Conference terri::cars_uk

is anyone running one of these at the moment?


...Art.

I have a half share in an AX GT - its a lease car....

It goes like S*** of a shovel with only me in it - with passengers its not quite
so quick. Acceleration for overtaking at 40ish is excellent.

It holds the road well - a bit like the Mini used to be when I was a kid (I've
not been in a Mini for 15 years!).

It will cruise at 90 (5000RPM) with no problems but is a bit noisey by then 
- the loudest noise is from the roof aerial. Red line goes up to 7000 but
my nerve doesn't. Not bad from 1360cc and no injection or turbo. Less
than the 1400cc tax bracket too.


On the down side, because it is so light it does hop about a bit, esp in high
winds or when passing trucks on the motorway. Its also very tinny with rattles
from all 4 corners! 

At first I found it a bit of a squeeze (6'0" +size 11s) but now the seat springs
have soffened a bit I have no problems. Older models had the pedals offset
too far but mine and later ones are OK.

I'm in Newbury till the end of January, but will be in Deathpark after that if 
you want a try...

Jc

Mmmm...

Thanks, I would like to take a closer look at one (I'm @DEcpark), insurance is
half of that for a Renault 5 turbo, so if performance os close I might go for
an AX GT (and the car's quite cheap).

...Art.


p.s. insurance brokers dont like it when I say i'm 21
 

    
    I tried out a non-GT AX, but it was awful.
    
    It suffered from being unbelievably noisy and very flimsy (bounced
    everywhere!). The worst thing was the offset of the pedals which
    I would describe as dangerous (I locked it up trying to change gear!)
    rather than annoying, so go for a late one if you must have one.
    
    Performance is XR2-like rather than Renault 5 GT type, but if you
    don't expect it to be competitor to the 5 then you'll probably enjoy
    it. 
    
    Personally, I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole!
    
    Mark
    
    PS The looks are quite nice IMO.
    
    

I am wary of cars that bounce a lot (like my old Fiesta van!),
but the ads point out the 120 bhp/ton weight ratio,
hows that compare with the GT Turbo  ?


...Art.

    
    The AX GT is fun - light, surprisingly quick, with great roadholding
    for a FWD car. Its also a lot cheaper than the competition, and looks
    attractive. 
    
    The new model has an improved pedal layout (its still awkward if you're
    long in the leg), and uprated discs. The engine feels torquey, probably
    because the car's so light. As far as outright performance goes, there's
    very little between most cars of this ilk on the road (a 1.9 Gti will
    keep pace with a 911, and a AX GT will keep up with a R5GTT). I'd
    recommend the AX GT - spend the money you save on learning how to drive
    it properly, and you'll keep up with any sanely driven GTi.
    
    Bi||.

    > A 1.9 Gti will keep pace with a 911, and a AX GT will keep up with
    a R5GTT
    
    What are you talking about ????
    
    A 911 is surely a different sort of car than a AX GT, R5GTT, and Pug
    GTi.
    
    The question is surely whether a Pug can keep up with a R5GTT! ;-)
    
    Seriously though, if someone has a AX GT, I'd be curious to see what
    it's like. I must admit though from what people say, I'd prefer my
    Renault (If only I had it!!)
    
    Mark. 

            
    The 911 is far more expensive than the Pug, but on the road its
    not a lot quicker (the performance difference really tells when
    you're doing well over the legal limit).
    
    The same applies to the comparison between the R5 and the AX.
    The Renault is more expensive, and outright its quicker, but
    its unlikely to embarrass the AX driver on the road.
    
    Bi||.

re ,9,   
�   The same applies to the comparison between the R5 and the AX.
�   The Renault is more expensive, and outright its quicker, but
�   its unlikely to embarrass the AX driver on the road.
  


...and they dont  ;-)

    If you look at the "Car" magazine you will find that the 30-50mph time
    of the 1.9l Pug Gti is quicker than all but the top Porsche.
    
    Steven

    
    Really this should be in a seperate note, but the question of whether
    money spent on performance cars is well spent is interesting. On
    many roads there is very little to choose between a Porsche 911
    and  a Citroen AX (of any type let alone a GT!) according to Bill
    (unless he believes that there is a real difference between a Pug
    1.9 GTI and a 5 Turbo, which I doubt).
    
    Indeed, if you stick to speed limits there would be little to choose
    between a bog-standard hatchback and a Porsche 928 and  so it could
    be argued that the money is wasted on the Porsche (and it would
    buy many ordinary hatchbacks or even a nice small house!).
    
    However, many people like the idea of a performance car and have
    personal likes and dislikes.
    
    I have driven an XR2, which was great fun, but I would have found
    it very hard work to own and have to drive long distances. This
    and the fact that it isn't as fast as my Renault mean I enjoy my
    Renault more than I did the XR2.
    
    Given the same driver I suspect that the Renault would be considerably
    faster over any stretch of road than the AX GT, but as Bill points
    out a 'better' driver could probably drive the AX as fast (or faster)
    than a 'worse' driver in the 5 GT. (I put better and worse in quotes
    as there is some doubt in my mind that faster is neccesarily better).
    
    Mark
    

	I think it looks nice too, but all the reports say it's
	a bit tinny and noisy.

	Of course the mechanics, and probably quite a lot more
	is identical to the Peugeot 205 XS (3dr) and GT(5dr),
	which being a bit bigger is probably more stable and
	quieter. Still undergeared of course.

	-John

	In normal traffic situations the only real time saving
	merit of any high performance car is in it's ability to
	overtake.

	-John (My next car's likely to be a 1.3 ltr 205) Lincoln

	Last September I went along to the Citreon Ride and Drive day at
	RARDE near Egham. They had almost all versions of the AX and BX
	available for thrashing purposes.
	I was mostly interested in the more glamourous BXs, the 16V and GTi.
	But for all that I had a go in the AX GT, quite impressed, I was but
	with one caveat.....the AX is a town car, it is too small, too noisy, 
	and too uncomfortable to do stressfree longdistance or motorway driving.

	The XM however.......

Richard.

    Re: .11
    
>   If you look at the "Car" magazine you will find that the 30-50mph time
>   of the 1.9l Pug Gti is quicker than all but the top Porsche.
                         
    Depends on what gear you are talking about!
                         
    The R5GTt is rather slow for this time in 5th, but in 2nd or 3rd
    it is somewhat faster !!!!
      
    mb

    
    Re: .15
    
    I saw an XM on the motorway yesterday.
    
    They don't look nearly so good in the "flesh" as in the advertisments.
    
    Sort of, more "ordinary" really !

    Folks,
    
    There appears to be more mentions of 911s, XR2s, and 5GTts than
    of AX GTs. As the AX is on a long list of possible replacements
    for my Corsa, does anyone actually have any figures/specifications
    for the car?
    
    Sl�inte,
    
    Billy

    A friend of mine has one. 95bhp for something like 750 kg. Very
    lively acceleration, not to say wild. The two double carbs have
    been difficult to tune. He just had the car revised in Citro�n and
    they changed the electronic ignition too. But he loves the car.
    Consumption isn't very good. He had also a problem with the fifth
    gear. The gear box had to be repaired. 

    AX GT Bits'n'Pieces -
    
    List Price - �7682
    
    Standard Items - 5 Speed Gear box, electric front windows, manual
    sunroof, central locking, radio/cassette & Split/fold rear seats.
    
    Top Speed = 109 mph
    0-60      = 9.2 seconds
    Fuel Economy - Urban 37.2/56mph 57.6/75mph 42.8
    Insurance Group - 4
    Bhp - 85
    Engine Size - 1360
    
    (��)Munce.

    > Top Speed = 109 mph
    > 0-60      = 9.2 seconds

    Warm, rather than hot I'd say :^)
    
    I had a 1978 Cavalier with better figures than this, and it was
    a damned sight nicer on the motorway too (or even the A roads for
    that matter!).
    
    Mark 

I dunnow about the top speed, but 0-60 in 9.2 sounds a triffle slow. I thought
it was around 8.5 (but then, does that really make a difference on the road?).

Jc

    
    And whose figures can you trust anyway?
    
    I, too, thought most independent test puts the 0-60 in the mid 8s.
    
    Mark

    The figures came from What Car? and were the figures they got when they
    tested it, not the maufacturers.
    
    (��)Munce.

	Autocar & Motor say 9.0 secs. But lightweight FWD cars don't
	show at their best on 0-60, it's the intermediate acceleration
	that's probably good.

	-John

Well I got round to trying one on Saturday. Went out for a 30 minute drive thru
the crowded streets of Coventry, and on some 'A' roads...

Very good around town: able to get thru small gaps with ease,
however I didn't like the way the bonnet slopes out of sight (had to take extra 
care since the car wasn't mine).
Performance seemed quite good, first gear seemed too short, but that may have
been because the car had only covered 34 miles from new & I didn't venture
above 4000 rpm.
Brakes seemed a bit soggy & didn't inspire confidence.
Build quality... opening the hatch I could see the floor beneath the car thru
gaps in the base of the 'boot'.

mmmm...

...Art.

I think most of the power comes in at around 4000 RPM (from experience, not from
the book). Its a shame it has such a silly rev counter...

Jc

    I saw one in Basingstoke last weekend.  In real life I thought it
    looked more like a BX.
    
    
    Steven

    
    > I saw one in Basingstoke last weekend.  In real life I thought it
    > looked more like a BX.

    That had been in the middle of a multi-car pileup?
    
    Mark

    No, I hadn't touched it, honest Officer   ;^)

    Re: .24	
    
    What car's performance timing's are very dodgy indeed.
    
    Take for example Mk2 XR2.  What car = 9.5  Ford Performance = 8.3
    
    That is one hell of a big difference! That's the difference
    between a pug 1.6 and pug 1.9 (1.3 secs approx? - i think).
    
    Do be quite honest i've had 0-60 in 8.85 out of my xr2. Now i
    know the speedo is probably out, but it's still a difference
    considering the car is 5years old (with 2 people - the same
    way they test in What Car).
               
    When i was in the AX GT i found it more comfy than the xr2, but
    it needed to be. The way it took a corner was very scarey, and
    had me holding onto my seat! (I was the passenger!). Maybe it
    was the driver ? i don't know ! 
    
    Value wise it is a far better choice than the xr2(i), but i found
    the skirts a little flimsy and the overall finish too.
    
    Still a nice car though!

re ,31

�    The way it took a corner was very scarey, and
�    had me holding onto my seat! (I was the passenger!). Maybe it
�    was the driver ? 

I'm not sure about the passengers, but from behind the wheel it feels pretty
solid. You have to be treating it pretty badly before it does anything that
you might expect. Perhaps you needed a spare wheel to hold on to ;-)

Jc

    Re ;32
    
    Actually, i'm no light-hearted pensioner but, this car did not
    feel as safe as it could. The slight 'tilt' it gave could be
    vastley improved to give a better cornering feel.
    
    All i'm saying is that it didn't feel as safe as being 'thrown'
    around the corner in my xr2 (even when i am in the passenger 
    seat!)
    
    Also as i pointed out before the finish to the car is slightly
    dissapointing.
    
    Lewis.

    re .31:
    
>    What car's performance timing's are very dodgy indeed.
>
>    Take for example Mk2 XR2.  What car = 9.5  Ford Performance = 8.3
>
>    That is one hell of a big difference! That's the difference
>    between a pug 1.6 and pug 1.9 (1.3 secs approx? - i think).
    
    One possible explanation: The Ford people can afford to destroy a
    car trying to get the best possible time for their advertising glossys
    but What Car? must return the vehicle in one piece or pay for it.
    The Ford times were probably also done with only the driver and
    an almost empty tank.
    						John Gillings, Sydney CSC
                         

    AS -.1 say's manufacturing figures are obtained under the most arduous
    conditions. Generally they do a standing start somewhere around peak
    torque revs, slamming the clutch out with total disregard for it's
    life, and manage maybe one gear change at the most, with the engine
    reaching peaks it's unlikely to recover from.
    
    Anybody who claims similar figures in real life is actually being
    mislead by, a. adrenelin,
    		b. innaccurate speedo,
    		c. timing equipement not of the necessary calibre.
    		b. or else they drive as described, and shouldn't be let on
    the road.
    
    This having been said, as the test conditions are standard, the figure
    DO serve to positon each car against the rest.
    
    Richard

    Sorry if this is the wrong note...
    
    Citroen are facelifting the AX models. In addition, they will offer the
    AXGTi and AX 4x4.
    
    The AXGTi uses the 1360cc engine (100bhp) and has ABS as option. The
    4x4 uses the same engine, but not injected (75bhp).
    
    The interiors of all AXs have been improved (so it says) - seats and
    dash. The cars are available in France from June 21.

    Where did you get this info from, any pictures? (SWMBO has just swopped
    her aging Visa for a nearly new AX!).
    
    Richard

    Good points:
    
    - the AX uses PEUGEOT engines, gearboxes, ...
    - the AX is LIGHTER (fuel consumption, acceleration, braking distance)
      than the equivalent 205 by at least 100kg
    
    Bad points:
    
    - the AX is light

>>    <<< Note 199.38 by NCEIS1::CHEVAUX "Patrick Chevaux, Nice, 828-6995" >>>

>>    Good points:
    
>>    - the AX uses PEUGEOT engines, gearboxes, ...
    
    I'd dispute the source of the TU engines: Yes Citroen originally
    'nicked' all the PEUGEOT engines when they went water cooled (the Visa,
    then the BX). But the AX's came out first with the TU engines, PEUGEOT
    lagged a long way behind in picking up the TU's for the 205. 
    
    I'd be more inclined to say that the AX uses the same PSA group engines
    as the 205 now uses.
    
    Richard (being pedantic)

    .39�    I'd be more inclined to say that the AX uses the same PSA group engines
    .39�    as the 205 now uses.
    
    I agree. Only thing is that PSA engines come from the Peugeot side. All
    Citroen engines have disappeared : flat 2 (2CV, Dyane), flat 4 (GS), 
    straight 4 (DS, BX). The Visa engine is the Peugeot 104 engine, ....

>>    <<< Note 199.40 by NCEIS1::CHEVAUX "Patrick Chevaux, Nice, 828-6995" >>>
>>    straight 4 (DS, BX). 
    
    The BX uses the Peugot 104 engine (can't remeber it's designation) up
    to 1360cc above  that it's the XU engine a' la' 205/309/405 1.6/1.9's.
    It's not the same engine as the DS.
    
    >>			The Visa engine is the Peugeot 104 engine, ....
    That was carried over to the smaller 205/309's )as well as the Citoren
    LN, a re-badged 104) untill they 'migrated' to the TU.
    
    up to 1.4				1.6/1.9 and Diesel
    PUG 			CIT	PUG			CIT
    104-------->-->-------------LN	205--->------>----------VISA
     |				 |	 |			 |
    205				VISA	309			 |
     |				 |	 |			 |
    309				BX	405			BX
    			TU introduced	  \	(Diesel only)    /	 
    				 |   	   \----Rover 200/400---/  
    205--------<--<-------------AX
     |				 |
    309 (?)			BX
    
    Richard
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Richard

At least some of the Citroen LNs used the 2CV engines ... they are not really
a rebadged 104 (as I used to believe too), but a rebodied 2CV ...

>>  <<< Note 199.42 by AEOEN2::MATTHEWS "M+M Enterprises. Thats the CATCH 22" >>>

>>At least some of the Citroen LNs used the 2CV engines ... they are not really
>>a rebadged 104 (as I used to believe too), but a rebodied 2CV ...

    Have you got that right???
    
    I know the Visa model range came in two forms, one with the PUG water
    cooled engines (the one I had), t'other with the old citroen air cooled
    flat twins, but I never knew the LN's had them.
    
    Richard

    .41�>>    straight 4 (DS, BX). 
    
    Richard, this is a typo. I really meant DS, CX not BX. Fully agree with
    your views.
    
    Patrick

    .42�At least some of the Citroen LNs used the 2CV engines ... they are not really
    
    Yes, basic LN had the flat twin of the 2CV.
    
    For the Citroen freaks: I can't remember what engine was mounted in the
    AXEL. Anyone ?

Isn't the AXEL a rebodied VISA ???

There were two LN models ... the LN and the LNA. Perhaps the difference
is the engine ...

    <<< Note 199.45 by NCEIS1::CHEVAUX "Patrick Chevaux, Nice, 828-6995" >>>

    
>    For the Citroen freaks: I can't remember what engine was mounted in the
>    AXEL. Anyone ?

     AXEL - not a re-styled visa !

     AXEL TR  had GS 1100 engine 
     AXEL TRE had GS 1300 engine 
	
     Citroen design, made in Rumania 
   

can anyone tell me where the bonnet release catch is on an AX?

thanks,


...art

Not got a manual then ?

>>Not got a manual then ?

got one at home - need the engine number to order some parts - can't find
the bonnet release though :-(   - perhaps that's the part I need to buy! :-)

seriously though I just can't see anything resembling a bonnet release around
the dash/footwell area

suggestions welcome,

...short_sighted_art

    Have you tried the passenger side ?
    
    Most foreign cars I've had have the bonnet release underneath the glove
    box near the passenger door.
    
    Roy

    Under the steering column shroud - a la Ford ?
    
    Also, as in prev. reply, check left-hand side glovebox/shelf area,
    as it is often not positioned on r.h.s. for UK imports.
    
    J.R.

found it!

it was buried deep down the steering column - in amongst relays, wiring etc etc


...Art

    
    Anyone driven or drives NEW AX GTI with 1.4 litre fuel-injected engine?
    Any comments?
    
    
    Thanks
    
    Hannu

    WHen CAR magazine reviewed the AX GTi their prerference still came out
    in favour of the AX GT.
    
    From memory this was based on the facts that the GTi did not feel that much
    faster than the GT and the GTi was devoid of the GT's nimbleness in its
    handling due to the GTi's extra weight.
                       
    Reargards,
    
    Stephen

    
    re -1:
    
    thanks
    
    
    Hannu