 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Citroen Cars / July 2007D Series original engine-similar to Corvair?
I understand the original concept for the D Series was to have a flat six air cooled engine. When the production car was actually made, was there enough space widthwise for such an engine? If so, probably putting a Corvair engine in would work. The Corvair can be set up to run either way, but the stock rotation direction is wrong, just like a Citroen. Just so no one raises this objection. > I understand the original concept for the D Series was to have a flat > six air cooled engine. Two designs were trialled - one aircooled, one watercooled. > When the production car was actually made, was there enough space > widthwise for such an engine? I doubt it. > If so, probably putting a Corvair engine in would work. I'd think a 911 engine would be MUCH easier to get hold of, as well as being a far more realistic proposition (certainly this side of the pond). The fact I've never seen or heard of such a D being built suggests there just ain't the space. > > I understand the original concept for the D Series was to have a flat > > six air cooled engine. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The fact I've never seen or heard of such a D being built suggests there > just ain't the space. The 911 engine is not scarce anywhere-just grossly overpriced. Porsche people have stupid money and vendors know it-I'm continually astounded at parts prices, OEM or aftermarket. It's also wider than the Corvair. Only in the US are Corvair engines readily available, but they can ship anywhere. Rebuild costs are surprisingly low. There is some parts commonality with the smallblock Chevy which is the most rebuilt engine in the world. The huge reliability of the D-Series Citroen four makes engine swaps rare-what other engines HAVE been used? OTOH, the V6 in the SM cried out for replacement. > The huge reliability of the D-Series Citroen four makes engine swaps > rare-what other engines HAVE been used? OTOH, the V6 in the SM cried > out for replacement. Cars the age of DS and SM wouldn't really be candidates for engine swaps any more nowadays - after all these are classics and their owners should aim to keep them in good condition they way they were built. I guess in general the engine swap craze was more of an american phenomenon; in Europe people may have been swapping different VW engines or put a Dyane engine into a 2CV - but swapping for a completely different kind of engine was mostly unheard of. I have to admit, the thought is intriguing. Creating the kind of car they had in mind, back then. Wonder how it would behave. I believe the magic in the DS comes from the special way it sits on the road, especially when driven a bit spirited. I wonder how it would feel with the totally different weight distribution coming from a low sitting boxer engine. cu .\\arc > in Europe people may have been swapping ... a Dyane engine into a 2CV Speaking of which, I'm very happy to report that the 652cc Visa engined 2cv 4x4 is back home as of about half an hour ago - working nicely again... Just a rebuilt front gearbox & transfer box, steering rack, new clutch, gearbox mount, suspension arm bearings... >> in Europe people may have been swapping ... a Dyane engine into a 2CV > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Just a rebuilt front gearbox & transfer box, steering rack, new clutch, >gearbox mount, suspension arm bearings... Cheap, then?  SignatureIan D >>Speaking of which, I'm very happy to report that the 652cc Visa >>engined 2cv 4x4 is back home as of about half an hour ago - working >>nicely again... >> >>Just a rebuilt front gearbox & transfer box, steering rack, new >>clutch, gearbox mount, suspension arm bearings... > Cheap, then? Cheaper than the Acad was a couple of months ago. MUCH cheaper. That was a steering rack, arm bearings, 'box mount, lower screen surround (inner and outer), toeboard, rear valance and box section, four tyres... Just got to paint the pair of 'em now... Dulux, bien sur. Just got to figure the colour scheme. I'm tempted by pink'n'purple camouflage on the 4x4... > > The huge reliability of the D-Series Citroen four makes engine swaps > > rare-what other engines HAVE been used? OTOH, the V6 in the SM cried [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > engine into a 2CV - but swapping for a completely different kind of > engine was mostly unheard of. Oddly enough I saw a Studillac at the parking lot car show yesterday- a Studebaker with a Cadillac engine. The owner did it just recently with a kit still available. That was a popular swap in the Eisenhower era. In news:1179257720.129591.116610@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Bret Ludwig <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wittered on forthwith; >>> I understand the original concept for the D Series was to have a >>> flat six air cooled engine. >>> If so, probably putting a Corvair engine in would work. >> >> I'd think a 911 engine would be MUCH easier to get hold of, as well >> as being a far more realistic proposition (certainly this side of >> the pond). The fact I've never seen or heard of such a D being built >> suggests there just ain't the space. > The 911 engine is not scarce anywhere-just grossly overpriced. > Porsche people have stupid money and vendors know it-I'm continually > astounded at parts prices, OEM or aftermarket. It's also wider than > the Corvair. I found some of the bits for my old 911s to be really cheap. Wheel bearings for £7 for example. In fact, the only thing I ever bought for one which I thought was expensive was the bonnet badge - which cost £39. After buying it I was quite impressed with the quality so I wasn't that upset. SignaturePete M - Using the Scouse Side of the Force - Golf GTi Mk2 2.0 8v Wood and Pickett Range Rover V8 Turbo Golf GTi Mk1 (For Sale) OMF#9 Currently listening to The White Stripes > The huge reliability of the D-Series Citroen four makes engine swaps > rare-what other engines HAVE been used? 2200 Diesel out of the C35. > OTOH, the V6 in the SM cried out for replacement. Oh, and the SM v6 has been used in the D... > I understand the original concept for the D Series was to have a flat > six air cooled engine. When the production car was actually made, was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > direction is wrong, just like a Citroen. Just so no one raises this > objection. When opening the hood and taking a look, be aware that the flat engine was supposed to go before the front wheels - where the gear box sat in the production layout. If you wanted to switch, you'd have to switch engine/gearbox/differential to replicate the setup that Levebre, Mages and the other fellows wanted to have back then. When going with the inline 4, they had to switch the entire layout, putting the engine behind the front wheels, adding that bulge in the firewall to make room for it. It would be an entirely different car, from a weight distribution point of view. I wonder if it would work at all. cu .\\arc Citroen did run a prototype D model with an SM V6 engine Brian > I understand the original concept for the D Series was to have a flat > six air cooled engine. When the production car was actually made, was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > direction is wrong, just like a Citroen. Just so no one raises this > objection. > Citroen did run a prototype D model with an SM V6 engine Not as a DS prototype, though - but as an SM mule. The D predated the SM by a decade and a half. > > Citroen did run a prototype D model with an SM V6 engine > > Not as a DS prototype, though - but as an SM mule. The D predated the SM by > a decade and a half. I've seen it described as a DSM. The V-6 in the SM is a world class disaster and is quite beyond fixing. Citroen's practice of having LH rotation engines was a bad idea. It meant that engine swaps were reduced to either other LH rotation engines or those which could be set up that way on an aftermarket basis. GM engines-particularly the Corvair and the SB and BB Chevies and the Chevy II four- were made that way by accident-they wanted to be able to use left or right hand _camshafts_ so two gear or chain drive could be used in different engines. The marinizers jumped on that for handed engine installations. They used RH rotation engines as i recall in the transverse installations (CX) and not having learned they made those engines with the same issues in changing direction of rotation. Cit did poorly in the US partly because they did not learn and partly because they did not care. The ID/DS car was unsuited to America because primarily of slothful acceleration. Whorepologists for the SM engine assert that Maserati designers are still oh so proud of that piece of dreck. They claim the new V6 in the new Maserati products is "informed and inspired by" the SM/Merak engine. Well, it doesn't replace that engine and if they had such designing balls why not? Even if there were a fix for the engine the SM is not worth fooling with because so many other parts are unobtainable and because it is so associated with flamboyant gay celebrity hairdressers and such in America. > I've seen it described as a DSM. I've seen it described as a lot of things, none of which it is. It was a (series of?) development mule for the SM. > The V-6 in the SM is a world class disaster and is quite beyond > fixing. Not so - it's fixed already. Some timing chain tensioner mods and swap the sodium exhaust valves for solid ones. > Citroen's practice of having LH rotation engines was a bad idea. Why? Does it *matter* which way round the engine rotates? Besides, the 6-pot Traction started off one way, and changed to the other. The pushrod five-bearing rotates one way in the DS and the other in the CX. So what? > GM engines-particularly the Corvair and the SB and BB Chevies > and the Chevy II four- were made that way by accident-they wanted to > be able to use left or right hand _camshafts_ so two gear or chain > drive could be used in different engines. The marinizers jumped on > that for handed engine installations. Odd, I thought they were most useful in boats as anchors. > Cit did poorly in the US partly because they did not learn and partly > because they did not care. The ID/DS car was unsuited to America > because primarily of slothful acceleration. Strange how everywhere else it was regarded as being actually quite a quick car. > > I've seen it described as a DSM. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not so - it's fixed already. Some timing chain tensioner mods and swap the > sodium exhaust valves for solid ones. They still shell routinely. And a major is around $6K US now. Phooey. > > Citroen's practice of having LH rotation engines was a bad idea. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So what? Can you put a CX engine in a DS? I understand only with substantial machine work, because of the gerotor oil pump can't be reversed. I may be wrong. Since almost all car engines except Honda are RH, a swap is made impossible. The SM could have really used any of several plants. > > GM engines-particularly the Corvair and the SB and BB Chevies > > and the Chevy II four- were made that way by accident-they wanted to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Odd, I thought they were most useful in boats as anchors. You have no experience. I was astonished to learn that the Norwegians and Swedes buy a LOT of 454 Chevies for boats. What I do know is that every ski boat and small ofshore race style boat uses American V8 car power. Mercury Marine, Volvo Penta and OMC all use GM engines mostly. Volvo offered a few Volvo engines but they were mostly too low sustained horsepower. > > Cit did poorly in the US partly because they did not learn and partly > > because they did not care. The ID/DS car was unsuited to America > > because primarily of slothful acceleration. > > Strange how everywhere else it was regarded as being actually quite a quick > car. It had good top end and on highway performance but off the line it was slow. >> > The V-6 in the SM is a world class disaster and is quite beyond >> > fixing. >> Not so - it's fixed already. Some timing chain tensioner mods and >> swap the sodium exhaust valves for solid ones. > They still shell routinely. And a major is around $6K US now. > Phooey. Get Brodie or the Lowdells to build it properly, and it'll last fine. In the US, Brodie when he's over there or I'm sure the Hathaways have a clue. >> Besides, the 6-pot Traction started off one way, and changed to the >> other. The pushrod five-bearing rotates one way in the DS and the >> other in the CX. >> >> So what? > Can you put a CX engine in a DS? I understand only with substantial > machine work, because of the gerotor oil pump can't be reversed. I > may be wrong. Since I just said pretty much exactly the same thing... > Since almost all car engines except Honda are RH, a swap is made > impossible. So what? Who but a complete twat would contemplate shoving some generic modern characterless heap o' shite into an SM? Oh, wait, you're American. The nation that lobs Chevy v8s into Mk2 Jags and Austin-Healeys, because you can't figure out how to maintain anything BUT a Chevy v8. > The SM could have really used any of several plants. Apart from the subtle detail that it was designed and intended to use a Maserati engine, since Citroen *owned* Maserati at the time. >> > GM engines-particularly the Corvair and the SB and BB Chevies >> > and the Chevy II four- were made that way by accident-they wanted >> > to be able to use left or right hand _camshafts_ so two gear or >> > chain drive could be used in different engines. The marinizers >> > jumped on that for handed engine installations. >> Odd, I thought they were most useful in boats as anchors. > You have no experience. I was astonished to learn that the Norwegians > and Swedes buy a LOT of 454 Chevies for boats. What I do know is that > every ski boat and small ofshore race style boat uses American V8 car > power. Mercury Marine, Volvo Penta and OMC all use GM engines > mostly. Volvo offered a few Volvo engines but they were mostly too > low sustained horsepower. ITYF that virtually every inboard marine engine for the last few decades is diesel. >> > Cit did poorly in the US partly because they did not learn and >> > partly because they did not care. The ID/DS car was unsuited to >> > America because primarily of slothful acceleration. >> Strange how everywhere else it was regarded as being actually quite a >> quick car. > It had good top end and on highway performance but off the line it > was slow. So what? The traffic-light grand-prix is for children. Let 'em get away from the light first, then wave goodbye to 'em in comfort. > >> > The V-6 in the SM is a world class disaster and is quite beyond > >> > fixing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the US, Brodie when he's over there or I'm sure the Hathaways have a > clue. If i had a SM engine I'd get a Ketts air saw and make a display cutaway of it, slicing through every casting to make sure it ran no more. I'd section the crank too. > >> Besides, the 6-pot Traction started off one way, and changed to the > >> other. The pushrod five-bearing rotates one way in the DS and the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So what? Who but a complete twat would contemplate shoving some generic > modern characterless heap o' shite into an SM? The Mazda rotary would have been a great swap, as would any of a few V6s. > Oh, wait, you're American. The nation that lobs Chevy v8s into Mk2 Jags > and Austin-Healeys, because you can't figure out how to maintain > anything BUT a Chevy v8. There were V8 Healey swaps, mostly Ford or 215 GM/Rover. A Chevy V8 goes beautifully into a XJ, not a Mark. If one wanted to swap one one used a Chev 292/GMC inline six. The Jag six is a good core engine:its ancilliaries are garbage, but that can be fixed. There is a International pick-up I know of with a Weber carbed 4.2 Jag and a 700R4. Sounds beautiful. Most Jag swaps were done to get rid of the Borg Warner slushbox. Manual trans in Jag saloons are very rare here unfortunately. The coolest swap in a Jag saloon was a Gardner diesel that had been turned up. A beautifully built engine. Not quite an Offy but what is? > > The SM could have really used any of several plants. > > Apart from the subtle detail that it was designed and intended to use a > Maserati engine, since Citroen *owned* Maserati at the time. I meant as retrofit-the Mazda rotary was really the most appealing to me when I was thinking about it. > >> > GM engines-particularly the Corvair and the SB and BB Chevies > >> > and the Chevy II four- were made that way by accident-they wanted [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ITYF that virtually every inboard marine engine for the last few decades > is diesel. Inboard/Outdrive apps-small stuff-are gas everywhere. A few installs with ISB Cumminses are changing that a little. Ski boats and small offshore boats, rec vs. racers, all gas. There are dozens of Donzi and Cigarette boats where I live (which makes no sense as i'm a thousand miles from salt water.) All have SB or BB Chevies except one that's turbine (twinpack P&W PT-6T out of a crashed airevac helo). > Can you put a CX engine in a DS? I understand only with substantial > machine work, because of the gerotor oil pump can't be reversed. I > may be wrong. Citroen supplied matching engines with the DS as well as with the CX. They fit and work. > Since almost all car engines except Honda are RH, a swap is made > impossible. The SM could have really used any of several plants. The SM was built to use the Maserati V6. Surprisingly, it fit, and it made the SM one of the quickest cars of its time. Maserati didn't built its engines for maximum life time in less-than-perfect maintenance, so many of them did suffer especially starting with 2nd and 3rd owners. >> Strange how everywhere else it was regarded as being actually quite a quick >> car. > > It had good top end and on highway performance but off the line it > was slow. Right. It probably wasn't really matched to american style of driving. cu .\\arc > The SM was built to use the Maserati V6. Surprisingly, it fit Not really surprising, when you consider the v6 was developed (albeit from a v8) specifically for the SM. >> Cit did poorly in the US partly because they did not learn and partly >> because they did not care. The ID/DS car was unsuited to America >> because primarily of slothful acceleration. > > Strange how everywhere else it was regarded as being actually quite a quick > car. When your competition has 3 times the engine size and is built for straight line acceleration, you may look a tad sluggish. I can nicely keep up with traffic in my DS, but mostly due to the (still remarkable) road holding, not the sheer power. cu .\\arc > I can nicely keep up with traffic in my DS Thirty years after the DS was discontinued... >> I can nicely keep up with traffic in my DS > > Thirty years after the DS was discontinued... Can top that: an aquaintances has a Traction 15. Except for highway use, it is no road block whatsoever. It does feel surprisingly sporty, actually. How's that for a car discontinued more than 50 years ago...? cu .\\arc If you all haven't found this link, here is a little info on the boxer six proposed for the DS when it was under development. http://www.citroenet.org.uk/passenger-cars/michelin/ds/ds-01.html Gene I remember when the DS was first introduced to the American public. The press disdained the car because it reflected the narrow minded xenophobia of most Americans. 'Murkins' just knew that anything from 'Urup' was suspect and only the elite intellectuals (read pinko commie queer) would be interested in anything that foreign looking. If I recollect properly, the article in Popular Mechanix was very laudatory in its review of the DS and its innovations but it was the assassination of faint praise. In 1955, Americans were lusting for horsepower, fins and a lot of chrome and tu-tone paint jobs. Packards were still being built and immense Cadillacs that out wallow anything on the road. Although Packard did come out with the pneumatic suspension which made it a very pleasant riding car as long it did not rain and short out the leveler switches, causing the car to go down the road bow first. That was corrected in 56, but by then Studebaker was looting the company and that was the end of that. Also, Citroën did not kiss Federal governments a.s and so that made it difficult for the company to do business here in the US. My 1988 CXAPrestige is an example of moronic Federal regulations. A perfectly good car had to be shipped from the factory in France to a factory in Holland where they had to do a bunch of pettyass modifications to suit the Feds who were just incompetent then and now. Fortunately FEMA did not exist then for if it did, no cars would ever made it into the country because they would be sitting in some backwater shipping pier, lost and forgotten. As for my friends who own DS's, they have no complaints about slow acceleration that I have ever heard. If DS is anything like my CX, then there is no problem with wending my way through traffic. Gene 82°F and partially cloudy in Lake Oswego, OR >>> Cit did poorly in the US partly because they did not learn and partly >>> because they did not care. The ID/DS car was unsuited to America [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > cu > .\\arc > I remember when the DS was first introduced to the American public. The > press disdained the car because it reflected the narrow minded xenophobia of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > acceleration that I have ever heard. If DS is anything like my CX, then > there is no problem with wending my way through traffic. Citroen failed in the US because of an unbelievably arrogant dealer network, a lot of problems that needed sorting that WERE beyond the car mechanic then (and now) , and yes, a total ignorance of US driving needs. The car needed, with the carburetion and general volumetric efficiency of 1955, a three liter engine and wider gears for this market. Mercedes did a lot better, selling mostly sixes except for the diesels which were slothful as hell too. Citroen did a LOT of stupid things, as brilliant as they were. The one that was the worst AFAIK was to defy the standard color code for hydraulic fluids, making a RED, vegetable base fluid when red is the proper color for petroleum base. BLUE is proper for veg fluid and PURPLE for phosphate ester. I agree US regulations from the early 70s on were and are stupid. We fought them but not well enough. I still remember Joan Claybrook, what a c.nt she was. Most Citroens went very cheap in the US a couple years from new and many of them were bought by the only people who could maintain them then-airline mechanics. You always know that was the fate of one you see when it is painted an obvious airline color in Imron and what airline the guy worked for. Bright pastels were Braniff: red was TWA; blue was Pan Am or United. White could have been any of them. Expect some or all the hydraulics to be replumbed with AN fittings. > Citroen did a LOT of stupid things, as brilliant as they were. Genius and madness... > The one that was the worst AFAIK was to defy the standard color code > for hydraulic fluids, making a RED, vegetable base fluid when red is > the proper color for petroleum base. BLUE is proper for veg fluid and > PURPLE for phosphate ester. I don't think color coding was their big mistake. You got it wrong, by the way. Red is their LHS, where the S stands for 'synthetic'. In my eyes, the big mistakes with the DS' introduction were non available training and information to the dealerships and a hydraulic fluid that ate its gaskets. After all a DS is quite straight forward to maintain, it's just different than other cars. Had the dealers and their mechanics understood the difference, it would've been quite a bit easier... cu .\\arc > > Citroen did a LOT of stupid things, as brilliant as they were. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > available training and information to the dealerships and a hydraulic > fluid that ate its gaskets. LHS is vegetable base. The French were big on veg fluids and greases:Peugeots used a veg based heavy oil in their rear ends for a long time. They colored it red for, well, no good reason. The problem is there was already the existing standard, which designated vegetable fluids blue. LHM they therefore dyed green to differentiate it. I guess that's better than blue or purple. LHM is used in other cars and in some ag equipment: IH Case dealers carry it. However, 5606 works fine as a substitute. So does Dexron as long as it is changed out regularly and the car not operated in very cold weather. Everyone panics because "it has friction modifiers". It does, but they don't affect rubber on polished steel: they affect clutch surfaces. Dexron works fine in unpowered aircraft brake cylinders too, (they are mineral base) unless they get extremely cold, then they are sluggish. At least most D's sold here were non-Citromatic! > LHS is vegetable base. What's the "S" stand for, then? > The problem is there was already the existing standard, which designated > vegetable fluids blue. That'd be a US "standard", would it? > LHM they therefore dyed green to differentiate it. Does it *matter* what colour it is? Why? > At least most D's sold here were non-Citromatic! Your loss. Anyway, I didn't think you lot knew how to drive manual gearbox cars? > > LHS is vegetable base. > > What's the "S" stand for, then? Oh, it might well be "synthetic" in the lexicon, but none the less Cit red fluid is alcohol-plant oil. Since regular DOT brake fluid is a semiacceptable sunstitute probably castor bean oil. > > The problem is there was already the existing standard, which designated > > vegetable fluids blue. > > That'd be a US "standard", would it? No. That was originally a RAF standard adoped by aviation worldwide and then by most of the hydraulic business. Exceptions are ag and specialized applications like food grade and high dielectric-powerline cherry picker-applications. > > LHM they therefore dyed green to differentiate it. > > Does it *matter* what colour it is? Why? Because....the rest of the world does it that way and it makes sense? > > At least most D's sold here were non-Citromatic! > > Your loss. Anyway, I didn't think you lot knew how to drive manual gearbox > cars? Yes, although a larger percentage of cars are slushbox because of the high amount of traffic jam commuting, which is tough on clutches. And leg muscles. All my toys have been manual shift: most of my daily drivers automatic because they were cheap when I got them. >> > The problem is there was already the existing standard, which designated >> > vegetable fluids blue. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > specialized applications like food grade and high dielectric-powerline > cherry picker-applications. And for french cars. Which in 1950s US certainly qualified as specialized application :-) >> > LHM they therefore dyed green to differentiate it. >> >> Does it *matter* what colour it is? Why? > > Because....the rest of the world does it that way and it makes > sense? Nobody in the rest of the world put hydraulic fluid in their car's suspensions. One would think that, if you are the first to do something, that it doesn't need to make sense to anybody else. cu .\\arc > >> > LHM they therefore dyed green to differentiate it. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > suspensions. One would think that, if you are the first to do something, > that it doesn't need to make sense to anybody else. Well, if cars were the major user of active hydraulics then they could set the standard. One may as well say having green wires on positive and red on negative wouild be OK. You are a religious defender of Citroen, not a rational thinker. >> Nobody in the rest of the world put hydraulic fluid in their car's >> suspensions. One would think that, if you are the first to do something, >> that it doesn't need to make sense to anybody else. > Well, if cars were the major user of active hydraulics then they > could set the standard. And they did. Because Citroen was the only user of pressure hydraulics in cars, so they set the standard for car use. <shrug> Look, the *colour* of the fluid's irrelevant. Nobody figures what fluid to use based on colour. There's a f.cking great big label on the LHM tank saying "ONLY USE LHM, ELSE YOU'LL f.ck IT UP" If the average 'merkin mechanic can't read that, is that Citroen's fault? It really doesn't have much to do with the average mechanic, the Citroen mechanics did just fine, thank you very much <grin> - but god forbid someone should take a Citroen (or any other car for that matter) to someplace like Jiffy-Lube or Midas . . . all bets would be completely off then Meanwhile - all you hostile pecker-heads - the story behind the green color of the LHM is supposed to have nothing to do with anybody's standards for the type of fluid - it is supposed to be simply so that the owner can tell when the fluid has picked up enough crud from the rest of the system (sacrificial aluminum components which give way to corrosion to 'save' steel structural components) so that (as it turns brown-ish) the fluid can be changed BEFORE it becomes abrasive enough to cause wear to the various seals and close tolerance metal bits - so don't bother to keep flying around screeching and crapping on Citroen's head about the color of LHM - what a bunch of time wasters you are! >>> Nobody in the rest of the world put hydraulic fluid in their car's >>> suspensions. One would think that, if you are the first to do something, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > If the average 'merkin mechanic can't read that, is that Citroen's fault? > Meanwhile - all you hostile pecker-heads - the story behind the green color > of the LHM is supposed to have nothing to do with anybody's standards for [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > > If the average 'merkin mechanic can't read that, is that Citroen's fault? Well, having grown up with a family in the Import Car business in the 50s and 60s in the US, and a current A&P working on transport category aircraft, I think this guy has some good points. At that time, all the hydraulic expertise was ex-aircraft. The elevator and construction equipment businesses were snapping up all the military aircraft guys before they hit the airlines, and in fact (to this day) the percentage of union elevator guys with A&P licenses is huge. When they put electrical equipment in cars there were already standards and they adhered to those. Why is hydraulics different? My father's dealership handled Volvo primarily and such oddball brands as DAF, DKW and Glas. Glas was bought by BMW and DKW became Audi. In fact, the DKW had a three cylinder engine that was used in outboards and later in the Trabant car in East Germany. They were not a Cit or Peugeot agency but did a lot of work on them. The D Series was bar none the toughest thing to work on for the mechanics-most of them WWII European arrivals. So one cannot cuntmouth the American mechanic in this case. There were a number of peculiar things on those cars. But the unsuitability of the car to US conditions, combined with difficult maintenance and at least at first terrible reliability, killed the market. I have had co-workers who have owned them. In fact I rebuilt the hydraulic pump on a couple of them so I understand them somewhat. The pump is a well designed affair. (In the old days enterprising Ford tractor owners would adapt them to tractors) The rest of the system is not as far as I can tell. There is no provision for running the system off a "mule", there is no _good _filter in the system, and no bleed- down provision. The fittings are an oddball thing not used anywhere else. We also saw the 2CV once in a while. THAT car should never have been allowed on the road. It was more of a golf cart. The Dutch DAF was a far better two cylinder car, as was the BMW 700. > When they put electrical equipment in cars there were already > standards and they adhered to those. In what way? 6v/12v? Positive earth, negative earth? Certainly no commonality in wiring colours. > The D Series was bar none the toughest thing to work on for the > mechanics-most of them WWII European arrivals. Probably because it was technically very, very different to every other car in production at the time. You really think that the fact the hydraulic fluid was a different colour was the biggest difference between the D and a Ford? You don't think the fact that it was the first production car with disk brakes might have not helped, even before the very presence of hydraulics running at a pressure unseen in any other automotive application until the recent advent of common rail diesels? > There is no provision for running the system off a "mule" In what way? > there is no _good _filter in the system Why is one needed in a closed system? > and no bleed- down provision. Cobblers. Drop it flat, remove and empty the tank. The system's self bleeding, apart from the brakes which are easier to bleed than a normal car. > The fittings are an oddball thing not used anywhere else. So what? > We also saw the 2CV once in a while. THAT car should never have been > allowed on the road. It was more of a golf cart. Don't be so ridiculous. We're about to do 3,000 miles round Scandinavia in a 2cv. A few years ago, we did 3,500 miles across the US from Boston to Sacramento in a 2cv that'd just done Sacramento to Boston. Not one problem on that trip, and I don't expect any on this trip. > The Dutch DAF was a far better two cylinder car, as was the BMW 700. Trust me, they most certainly were not. > (reseaupl...@cbgb.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying : [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 6v/12v? Positive earth, negative earth? Certainly no commonality in > wiring colours. Actually compared to boats....they were commonly 6, 12, 18, 24 or 32, and not rarely 110v DC. You can still get custom alternators for those and more odd voltages. > > The D Series was bar none the toughest thing to work on for the > > mechanics-most of them WWII European arrivals. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hydraulic fluid was a different colour was the biggest difference > between the D and a Ford? No. Believe it or not in the 50s the biggest difference is that you never heard of a wheel coming off a Ford at 60-80 mph. Cits lost wheels until some change was made, around '60 or so. I don't remember the exact fix but I remember a car in the shop that lost a wheel and did a fair amount of sheet metal damage. The owner was a woman and she would never drive it again. We sold it for her to a male hairdresser who was the first really blatantly swish guy I had ever met in my young life. I must have been five or six. The hydraulic fluid colors were not by any means the #1 problem. The car was very hard to work on in the sense of access until you learned you could get the front fenders off. Cit hobbyists think it's all in fun but in a working shop things like stovebolt heads are a real issue. There was also the little matter that small hydraulic leaks could kill you. The smaller the leak the more dangerous. That's true of diesel injection systems too. Most US diesels had the HP sections internal to the engine. The long Bosch pumps had long steel lines and they could leak a high pressure jet that would inject you with diesel fuel (bad) or air (worse). > You don't think the fact that it was the first production car with disk > brakes might have not helped, even before the very presence of > hydraulics running at a pressure unseen in any other automotive > application until the recent advent of common rail diesels? Hydraulics were used in commercial vehicles, and all manner of industrial and stationary apps at higher pressure than the Cit system, which as I remember is 2000 or 3000 psi. Even in 1955 that was not terribly adventurous pressurewise. The regular old Bosch diesel system works at those pressures. > > There is no provision for running the system off a "mule" > > In what way? A mule is a hydraulic pump on a cart or stand you patch in so the system can be thoroughly tested. Most also incorporate high level filters as well. > > there is no _good _filter in the system > > Why is one needed in a closed system? Because....the metal and rubber parts wear and send the particles through the system, causing more wear? > > and no bleed- down provision. > > Cobblers. Drop it flat, remove and empty the tank. The system's self > bleeding, apart from the brakes which are easier to bleed than a normal > car. Drop it flat? That's the problem. There's no dump valve. > > The fittings are an oddball thing not used anywhere else. > > So what? Well, you can't find them anywhere. In 1955, there were several standard fitting lines available. Most of them still are. > > We also saw the 2CV once in a while. THAT car should never have been > > allowed on the road. It was more of a golf cart. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to Sacramento in a 2cv that'd just done Sacramento to Boston. Not one > problem on that trip, and I don't expect any on this trip. In the Midwest, high winds could flip it over. And a modest collision even in a VW Beetle, could be fatal. > > The Dutch DAF was a far better two cylinder car, as was the BMW 700. > > Trust me, they most certainly were not. I drove a Dafodil recently. It was fine. The problems were when the belt drive wasn't set up right. I really liked the little buggers, of course, they were underpowered. Remember, I saw every oddball car to come through the US-and most all European cars did before '67 or so when US emissions cert became a bother, keeping marginal lines out- from about '57 or 58, when I was old enough to know one from another, until the early 70s. When the import car business became mostly Japanese we got out for several reasons. Where we did well was on the oddball stuff. Japanese cars were competitive enough you couldn't charge a premium over regular cars anymore. The dealers back then would work on them cheaper than the import shops. > No. Believe it or not in the 50s the biggest difference is that you > never heard of a wheel coming off a Ford at 60-80 mph. Cits lost > wheels until some change was made, around '60 or so. That'll be the move from centre-fix wheels to five-stud, probably. Never ever heard of a centre-fix coming off a D. > There was also the little matter that small hydraulic leaks could > kill you. The smaller the leak the more dangerous. That's true of > diesel injection systems too. It's true of any high-pressure hydraulic system. And? Hell, you lot don't even get common-rail diesels, which run at about 2,500 bar compared to Citroen's 70 bar... >> > There is no provision for running the system off a "mule" >> In what way? > A mule is a hydraulic pump on a cart or stand you patch in so the > system can be thoroughly tested. Most also incorporate high level > filters as well. So why not just spin the system pump up either with the engine or via a belt to an external power source, like an electric drill? >> > there is no _good _filter in the system >> Why is one needed in a closed system? > Because....the metal and rubber parts wear and send the particles > through the system, causing more wear? ...which is why there's an (often neglected) change interval - especially on LHS cars, where the fluid's hygroscopic. Shame your DoT actively banned LHM for two years after Citroen had switched the rest of the world's Ds over. >> > and no bleed- down provision. >> Cobblers. Drop it flat, remove and empty the tank. The system's self >> bleeding, apart from the brakes which are easier to bleed than a >> normal car. > Drop it flat? That's the problem. There's no dump valve. Of course there is. Just select full-flat, then crack the screw on the pressure regulator open a turn or so. Bingo. RTFM. >> > The fittings are an oddball thing not used anywhere else. >> So what? > Well, you can't find them anywhere. In 1955, there were several > standard fitting lines available. Most of them still are. Oh, ffs... They'd have been available through the importers and dealer chain, and still are through Cit specialists. >> > We also saw the 2CV once in a while. THAT car should never have >> > been allowed on the road. It was more of a golf cart. >> Don't be so ridiculous. We're about to do 3,000 miles round >> Scandinavia in a 2cv. A few years ago, we did 3,500 miles across the >> US from Boston to Sacramento in a 2cv that'd just done Sacramento to >> Boston. Not one problem on that trip, and I don't expect any on this >> trip. > In the Midwest, high winds could flip it over. And a modest collision > even in a VW Beetle, could be fatal. Go and drive one, then come back when you have a clue. >The car was very hard to work on in the sense of access until you learned >you could get the front fenders off. Almost any job is difficult when you don't know what the f.ck you're doing. SignatureIan D >> >> Does it *matter* what colour it is? Why? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You are a religious defender of Citroen, not a rational thinker. Course I like my DS a lot, it's in my view one of the best and prettiest cars in the world. If one insists on driving a forty year old car, one doesn't qualify as rational. I still fail to see the tragic in coloring fluid in another way than aircraft hydraulics has it as standard. Standardize where it makes sense (it does make a bunch of sense in airplanes), but if you don't expect your average Boeing mechanic to drain or top off your car, where's the benefit? It says in big fat letters on the reservoir and in the owner's manual what goes in there. Your Citroën dealer and roadside assistance know what to do. So what? cu .\\arc > Also, Citroën did not kiss Federal governments a.s and so that made it > difficult for the company to do business here in the US. My 1988 > CXAPrestige is an example of moronic Federal regulations. A perfectly > good car had to be shipped from the factory in France to a factory in > Holland where they had to do a bunch of pettyass modifications to suit > the Feds who were just incompetent then and now. Well, quite. Just remind me when it was that the US stopped insisting on sealed beam lights and started accepting that maybe a *bulb* might actually work... A perfectly normal, bog standard bulb just like the rest of the world had been using almost exclusively for *decades*... > Just remind me when it was that the US stopped insisting on sealed beam > lights and started accepting that maybe a *bulb* might actually work... A > perfectly normal, bog standard bulb just like the rest of the world had > been using almost exclusively for *decades*... OTOH, it's not like the europeans used to have common sense in their regulations - it's just that Citroëns are built to european specs, so it's not that noticeable. Look at how american cars had to be butchered to comply with european regulations. I remember that in the 94 or 95 the third brake light was a no-no. In 98 or so it was a requirement. Even Citroëns had their trouble with regulations: the DS was built without rear brakes, but the french 'inspection des mines' didn't approve until brakes were added. Consequently the engineers added brakes that would seize up in two years from not being used and everybody was happy ;) cu .\\arc I remember having to throw a couple of bags of mortar mix into the trunk of my DS every year to get it to exert enough braking force to pass my state inspection's "drive it up here and step-on-'em" brake tester gizmo. I think the sealed beam vs. bulb thing was more a matter of petrified old-line thinking that failed to accept the improvement in quartz-iodine lamp technology and bulb-alignment over the old tungsten filament bulbs which would dim and corrode and get out of alignment since that is what the sealed beams, though also tungsten filaments, had been developed and legislated into a requirement to replace. AFAIK our government still doesn't trust us to adjust our headlights for load leveling from inside the car - from what I've seen with most drivers here in the states, that may well be a good thing! What I wish they would do is arrange to require something that would shut off fog lights when it's clear or daytime and would turn on headlights when the wipers are on (there are a lot of idiots out there). There is one very tiny benefit to sealed beams left - when the headlight burns out, the replacement is an entire new unit - you never have to worry about how to re-silver the reflectors. It used to be fun to 'confuse' the various state inspection bubbas and their testing devices after having switched various vehicles over to quartz-iodine headlamps from the sealed beam units - despite head scratching, nobody ever failed me for the lights being too bright or for the pattern being to well defined either for that matter. The last time I used a D for a regular driver was in the late '70's and early to mid '80's in New York City - there was never a problem with acceleration from lights or staying with traffic in the D - mostly due to the fact that there was so much traffic and so little opportunity to accelerate. I don't think I'd be all that happy about putting a D into the cut and thrust "no, me first" type of urban commuting that I have to put up with around Washington, DC - which more and more seems to require the quick off the line foot to the floor get to the front of the pack before the next guy and slip into the slot between and before the other guy can get there type of driving that these rice-burner pocket racers seem to be suited for - disposable cars for disposable people. I'd be happy to use the D daily in a more relaxed smaller town, country driving or less 'strident' urban envrionment - but not for the current commute - I wouldn't do it to the D. >> Just remind me when it was that the US stopped insisting on sealed beam >> lights and started accepting that maybe a *bulb* might actually work... A [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > cu > .\\arc |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.