I'm thinking of checking, and re-torquing if necessary, my head bolts and would be interested in experienced advice and comments as I hope to install a nos system adding appx 50bhp (for now).
Is it a wise thing to do or I am I risking anything or stretching the bolts that have covered 122K? Do I need any new gaskets or parts.
Additionally, what's a leak-down test, exactly? I guess a normal compression tester won't do for this?
Thanks, Mike
Head re-torqued
Moderator: RichardW
Dont do it. to do it properly you have to slacken the head bolts off first which could damage the gasket.
When you did the gasket a simple bit of extra torque should be enough, i've over torqued enough bolts to be able to know the 'feel' of when a bolt just stops.
A leak down test is similar to a compression check, it involves pushing compressed air into the cylinder and to how good the rings cope under pressure and if the valves are also seated correctly. It's time consuming and i wouldnt bother unless you have any reason to beleive you have a problem.
When you did the gasket a simple bit of extra torque should be enough, i've over torqued enough bolts to be able to know the 'feel' of when a bolt just stops.
A leak down test is similar to a compression check, it involves pushing compressed air into the cylinder and to how good the rings cope under pressure and if the valves are also seated correctly. It's time consuming and i wouldnt bother unless you have any reason to beleive you have a problem.
2003 Ford Mondeo ST220
2002 Ford Fiesta Zetec S
2001 Ford Puma 1.7 VCT
2008 Ford Transit Mk7
http://www.facebook.com/kidmans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2002 Ford Fiesta Zetec S
2001 Ford Puma 1.7 VCT
2008 Ford Transit Mk7
http://www.facebook.com/kidmans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Headbolts are never re-torqued on modern engines.
If you still try it - you may end up with a leaking HG - or snapped headbolts.
Application of NOS will push any engine to its outer limits. Thats the cost of toying around with standard engines. But it defo is a lot fun as long as it lasts ...
If you still try it - you may end up with a leaking HG - or snapped headbolts.
Application of NOS will push any engine to its outer limits. Thats the cost of toying around with standard engines. But it defo is a lot fun as long as it lasts ...
Anders (DK) - '90 BX16Image
NOz in a diesel car? Hmmm... would that work?
You need a very healthy engine before you can put NOz in it! And as Anders said, they push the engine to it's limits. Do it for fun if you like and see how it all goes, every man is a kid when they play with cars, plus it's educational.
I'm sure you will not us the car you use to get to/from work!
Good luck. 8)
You need a very healthy engine before you can put NOz in it! And as Anders said, they push the engine to it's limits. Do it for fun if you like and see how it all goes, every man is a kid when they play with cars, plus it's educational.
I'm sure you will not us the car you use to get to/from work!
Good luck. 8)
-
MikeT
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: 11 Jun 2007, 16:17
- Location: Christchurch, Dorset. UK
- My Cars: 2005 C5restyle 1.6HDI 16v 110hp VTR Estate
2008 C5 X7 1.6HDI VTR+ Saloon - x 231
Wow, thanks guys! I'll leave the head bolts well alone then. I don't suspect any problems with the HG at the moment, I just wanted to lessen the chance of failure when I do up the horses.
Yes, apparently diesels are a better candidate for NOS than petrol engines for a couple of reasons. 1. Torque and 2. no risk from lean fuel-air ratios.
The car was cheap enough so I won't cry if it does go bang.
Additionally, NOS will eliminate turbo-lag as well so it looks like a win, win, win situation.
I've been told the 1.9TD should be capable of handling up to 150bhp NOS, depending how it's used. They say it's the gearbox/clutch that's liable to fail first. Anyone know the ft/lb spec of my 'box?
The bosch pump may be able to provide enough extra fuel for up to 50bhp NOS but I'm going to start with 30bhp and see how it goes.
Yes, apparently diesels are a better candidate for NOS than petrol engines for a couple of reasons. 1. Torque and 2. no risk from lean fuel-air ratios.
The car was cheap enough so I won't cry if it does go bang.
Additionally, NOS will eliminate turbo-lag as well so it looks like a win, win, win situation.
I've been told the 1.9TD should be capable of handling up to 150bhp NOS, depending how it's used. They say it's the gearbox/clutch that's liable to fail first. Anyone know the ft/lb spec of my 'box?
The bosch pump may be able to provide enough extra fuel for up to 50bhp NOS but I'm going to start with 30bhp and see how it goes.
No, I think he means the 2.1 had a different box. The same one as the 2.0i turbo activa had... 150bhp... in your territory... whether it will fit the 1.9 is another thing.
Will the diesel pump be able to provide enough diesel flow/timing to cope with the big surge in power when the noz kicks in?
I agree, diesel engines are stronger engines in general, but they are already high compression engines... boost is better with low compression engines. But let me know what happens... it'll be an interesting exercise.
Will the diesel pump be able to provide enough diesel flow/timing to cope with the big surge in power when the noz kicks in?
I agree, diesel engines are stronger engines in general, but they are already high compression engines... boost is better with low compression engines. But let me know what happens... it'll be an interesting exercise.
The BE series of gearboxes were introduced with the XU engines in the early 80's and are used on all of them except for the 2.1 turbo-diesel engine and the 2.0 turbo Activa and of course larger engines. Apart from numerous ratio changes the modifications seem to have been confined to changing the position of reverse and some strengthening of the final drive housing in 1991 or so which suggests there are few endemic weaknesses.
Its interesting that the 2.1 turbo-diesel has 3 valves which suggests that Citroen thought that the breathing on the 2 valve head had reached its limit at 1.9 litres and 90 odd BHP. This probably is the explanation for the slightly lower than expected increase of power between 1.7 and 1.9 engines.
That the 2.1 diesel has a stronger gearbox also suggests that the BE gearbox was not considered strong enough. As a matter of interest Citroen had no problem producing BE's with different ratios - both in the gear clusters themselves and in the final drives - so I don't think the change was because the ratios of the larger capacity box were more suitable.
Bear in mind that gearbox failure is not a common occurrence - so the BE must be up to its task - and when specifying it Citroen would have to deal with customers who tow large caravans up Alps etc.
Its interesting that the 2.1 turbo-diesel has 3 valves which suggests that Citroen thought that the breathing on the 2 valve head had reached its limit at 1.9 litres and 90 odd BHP. This probably is the explanation for the slightly lower than expected increase of power between 1.7 and 1.9 engines.
That the 2.1 diesel has a stronger gearbox also suggests that the BE gearbox was not considered strong enough. As a matter of interest Citroen had no problem producing BE's with different ratios - both in the gear clusters themselves and in the final drives - so I don't think the change was because the ratios of the larger capacity box were more suitable.
Bear in mind that gearbox failure is not a common occurrence - so the BE must be up to its task - and when specifying it Citroen would have to deal with customers who tow large caravans up Alps etc.
jeremy
Common trick I understand in commercial diesels is to fit them up with LPG to get a bit of a kick.
I was told of a couple of trucks that used to travel a certain route down south where there were some fairly big long pulls. As they got partway up, they threw a switch to LPG and reckoned it almost threw them through the back window it had so much grunt. Apparently they knock and clatter like all hell, but really get up and go. The savings in time apparently was great enough to justify the cost and the potential damage; after all, a couple of extra loads a day would be worth the effort.
Might be a better long term solution (and less likely to attract a fine) to consider.
Alan S
I was told of a couple of trucks that used to travel a certain route down south where there were some fairly big long pulls. As they got partway up, they threw a switch to LPG and reckoned it almost threw them through the back window it had so much grunt. Apparently they knock and clatter like all hell, but really get up and go. The savings in time apparently was great enough to justify the cost and the potential damage; after all, a couple of extra loads a day would be worth the effort.
Might be a better long term solution (and less likely to attract a fine) to consider.
Alan S
RIP Sept 19th 2008.
She said "Put the cat out" She didn't mention it was on fire!!
She said "Put the cat out" She didn't mention it was on fire!!
-
MikeT
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: 11 Jun 2007, 16:17
- Location: Christchurch, Dorset. UK
- My Cars: 2005 C5restyle 1.6HDI 16v 110hp VTR Estate
2008 C5 X7 1.6HDI VTR+ Saloon - x 231
So it'll be a good test of a 1.9TD 'box then. But if it can tow a caravan I expect it can cope with 50bhp of NOS.
Yes, I've read that lpg is a good way to increase diesel fuelling as it can be injected in to the inlet manifold without risk of detonation, unlike diesel.
What puts me off that idea is yet another bottle to fit, carry and refill.
If those trucks were using old US-style systems and the drivers were uneducated on the effects and how to use it, then I expect they did damage their engines.
It's also used for tractor-pulling, truck-racing and I believe a dragster recently won 2nd place in some championship but hadn't tested it fully in time so hadn't used the full potential of NOS.
There is a way to increase and regulate fuelling via the bosch pump and I think Citrojim had stated that in thread No Black Smoke so I'm hopeful I can test beyond 50bhp
Yes, I've read that lpg is a good way to increase diesel fuelling as it can be injected in to the inlet manifold without risk of detonation, unlike diesel.
What puts me off that idea is yet another bottle to fit, carry and refill.
If those trucks were using old US-style systems and the drivers were uneducated on the effects and how to use it, then I expect they did damage their engines.
It's also used for tractor-pulling, truck-racing and I believe a dragster recently won 2nd place in some championship but hadn't tested it fully in time so hadn't used the full potential of NOS.
There is a way to increase and regulate fuelling via the bosch pump and I think Citrojim had stated that in thread No Black Smoke so I'm hopeful I can test beyond 50bhp
-
Kowalski
- Posts: 2557
- Joined: 15 Oct 2003, 17:41
- Location: North East, United Kingdom
- My Cars: Ex 05 C5 2.0 HDI Exclusive 145k
Ex 97 Xantia 1.9TD SX 144k
Ex 94 Xantia Dimension 1.9TD 199k
There are a couple of diesel dragsters that use NOx, the only reason they use it is because they need a very large turbo and they can't reach boost threshold without the NOx, i.e. the NOx is just there to get the turbo spinning. Its also fairly common in tractor pulling for the same reasons, bear in mind that these tractors and dragsters can be running anything up to 100psi of boost. If you watch them, initially as the lights go green there is a lot of smoke (exhaust like a steam train) because the turbo isn't up to speed, but once they're on boost the exhaust cleans up considerably.