C5 2.2Hdi performance

[Peter.N.]

I thought has just come to mind about that Chris, both the 2.2 and 2.5 engines have balancer shafts.

Peter

[red_dwarfers]

Things are looking good on the Lexia front Peter!
Had it on the Xantia this evening having got it activated.
Pug Planet is installed too, I'm going to chat to next door tomorrow and see if I can test it out on their 406.
Its also running a good bit faster. First time I fired it up, it took at least 10 minutes to load Windows and loading the Lexia software itself was rather painful.

[Peter.N.]

Thanks a lot Kev, very good news - don't know how you do it. I have got the remote reciever and key from the red car, was there anything else you wanted?

Peter

[SaabC5]

Some thoughts on the 2.2's performance. Clogged pipe leading to EGR valve really blunts performance as does the vacuum swirl valve control. (pig to swap out). Even then the 2.2 doesn't set the world alight in 1st and 2nd gear, 3rd and 4th gear however are very interesting, in a straight pull from 40mph in 3rd the 2.2 mullers the 2.0. Its really usefull in the real world for entering motorways and effecting a safe overtake in limited space. After a timing belt/water pump change i saw an average of 60mpg over a 200 mile run using the A3, M25, M1. I do however have a tuning box fitted so this no doubt has an effect on performance/MPG.

[cachaciero]

SaabC5

Interesting comment about clogged EGR pipe, percieved wisdom would have it that blocking of / disabling the EGR completely is the way to go and yet you appear to say that that is not so, any further comments on this ?

cachaciero.

[Peter.N.]

It pulls pretty well in high gears, certainly better than the 2.0L I have no complaints, just that my son is complaining of lack of low down torque - I've never tried it, fuel is to expensive.

Peter

[cachaciero]

I have always thought that the 2.2 engine was a "work in progress" when it was first introduced and maybe still is.
The objective was to get a Euro4 engine long before that was going to be requirement and I believe that it was low pollution initiatives that drove the majority of the engine design, and, basically they didn't get it right, or did they? They did end up with an engine that was better in performance than the 2.1 XUD with broadly similar consumption and that was far far cleaner, which was probably the object of the exercise. The big problem was that during the gestation of the design the big target i.e carbon emmision changed and with spiralling fuel prices absolute consumption has become the big issue.
It is interesting that one of the first things they had to do to production cars was to change the swirl valve logic to quote "improve fuel consumption" and I believe that the swirl valve concept was driven largely to extend the range over which EGR could be used.
When you get to look at the 173 bhp mk2 2.2 while the bottom end is identical as far as I can judge, the top end is completely different, the swirl valves have gone, it's now a true 16 valve engine I believe that compression ration is higher, (the mk1 2.2 has according to some data I have seen a lower compression ratio than the 110Hp 2.0Ltr) and probably most important it has a two stage blower with a much bigger intercooler.
Interestingly having done that PSA threw further dev out to an outside consultancy who managed to wring 200 Bhp and even better emmisions and consumption out of the mk 3 version of the 2.2 as fitted to later Mk111 C5's and that with a single stage turbo, so a cynic would argue that PSA couldn't get it right even on the second bite of the cherry as it were.
However I would settle for a mk2 2.2 engine it would appear to achieve similar levels of consumption to the 110 hp 2.0 ltr which is a measure of just how wrong they got it on the first pass.
While I believe that there is some tarting around on the fringes that can be done to improve the 2.2, removal of the DPF for example, there is little else that can be done by even gifted amateurs to make any major improvment. A tuning box or re-map may be an option but I don't see that these will get it anywhere near to the later engines in terms of power and economy without some of the mechanical changes e.g a bigger turbo and intercooler, but I may be wrong so if anybody knows of a simple add on that will give a performance and consumption approaching that of the later 2.2 I would be interested.

cachaciero

[SaabC5]

SaabC5

Interesting comment about clogged EGR pipe, percieved wisdom would have it that blocking of / disabling the EGR completely is the way to go and yet you appear to say that that is not so, any further comments on this ?

cachaciero.

Pulled the pipe off when the vacuum swirl valve was being replaced, pipe was completely blocked with thick carbon deposit. Soaked it for half hour in petrol and then pushed a large pipe cleaner through it, the crap that came out was astonishing, i looked like al jolson there was that much carbon deposit. I've always been of the thought that a blocked pipe is restricting breathing somewhere down the line. The combination of new swirl valve and unblocked pipe certainly livened up the performance which strangely has dropped off recently. The swirl valve is still functioning fine but the pipe has almost clogged up again in 8 months, i will be cleaning the pipe again soon and will see if the drop off in power returns, this time i'm using a spray can of Wynns EGR valve cleaner purely out of curiosity to see if it does what it says on the tin.

[waynedance]

When I got mine it was so slow to pick up and top speed was rubbish, slack in your accelerator cable was the cause.

I like the performance of the 2.2, as said going from 30-40 to top speed is quick.

[Peter.N.]

cachaciero.

Interesting that. Does removing the DPF really make a difference to the fuel consumption, enough to make it worthwhile?

Peter

[cachaciero]

cachaciero.

Interesting that. Does removing the DPF really make a difference to the fuel consumption, enough to make it worthwhile?

Peter

Can't quote from personal experience as I have yet to do mine, however reports from those that have both on this forum and other places universally say that consumption is improved by as I remember about 5mpg.
I could believe that as there will be double benefit, reduced exhaust back pressure, and the resulting flow improvements translating into better turbo performance, I believe that the improvement in turbo performance is probably the largest contributing factor rather than the actual reduction in back pressure. Worthwhile ? at todays cost of diesel I reckon an increase of 5mpg is worthwhile plus the saving on an Eolys top up which is due and as soon as I can find a window mine will get done.

cachaciero

[cachaciero]

When I got mine it was so slow to pick up and top speed was rubbish, slack in your accelerator cable was the cause.

I like the performance of the 2.2, as sad going from 30-40 to top speed is quick.

Yes slack accelerator cables do appear to be common on older cars, I had exactly the same problem on mine when I first had it and as you say when they are slack performance appears to be poor. The only problem is that adjustment means removing a chunk of electronics to get at the adjusters including the bits you need to run the engine

cachaciero

[red_dwarfers]

Thanks a lot Kev, very good news - don't know how you do it. I have got the remote reciever and key from the red car, was there anything else you wanted?

Peter

No worries! Haven't got around to testing the Pug side yet. Do I remember you saying that you had a spare XM 2.1 exhaust system knocking around?

[Peter.N.]

I have some new ones but they are for the estate although I think the centre box is the same. I think both of the scrap cars have newish systems but unfortunately they are going on tommorrow and I'm going to the dentist this afternoon.

Peter

[dieselnutjob]

at 80,000 miles my DPF was regenerating every 200 miles and I clearly needed to get a new one or disable it. I disabled it and my economy has increase from about 33mpg to about 37 or 38; but I suspect a new DPF would have improved it as well.

I looked at tuning the 607 but the 2.2HDI is already close to the torque limit of the ZF 4HP20 transmission so I don't think that the auto is safe to tune unless it's done carefully to limit torque.

I think that the economy I'm currently getting isn't bad at all for a 1 1/2 ton large automatic saloon.
See it here