Xantia tyres

Robin · Post by **Robin** » 30 Jan 2004, 22:43

I don't disagree with that Kowalski but different tyres with differing profiles and widths will have different pressures. A frequent mistake is to assume the same pressure carries for each tyre type, size or version.
My Landrover has three different tyre pressures for soft off road use, (larger foot print more grip) heavy towing (more sidewall stability) and motorway cruising (less flex with a degree of comfort & to reduce temperature). The lowest being just 8 lbs upto 35 lbs.
Much has been made of pressures versus tyre size over the years, we do benefit from the progress made on the race track for performance tyres and Michelin made the almost everlasting X. A pig in the wet but it never wore out!
Am I right in understanding that Drag cars use around 3 lbs in the rear tyres and hold them on the rims mechanically?[?]
Anyway a what has this to do with the original query[:I]
Keep Citroening and smiling! R

oilyspanner · Post by **oilyspanner** » 30 Jan 2004, 23:26

To Xantiabfy re sweet spot, the BX uses a 1.7 litre TD Unit, compared to the 1.9 unit used in Xanita the motor has a short stroke and needs to be driven comparatively hard through the gears to make good progress, the 1.9 unit is more flexible and less fussy, with the larger tyres the BX always seems to be outside useful turbo boost rpm after a gearchange, with 185 tyres it was always blowing hard after a gearchange.
Stewart

acrowot · Post by **acrowot** » 30 Jan 2004, 23:42

I have a Peugeot 405 with a 1.7 TD 1769cc (XUD7)engine in it, I also have a Xantia with a 1.9 TD 1905cc (XUD9) in it. The difference in capacity is because the bore is 80mm and 83mm respectively, the stroke remains the same. The Peugeot outperforms the Xantia significantly.

lhm_leak · Post by **lhm_leak** » 31 Jan 2004, 00:38

If you really want to be pedantic, then the XUD7 engine with a 1769cc capacity is actually a 1.8, NOT a 1.7 . I once owned a 205XLD with this engine and it was ALWAYS referred to as a 1.8 litre.
Stu.

neilsxm · Post by **neilsxm** » 31 Jan 2004, 00:40

hi
a 405 with a xud 7??
in 5 years of working at peugoet only saw that engine in the 205/309 range
acrowot what year is your 405? estate, saloon?
maybe they were getting rid of excess engines?
but the xud7 is a lot revvier than the xud9
just same as the 1.5td isuzu is a lot revvier than the 1.7td isuzu as fitted to vauxhalls
well you learn something new everyday
---neil---

acrowot · Post by **acrowot** » 31 Jan 2004, 01:40

My Pug is a 1991 Estate, I think this engine was used extensively up to 1991 in the Pug.and then they fitted the 1.9, while it is true when fitted to the Peugeot it was a 1.8 but in the Citroen it was referred to as a 1.7, I think because of the 7 in XUD7.The rev counter in my Pug.does not work so I do not know if it is lower geared, it is definately more rapid than my Citroen.The intercooler sits on the top of the engine in the Pug. maybe it is more efficient there. The quoted BHP is 90 for the 1.7 and 92 for the 1.9.I refer to this engine as a 1.7 because its a Cit. forum, as far as I know the only 1.7Diesel fitted to a Citroen was the XUD7 1769cc and it has the same stoke as the 1.9 engine ( but I will not be unhappy if I am wrong).Not trying to be pedantic.

jeremy · Post by **jeremy** » 31 Jan 2004, 02:05

Does anyone know if the 1.7 and 1.9 diesel castings are the same and if the 1.7 can be overbored to 1905 cc?
jeremy

acrowot · Post by **acrowot** » 31 Jan 2004, 02:17

Do not know if the blocks are the same, but the heads on the two engines are different.

lhm_leak · Post by **lhm_leak** » 31 Jan 2004, 04:56

I'm not really trying to nitpick, or score points - just pointing out an anomaly that's always been a (very) slight niggle to me.
Yes, I know that Citroen have always badged their cars as, e.g. BX17D - This still doesn't alter the fact that the engine is the exact same lump of iron fitted to Peugeots and referred to as a 1.8, or even the (correctly badged) Rover 218/418 Ds. It's probably just Citroen playing silly b*****s again - the unwritten rule is that engine capacities are rounded to the nearest 100cc. By this logic, the XUD7 with 1769cc is a 1.8 - it's not even a borderline case.
Interestingly, Citroen couldn't even be consistent. I also used to own a BX16TRS, which had a 1580cc XU5 engine - by the logic applied to the 17Ds, this should have been labelled a BX15 and called a 1.5 litre...
Stu.

acrowot · Post by **acrowot** » 31 Jan 2004, 05:38

The point I was trying to make was in relation to "oilyspanners" post that the 1.7 engine had a shorter stroke compared to the 1.9 fitted to the Xantia, the stroke on these two engines is identical.I am not trying to score points either just stating a fact.

jeremy · Post by **jeremy** » 31 Jan 2004, 12:56

Suppose it would have been a bit daft to make a BX18 and BX19 diesel.
What is amusing is that these engines have the same stroke as the 1905cc petrol engines and it is about 3 1/2 inches in imperial measurement. In my youth extensive criticism was made of BMC and later British Leyland for their continued use of 'long stroke' engines - What was the stroke they were complaining of? - 3 1/2 inches as used by the MGB, 1800, MGA, . . .and many mid sized saloons.
jeremy

ghostrider · Post by **ghostrider** » 31 Jan 2004, 15:44

Strange how fashions change, everyone seems to have gone short stroke high revving, certainly for petrol, and as a refugee from the two wheel community, high revving multi cylinder engines certainly changed biking. On moving to 4 wheels I thought the smae would apply, but unless you like the sound of the engine or it is well insulated from the passenger compartment, I would say a turbo charged long stroke like that in my CX GTI (although as I remember it the 2500cc version is nearly "square") turbo is the way to go, after all it's torque that accelerates your car not BHP, my mates 2l Mo*** goes all the way to about 7000 rpm but there seems little point some how as the acceleration does not feel any different whether you nail it or change up at 3,500. The other thing I've noticed is that 4 valve per cylinder cars seem to be a lot harsher than the 2 valve variety. Noise damping is less of a problem if the engine is only turning at a shade over 2000 rpm at 70. A lot of cars have an artificially high gered 5th ( my mates M****O is geared for about 160 in 5th some chance!)to give that quietness but if you then try and acclerate even at 70 you need to change down, no such probs with the CX just plant your foot and watch it go:-)))) all the way to the red line in 5th

))
________
MARIJUANA VAPORIZERS

jeremy · Post by **jeremy** » 31 Jan 2004, 17:33

This is of course the difference between paper performance and driving pleasure. Something that only pulls over 4000rpm is great fun for a blast on a Sunday afternoon, but sertainly wouldn't appeal to me for everyday driving.
jeremy

acrowot · Post by **acrowot** » 01 Feb 2004, 00:50

When I bought my Pug it had a faulty head gasket, I decided to have the head skimmed, the machine shop pressure tested the head,it failed. I had access to a 1.9TD head and hoped to save some money by using that but they are not the same, possibly valve and swirl chamber differences ( according to people who are experienced in these matters ). I thought that because it seemed the only difference in these two engines was a 3mm increase in bore size to give the extra 136cc's that they were in other respects the same,sadly for me this was not the case (£400 re-con head ,bolts and gaskets). The thing that puzzels me is that the engine in the Pug does use some oil, it has a Lucas pump, it is not as economical as my 1.9TD Xantia, but it is rapid in comparrison to the Xantia. The engine in the Xantia has done 99,000 miles 60,000 less than the Pug and is much smoother. Perhaps the Pug has been tuned before I bought it.

nick · Post by **nick** » 01 Feb 2004, 04:57

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lhm_leak</i>

I'm not really trying to nitpick, or score points - just pointing out an anomaly that's always been a (very) slight niggle to me.
Yes, I know that Citroen have always badged their cars as, e.g. BX17D - This still doesn't alter the fact that the engine is the exact same lump of iron fitted to Peugeots and referred to as a 1.8, or even the (correctly badged) Rover 218/418 Ds. It's probably just Citroen playing silly b*****s again - the unwritten rule is that engine capacities are rounded to the nearest 100cc. By this logic, the XUD7 with 1769cc is a 1.8 - it's not even a borderline case.
Interestingly, Citroen couldn't even be consistent. I also used to own a BX16TRS, which had a 1580cc XU5 engine - by the logic applied to the 17Ds, this should have been labelled a BX15 and called a 1.5 litre...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Just to confuse matters further, in some countries, certain versions of the 1580cc petrol were actually badged 'BX15'!
...yes it is just Citroen playing silly b*****s [:D],
Citroen don't have a monopoly on this though, think of the BMW 3 series over the years;
316's had either a 1.6, or a 1.8.
The 320 originally had a 2.0, then an 1.8 for a while, then eventually back to 2.0 again. The 325e was a 2.7, but the 323is had a 2.5, etc etc
Nick