C20NE V's X20SE

[Trugga]

Is there much difference in performance ?

I've been driving the earlier C20NE for the past 4 years, bringing it up to around 130k miles. This engine revs freely, pulls well, although is a little lumpy on tickover (I don't beleive the engine has been tinkered with).

This weekend (in my search for a replacement car) I've driven two X20SE's both with about 70k miles - they both seemed a little slow off the mark, a little hesitant perhaps.

The one car was a shed, the other almost a minter. Both had heavy steering too.

So, is the later engine slower (perceived power) than the earlier one or does mileage really make a difference. Also, mine has no rear seats and a rag back, but a bit more steel bolted to it - does the weight difference really make that much of a difference ?

It would be interesting to hear other's comments on going from an early to a later 2.0 Sport.

Lawrence

[jellybaby]

my j reg was the earlier engine i believe and although the body work was questionable the mechanics were in good order always found it had plenty of go in in, kept up with motorway speeds fine on the pull off even on hills. i must admit i would happily have another one

[JEOH]

Hi Lawrence,

our late 1995 reg seems to be a X20SE, but as I learned later its only the head, the rest is C20NE. I am happy as long it works.

Maybe this is the answer: MIX IT!


Although during the last vacation with Marion and two (heavy) buddies in the car I thought the engine would die uphill, not well going in second gear - but that hill was very steep! That time I wished to have a 2.8 Diesel...

[ghosthunter]

C20ne every time.......fantastic engine which will go on forever if looked after. I had the same engine in a Carlton estate........took me to hell and back......never missed a beat in over 90,000 miles I did in it.....it had over 85000 miles on it when I got it,and was still going strong when it was written off by some nob in a transit. A mate had the x20se in his fronts and he agreed it wasn't as good....it just didn't feel as strong as the earlier engine.
Given the choice I would have the c20ne.

[Dannyboy]

Well ive had both over the past few months and in my opinion the x20 was abit quicker and a bit nicer drive on the road also alot better interior wise and marginally better mpg, but ive found the c20 to be better off-road, and easier to work on? Might just be me but i prefer the leafer personally.

[jontera]

my x20 (both engines) does seem a little slow off the lights first thing, but once it's warmed up there doesn't seem to be that hesitence about it. I have found that on colder mornings it will feel like it's still asleep for the firts 5mins. Once the oil has started flowing through the top end it seems more "awake".. and yes the steering is heavy, but you get used to it. and it will like to tramline (replacing the idler sorted this out for me)
I may have my wires crossed here..is the c20 a dizzy ignition? because the x20 is electronic...this may also be one of the reasons why it appears to but lazy of the line..from past experience, timing is literally everything. along with the regular maintenance..
Mine will generally run at motorway speeds quite happily..but will get quite warm, quite quick..
Space wise, for working from a visual perspective there doesn't seem to be much between the two.

really it's same block with different head..both very good engines, just a little under powered for the weight of a fronty..along with being one gear short to make motorway driving more economical..

[4x4 bobby]

Chrissy has the X20 and i have the C20 not much in the driving but to work on give me the C20 any day!