones that recorded the lower consumption figures did the maths/economy correctly. The CT turbo above sounds slighty better (if not the same) as the economy figures they were all getting (I'm not sure how it uses so much dino juice ). In my mind a 20year younger Xantia with a motor that is modern and can't have it's origins traced back to the 1930's should get better fuel economy than my CX turbo

seeya,
Shane L.

 

[Alan S]

Don't forget that your CX didn't have all the anti-pollution politically correct crapalytic converters, anti smog anti everything valves and restrictions either and even if it did, by now they'll be all off it anyway.
With the 16V I find it very economical until I decide to give it a bit of stick and then I can almost watch the needle fall, yet by comparison, Brad's series one withoout a lot of this crap, seems to get good mileage regardless of the way it's driven. I think that tells the story.


Alan S

 

[Mandrake]

I've asked this question on the old Anydspares board .... and IMO not many people actually recorded there fuel economy accuratly there. ie: fill tank, reset odometer, drive distance and refil tank totalling the fuel that was put back in to fill the tank and the milage done.

The ones that recorded the lower consumption figures did the maths/economy correctly. The CT turbo above sounds slighty better (if not the same) as the economy figures they were all getting (I'm not sure how it uses so much dino juice ). In my mind a 20year younger Xantia with a motor that is modern and can't have it's origins traced back to the 1930's should get better fuel economy than my CX turbo

seeya,
Shane L.

Ah, but you're forgetting what a great motor the CX's have... :joker: Simple, yes, old fashioned, yes, but a solid workhorse.... sometimes throwing in a lot of computers and modern technology is just one step forward and two steps back... :crazy:

Also engines with more midrange torque often give better fuel consumption because you're not reving the engine in lower gears all the time, and also because you don't tend to put your foot to the floor (wasting fuel for no real gain) as much when an engine responds with good midrange torque.

My 1129cc GS used to get worse fuel consumption than my dad's 1220cc one, and I put that down entirely to lack of low down and midrange torque which meant I was forever changing down a gear to 3rd on hills, while his would chug happily up them in 4th...

I do (sometimes) keep accurate records on my 8 valve slugomatic (as you like to call it) by filling it up, driving until most of a tank is used and filling it up again, and I can only just barely reach 10Km/litre in around town driving mixed with a little bit of country road driving... but then again I am a reasonably spirited driver... but its definately more thirsty than my 1988 Honda Accord (2 litre 5 speed manual) was and I put that down mainly to the auto.

Regards,
Simon

 

[DoubleChevron]

Hi Guys,

I think both you and Alan are right in a way. The Xantia weighs near a much as the CX. It has all the modern pollution equipment, a little 1.9 litre motor with the slushbox, yet manages to haul the big car around easily enough.

The CX has lets see .... injection(with knock sensor), ignition, abs, trip, hmm, that's 4computers off the to of my head, so certainly isn't low tech for the mid '80s. It to uses lots of fuel for a 4cylinder passenger sedan.

I'm hoping C5 HDi's depreciate like crazy and become worthless really quickly ('cos then I can buy one :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: ).

seeya,
Shane L.

 

[PeterT]

The best I've ever cracked out of our 8V auto was 40 mpg at a constant 100 km/h, with Shell 98. My eyes popped when I worked it out. The normal is 37-38 mpg on the open road however, at 110km/h.

 

[STALLED]

I have been in a Xantia round town - performance wise it was pretty good IMO considering its weight and that it is a 91kw 8v motor. Pretty revvy - still much like the 205 GTI which the motor is from (am I correct?). Still with those economy figures, its pretty good - I suppose if you wanted any better you'd have to get a Diesel.

DoubleChevron, whats the CX2500 Turbo2 like to get off the line - is it hard not to get alot of wheelspin. I was thinking - a car that size with all that power up front would be rather tricky to not get the wheels spinning, especially in the wet?

Stalled

 

[DoubleChevron]

The best I've ever cracked out of our 8V auto was 40 mpg at a constant 100 km/h, with Shell 98. My eyes popped when I worked it out. The normal is 37-38 mpg on the open road however, at 110km/h.

You seem to be returning similar fuel economy to Alan. Do you use the cruise control ?? I still think that's what is costing big chunks of fuel economy

thanks
Shane L.

 

[DoubleChevron]

I have been in a Xantia round town - performance wise it was pretty good IMO considering its weight and that it is a 91kw 8v motor. Pretty revvy - still much like the 205 GTI which the motor is from (am I correct?). Still with those economy figures, its pretty good - I suppose if you wanted any better you'd have to get a Diesel.

DoubleChevron, whats the CX2500 Turbo2 like to get off the line - is it hard not to get alot of wheelspin. I was thinking - a car that size with all that power up front would be rather tricky to not get the wheels spinning, especially in the wet?

Stalled

The 205 will be a lot quicker ... There one thing better than more ponnies under the bonnet ... and that's less weight

The 8valve Xantia will rev out nicely, but it's no 16valver. Certainly it's nice and torqey down low. If you want to try 'revvy' take a GS for a spin .... There's nothing there unless you rev the sh!t out of it (which luckily is lots of fun, so no effort).

Any car will wheelspin of your vicious enough. CX's don't really do "Wheelspin". That's one of the reasons there exceptional on slippery surfaces and towing. As with all FWD's you get the clutch out first *then* give it to her. On greasy roads you'll feel the front wheels scrable a bit for traction in 1st & 2nd gear (not really spinning as such as there is still lots of forward motion). On dry roads there is no wheelspin.

Really though if you want a quick car off the line, something like the 405/BX 16valves are the way to go (even though they are light and have terrible front end traction off the line). You see there a much lighter nimble car to zip around town in. Keep in mind the CX turbo isn't a 'powerful' car as such. Just about every V6 & V8 local car out here generates considerably more power than it. Especially the new fowlcans are enormously powerful vehicles and even in the lowliest/cheapest form will match the CX's accelleration.

seeya,
Shane L.

 

[Mandrake]

Any car will wheelspin of your vicious enough. CX's don't really do "Wheelspin". That's one of the reasons there exceptional on slippery surfaces and towing. As with all FWD's you get the clutch out first *then* give it to her. On greasy roads you'll feel the front wheels scrable a bit for traction in 1st & 2nd gear (not really spinning as such as there is still lots of forward motion). On dry roads there is no wheelspin.

Did you have a look at those CX videos mentioned in a recent thread

http://81.68.229.29/

Click on Video, then on the CX, page 1, then watch the 3rd and 4th movie clips down.... those guys are just INSANE.... (and I suspect the antics shown in the first of the two clips taken at night are also highly illegal :nownow: )

Any idea if that white CX is a "standard" turbo or whether they've hotted it up a bit further ?

Especially the new fowlcans are enormously powerful vehicles and even in the lowliest/cheapest form will match the CX's accelleration.

But they can't match its style :headbang:

Regards,
Simon

 

[DoubleChevron]

Did you have a look at those CX videos mentioned in a recent thread

http://81.68.229.29/

Click on Video, then on the CX, page 1, then watch the 3rd and 4th movie clips down.... those guys are just INSANE.... (and I suspect the antics shown in the first of the two clips taken at night are also highly illegal :nownow: )

Any idea if that white CX is a "standard" turbo or whether they've hotted it up a bit further ?

But they can't match its style :headbang:

Regards,
Simon

That's it I'm cofiscating that car. He doesn't deserve it. :nownow: :nownow:

I think it's a standard car. As you can see bodyroll doesn't impact handling or safety, they are an incredibly forgiving car even at high speed. The way it rev'd out sounded quite close to standard. When he was doing the burnout you can hear the motors just bouncing off the rev limiter in 1st gear :nownow:

I'm guessing he gets very small life from his clutch. The standard clutch is barely upto the power of the turbo motor. With very minor tweeks (ie: wastegate & ignition) you can take the motor from a near indestrucable 170hp to a near indestructable 210hp ( much great power is possible, however you will start to impact reliability/longetivity).

There's a conversion call Machonics in the UK with is basically an extra chip expoxied into the ignition computer with a small boost increase that takes you upto the 210hp. Apparantly you then toast the standard clutch in record time.

seeya,
Shane L.

 

[PeterT]

You seem to be returning similar fuel economy to Alan. Do you use the cruise control ?? I still think that's what is costing big chunks of fuel economy

thanks
Shane L.

Yes, they're with cruise control on.

 

[STALLED]

What I'd like to know is if there is much of a difference between the autobox and the manual when it comes to fuel economy - is there much of a difference?

BTW - Whats the fuel which the 8valve Xantia likes to drink the most?

Cheers!

Stallled

 

[PSvensson]

What I'd like to know is if there is much of a difference between the autobox and the manual when it comes to fuel economy - is there much of a difference?

BTW - Whats the fuel which the 8valve Xantia likes to drink the most?

Cheers!

Stallled

Of course it likes to drink
quality fuels only of course like it predessers

Dan:adrink:

 

[Mandrake]

What I'd like to know is if there is much of a difference between the autobox and the manual when it comes to fuel economy - is there much of a difference?

BTW - Whats the fuel which the 8valve Xantia likes to drink the most?

Cheers!

Stallled

The 8 valve petrol is supposed to run on 96 unleaded. It does have a knock sensor connected to the ECU that is supposed to detect 91 and retard the ignition so that you CAN run on 91, but with reduced performance.

In my experience, from accidentally filling dad's one with 91 when he first bought it, the knock sensor never works that effectively and with the 91 there were always signs of pinking during acceleration for as long as that tank of 91 lasted, and worse performance, so I would stay away from 91....

Here in NZ 91 is in the process of getting replaced with 95, and 96 is getting replaced with 98, and as an intermediate step the cheeky buggers in SOME service stations have replaced 96 with 95 without telling anyone - they still advertise as 96 on their signs and charge the same prices but the pump handle clearly says 95

So for the last month or so my one has been running on 95. I don't notice any knocking problems but I had noticed performance was slightly down...

Will be interesting to see whether 98 is of any benefit or not.

By the way it takes the ECU quite some time to "learn" the characteristics of your fuel and if you change from one octane to another, especialy 91->96 it can be quite stubborn to make an adjustment, so your best bet is to run the tank right down close to empty to minimize mixing, then after filling up with the new stuff, disconnect the battery for 15 minutes to force the ECU to go back to factory defaults, then take the car for a 15 minute "spirited" drive, and it will readjust its parameters to the new fuel much more quickly.

Regards,
Simon

 

[STALLED]

Ahh thanks heaps for the Mandrake - sounds like a good idea, disconnecting the battery so the ECU would reset. I was thinking about that myself but was a bit unsure if it would do anything worthwile!

Stalled

 

[smiffy1071]

Any car will wheelspin of your vicious enough. CX's don't really do "Wheelspin". That's one of the reasons there exceptional on slippery surfaces and towing. As with all FWD's you get the clutch out first *then* give it to her. On greasy roads you'll feel the front wheels scrable a bit for traction in 1st & 2nd gear (not really spinning as such as there is still lots of forward motion). On dry roads there is no wheelspin.

seeya,
Shane L.

Shane, you REALLY aren't trying hard enough, Wheelspins in 1st, 2nd, and on a wet road even 3rd are no problem at all if you like that kind of thing
I don't though, as I'm running expensive rubber, and I can't afford to keep replacing tyres like that
john s

 

[smiffy1071]

Any idea if that white CX is a "standard" turbo or whether they've hotted it up a bit further ?

But they can't match its style :headbang:

Regards,
Simon

If you look closely at the dash on the car in the video, there is no boost gauge on the rev counter (see picture) and it only has a 3 window LCD, so it ISN'T a turbo!!! It's just a CX25 GTi.
The other givaway, is the boot badge. Although it's not in focus, the badge isn't long enough to say CX 25 GTi TURBO.
john s