Diravi

[Mandrake]

Hi,
As an owner of a CX I agree that the diravi system has advantages: cruising on the highway al well as driving in inner cities is very comfortable: turning at low speed is very easy and at high speeds the car is very stable. But: it also has a very important disadvantage. In the 70's and 80's a judgement of the safety on slippery and icy roads was part of road tests. These tests were conducted by a very famous race and rally driver, Rob Slotemaker, who also owned a anti-skidschool. He found that the CX was in fact a very dangerous car on slippery and icy roads. The diravi system prevents to turn the steering wheel back very quickly, and therefore it is very hard (or impossible) to get the car in control again. His judgement: he had never driven a car before who was so hard to handle! I hope I will never experience this myself...
Freek
GTI turbo2

Hmm, sounds like a load of nonsense to me.

How does the diravi system prevent turning the steering wheel quickly ??? If anything it is the opposite.

A number of times while driving a CX I've managed to swerve out of the way of a sudden object like a pedestrian or a car turning into a driveway that suddenly stopped, sticking part way out into the road, and the steering is so fast and responsive that I don't think I could have missed them with more conventional steering...

The only time the steering prevents you from turning it quickly is at very low speeds like while maneuvering into a park at near stationary speeds, due to the hydraulic pump not having quite enough output to keep up with the high geared steering ratio. (On a more conventional setup the lower ratio means you can't physically turn the wheel fast enough to do that...)

Sounds to me like he hasn't spent any time learning the feel of the CX steering beforehand, got straight in to try a few skid tests and got the fright of his life. Anyone driving a CX for the first time gets a fright with the steering and tends to over compensate, until they learn how to use it.

I wouldn't place too much faith in what one rally driver says, famous or not, there were a lot of CX's rallied in their day and they did extremely well winning many of the races...

Regards,
Simon

[freek]

I'm no rally driver, but I think the comment of Slotemaker do makes sense: when turning back the diravi is in control in stead of the driver. I doubt whether in all cases this is as fast as the hand of a driver when the surface is slippery...

[Peter.N.]

I had three CX safari's all diesel, the last, a turbo, had done 266k when I sold it, 150 k of which I had done! I didn't find it unreliable apart from the head gasket problem. I replaced the head twice and eventually took the engine out and had the block machined, 6 months and 15k later the gasket went again! I subsequently found that it was in fact a common problem due to the block material being pourous. It may have only been the turbo's that suffered this problem as I didn't have it with the non turbo's but then I didn't do as many miles in those. I would have liked a Turbo 2 but couldn't face that problem again. Having said that, at least the gasket was relativly easy to change, I could have done about six in the time it took me to do one XM.

Although not nearly such a nice car to drive, I like the XM on its own merits, about the most roomy and comfortable estate around and with an average fuel consumption of over 40 mpg, stretching to well over 50mpg on long motorway journeys, I dont think it can be bettered, but I dont drive fast and I live in a rural area and seldom make journeys of less than 10 miles

[fastandfurryous]

As far as I know it was actually only the Turbo 2 diesels that suffered from this problem, as they had engines made from low-grade recycled steel. The impurities in the casting would corrode out, causing all the problems you had.

Turbo 1 engines are not known for this problem (thankfully, as that's what I have) and if you have a Turbo 2 with a factory exchange engine, these are also better castings.

What I'd love to know is whether there were major modifications from the Turbo 1 engine to the Turbo 2, (as there were between the N/A diesels and the Turbo 1 models) as I would quite like to fit the intercooler from a T2 to up the output from my T1 engine from 95hp to 120hp (or possibly slightly more)

[andmcit]

I ran a 1978 2.2 [yes not a typo!] non turbo [obviously!! ] head as an emergency 'good get the car working' replacement on a 89 DTR T2 a few years ago and it worked fine. It fitted no problem with the only difference being the older bigger less efficient glow plugs.

IMHO the whole porous block thing is total rubbish. Someone at Citroen span a load of twaddle that became the general concensus without any further thinking involved. Huge jumping to conclusions if you ask me.

IF you sit ANY engine with water in it and cant it at an angle as per the CX block it stands to reason it WILL start eating away into the side of the 'deep end' of the bare metal bore!!!!

Funny mine never had porous block traces on the front shallow end's face!!

If there was a dodgy casting anywhere under the bonnet of a Cx it was the cylinder head - at a Cit rally once I saw 4 £150+ heads for sale and ALL but one had a crack starting between a cylinder's 2 valves [on the water pump end's No1 cylinder] which ran up into the water galleries...

BTW I bought the good one!!

As a matter of fact 2 replaced heads later I found the good'un mentioned and got the whole lot running like a swiss watch - and the block is THE ORIGINAL ONE as fitted way back in 1989 and IT'S STILL RUNNING NOW!!!!

I found what was tripping the head's to go popping was a dodgy water pump 'spacer' casting that was genuinely a different profile to the water pump's main body profile...this must have over time allowed air locks and water weeping on the head...

and I kept tranferring it across to the next head twice until I twigged...

Ok got that off my chest - so a NA head will accept the turbo gummins, so it follows the exhuast manifold fits the head therefore the turbo and it's pipework will fit a NA engine too.

The 'fiddle' with fitting a turbo onto the older block is the turbo's oil return to the crankcase into the sump - you'd have to drop the whole lot to get a crankcase which will have the return feed from the turbo, AND the high pressure oil feed off the engine's oil filter housing to the centre bearing shaft of the turbo.

It's not a 5 minute job, and I gave up when I decided not to machine a return pipe into the block or change it over after preparing EVERYTHING ELSE for a conversion.

Funny just then as I threw the towel in I found myself a 2.5 GEAR DRIVEN NA engine [complete with gear cogged pump] - got to be gold dust with 75k miles!!

My reckoning is, that if there's any still working out there they'll have gone through their growing pains and will have been thoroughly sorted by now. The turbo boost pressure will add a whole load of extra strain on the already high compression engine so it goes to follow that it'll be more fragile so expect some failures.

I got distracted by CX GTi petrol turbos which are unburstable and NEVER need any engine remedial work...

and never really looked back

If I listed every one at the end of every posting here we'd definately go through a few pages in the listings...

Andrew

[Peter.N.]

My gasket always went in the same place, between 1 and 2 cylinders at the narrow point and of course always across the water way, there was no sign of burning or even erosion, it just started leaking. It did this after I replaced the head for the second time and had the block machined. The first head did crack, serverely! but there were no cracks on the last one or in the block, and , yes, I did have the heads machined. Explantion? Incidentally, the second head I fitted was from a non turbo (of course) 2.2 and apart from some external fittings, was identical to the 2.5 turbo.

[tomsheppard]

The CX is a horribly flawed motor car with few redeeming features and should best be avoided. Trouble is, if you get caught, you get hooked on the rusty, ill-ventilated window shedding things. THis may also be seen as an attempt to depress market prices for purely selfish reasons!

[Stinkwheel]

Carry on depressing prices all you want Tom, In fact CX's are horrid, they should all be disposed of by their owners as soon as possible at knock down price

[andmcit]

That's right - I'm keeping as many turbos as I can get so others don't have to 'suffer'

That DIRAVI system is REALLY dodgy too - bit like apple macs, just can't see the point in em...

Andrew

[fastandfurryous]

the only difference being the older bigger less efficient glow plugs.

These older plugs are just lower current draw. They were commonplace on older diesel engines. They're actually better as being on for longer preheat the combustion chamber a tad more.

IMHO the whole porous block thing is total rubbish.

Well, it's been proven by a fair bit of metallurgy. Some of which I've seen. The inclusions in the casting are really bad and dissolve/corrode out fairly badly.

IF you sit ANY engine with water in it and cant it at an angle as per the CX block it stands to reason it WILL start eating away into the side of the 'deep end' of the bare metal bore!!!!

I do seriously doubt that the angle of the engine has anything to do with corrosion levels. After all, the water jacket is full all the time. Much more important is maintaining a decent quality of glycol in the coolant.

Ok got that off my chest - so a NA head will accept the turbo gummins, so it follows the exhuast manifold fits the head therefore the turbo and it's pipework will fit a NA engine too.

This is REALLY not a good idea. Having read the Citroen public release booklet about turbocharging the CX engine, the list of uprated components is extensive, and there are a fair number of modifications. Many people here will no doubt agree that bolting a turbo to a N/A XUD engine would be a fairly bad idea. The same is true of the U25/M25 series engines.

Thus far I've owned 4 of these engines (2 turbo, 2 non-turbo) and never had a problem to speak of. I actually think they're nicer engines to work on than an XUD, and I certainly prefer the power delivery.

Plus, I very much like the CX. It's a great car, with some really great design aspects.

Each to their own I guess.

[andmcit]

I do seriously doubt that the angle of the engine has anything to do with corrosion levels. After all, the water jacket is full all the time. Much more important is maintaining a decent quality of glycol in the coolant.

Maybe I didn't make the point totally transparently - the volume of the bore when filled with water like a mug of tea wont take kindly to water sitting in it - mind I realise that the metal wont rot quickly if submerged but it just needs time...

This is REALLY not a good idea. Having read the Citroen public release booklet about turbocharging the CX engine, the list of uprated components is extensive, and there are a fair number of modifications. Many people here will no doubt agree that bolting a turbo to a N/A XUD engine would be a fairly bad idea. The same is true of the U25/M25 series engines.

The point I was responding to queried if it would all fit together - which it does - didn't say it was a good idea or would be a perfect solution - that's why I stopped myself from doing it to a spare engine I had a couple of years ago!

Thus far I've owned 4 of these engines (2 turbo, 2 non-turbo) and never had a problem to speak of. I actually think they're nicer engines to work on than an XUD, and I certainly prefer the power delivery.

Totally agree - in fact 'progress' means big elastic bands for timing rather than the ORIGINAL Citroen 'brick outhouse' design/construction where cogs wont ever let go so comprehensively as a snapped band...

Plus, I very much like the CX. It's a great car, with some really great design aspects.

Each to their own I guess.

Don't think there's any contradictory opinions here!!

Andrew

[fastandfurryous]

Plus, I very much like the CX. It's a great car, with some really great design aspects.
Each to their own I guess.

Don't think there's any contradictory opinions here!!

Indeed.... That was more aimed at Mr Sheppard. I know he doesn't like CX's that much, which as it happens worked out rather well for me, as I was able to save and restore the CX he was going to scrap.


I think I may have mis-read some of your earlier post Andrew. I think this is mainly because a number of the people I often talk to ( not on here ) have just a little bit of understanding, but not enough to make any kind of sense*, and I am TERRIBLE at tarring people with the same brush... so, sorry!

* including the person who thought his Turbo petrol car ran at 32psi boost, which was 8psi per cylinder. I nearly cried

[andmcit]

Incidentally, I'm not knocking the Xm either - the Xm IS a damned good car in all it's shapes and sizes...

Just took me ages to forgive it for replacing the CX though!!

At the time I was driving a lhd 2.4 GTi in the fabulous Swordfish grey which REALLY suits the S1 lines and this 'thing' turned up all anlgles and panes of glass that a blind man designed [well, that's what I said at the time!!]

Can't explain why I've got LOADS of the buggers now though - it's charms have managed to thaw my hostility to it. I've managed to accept it as a good BIG citroen but still try not to see it as the Cx's replacement.

I'll still get more of a 'high' driving my GTi T2 than my 24v V6 any day...

Mind I'm looking forward to trying out the latest Activa I've just bought recently - just need to get round to sorting the brakes though...

Andrew

[DoubleChevron]

This is sheer lunicy... The fanstastic bit about daravi is if you 'lose' where 'center' is in snow & ice ....... You simply LET GO OF THE STEERING WHEEL. It'll center itself in the blink of an eye

seeya,
Shane L.

Hi,
As an owner of a CX I agree that the diravi system has advantages: cruising on the highway al well as driving in inner cities is very comfortable: turning at low speed is very easy and at high speeds the car is very stable. But: it also has a very important disadvantage. In the 70's and 80's a judgement of the safety on slippery and icy roads was part of road tests. These tests were conducted by a very famous race and rally driver, Rob Slotemaker, who also owned a anti-skidschool. He found that the CX was in fact a very dangerous car on slippery and icy roads. The diravi system prevents to turn the steering wheel back very quickly, and therefore it is very hard (or impossible) to get the car in control again. His judgement: he had never driven a car before who was so hard to handle! I hope I will never experience this myself...
Freek
GTI turbo2

[DoubleChevron]

Gee's,

can you guys send all your turbo deisels over to me ... I'll look after them for you

I've driven/owned CX's since I was 16years old and on my 'L'earner plates.

Tom Shepard is right ... In a lot of ways the Xantia VSX slugomatic is a much more usable car:

The CX has:

--bloody shocking ventilation.
--It's heater is slow, but works well
--It's BLOODY HOT, there is simply no other way to put it in summer
--The Series I cars door trims curled up & fell off the doors and the steering wheels melted in our sun. In the UK they rusted away before your eyes.
--The series II CX dash board curls up and breaks in our sun (much like the BX dashes). They didn't rust to badly in the UK.
--handbrakes a sh!t that needs constant adjustment
--It roasts you in summer


Did I mention there bloody hot in summer ?? I just drove 1000kms to Mildura & back in Australia. It's barely even spring (not summer yet) and it was 34degrees in the shade. In the sun it's BLOODY HOT. To drive a CX up there with a 15month old and my wife simply isn't an option, the baby would probably die of sunstroke and my wife would melt away to an oily smudge under the CX windscreen.

The Xantia however ... has usable air-con and was happy sitting on 110km/h with the air-con on in comfort. Note: It's air-con isn't *good* as such compared to local cars, but chalk & cheese to the CX.

So why is my everyday car a CX 2500 GTi Turbo, and we have:

--several '76 CX2200's
--a '78 CX2400 5spd
--'79 CX2400 C-matic with duel air
--'76 CX2200 deisel wagon
--'85 CX 2500 GTi Turbo Series II

The answer is simple, the modern cars drive like crap in comparison...

No:

--wishbone suspension
--daravi steering
--center point steering
--supremelly comfortable suspenion & seats

The Xantia seats are cr@p in comparison to the CX's, it steers very ordinarily, doesn't have the high speed stability, driving position isn't anywhere near as good, the ride is inferior, steering will follow cambers, it will tram track on some surfaces etc..........

ie: it's a bloody poogoe with hydraulics under it, not a *proper* Citroen as such.

seeya,
Shane L.