dealing with rust - GSA lives!

Mandrake · Post by **Mandrake** » 18 Aug 2005, 02:20

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by basil40

that's it!! I can get that stuff. Cheers. I have a water leak going into the driver foot well, but it's probably due to either the underbody floor pan flange join or door seal. Are there any plugs directly under the foot well or just outboard near the dash panel which might be letting water in? Must have happened on all GSAs!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Basil:
Might pay to remove the drivers side front wing for inspection - on the GSA it comes of entirely with bolts, to reveal the box section chassis beneath. On my Dads car it eventually rusted a hole through from this box section to the inside sidewall just ahead of the door hinge point.
Also pull out the windscreen wiper cavity cover and have a good close look inside there. If there is a hole in there the water runs down the inside of the firewall past the brake pedal and under the carpet.
Also check the door seals as another poster suggested, they can also leak.
Edit: Just thinking more about it and I remember now where it was leaking - there is a cavity in the box section just in front of the front doors and on the inside of the car under the vinal there is a round hole with a plastic cover glued over the hole - much like the covers on the holes on the inside of the doors.
With age that cover can become detatched and rust holes in the outer box section (under the front wing) can allow water into that cavity in the box section and the only place for it to escape is through that glued on cover...causing it to weep out and down underneath the vinal into the footwell.
You might have to peel back the lining inside just in front of the door to see whether this is the case....the real cure is to fix the rust hole that is letting the water into the box section in the first place, as there is no drain hole there apart from leaking into the footwell [;)]
Regards,
Simon

basil40 · Post by **basil40** » 18 Aug 2005, 03:47

Ok will check it out tomorrow. I'm taking it into work - people ( engineers) have been really pestering me to have a look at it.They'll have a shock!

Mandrake · Post by **Mandrake** » 18 Aug 2005, 03:58

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by basil40

Ok will check it out tomorrow. I'm taking it into work - people ( engineers) have been really pestering me to have a look at it.They'll have a shock!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
A shock about what ? The rust ? The yucky colour ? or the fact that its a well engineered car ? [:D]
Regards,
Simon

Stinkwheel · Post by **Stinkwheel** » 18 Aug 2005, 04:07

I find technically minded people are fascinated with citroens when they actually look at them properly........
2CV GS/A CX etc they have captivated the technical minds i've shown them too. Couple of them actually went and bought a citroen.

Mandrake · Post by **Mandrake** » 18 Aug 2005, 04:18

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

I find technically minded people are fascinated with citroens when they actually look at them properly........
2CV GS/A CX etc they have captivated the technical minds i've shown them too. Couple of them actually went and bought a citroen.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes thats true I suppose. I am technically minded and like Citroen's primarily because of that.
If I had to choose the best points of the GS (from a technology point of view) I would choose in order:
1) Centre point steering with basically as close to perfect steering and suspension geometry as possible.
2) MASSIVE 2 piston inboard brakes at the front. The brakes being inboard allows room behind the wheel for perfect centre point steering, eliminates flexible brake hoses, and provides secure anchoring for the brakes that also prevents the brakes from "winding up" the suspension under braking, eliminating nose dive. (In conjunction with the anti-dive geometry)
3) The suspension in general, fitting hydropneumatic suspension to such a small car, and getting the mechanical design of it so perfect. Solid mechanical construction, perfect geometry etc, it really is a model of how suspension SHOULD be done.
I cant even think of another Citroen that got the mechanical design of the suspension quite as right, (let alone other cars) and all the later models have compromised in one way or another, especially McPherson struts [xx(]
4) Air cooled flat four. A bit small in CC's, a bit noisy, but what a nice motor when you get a good one....full of character.
Regards,
Simon

basil40 · Post by **basil40** » 18 Aug 2005, 04:58

Yes, I would agree wit hall that - the engineering aspects that is. The E type Jag was another one of those cars that broke the mould in terms of engineering for engineers. Driving this car around has been great fun and still no oil leaks!! The engine is great can hardly hear it when it's idling. Funny ticking noise coming out from behind dash - sounds like a pump. Goes when I rev the engine.

FrenchLeave · Post by **FrenchLeave** » 18 Aug 2005, 04:59

Inboard brakes may not "wind up" the suspension, but they do wind up the drive shafts. I believe the main reason for fitting them is to reduce unsprung weight, thereby improving ride comfort.

Mandrake · Post by **Mandrake** » 18 Aug 2005, 05:46

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

Inboard brakes may not "wind up" the suspension, but they do wind up the drive shafts. I believe the main reason for fitting them is to reduce unsprung weight, thereby improving ride comfort.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Better to "wind up" the driveshaft, than the suspension [:D] There are many reasons for inboard brakes, and low unsprung weight is definately one of them. But giving room for correct centre point steering is another.
I've never heard of any problems with the driveshafts giving trouble during braking - the triaxe joint on the gearbox in particular is very rugged and well designed. (And in itself is a small engineering miracle compared to what a lot of cars used at the time...I believe the GS was the first Citroen to use the "new" design of joint at the gearbox end, and most since then use the same basic design)
Regards,
Simon

basil40 · Post by **basil40** » 18 Aug 2005, 13:41

It drops out perfectly with the flat four engine that the powertrain can be aligned and balanced fairly easily. Baring in mind that we are dealing with rotation, there is a lot of scope for putting the drive shaft under abnormal loading when brakes come out of balance. You can't gaurantee symmetrical wear rates! Unsprung weight will help braking!

Mandrake · Post by **Mandrake** » 18 Aug 2005, 14:05

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by basil40

It drops out perfectly with the flat four engine that the powertrain can be aligned and balanced fairly easily. Baring in mind that we are dealing with rotation, there is a lot of scope for putting the drive shaft under abnormal loading when brakes come out of balance. You can't gaurantee symmetrical wear rates! Unsprung weight will help braking!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Don't know about other people, but I'm not entirely sure what you trying to say there. [:D] (Unless you just made several typos)
Regards,
Simon

basil40 · Post by **basil40** » 18 Aug 2005, 16:35

Well the Volvo 340 I think had brakes on the driveshaft, but no flat four. What I was trying to say, is that boxter engine allows the power train to be symmetrical ( i.e. drive shafts are the same length ) gear box is in car line. It's difficult to get that in modern cars today due to manufacturing requirements.

FrenchLeave · Post by **FrenchLeave** » 19 Aug 2005, 03:37

Mandrake, I was making a comment, not a criticism. You may suggest many different reasons for fitting inboard brakes but the MAIN repeat MAIN reason was always to reduce unsprung weight. That in turn has several advantages, amongst them increased comfort and improved roadholding.

Mandrake · Post by **Mandrake** » 19 Aug 2005, 03:45

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

Mandrake, I was making a comment, not a criticism. You may suggest many different reasons for fitting inboard brakes but the MAIN repeat MAIN reason was always to reduce unsprung weight. That in turn has several advantages, amongst them increased comfort and improved roadholding.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Hi,
I didn't take your comments as a criticism at all, I'm glad you pointed out low unsprung weight, as I had forgotten about that.
On the other hand, we don't really know what the MAIN reason for that design choice might have been in the minds of the engineers that designed the GS, unless we asked them...
I suspect it was partly a holdover from the design of the DS, which also had inboard brakes, and when they came to design the GS and decided on the flat four engine, which made inboard brake possible, they decided there would be no reason not to do it, and MANY advantages to doing so.
Perhaps there was no one overriding reason (in their eyes) and just a lot of positives that suited the way they were going with the overall design of the car...
Regards,
Simon

FrenchLeave · Post by **FrenchLeave** » 19 Aug 2005, 04:24

Hi Simon,
Sounds good.
Regards,
Derek

basil40 · Post by **basil40** » 22 Aug 2005, 02:24

First failure to report. Winding near side pass window down being a hot day - door lock fails! can't lock door! I guess I'll ave to readjust the closure bits and bobs. Anybody had this problem befoe. Window wouldn't wind back up - bit of pressure - widow winds up but door won't lock!
Just did an oil and filter change - the engine is definately running better. Had a look at the old waxoyl today at halfords ( yes anything with Ford in it is bound to be half cocked) but the prices seemed ok to me for the spray on stuff.