Blue HDI

This is the Forum for all your Citroen Technical Questions, Problems or Advice.

Moderator: RichardW

User avatar
DickieG
Monaco's youngest playboy
Posts: 4877
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 09:15
Location: Buckinghamshire
My Cars:
x 38

Re: Blue HDI

Post by DickieG »

Mandrake wrote:
DickieG wrote:My point is that these small engines are not just being used to power small car's, they are being used in quite sizeable cars such as C-Max's and the like where previously a 2.0 would have been the norm
I'm old enough (and I'm guessing you are too) to remember the days when a mid sized car that today has a 2 litre engine as standard would come with 1300cc or 1600cc if you were very lucky. Carburettor too. Somehow we got by in those days with those "tiny" engines installed in mid sized cars...

Throw some actual modern technology at those 1300 cc'ish sizes such as modern materials and lubricants, fuel injection, VVT, modern turbos etc and I see no reason why they can't perform well and still last. For 1.2 litre you don't need 4 cylinders either. For anything below about 1.2 litre 3 larger cylinders performs better and is more robust than 4 smaller cylinders of the same total cc. Daihatsu knew that 30 years ago when they developed their 3 cylinder 1 and then later 1.2 litre engines and continued to develop them for decades.

Even those early 80's 3 cylinder Daihatsu engines were very robust and did huge mileages - the turbo was a bit iffy I'll admit and I did destroy a turbo in mine (albeit the car was already 13 years old and high mileage when I bought it) but the non turbo version of those 3 cylinders (of which I knew several friends who owned them) went on forever without problems. It can be done.
I've not said anything about a small three cylinder engine powering a puddle jumper like a Daihatsu Charade or C1, my point is about using a 1.0 engine to power much larger cars such as for instance a C-Max, far heavier and larger so greater wind resistance where by definition the engine will be worked far harder in simple everyday use, never mind the turbo's, how many head gaskets will such an engine get through after 5+ years use? Hence why I personally think it prudent to reserve judgement and allow time for these engines to prove themselves, surely that's a far wiser approach than jumping in head first?

Yes cars many year ago did have smaller engines but I don't recall many selling many new Cortina's in the 70's and 80's with an engine smaller than 1300cc where the engine producing around 55 bhp, even the smallest Escort engine was 1100cc and produced around 45 bhp. These engine's were pulling car's built like a biscuit tin and weighing as much yet both of them still accelerated like a slug, by comparison the Ecoboost produces 123 bhp from 995cc which in my books means that the engine must be rather stressed to say the least.
Mandrake wrote:
DickieG wrote:When it comes to emissions what appears to be the way to go today, in a few years time becomes the devil, hence why I'm reserving judgment on these small petrol engines until they have been properly proven in service.
ever stricter emissions regulations are on the horizon it still seems to me that Diesel is the wrong horse to back. Eventually the stuff hanging off the engine to meet the emissions is going to become ridiculously burdensome... some would even say we've already reached that point.

Compare that to a petrol where a modern fuel injection system and 3 way cat can achieve extremely low emissions with little difficulty. Treated well the cat can last the lifetime of the car without maintenance, unlike a DPF that requires maintenance or replacement if not regularly regenerated.
Ah bit of an issue you've missed out there, namely particulates, if you think they are exclusively a diesel problem then think again as for quite a few years now there has been a number of unanswered questions being banded about as which is worse, diesel particulates which are generally sized as PM10 or petrol engine particulates sized PM2.5? Diesel has been the easy target as the larger particulates are clearly visible but the big question which AFAIK remains unanswered is could the much smaller petrol particulates actually be far worse as they are more easily absorbed into the body? So whilst today Petrol is the new champion will that be the case in the future?

Maybe now you will acknowledge why I'm reserving judgement on the long term benefit of these small engines?
13 Ram 1500 Hemi
14 BMW 535D Tourer
19 BMW i3s
06 C3 Desire 1.4
72 DS 21 EFi Pallas BVH
Northern_Mike

Re: Blue HDI

Post by Northern_Mike »

DickieG wrote:
I've not said anything about a small three cylinder engine powering a puddle jumper like a Daihatsu Charade or C1, my point is about using a 1.0 engine to power much larger cars such as for instance a C-Max, far heavier and larger so greater wind resistance where by definition the engine will be worked far harder in simple everyday use, never mind the turbo's, how many head gaskets will such an engine get through after 5+ years use? Hence why I personally think it prudent to reserve judgement and allow time for these engines to prove themselves, surely that's a far wiser approach than jumping in head first?

Yes cars many year ago did have smaller engines but I don't recall many selling many new Cortina's in the 70's and 80's with an engine smaller than 1300cc where the engine producing around 55 bhp, even the smallest Escort engine was 1100cc and produced around 45 bhp. These engine's were pulling car's built like a biscuit tin and weighing as much yet both of them still accelerated like a slug, by comparison the Ecoboost produces 123 bhp from 995cc which in my books means that the engine must be rather stressed to say the least.
Too add some numbers to this, the C-Max Ecoboost 1.0 has a kerb weight of 1391kgs, 125bhp (at 6krpm) and 145lbft of torque. That must be running a significant level of boost to get such figures.
My 2 litre, 260BHP Impreza , stock, ran a maximum of 12.7PSI (0.9bar) with fuel cut-off at 14.9PSI.

EDIT: The Ecoboost runs 24PSI, 1.6 bar of boost pressure. That's a considerable amount.

As for the Fords Richard mentioned, and today's Ecoboost C-Max , I suppose the 80s equivalent was my dad's Escort MK3 1.3, or Sierra 1.6

The Escort weighed 948kg and had 69bhp from it's 1296cc CVH motor, the Sierra 1.6 weighed a somewhat lardy 1009kgs and had a stunning 75bhp from the 1.6 litre Pinto boat-anchor.
Hell Razor5543
Donor 2023
Posts: 13727
Joined: 01 Apr 2012, 09:47
Location: Reading
My Cars: C5 Mk2 VTX+ estate.
x 2993

Re: Blue HDI

Post by Hell Razor5543 »

It takes time for some problems to show up. Look at what has happened with that bl00dy 1.6 HDi engine!
James
ex BX 1.9
ex Xantia 2.0HDi SX
ex Xantia 2.0HDi LX
Ex C5 2.0HDi VTR
Ex C5 2.0HDi VTR

C5 2.2HDi VTX+
Yes, I am paranoid, but am I paranoid ENOUGH?
Out amongst the stars, looking for a world of my own!
User avatar
Lighty
Posts: 1103
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 16:53
Location: Derbyshire
My Cars:
x 34
Contact:

Re: Blue HDI

Post by Lighty »

Just got an email reply from the sales guy at the dealers, I changed his name.


Thanks for that Mark, from what we have be lead to believe by the training
team at Citroen is now though is it won't cause the same issues that they
currently do for people who do very little mileage.

Kind Regards

Bob Smith
Senior Sales Executive & Brand Champion


Bristol Street Motors
http://www.marklightfootltd.co.uk
Dacia Duster 1.5 dci
Renault Twizy Technic
Citroen C15
Citroen Ami
Post Reply