A question...

This is the place for posts that don't fit into any other category.

Moderator: RichardW

Toby_HDi
Posts: 1358
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 22:31

A question...

Post by Toby_HDi »

To my knowledge PSA mounts all it's engines at an angle of 20 degrees backwards.

I may be wrong in that they do it to all their cars and also I may be wrong that it's 20 degrees...

....however

I've had a 406 with the 2.0 XU and now a Xantia with the HDi. Both have had engines mounted at an angle.

My question is this...Why are they at an angle?

My only thought is weight distribution perhaps?

Just something thats floating round in my head currently... :lol:

Toby_HDi
Posts: 1358
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 22:31

Post by Toby_HDi »

Oops - wrong place. I do apologise.

Could someone move it to the appropriate section please?

Thanks

User avatar
CitroJim
A very naughty boy
Posts: 43592
Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 23:33
x 1612

Post by CitroJim »

Toby_HDi wrote:Oops - wrong place. I do apologise.

Could someone move it to the appropriate section please?

Thanks
Moved!

I think Toby, that it is more to do with very low and sleek bonnet lines rather than anything else. The XU lumps are big and tall and if bolt-upright, the bonnet line would have to be much higher. Mind you, it would make access better. All XU engines in my experience are tilted at 30 degrees and I conclude they were designed to run at that angle. TU engies are nearly vertical but that is a much smaller, squat engine. PSA cars for a long while majored on very low sleek lines. Shame they don't still.

Remember, the biggest XU engines will fit comfortably in the very low profile of a Pug 205!

Pug (or rather Simca - from where the design came from) once had an engine (the XY series) laying very nearly horizontal in the engine bay of the early 205s. This engine was known as the "suitcase" and had an integral gearbox al-la BMC A series sharing the same oil. Tappets were fun to do as the rocker box was nearly up against the bulkhead :lol:

This topic came up recently - I think when I had a chat with MikeT. There is no doubt tilting the engine back does throw the weight further back in the engine bay and concentrates it right over the wheels.

User avatar
reblack68
Posts: 1047
Joined: 11 Feb 2004, 02:28

Post by reblack68 »

I'm sure the XUD sits upright when it's installed in a Rover 200. It sits at a different angle in the Talbot Express too.

User avatar
CitroJim
A very naughty boy
Posts: 43592
Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 23:33
x 1612

Post by CitroJim »

reblack68 wrote:I'm sure the XUD sits upright when it's installed in a Rover 200.
Did the Rover and Talbot have BE gearboxes Richard? I was just thinking that if you change the angle of tilt on the engine significantly, you also change the relative position of the gearbox final drive to the wheel centres. Generally, an XU(D) is mated to a BE 'box and that, as much as anything else, will determine the tilt.

Pug 205GTi owners doing Mi16 conversions ran into problems in this area when they tilted the 16V engine forward in the bay to give clearance for the brake master cylinder and so on. The drive-line geometry changed and resulted in driveshafts having a shorter life.

User avatar
reblack68
Posts: 1047
Joined: 11 Feb 2004, 02:28

Post by reblack68 »

I'm not sure what the Rover or Talbot had for gearboxes. This is the only Diesel 200 I could find on eBay. The underbonnet pics aren't very good but you can see the odd looking top engine mount.

User avatar
CitroJim
A very naughty boy
Posts: 43592
Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 23:33
x 1612

Post by CitroJim »

It certainly looks more upright in the Rover - that's a real kinky engine mount :lol:

The XUD as instaleld in the Rover appears to have much longer manifold runners - I wonder if it develops more low-down torque as a result?

XantiaMan
Posts: 1603
Joined: 12 Aug 2007, 18:47
x 11

Post by XantiaMan »

The Rover also used the PSA box IIRC. In ATMO format it produced 69bhp whereas in PSA installations it was 71bhp, it was definatly not a quick car..

citronut
Posts: 10937
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 00:46
x 3

Post by citronut »

Jim im not sure if im wright, but the first car/s i saw the XY lump in was the 104 PUG and TALBOT SAMBA,

tappets wernt that bad if you had the proper tool

regards malcolm

User avatar
CitroJim
A very naughty boy
Posts: 43592
Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 23:33
x 1612

Post by CitroJim »

citronut wrote:Jim im not sure if im wright, but the first car/s i saw the XY lump in was the 104 PUG and TALBOT SAMBA,
Spot on Malcolm! I completely forgot about those cars! Was the XY ever fitted to the Visa?

RichardW
Forum Treasurer
Posts: 9427
Joined: 07 Aug 2002, 17:12
x 419

Post by RichardW »

"Was the XY ever fitted to the Visa"

Certainly was - most of the Visas had this engine. Came in at least 4 guises: 954cc 1124cc and 1360cc with single and twin carbs. My Decap has the 1124 version - didn't know it was XY designation though. The 1360 version was also fitted to pre 87 BX 14s (and I think on the continent there was a BX 11 version too).

citronut
Posts: 10937
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 00:46
x 3

Post by citronut »

i think out of the VISAs the 1124cc was the most popular,

whilst i worked at Ninefiled garage it was a citroen agent for a shot while, we had a customer come in with an 1124 VISA, complaining it did not have any get up and go, nd had only done about 5K miles from new, i checked all the usual ignition carb, i even swapped a dizzy and carb from a brand new VISA, none of this made any differance, next thing was the cam timming which i checked several times, still no go,

so i contacted citroen slough techy dep who said check the cam timming again, which i did, they sent one of there techy guys down who whatched me going over the cam timming again with no joy,

they ended up sendding a brand new lump down and said send the old one to there techy trainning dep, after they had had it a couple of weeks could not find anything wrong,


but strange how the new lump fixed the fault

regards malcolm

User avatar
CitroJim
A very naughty boy
Posts: 43592
Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 23:33
x 1612

Post by CitroJim »

RichardW wrote: Certainly was - most of the Visas had this engine. Came in at least 4 guises: 954cc 1124cc and 1360cc with single and twin carbs. My Decap has the 1124 version - didn't know it was XY designation though. The 1360 version was also fitted to pre 87 BX 14s (and I think on the continent there was a BX 11 version too).
Thanks Richard :D I love all this increase in my Cireoen knowledge. As far as Citroens are concerned I'm still very green around the ears when it comes to the older ones. Years back when I started driving I always wanted a GS but my father would have none of it :cry: I had to wait until I was all grown up and with kids of my own before I could finally have a Citroen :lol: I still hanker after a GS... I love 'em to bits.

The suitcase engine designations according to my old 205 BoL are XV8 (954cc), XW7 (1124cc) and XY7 and 8 for the 1360cc ones. XY7 single carb and XY8 twin carb. They were also know as the 108C, 109F, 150D and 150F respectively. The 1360cc engine in the BX was also known as the 150A and 150C. Interestingly, the early BX16 engine (XU5) was known as a 171B and the XU9 in the BX19 was known as the 159A. never seen any PSA engines with those designations before.

Toby, sorry this has drifted so far off topic from the question you started out with but the conclusion we can reach is that PSA engines started out being very laid-back and over the years have become increasingly more upright :lol: A bit like the cars themselves really..
citronut wrote:but strange how the new lump fixed the fault
Wonder what on earth was actually wrong with the engine Malcolm. Wrong cam perhaps?