• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New Nissan Xtrail

Jim_374334401

Jim_374334401

Just wondered if anyone has towed with the new style Nissan Xtrail. It a great looking car but I am a little put odd by the 1.6 Diesel engine as I tow a 1500kg Coachman which I may change for something slightly heavier soon. Does it have the necessary power to cope with European touring over mountain passes et al

Jim
 
Went to look at one too,the 2.2 ctdi is still available which i think is more than acceptible.Regarding the 1.6ctdi i expect it will still do the job but without doubt at a reduced speed.Sometimes though this is not an issue as road conditions privail.All though smart not for me.
 
The 1.6 only kicks out 129 bhp which is around 50 bhp less than the 2.0 , obviously towing is not their priority?
As for bargains Volvo are knocking out the outgoing XC90 for over £10k off list price?
Problem with these deals it knocks second hand values on the cars already out in the field?
 
In real world conditions though the smaller engined variant probably wont make a big differance in terms of getting to the destination.I would bet over a day it may add 5 minutes max to a journey time.Its not that long ago 130hp was seen as a bench mark.Speed limits havint risen,so should be adaquate.I have my own reasons why i wouldnt choose one.
 
Agreed but i was thinking more along the lines of the engine having to work harder up and down the gears on hills and inclines etc which will increase fuel economy
 
MichaelE said:
Agreed but i was thinking more along the lines of the engine having to work harder up and down the gears on hills and inclines etc which will increase fuel economy
Click to expand...

I agree with the philosophy. I've downsized from a Vauxhall 1.9 cdti 150PS engine to a 1.7 cdti 130PS, engine pulling the same caravan. The fuel consumption has dropped from 35 mpg to 28 mpg. 🙁 I hope it might increase when the engine has done a few more miles to loosen up (only 4,000 so far).

PS Occasionally now have to drop down to 5th gear going up a long motorway incline when previously I could stay in 6th gear with the 150PS engine.
 
And again agreed.One of my main concerns is the physical size of the engine.The internals are to scale also meaning alot smaller,flywheels,clutchs more or less everything.I see it all the time,tiny little 9 litre engines were once a 14 litre engine was.Operating at 100% load factors,if there not worn out in 3 years,their p.ssin. oil out everywere due to the extreme heat generated.Give it another 3 years we will have 1.3 diesels knocking out 150hp.
 
these are the same old questions that would have been discussed down the pub pre the internet..and it sorted itself out eventually. i mean i am still in awe that my more modern Fiats post 2000 don't leak oil like my twin cams did and the diesels clutches seem to last 100k my clutches of old didn't ..modern technology brings new problems but it balances itself out, eventually...still think some car manufacturers tend to pursue too high a torque figure which causes more wear problems than the max bhp figures do... and again i see we are looking merely at bhp figures without taking note of the torque figures for a units pulling power? example the 1.9 150bhp vauhall being compared to the 1.7 130bhp vauxall mpg? not checked but dare say the 1.9 has a good advantage in the torque department, and when towing this will play a far bigger part in pulling power and mpg than the 20bhp difference...
 
Not sure what you are trying to say?
"and again i see we are looking merely at bhp figures without taking note of the torque figures for a units pulling power? example the 1.9 150bhp vauhall being compared to the 1.7 130bhp vauxall mpg? not checked but dare say the 1.9 has a good advantage in the torque department
Isnt that what we are saying that the smaller engine has to work harder?
I certainly looked into what torque the 1.6 Nissan produced and indeed it is lower compared to the 2lt
Sorry that should be 2lt (typo)148 or 171 bhp
 
Whats this 2.2 diesel mentioned?

The Xtrail hasn't had a 2.2 engine since the T31 came out around 2007/8.
It was then replaced with a 2L Renault engine.

There's only one engine available in the T32 at present a 1.6 diesel.
It has more max torque than the old 2.2 which had around 231 pound feet, and 134bhp in later versions of the T30, and weighed 1650kg.

It was more than enough to tow my 1333kg caravan.
 
People need to forget about max torque or quoted torque.Its were the torque is that matters to caravanners.Look at mercs c250cdi.Badged engineered to mimick a 2.5litre diesel,really a 2.1 two stage turbocharged set up.Brillant max torque figures as good as a 3litre vag but no competion,and sadly for all of 200rpm if i remember rightly.My car can develope up to 380lbsft of torque,which is fine.Except the gearing destroys all thats gained,looking at fiats latest 500l with a 1.6 120hp multijet which developes 240lbsft of torque it actually matches mine in the torque department for the given 60mph road speed due to the over gearing of my car.Actually getting the quoted hp and torque figures out of an engine is just not that easy.The engine speed and load factor have to be balanced to perfection,without correct load an engine wont produce anywere near the quoted figures and thats using a water braked dyno.Figures are pie in the sky.
 
hi seth... good stuff i get your drift but they are the only figures that are easily available to people to compare stuff...
could not find a Fiat 500 1.6 120 bhp multi jet but do have the figures for the 120bhp fitted to the bravo and the 105 bhp fitted to the 500. max torque is quoted in both cases at around 236 f/tIb.. ,,,,,,now the little Fiat 500 has a top gear of 33mph/1000 rpm! it has 185nm at 1000 rpm topping out at 300nm at 1600 rpm....your car standard has 40 mph per 1000 rpm in top gear......200nm at 1000 rpm 350nm at 1500rpm .... 400nm between 1950 and 2150rpm.. so your car even in standard form has more torque for a given rpm and at 60 mph also has more torque available to it [1500 rpm] i would say both Fiats look a tad overly geared but its a fashion most follow...
as for the merc, i found a 2012 c250cdi 7 g tronic.. you mention something about max torque of only 200 odd rpm? bit misleading really as it give the impression of being an all or nothing set up from the 1990s even though it has a top gear of 41mph per 1000rpm.. It has 325nm at 1000 rpm . it has a massive 480!nm available from 1500 rpm and peaks at around 500nm for like you say about 200rpm from 2000rpm..but 480nm is there from 1500 rpm
 
Hi Jonny please look at the lastest 500 L,as for mine if it decides going into 6th at 60mph its turning over 1250rpm.Quite simple it makes no power at all at that speed that is why i run at 65mph most of the time.So as i said the 1.6 due to the gearing could be as effective.
 
Ok Jonny getting back to what i originally posted about badge engineering.The mercedes does look very impressive,but lets look closer.
Ive just looked at both engines torque curves i mentioned.Here goes.

mercedes c250cdi-
1200 rpm -350nm
1500 rpm -450nm
18-1900rpm -500nm
1900rpm and after drops like a brick.

audi 3.0litre v6.
1500rpm -500nm
15-3000rpm -500nm

thats the difference,get my point.
 
In your example are you saying that a c250 (2.1) isnt as good as a v6 3lt?
Doesn't seen a fair comparison? The Merc 350 620 Nm and delivers it over a broader rpm range?
Isnt Torque that gets you moving? The more it makes lower the better for towing?
 
Exactly what im saying.The point i was trying to make as in the earlier post is masses of torque is great but were it happens and for how long is more relevent.The mercedes is brillant,its aim is to punch far above its weight,following the trend and to a point it does,but when things are looked at in depth it doesnt and that was my point.
 
Ok i just wondered why you were using the VAG 3.0 as a comparison when the merc engine is trying to complete with the VAG 2.0 versions
 
seth1 said:
Exactly what im saying.The point i was trying to make as in the earlier post is masses of torque is great but were it happens and for how long is more relevent.The mercedes is brillant,its aim is to punch far above its weight,following the trend and to a point it does,but when things are looked at in depth it doesnt and that was my point.
Click to expand...

True.
But that merc will rarely need to be above 2K revs towing, so the torque available is really very good.

I really don't see the point in comparing it to a larger capacity engine. But agree studying the torque curve is worth while.
A lot of new cars are now twin turbo simply to provide good lowdown torque enable higher gearing and lower emissions.

Still the torque is only part of what makes a good towcar, power to weight is another aspect, along with others. And you can't ignore BHP.

My son in law drives a new merk ever 3 months, he will straight away say he prefers the larger engine, its quicker quieter , and he doesn't pay for the fuel.
 
I used these two examples because they are common and purely to show the results of a smaller engine hence the original post.
But getting back to my example,both are producing 500nm,in real terms of today nothing out of the ordanary.Were at a point today if you put two turbochargers and add common rail to a 2 litre diesel you will have the capability to produce 200hp.Fiat and Bmw proved it over five years ago. To a common buyer both deliever the goods,same torque,very near same hp but perform totally different.No amount of turbochargers will make up for size in the real world and do very little for reliabilty.
 
i think we can go to the extremes and forget what is more than adiquent for the job needed.. most modern turbo diesels of sub 2 litre can and do perform a fine job power wise where towing is concerned i think we went a little off track and again using the merc 2.1l as an example 480nm of torque is more than enough to pull almost any size of van. i say 480 nm of torque rather than the 500 it has for a mere few hundred revs because it has 480nm available for almost 800rpm.and if the quoted max torque was written as 480 nm from 1500rpm to almost 2250rpm it would be considered excellent figures in its own right and from that rpm it then has decent bhp too..to compliment its torque..unlike say fiats of old that had no torque to mention at 1000 rpm or indeed 1500rpm and then came in with a bang for a mere 200 rpm these modern diesels have excellent torque from 1000 rpm upwards.so its hardly going to strugle to tow large vans,A 3.0l capacity engine has 1000cc more capacity and therefore can be tuned more lazily if need be. and ok the gearing on some modern cars is all about m/way driving and low revs so the higher gearing might not be suited to towing as good as it could be. but then use a lower gear, i mean i had several galaxies/alambra with the 1.9 Pd engine and six gears i used 5th mainly for towing at 50/55 mph,no biggy as 5th gear on my galaxies 6 speed box was identical to the top gear [5th] on the older non pd range of galaxies and alambra's. .
 
I agree with all you say.
The higher gearing is a "problem" with a six gear box, which is why I really would like a 8 or 9 speed, but that would mean an auto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Back
Top