Citroen ZX

Generations: why generation is not the fork

There is no second generation in this data, so “which generation changed what” does not apply as a buy-or-skip split. All 12 versions sit inside 1 generation (1991–1998), Estate 5-door. Restyling is not listed as a separate generation. What changes is engine, gearbox and a few chassis labels, not body type or drive: FWD on every row.

There is no second generation in this data, so “which generation changed what” does not apply as a buy-or-skip split. All 12 versions sit inside 1 generation (1991–1998), Estate 5-door. Restyling is not listed as a separate generation. What changes is engine, gearbox and a few chassis labels, not body type or drive: FWD on every row.

The field `modifikaciy` in the source is 30, but 12 version records are present in the launch data used here. This article compares those 12 only.

Engines and specs: the 12 versions side by side

All engines in the data are 4 cylinders, Inline. Boost is No except 1.9 MT 90 hp (Turbo). Drive is FWD. Use the exact names as link anchors; identical names are split by power.

Engine location is Front, transverse on 1.4 MT and 1.6 MT; it is not measured on the other ten. Injection is Distributed injection (multi-point) on the gasoline versions except 1.1 MT, which is Central injection (single-point or single- point). Injection is not measured on the four Diesel versions. Compression is not measured on 1.1 MT; bore × stroke is not measured on 1.1 MT.

Specific output (hp per litre of displacement):

• 1.9 MT 120 hp: 120 / 1.905 = 63.0 hp/l (highest)
• 1.8 MT 110 hp: 110 / 1.762 = 62.4 hp/l
• 1.8 AT 101 hp and 1.8 MT 101 hp: 101 / 1.762 = 57.3 hp/l
• 1.6 MT and 1.6 AT: 88 / 1.580 = 55.7 hp/l
• 1.4 MT: 75 / 1.360 = 55.1 hp/l
• 1.9 MT 90 hp Turbo Diesel: 90 / 1.905 = 47.2 hp/l
• 1.1 MT: 48 / 1.124 = 42.7 hp/l
• 1.9 MT 68 hp: 68 / 1.905 = 35.7 hp/l
• 1.8 MT 60 hp Diesel: 60 / 1.768 = 33.9 hp/l
• 1.9 MT 64 hp: 64 / 1.905 = 33.6 hp/l (lowest)

The 1.8 MT 110 hp is the only 4 valves-per-cylinder engine and the only 98 fuel gasoline. Versus 1.8 MT 101 hp it adds 9 hp and 2 Nm, raises compression from 9.3 to 10.4, and moves peak torque from 3000 to 4250 rpm. Versus 1.8 AT it is the same 1762 cc family but Manual 5 instead of Automatic 4.

The four 1.9 MT rows share 1905 cc and 83 × 88 bore × stroke, but they are not one engine in output: 64 vs 68 vs 90 vs 120 hp is a 56 hp spread (120 − 64). The 90 hp row is the only Turbo and the only version with 196 Nm — 76 Nm more than the 64/68 hp Diesels (120 Nm) and 43 Nm more than the 120 hp Gasoline (153 Nm).

Performance and economy (mpg): what the extra power actually buys

Measured 0–100 km/h and top speed:

Arithmetic on the measured pair 1.8 MT 101 hp vs 1.8 AT 101 hp (same 101 hp, 153 Nm, 1762 cc, Gasoline, 95): the Manual is 3.9 s quicker to 100 (11.3 vs 15.2) and 13 km/h faster at the top (188 vs 175). Automatic 4 costs almost four seconds versus Manual 5 at the same power.

1.6 MT vs 1.6 AT (same 88 hp, 130 Nm, 1580 cc): Manual is 2.9 s quicker (13.8 vs 16.7) and 1 km/h faster (172 vs 171). The Automatic penalty is smaller in speed than on the 1.8, but still large in 0–100.

1.8 MT 101 hp vs 1.6 MT: +13 hp, 2.5 s quicker (11.3 vs 13.8), +16 km/h (188 vs 172).

1.6 MT vs 1.4 MT: +13 hp, 2.0 s quicker (13.8 vs 15.8), +7 km/h (172 vs 165).

1.4 MT vs 1.1 MT: +27 hp, 1.0 s quicker (15.8 vs 16.8), +4 km/h (165 vs 161). The jump from 1.1 to 1.4 buys less acceleration than the jump from 1.4 to 1.6.

1.9 MT 120 hp vs 1.8 MT 101 hp: +19 hp, but 0–100 is 1.0 s slower (12.3 vs 11.3) while top speed is 12 km/h higher (200 vs 188). Extra peak power here buys the catalogue’s highest speed, not the shortest sprint.

1.9 MT 90 hp Turbo Diesel vs 1.9 MT 68 hp Diesel: +22 hp, +76 Nm, 5.9 s quicker (12.8 vs 18.7), +22 km/h (177 vs 155). That is the largest measured 0–100 gap between two named 1.9 MT Diesels.

1.9 MT 90 hp vs 1.8 MT 101 hp: the Turbo Diesel is 1.5 s slower to 100 (12.8 vs 11.3) and 11 km/h slower on top (177 vs 188), but it has 43 Nm more torque (196 vs 153) at a lower rpm (2250 vs 3000).

Fuel use (l/100 km) is measured on three versions only; the other nine are not measured for city, highway and combined. CO2 is not measured on all 12. Eco class is not measured on all 12.

• 1.1 MT: city 7.8, highway 5.1, combined 6.8
• 1.6 AT: city 9.8, highway 6, combined 7.8
• 1.9 MT 120 hp: city 11.1, highway 6.2, combined 8.2

1.6 AT combined is 1.0 l/100 km above 1.1 MT (7.8 − 6.8). 1.9 MT 120 hp combined is 1.4 l/100 km above 1.1 MT (8.2 − 6.8) and 0.4 above 1.6 AT. City spread: 1.9 MT 120 hp uses 3.3 l/100 km more than 1.1 MT (11.1 − 7.8). Highway spread is only 1.1 (6.2 − 5.1). You cannot rank Diesel mpg from this file: 1.8 MT 60 hp, 1.9 MT 64 hp, 1.9 MT 68 hp and 1.9 MT 90 hp all have consumption not measured.

Dimensions and weight: kg per horsepower

Wheel size is not measured on all 12. Ground clearance is 110 mm on all 12. Tank is 52 l on all 12. Front suspension is Independent, spring on all 12. Rear suspension is Independent, spring where measured; it is not measured on 1.8 MT 60 hp and 1.9 MT 64 hp. Front brakes are Disc on the first eight rows in the source order and Ventilated disc on 1.1 MT, 1.6 AT, 1.8 MT 101 hp and 1.9 MT 120 hp. Rear brakes are Drum where measured; not measured on 1.8 MT 60 hp and 1.9 MT 64 hp.

Lowest kg/hp among measured kerb weights: 1.9 MT 120 hp at 9.58 kg/hp. Next: 1.8 MT 101 hp at 9.98 kg/hp (0.40 kg/hp heavier per hp, but 142 kg lighter in kerb: 1150 − 1008). That is why 1.8 MT 101 hp beats 1.9 MT 120 hp to 100 km/h despite 19 hp less.

1.1 MT is 215 kg lighter than 1.9 MT 90/120 hp (1150 − 935) but 19.48 kg/hp — the worst measured load per horsepower — which matches the 16.8 s 0–100.

1.8 AT kerb 1090 kg vs 1.8 MT 101 hp 1008 kg: Automatic adds 82 kg at the same 101 hp. 1.6 MT is 50 kg heavier than 1.4 MT (1070 − 1020) for 13 hp.

Gross weight peaks at 1665 kg on 1.9 MT 90 hp. Payload on measured pairs is 470–542 kg; 1.9 MT 120 hp has the smallest measured payload (470 kg).

Which version to choose

There is no generation fork. Choose by job, using the numbers above.

If the job is the shortest 0–100: take 1.8 MT 101 hp. It is the only version under 12 s (11.3 s), kerb 1008 kg, 9.98 kg/hp, top speed 188 km/h. Fuel for this row is not measured. Do not confuse it with 1.8 MT 110 hp (0–100 not measured) or 1.8 MT 60 hp Diesel (0–100 not measured).

If the job is the highest top speed: take 1.9 MT 120 hp Gasoline (200 km/h), 63.0 hp/l, 9.58 kg/hp. Combined consumption 8.2 l/100 km is the highest among the three measured mpg rows. 0–100 is 12.3 s, 1.0 s behind 1.8 MT 101 hp.

If the job is torque at low rpm without Gasoline: take 1.9 MT 90 hp (Turbo, 196 Nm @ 2250, 12.8 s, 177 km/h). Versus 1.9 MT 68 hp it is 5.9 s and 22 km/h better. Versus 1.9 MT 64 hp the 0–100 of the 64 hp row is not measured, so you cannot score that pair on sprint; you can only score power: +26 hp and +76 Nm. Consumption on the 90 hp row is not measured.

If the job is Automatic: only two exist. 1.8 AT 101 hp (15.2 s, 175 km/h, kerb 1090 kg) is 1.5 s quicker and 4 km/h faster than 1.6 AT 88 hp (16.7 s, 171 km/h). 1.6 AT is the Automatic with measured mpg (combined 7.8). 1.8 AT mpg is not measured. Versus their Manual twins, 1.8 AT gives up 3.9 s and 13 km/h to 1.8 MT 101 hp; 1.6 AT gives up 2.9 s and 1 km/h to 1.6 MT.

If the job is the lightest Estate 5-door: 1.1 MT at 935 kg, 48 hp, 16.8 s, 161 km/h, combined 6.8 l/100 km — the only small-engine row with a full mpg set. It is 27 hp and 1.0 s behind 1.4 MT, and 40 hp and 5.5 s behind 1.8 MT 101 hp (16.8 − 11.3).

If the job is a mid Gasoline Manual without stretching to 1.8: 1.6 MT (88 hp, 13.8 s, 172 km/h, 12.16 kg/hp). It is 2.0 s quicker than 1.4 MT and 2.5 s slower than 1.8 MT 101 hp. Mpg for 1.6 MT is not measured (unlike 1.6 AT).

If the job is 1.4 as a step up from 1.1: 1.4 MT (75 hp, 15.8 s, 165 km/h, 1020 kg). You pay 85 kg kerb (1020 − 935) for 27 hp. Mpg not measured.

If the job is the 110 hp Gasoline: 1.8 MT 110 hp is the peak Gasoline power in the 1762 cc group and the only 4 valves/cyl and 98 fuel row. 0–100, top speed, kerb and mpg are all not measured, so you cannot prove it is quicker than 1.8 MT 101 hp from this file. On paper it is +9 hp and +2 Nm at a higher compression (10.4 vs 9.3).

If the job is a naturally aspirated Diesel and you will not take Turbo: three names collide. 1.9 MT 68 hp is the only one of that trio with measured performance (18.7 s, 155 km/h, 1090 kg, 16.03 kg/hp) — the slowest measured ZX here. 1.9 MT 64 hp is 4 hp less with 0–100 not measured. 1.8 MT 60 hp is 8 hp below the 68 hp 1.9, 1768 cc vs 1905 cc, 110 Nm vs 120 Nm, 0–100 not measured. None of the three has measured mpg. They are the low-power Diesel cluster; they are not the 90 hp Turbo.

Problems and reliability. This dataset has no failure rates, service intervals or owner-fault lists. What you can say without leaving the numbers: several buy-critical rows leave 0–100, speed, weight or mpg not measured (1.8 MT 110 hp, 1.8 MT 60 hp, 1.9 MT 64 hp; mpg missing on nine of twelve). Choosing those versions is choosing incomplete catalogue evidence, not a hidden extra.

Short map. Fastest sprint: 1.8 MT 101 hp. Fastest top speed: 1.9 MT 120 hp. Most torque: 1.9 MT 90 hp Turbo. Lightest / only small engine with mpg: 1.1 MT. Automatic with mpg: 1.6 AT. Automatic with more power: 1.8 AT. Mid Manual Gasoline: 1.6 MT. 1.4 step: 1.4 MT. Peak 1.8 Gasoline on paper: 1.8 MT 110 hp, with performance not measured. Slowest measured Diesel: 1.9 MT 68 hp. Same-name Diesels 1.9 MT 64 hp and 1.8 MT 60 hp: power known, sprint not measured. One generation, twelve versions, FWD, Estate 5-door, 1991–1998.