Printable View
Might sound weird but I considered lowering my Defender, partly to avoid paying truck toll when I have my trailer on and partly to make entry easier for older passengers. I wondered if the fuel consumption would improve. The only way I have found to improve consumption is to drive at about 90 kmh.
Jeff
I thought the Citroen was an amazing car, the suspension and steering were amazing and as comfy as an armchair to drive but like I said before, a pain in the bum to put on a 2 poster.
From memory, I think one of them that came in was built in the 60's and had an ohc flat 4? and might have been fuel injected but im going back at least 5 years.
We had a Porsche come in which was '72 model 928? 4 cyl twin cam mechanical fuel injection.
I loved that, it was lot's of fun to drive and pretty much flew but really hard to get bits for it.
I cant remember and may be getting mixed up with the Citroen as we used to have a crapload of cars through on a sat morning, tyres brakes and service but im no expert on them.
The DS came only with a conventional pushrod four from 1900 to 2375cc, with fuel injection on some models, from memory 69 to 135HP - engine was redesigned in 1967 to become short rather than long stroke, but retained wet liners and hemispherical combustion chambers.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrover
A short lived variant was the SM, a restyled two door with a narrow V6 Maserati quad cam engine, easily recognised by the six headlights. Never made in RHD, but there were about three or four in Australia. Introduced just before the first oil crisis, hence it did not sell well.
But you may be thinking of the GS - smaller, still with the hydraulics, but with a flat four aircooled - so quiet it did not sound like it was aircooled. Can't remember if it was OHC, but this is likely.
John
Like many people I have always liked the D series Citroens but I also like the later full size models (not he GS Club) and I think they were designeted CX and had a 2.4. They were a damned sexy looking car in my humble.
Lifiting it by 2" wouldn't make a scrap of difference, the frontal area remains the same, just 2" higher. Underbody turbulence exists, given the standard ride height or the 2" lift.
Wider tyres increase drag on the road and (minorly) as frontal area, unless they're seriously wide.
Bullbar adds weight, meaning more energy required to maintain rolling speed and they're, by they're nature not overly drag effecient.
Anything on the roof is weight, but seriously increases the overall frontal area, which is a real problem!
As drivesafe said, even with his very low frontal area light bar (on the roof) which is a very nice and tidy piece of work, he can notice a difference, which I would not dispute.
Drag also comes from the profile of the object, as in its tail effect.
But if this is a concern, you could add a decent underbelly plate, running from the front to about the bell housing....which wouldn't be a bad idea for many reasons......
long hauls onroad, use skinny tyres, and for serious offroad have another set...which means you'd only have to carry another two 'spare tyres', given you'd already be planning to carry two spares for serious outback adventures.... I carried three on a car when a i did a lap of aussie some years back, and didn't need any... until i had three flats in one day...on the nullabor...
GQ