[engine_work] I Forgot How Much I Missed It!

[welshpug 1,621]

Agreed, certainly not right.

 

Duration is where its at, often no point lifting the valve any further off the seat, you just need to open it faster.

[kyepan 291]

Would regrind count as lumpier? Lift isn't affected IIRC, only duration...

 

Anyway, they shouldn't be as noisy and for that long as they were.

i'm using 260 and 270 regrinds on hydraulics, and they are as quiet as a mouse.

[Sandy 189]

The fact that they've been noisy all the way through point me towards the problem I had with aftermarket lifters in Matt Holley's engine; that the inside of the bucket didn't have enough clearance for the spring retainer and was colliding. GTI6 ones have more room than the others. It might have released a retainer or two and dropped valves, or held them off the seats and burnt the valves.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Interesting Sandy. 2 questions:

1) Would lifters have any effect on crank case pressures (hope that's not a stupid question)?

2) Would I have recourse to approach the suppliers with evidence that their product caused an expensive engine failure?

[kyepan 291]

The after market lifters I had were not moving smoothly in the bores, one was just plain stuck, the edges of the oil grove were very sharp and picked up in the lifter bores, one just felt plain wrong. They were essentially a bit unfinished, i had to take some wet and dry to the bore to get rid of the damage and get the standard lifter moving smoothly.

 

This is one of the other reasons i retrieved the original lifters (from the bin) and reconditioned them, binning the after market lifters.

[Sandy 189]

1) Not that I can see, most likely to be blow by.

2) Depends how seriously you want to pursue it. I took the opinion in my case, that it's up to me to check suitability, but that's the weariness of using aftermarket parts on a regular basis, often in non-intended applications. The modified nature of your engine may make it hard to contest.

 

When re-using original followers, have a good look at the face against the light as a dip or groove can often be found that can accelerate wear.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Sandy

[petert 549]

There is another possibility. The aftermarket lifter may not have sufficient travel to touch the smaller base circle of the reground cam. This would explain the noise and the lack of power, due to reduced lift.

[Mad Scientist 106]

Come on Rich, stop procrastinating and tear it open already!

 

Are you absolutely sure the engine wasn't spitting oil out under pressure before the head came off?

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

The car's still at Emerald; I have to hire a trailer and go get it before I can carry out an examination.

 

It definitely WAS NOT spitting oil before the HG (and lifter) change. I cannot help but think something else is afoot here.

 

The recent comments about the lifters are intriguing. I'm not sure I understand why a new lifter wouldn't have enough travel; surely they would have more and used ones would become soiled and perhaps stiffer meaning less travel. But the point about not enough lift would certainly contribute to reduced power.

[welshpug 1,621]

Pete is meaning due to the reduced base circle of a re-ground cam rather than the full meat of a fresh billet may be causing issues with poorly designed Tappets not having enough travel, or even that original ones may not have enough travel for the reduced base circle.

 

Nothing to do with the age of them, but the design and physical measurements.

 

have a picture from google to illustrate.

 

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Interesting, however Pete's cams I was positive work with OE lifters, and I've run a stage I regrind for years on OE lifters. The point about the lifters being potentially crap in the first place is certainly an issue and concern for me, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that anyone would manufacture a sub-standard part as basic but as critical as a lifter.

 

And of course I'm still puzzled about the crank pressures.

 

I'll get the car and engine out ASAP and update.

[welshpug 1,621]

On a similar vein, why do Jenvey manufacture a 16v XU inlet manifold, that makes 10-15 % less power and torque than a properly optimised unit that actually fits in the engine bay it is being sold for?

 

 

Why do the likes of Wanli and Nangkang tyres exist and people use them over far superior tyres from the likes of Michelin, Pirelli et al?

 

 

 

Because people will buy them, they will work, to a certain extent...

[welshpug 1,621]

To add, although the lifter bores are the same diameter, Peugeot do list the tappets under differing part numbers.

 

 

XU10J4RS / RFS: 0942 31

 

XU10J4R / RFV 0942 45

 

XU7J4 / LFY 0942 45 as above

 

XU10J4/TE RFY / RGZ 0942 30

 

XU9J4/Z D6C / DFW 0942 30

 

 

cross referencing this last part number I found that very early XU7 and XU10J4R's used 0942 30 up to January 1997.

 

I guess these were the very early engines that used the larger stem valve as the early 16v heads, in the new style castings.

 

 

 

I have an RS lifter to hand, 32mm o.d, and for the first 9mm of the inner bore is 30mm i.d.

 

The nose of the plunger is 7.7mm from the bottom of the skirt, so the plunger has about 1.3mm of travel before anything parallel to it will clash with the inner bore.

 

I can squeeze the plunger down against its spring 10.10mm from the base of the skirt, therefore the plunger has circa 2.4mm travel total.

 

 

I would compare these to your FAI branded lifters.

Edited October 26, 2013 by welshpug

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

And as we spoke last night, Lyndale Engines and I looked up the replacement lifters in one of their large catalogues and took special care to make sure we ordered the correctly listed part.

 

The Citroen BX and 405 were too old to be listed, however I know the 2.0Mi16 head (XU10J4) is fundamentally identical to the XU9J4 head, and as such was listed under the Citroen ZX16v which is the XU10J4. We then also found that the 306GTI6 (XU10J4RS) part number was the same.

 

This implies to me, that whilst Peugeot may give the parts a different number, they're all the same. (We didn't look up XU7JP4, however it makes sense they'd be the same).

 

A detailed lifter comparison will 'follow'.

Edited October 26, 2013 by DrSarty

[dcc 855]

I imagine machine tolerances will be so small that off the shelf measuring is not going to show sufficient detail. I like this whole aspect of 'guess' prior to disassembly. We've had 4/5 well known bods give my engine the 'dead' verdict, upon stripping it, we found nothing actually wrong with the engine, and if anything its a simple fix. I am sure you can work out how useful this information is to you

[welshpug 1,621]

I hate the guessing Dan, tear it to bits already

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

It's not guessing.

 

I'm a project manager by trade, and ex-military too, so one automatically does process and 'what-if' analysis. It's helpful to consider (not know) where to look, to direct resources at the most likely problem area first and these conversations have helped. No assumption has been made, and nor am I ruling out outside/external factors not yet discussed.

 

The engine - when I get the car!!!! - will be methodically stripped, recorded and documented to find which area(s) are to blame.

[petert 549]

I'm fairly sure the 0942 45 has more travel than the 0942 30. I'll also measure a Piper lifter and report back with the data. I don't have any 0942 31 at present to compare with.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

If that's the case Pete, I have 3 conclusions:

1) The parts catalogue potentially has an error in that it says the GTI6 (XU10J4RS) lifter is the same as the XU10J4 lifter

2) If the listing IS wrong, then either I have standard lift lifters suitable for XU9J4 and XU10J4, the equivalent of 0942-30

3) If the listing IS wrong, but the part favours the XU10J4RS, then I would have lifters with the greater lift, equivalent to 0942-45

 

But either way, I wasn't advised I'd need different lifters with Pete's reground cams so neither scenario should be an issue. However if the pattern (FAI) lifters are just crap full stop, that would explain several things and align with your thoughts about reduced lift limiting power.

 

The only thing (again) is, that the lifters might be just one part of the equation, as I don't see where the increased and spitting crank case pressures came from - purely from the CR increase from 10.4 to 11:1?

Edited October 27, 2013 by DrSarty

[kyepan 291]

There is a more simple answer to the variance of original PSA parts, and lack of variance for after market parts. It costs less to make one common part instead of three slightly different ones, as proved by the common part number used across xu10j4rs and 10j4 in the after market catalogue.

[petert 549]

I've been doing some measuring with some surprising results. Sorry about drawing quality, but hopefully you get the idea. I measured the maximum distance with 0.25mm of preload.

 

Piper FOLMI16H

min 19.2mm

max 20.5mm

range 1.3mm

 

XU9J4/XU10J4

min 16.0mm

max 19.3mm

range 3.3mm

 

XU10J4R

min 16.7mm

max 19.7mm

range 3.0mm

 

 

[welshpug 1,621]

interesting, the XU10J4RS lifter I measured had 2.4mm of total travel without taking into account any preload, I didn't measure the height but I can do that later.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

I trailered the car back last Friday, and the engine will be lifted out shortly.

[kyepan 291]

fingers crossed it's just a few valves! and not too much bother to fix!

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Justin: that may be the case, but it doesn't identify or provide a cure.

 

Here's the current status now the head's off:

 

*** Initial investigation:

> It appears valves and pistons(s) have met

> The head contained very little oil (once cam cover removed, prior to any oil being drained)

> Coolant loss had occurred

> Tmg belt was slack and could be slipped off cam pulleys

> Tmg belt tensioners still rotate but locked still, i.e. not floating/movable

> All oil breathers clear incl catch tank (which was 20% full)

> Head oil spray bars correctly fitted and clear

> Cyl 3 spark plug could not be removed

> Several lifters no longer in contact with cam lobe (base, 'peak' or touching any point of lobe - could slide electrical tester probe between 4+ lobes and associated lifters)

> Several lifters could rotate/spin; others locked

When the Cometic MLS HG was removed and compared with OE HG, it was quickly identified that 8 holes were missing, 2 holes misaligned and 2 smaller/differently shaped to OE HG, however these are just coolant holes.

 

*** My speculative version of the engine failure:

Oil has somehow been starved from the head.

The pressurised block above normal operating environment, stressing the system and components / lack of oil supply (and return) to head depriving metal-metal surfaces of lubrication and also generating excessive heat (although engine operating temp not affected), lifters &/or valves in guides &/or springs &/or cams in bearing caps individually, sequentially or concurrently 'nipping up' and temporarily seizing normal rotational function and causing timing slippage (stretch of belt or movement of tensioner due to shock) causing multiple component clashes in the head and/or to the piston(s)

 

The investigation continues, but unfortunately is pointing currently at only 3 things:

1) HG fitted wrong way round despite what I said previously - I'm checking this today to see if it's even possible, bearing in mind the dowels, the tear-shaped water gallery holes at the rear sides, the double-checking at fitment and also my HG indentations matching all others

2) Some FOD (Foreign Object Damage)/blockage caused by.....?....which has blocked or hindered oil supply to the head

3) Some form of oil pump/originating supply problem

 

Other than the above, we are currently slightly stumped. Please review the basic facts:

> Fine before, drove 3 months and into workshop

> HG changed, lifters changed, 4-2-1 added

> Initially run on same oil and filter (Cambridge to Peterborough), during which time new lifters stayed very noisy

> Next day, brand new (equally correct) oil and new filter (same Fram part as before) added after dropping and removing old oil, which was less than 500 miles anyway

> Car driven from the HG change for 2 days, still with GTI6 inlet, then ITBs fitted at Emerald, mapped for 2.5 hours then 'bang!'

 

At no point did the new lifters quieten, engine felt 'choked' and we also acquired sufficient crankcase pressure to have oil spit out from the dipstick.

 

New or revisited ideas?

 

Comments welcome.

XU9J4 Head, Block & HG.pdf