Naming convention of old diesels

VisaGTi16v · Post by **VisaGTi16v** » 24 Nov 2004, 21:39

Whilst discussing (read bickering) with my friend via email he was on about how my old Visa diesel was a 1.7
Now it was the 1769cc engine as fitted to the bx etc but why on the visa and bx was it badged as 17RD. Using the standard method of rounding off numbers, 1.750 or higher rounds up to 1.8 so therefore 1.769 rounds up to 1.8, why did citroen go the other way?

oilyspanner · Post by **oilyspanner** » 24 Nov 2004, 22:25

Playing it down, Pug and Rover call em 1.8s Citroen 1.7s
Stewart

TomH · Post by **TomH** » 24 Nov 2004, 22:46

something to do with differentiating the petrols and diesels in the showroom perhaps?

bxbodger · Post by **bxbodger** » 24 Nov 2004, 22:50

Maybe so the (uninformed) driver thinks "hmmm....this goes well for a 1.7....its just as quick as a 1.8 Pug, and that Rover .....must buy another of these Citroen things"

VisaGTi16v · Post by **VisaGTi16v** » 24 Nov 2004, 23:21

heh that would only work comparing with other diesels. My friends mk3 escort estate 1.1 petrol was as quick as my visa diesel! That car was great on the M4 though going from sussex to Bristol for uni, foot to the floor it would do 85-95 whole way, didnt need to think, in my zx it was far too easy to go madly over the limit. One trip I had a great 'race' with a 1.6 Orion diesel most of the way down the M4. He would go past me on the flat but every hill I went back past him. This continued for about an hour lol

JohnD · Post by **JohnD** » 25 Nov 2004, 00:39

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by VisaGTi16v

Whilst discussing (read bickering) with my friend via email he was on about how my old Visa diesel was a 1.7
Now it was the 1769cc engine as fitted to the bx etc but why on the visa and bx was it badged as 17RD. Using the standard method of rounding off numbers, 1.750 or higher rounds up to 1.8 so therefore 1.769 rounds up to 1.8, why did citroen go the other way?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Maybe because the smaller engine was XUD7??

reblack68 · Post by **reblack68** » 25 Nov 2004, 04:14

It's the only engine I've known to be rounded down. Audi's 2144cc 2.2 and Talbot's 928cc 1 Litre Sunbeam are two rounded up examples I can think of.
The Rover 218 was a 1905cc in non-turbo form and 1769cc in turbo. Did Pug ever include the engine size of the XUD in their model names?

paranoid · Post by **paranoid** » 25 Nov 2004, 12:39

Didn't bmw do something strange about five years ago?
the 318 was a 2 litre or something and the 320 was 2100cc summat like that anyway made for some strange logbooks

uhn113x · Post by **uhn113x** » 25 Nov 2004, 13:42

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by reblack68

It's the only engine I've known to be rounded down. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
DS21 is 2175cc [:)]

bxbodger · Post by **bxbodger** » 25 Nov 2004, 18:11

BL used to give different names to the same motor!!
The 1275 A series could be either 1275, as in the 1275GT mini, or a 1300, as in the Austin 1300 and its myriad variants.

TomH · Post by **TomH** » 25 Nov 2004, 18:44

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by paranoid

Didn't bmw do something strange about five years ago?
the 318 was a 2 litre or something and the 320 was 2100cc summat like that anyway made for some strange logbooks
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
they still do! the 316 compact went from 1.6 to 1.9, and a 323 is 2.5!

VisaGTi16v · Post by **VisaGTi16v** » 25 Nov 2004, 18:47

Hmm I can see I may as well just let him think what he wants as clearly all manufactures are incompetent at naming cars

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 25 Nov 2004, 22:43

Volvo's 2.0 in the S40 was 1948cc...

Stuart McB · Post by **Stuart McB** » 26 Nov 2004, 22:14

The BMW was the 316, it came with 1798cc engine. Had one great went like stink but threw a piston at 70mph on the way home from work. As for the diesel models being smaller in the shown room compared to the petrol equivelent. My dad told me (30years ago now) that this was to get around post war (2ww) taxes. After the war pertol was cheaper than derv so as to get the car industry back up and running. We didn't need lorries because of the yanks leaving us loads of petrol engine 5.5 and 10 ton trucks. Derv on the other hand was taxed quite heavly and so manufactures went for a smaller engine size by name not cc. So beating the jolly old tax man (hahahahah!!!). This seems to have stuck with the likes of Rover etc.

drpau · Post by **drpau** » 30 Nov 2004, 03:08

yeah, why did bmw do that? It was an obvious system they had before -325, is 2.5 litre etc. Why be awkward?
Also for the Rovers, 217 (1769) and 219 (1905) would have sounded a bit stupid I think.