XUD Normally Aspirated tuning

The turbocharged version has oil jets to spray the underside of the pistons to help with cooling, I'd not like to hammer the n/a version with a turbo bolted on for this reason..

'Chips' generally do shit all worth noticing, modern or not.

Or even the 2.5TD from the XM :-)

Were they 4-cylinder lumps, and more importantly, were they XUDs?

Peter

Its the same thing. Torque x rpm IS horsepower.

A 200 bhp bike engine will pull the same truck at the same speed as a 200bhp truck engine. The only difference is it will do it at 4x the rpm with 1/4 of the torque. The performance might be a bit better though because now its about half a ton lighter!

Since it takes 4x the power to double the speed you will get nowhere fast increasing power! Maybe lower it and add a bit of polish!

Tuning a naturally aspirated diesel is almost a waste of time and money I am afraid. Turbo conversions that increase power by say 40 percent cost!! And an extra 40 percent of bugger all wont make that much difference. Save money, swap for something more suitable, like my VR6 2.8Litre Caravelle mpv / van - its auto, and if I set cruise control at 120 it stays there all day. And its smooth and quiet! You dont want to know how much fuel it holds...

But its aerodynamic reynolds numbers are better because of its size, and its drag is reduced further by its length. It has a huge advantage at high speed, made worse by its terrible power to weight at low speed

Did you realise that the longer bodied ones have less aerodynamic drag? So should be faster flat out.

Fit the turbo version, then do an Iain Dingsdale

What disappear in a cloud of black smoke with an evil laugh "Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah, D'oh".

Yeah, providing there's enough torque to get things rolling.

If the bike engine isn't making enough torque to actually *move* the truck, then doing it 4X faster still isn't gonna move the truck.

Except on a Turbo Diesel (which his is not) :)

A 2.5 was available as a standard fitment, but NA, not turbo. I don't think it was a Peugeot engine, though. It was described to me as a Citroen, which sort of makes sense with your XM.

Christian.

Unfortunately it's a bit small. Looks like an 8/9 seater. Also, I'm not keen on the German vans, as the styling is bit MPVlike for me. I like a nice high driving position. Also, it's got to be diesel! It burns enough fuel as it is.

Christian.

Er. Yes it is. Several years ago they invented something called a gearbox. By selecting something called a "lower gear", you can produce more torque at the wheels. If a 200bhp engine can shift it at all, then ANY 200bhp engine can shift it with the right gearbox. Not only that, it will have the same acceleration, provided the transmission has sufficient ratios to maintain the power output. The main problem with the bike engine is that it is not going to produce 200bhp for very long without exploding, whilst the truck engine will do it for a million miles, burning less fuel in the process.

Christian.

You dont get it yet. BECAUSE it revs far far higher, it uses a much lowert gear ratio at any given speed, or setting off. Gear ratio = torque multiplication, net result IS the same.

I forgot to add - it would be raining conrods by teatime!

It's for the fuel cut-off solenoid, yes.

Actually you're wrong. If you look at a graph of Wind Resistance vs Speed, you'd see that above 53MPH, the resistance increses exponentially.

If it's a mechanical fuel pump, usually there's a way of screwing a bit more out of it with the turn of a screw as the same fuelpump may be used across different engine sizes. I know it used to be possible to screw a 320BHP Scania up to 350BHP with the turn of a screw.

WRONG.