504 alloy sump photo needed
  • Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 29
  1. #1
    Fellow Frogger! callipygous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Toowoomba
    Posts
    798

    Default 504 alloy sump photo needed

    Hi,

    Advertisement


    I'm just needing to get an idea at what angle the belts come off the crank pulley on the alloy sump 504 with the alternator on the drivers side below the water pump and with airconditioning fitted down low on the passenger side. If someone has a photo handy it would give me some idea what sort of clearance I have got as I'm making a bracket to hold a VR sensor and don't want it fouling with the belts. Thanks.

  2. #2
    Demannu-facturing! Demannu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Menzies Creek
    Posts
    2,542

    Default

    I can take one for you tonight, but the access isn't wonderful with the radiator and condensor fitted.
    Scotty

    Melbourne - Dandenong Ranges

    1956 Peugeot 403 - 'Francois' - resto project

    1969 Peugeot 504 - 'Pascal' - daily driver project

    1970 Peugeot 404 Utility - 'Brutus' - resto project

    1978 Peugeot 604 - as yet unnamed - V6 on straight LPG

    1987 Peugeot 505 - as yet unnamed - project car

    1999 Peugeot 406 Coupé - 'Chloe' - 5 speed manual

    2011 Peugeot 3008 XTE HDi - 'Zoe' - hatchback on steroids

    2014 Peugeot RCZ - 'Remy'

    1999 Range Rover 4.6 HSE - 'Grover' - tow car

  3. #3
    Fellow Frogger! Doush_504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Cairo, Egypt
    Posts
    628

    Default

    If I may ask, why would the alternator be below the water pump since the compressor would be fitted on the alloy sump and then the alternator could sit at it's normal place without any trouble ?
    People who do as you say are the ones who don't have the alloy sump so the move the compressor up and the alternator to the other side, like this:

    Chadi

    1982 504 SR white manual sedan with A/C (257 000 Km)
    2012 308 1.6 VTi Vapor Grey manual H/B (35000 Km)
    1994 405 1.6 white manual sedan (208 000 Km)
    1992 605 SV24 (91 000 Km)
    2005 406 2.0L automatic (Replaced with a 2013 C5)
    1983 505 GR white manual sedan with A/C (170000 Km)

    All since new


  4. #4
    Fellow Frogger! callipygous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Toowoomba
    Posts
    798

    Default

    No idea. The car originally came turbocharged. Where the alternator is was where the air filter and a DCOE45 sat, so it was down below the water pump. The airconditioner sat down below.

  5. #5
    Demannu-facturing! Demannu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Menzies Creek
    Posts
    2,542

    Default

    Dammit, I forgot to take the camera around there this afternoon. I'll be back there first thing in the morning. I'll try to remember then.

    Doush, all injected 504s had the alternator mounted under the water pump, on the exhaust side of the engine. The injection pump sat where the alternator otherwise would have.
    Scotty

    Melbourne - Dandenong Ranges

    1956 Peugeot 403 - 'Francois' - resto project

    1969 Peugeot 504 - 'Pascal' - daily driver project

    1970 Peugeot 404 Utility - 'Brutus' - resto project

    1978 Peugeot 604 - as yet unnamed - V6 on straight LPG

    1987 Peugeot 505 - as yet unnamed - project car

    1999 Peugeot 406 Coupé - 'Chloe' - 5 speed manual

    2011 Peugeot 3008 XTE HDi - 'Zoe' - hatchback on steroids

    2014 Peugeot RCZ - 'Remy'

    1999 Range Rover 4.6 HSE - 'Grover' - tow car

  6. #6
    Fellow Frogger! callipygous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Toowoomba
    Posts
    798

    Default

    No worries Scott, thanks for offering the help!

  7. #7
    Fellow Frogger! Doush_504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Cairo, Egypt
    Posts
    628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demannu View Post

    Doush, all injected 504s had the alternator mounted under the water pump, on the exhaust side of the engine. The injection pump sat where the alternator otherwise would have.
    My bad, I thought we were talking about the carby version.
    I think injected 504s with A/C & P/S would be too cramped then.
    Chadi

    1982 504 SR white manual sedan with A/C (257 000 Km)
    2012 308 1.6 VTi Vapor Grey manual H/B (35000 Km)
    1994 405 1.6 white manual sedan (208 000 Km)
    1992 605 SV24 (91 000 Km)
    2005 406 2.0L automatic (Replaced with a 2013 C5)
    1983 505 GR white manual sedan with A/C (170000 Km)

    All since new


  8. #8
    Fellow Frogger! callipygous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Toowoomba
    Posts
    798

    Default

    Yeah, I gave up on the idea of power steering. I have enough to do on getting it running, need not have any more on my plate! I'll just wrestle it around the parking lot.

  9. #9
    pur-john, not pew-john! peujohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Lilydale, Melbourne
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    Power steering, aircon and Kugefischer injection is possible, it has been done on a few 504s.
    John W

    1979 Peugeot 504 GTI 2.2 litre 5 speed - 72 kW at the wheels

    1974 Peugeot 504 TI
    - now on the road

    2009 Peugeot 407 HDI wagon - family car

    Previous: 2005 407 HDI manual sedan, 1980 504 GL, 1990 405 Mi16, 1977 504 GL Special, 1984 505 SRD Turbo



  10. #10
    Demannu-facturing! Demannu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Menzies Creek
    Posts
    2,542

    Default

    Yes, I had all 4 on my brown beast before I changed over to gas - kugelfischer, alternator, power steering and aircon. The only abnormal bit was the funky alternator bracket I had made (alternator was mounted next to the injection pump).
    Scotty

    Melbourne - Dandenong Ranges

    1956 Peugeot 403 - 'Francois' - resto project

    1969 Peugeot 504 - 'Pascal' - daily driver project

    1970 Peugeot 404 Utility - 'Brutus' - resto project

    1978 Peugeot 604 - as yet unnamed - V6 on straight LPG

    1987 Peugeot 505 - as yet unnamed - project car

    1999 Peugeot 406 Coupé - 'Chloe' - 5 speed manual

    2011 Peugeot 3008 XTE HDi - 'Zoe' - hatchback on steroids

    2014 Peugeot RCZ - 'Remy'

    1999 Range Rover 4.6 HSE - 'Grover' - tow car

  11. #11
    Fellow Frogger! callipygous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Toowoomba
    Posts
    798

    Default

    How did it go on gas? What setup were you using?

    I know with anything but Liquid-Gas Injection you are supposed to have it start on petrol, requiring fuel injection or a carburettor as well.

    I was thinking of going the Liquid Injection at one point, but it is still very expensive.

  12. #12
    Demannu-facturing! Demannu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Menzies Creek
    Posts
    2,542

    Default

    A common misconception. Running a car on dual fuel is always going to be a compromise in both aspects, but a car that has been tuned to run specifically on LPG really has no down side.

    My last two gas cars have been LPG only, I have completely removed the petrol system components in both instances.

    The 504 had a Ti motor with XN6 head (purely for the hardened valve seats, there's no other benefits), SR pistons (8.8:1 comp) and electronic ignition. I had removed one of the springs from the centrifugal advance (so maximum advance arrived at half the original RPM). Static ignition advance at idle was set to 18 degrees BTDC.

    It had a simple ring mixer just in front of the throttle plate of the original Ti manifold.

    It started within 2 revolutions of the crank every time, whether it was hot or cold, summer or winter. The 64 useable litre tank (80 litres water capacity) was enough to drive about 600km. Cheap motoring.

    It never went out of tune, had just as much (probably a little more) power than with the Kugelfischer, particularly at low rpm. High rpms suffered a little bit, but not really noticeable unless you were thrashing through the hills. And adjustment of the timing a bit would overcome that, at the expense of low down torque. What it really needed was a properly remapped distributor, but I was a tightwad.

    And another big improvement after the conversion to gas was that after 10,000km, the oil came out of the engine still the same honey-colour that it went in. Not to mention that you could start it inside the garage and the fumes won't kill you - it's much safer than petrol in that respect.

    The down sides? Well, the tank took up a good chunk of boot space behind the back seat, but fortunately the 504 boot is still plenty big enough. The other problem was that if you ran out of fuel, you couldn't exactly walk to the servo and bring back a jerry can.

    LPG has an equivalent octane rating of 110-115 (depending on the composition at the time, it varies a bit). Engines don't ping, you can run lots of advance, or, if you're turboing it, lots of boost.

    I am a huge advocate of LPG, but it is disappointing that the government does not support it's use more than it does.

    My next performance turbo vehicle (the 505 V6) will again be LPG only.
    Scotty

    Melbourne - Dandenong Ranges

    1956 Peugeot 403 - 'Francois' - resto project

    1969 Peugeot 504 - 'Pascal' - daily driver project

    1970 Peugeot 404 Utility - 'Brutus' - resto project

    1978 Peugeot 604 - as yet unnamed - V6 on straight LPG

    1987 Peugeot 505 - as yet unnamed - project car

    1999 Peugeot 406 Coupé - 'Chloe' - 5 speed manual

    2011 Peugeot 3008 XTE HDi - 'Zoe' - hatchback on steroids

    2014 Peugeot RCZ - 'Remy'

    1999 Range Rover 4.6 HSE - 'Grover' - tow car

  13. #13
    Fellow Frogger! callipygous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Toowoomba
    Posts
    798

    Default

    The fumes might not kill you, but it'll still smell like a bad fart!

    I did enquire at the LPG gas fitter in Toowoomba about removing the fuel system entirely. He said it could not be done. I suppose that's specialists for you, always sticking to the book! He did my Dad's Range Rover years back, and Jan's 505GR and they have been happy apart from the Range Rover blowing the inlet hose off several times after a backfire and tuning woes (eg. the time he got a bad batch of gas that had oil in it and had to replace the diaphragm).

    I would likely have had the gas mixer done, except for the fact that I was persuaded that it wouldn't start on gas and KF with gas sounded messy. I did want to turbo it again too, and I wasn't certain that it would be a good idea to intercool the gas/air mixture in case of the possibility [read certainty] of a backfire. He did assure me that it wouldn't be a problem, but I was dubious.

    Liquid-gas injection offers the best performance (more performance and mileage than petrol rather than slightly less) and it's injected, so it doesn't need to go through the intercooler, so maybe one day...

  14. #14
    Demannu-facturing! Demannu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Menzies Creek
    Posts
    2,542

    Default

    KF with gas would be very difficult, that's why I pulled it off. The problem is that short of disengaging the drive belt to the pump, there's no way to 'turn off' the petrol system.

    I can't imagine why he would tell you that it is impossible to remove the petrol system entirely.

    Of the 50 or so LPG conversions I've done, I guess 10 of them would have been LPG-only systems, and tuned to match. Probably your guy just didn't want the job.

    As for turbo applications, it's exactly the same as a turbo carby install - you wouldn't put the intercooler between the carby and manifold, you would run a blow through system instead. Exactly the same with gas. Except the gas is easier to tune, you don't need boxes of jets and hours on the dyno - it's just two or three screws. Rising rate fuel pressure regulator? No problem, just run a pitot tube in the intake tract (upstream of the throttle) with a hose to the atmospheric side of the converter diapragm. Super simple stuff.

    Vapour phase gas injection is overrated. It is a complex system, inherently unreliable and for minimal gains. The biggest improvement is in emissions outputs. Compared to a well set-up conventional converter-and-mixer arrangement, the power and consumption differences are very minimal. The cost difference on the other hand is outrageous. Unfortunately, vapour phase and liquid phase gas injection are the only systems that can be approved on plastic intake manifolds now, so VPI is becoming more popular.

    Liquid phase injection is truly in it's infancy, and is not readily available yet. There are some flaws with the system, and their marketing at the moment is better than the product. Leave it alone for a few more years, I think.
    Scotty

    Melbourne - Dandenong Ranges

    1956 Peugeot 403 - 'Francois' - resto project

    1969 Peugeot 504 - 'Pascal' - daily driver project

    1970 Peugeot 404 Utility - 'Brutus' - resto project

    1978 Peugeot 604 - as yet unnamed - V6 on straight LPG

    1987 Peugeot 505 - as yet unnamed - project car

    1999 Peugeot 406 Coupé - 'Chloe' - 5 speed manual

    2011 Peugeot 3008 XTE HDi - 'Zoe' - hatchback on steroids

    2014 Peugeot RCZ - 'Remy'

    1999 Range Rover 4.6 HSE - 'Grover' - tow car

  15. #15
    Fellow Frogger! callipygous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Toowoomba
    Posts
    798

    Default

    I heard that it was unreliable and not perfected, too. As for the suck through setup, I didn't want to go that route as it doesn't allow for an intercooler, although you do get the added advantage of a higher octane... I still think that having an intercooler and petrol would give better results, netherless. Anyway, once I was told (incorrectly) that you couldn't run gas by itself and would have to have a carb I made my mind up. It sounded like it would be a confusing mess. The choice was clear, liquid-gas injection or forget it.

    I forgot it. I then went out and bought four carburettors to fit. I've got my box of jets too, just waiting on some needles and seats.

  16. #16
    Fellow Frogger! Uffee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    651

    Default

    The LPG is hardly likely to ever condense once out of the tank so a suck through gas only setup with an intercooler would (probably, I haven't thought at all deeply) be no problem?

    Edit: See below post for why this is a bad idea.
    Last edited by Uffee; 26th October 2011 at 10:37 AM.
    504 GL Coupe '73 Silver
    504 GTDT Pickup Mini-Motorhome '83 Coral Red
    407 HDi Sedan '05

  17. #17
    Administrator
    mistareno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uffee View Post
    The LPG is hardly likely to ever condense once out of the tank so a suck through gas only setup with an intercooler would (probably, I haven't thought too deeply) be no problem.
    NO. Please Do not EVER EVER EVER run a draw through LPG setup with an intercooler.

    If the system ever backfires you will have an entire intake manifold, intercooler and turbo full of lpg and air already pre-mixed at just the right ratio to explode.

  18. #18
    Administrator
    mistareno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demannu View Post
    A common misconception. Running a car on dual fuel is always going to be a compromise in both aspects, but a car that has been tuned to run specifically on LPG really has no down side.

    My last two gas cars have been LPG only, I have completely removed the petrol system components in both instances.

    The 504 had a Ti motor with XN6 head (purely for the hardened valve seats, there's no other benefits), SR pistons (8.8:1 comp) and electronic ignition. I had removed one of the springs from the centrifugal advance (so maximum advance arrived at half the original RPM). Static ignition advance at idle was set to 18 degrees BTDC.

    It had a simple ring mixer just in front of the throttle plate of the original Ti manifold.

    It started within 2 revolutions of the crank every time, whether it was hot or cold, summer or winter. The 64 useable litre tank (80 litres water capacity) was enough to drive about 600km. Cheap motoring.

    It never went out of tune, had just as much (probably a little more) power than with the Kugelfischer, particularly at low rpm. High rpms suffered a little bit, but not really noticeable unless you were thrashing through the hills. And adjustment of the timing a bit would overcome that, at the expense of low down torque. What it really needed was a properly remapped distributor, but I was a tightwad.

    And another big improvement after the conversion to gas was that after 10,000km, the oil came out of the engine still the same honey-colour that it went in. Not to mention that you could start it inside the garage and the fumes won't kill you - it's much safer than petrol in that respect.

    The down sides? Well, the tank took up a good chunk of boot space behind the back seat, but fortunately the 504 boot is still plenty big enough. The other problem was that if you ran out of fuel, you couldn't exactly walk to the servo and bring back a jerry can.

    LPG has an equivalent octane rating of 110-115 (depending on the composition at the time, it varies a bit). Engines don't ping, you can run lots of advance, or, if you're turboing it, lots of boost.

    I am a huge advocate of LPG, but it is disappointing that the government does not support it's use more than it does.

    My next performance turbo vehicle (the 505 V6) will again be LPG only.
    I'd second all of that. I have a Fuego on straight LPG (Gas Research Carby) with the LPG tank situated where the old petrol tank was.

    My range is a little limited with a 45L useable, but I wanted the weight low down and the install to be invisible and for what the car is used for it was a good compromise.

    I also advanced the timing at static a few degrees but I think the curve is a bit conservative anyway so it seems reasonable for now.

    Heaps more midrange torque than on petrol (possibly due to the slightly slower burn rate of LPG increasing the duration of the power stroke)

    My starting requires a few cranks as the Carb is probably a bit oversized at the moment and hence the vacuum to the converter is weak when cranking.

    Once it is turboed, I'll see if I can improve the starting (lighter spring in the converter or crank activated primer if needed) but the added intake restriction of the intercooler/turbo at cranking may fix it anyway (more inlet restriction artificially induces a stronger vacuum signal at crank/idle)

    The other advantage (in Victoria atleast) is that all of the emission equipment can be legally removed on LPG only car (up to a certain year - 1987 perhaps).

    It is SO much easier to work on a car without a maze of pipes running everywhere...

  19. #19
    Administrator
    mistareno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by callipygous View Post
    As for the suck through setup, I didn't want to go that route as it doesn't allow for an intercooler, although you do get the added advantage of a higher octane...
    You can still run all the same equipment as a suck through setup (mixer ring for example), but you blow through it instead.

    The only difference is that you need to connect a balance tube from the intake piping to the side of the converter diaphragm that is usually exposed to atmospheric pressure.

    By running the balance tube, the converter simply sees whatever boost pressure that is present in the intake pipe as atmospheric pressure.

    The right amount of LPG is drawn in because the mixer works on a venturi effect created at the mixer and is based on the air passing through the mixer, not on engine vacuum.

    If you mount the balance pipe before the intercooler the pressure drop across the intercooler cause a slight rising rate effect because the converter sees a slightly higher pressure than is actually present at the mixer and allows more gas flow as a result.

    Some tuners find this helpful for tuning as they can set the car up to run a slightly lean mixture at cruise and low boost for economy (the power on LPG doesn't drop off to the same degree as petrol when slightly lean or rich) and then have it come closer to optimum mixture at full boost.

    No use going rich on LPG as they run hotter and don't make any more power.

  20. #20
    Fellow Frogger! Uffee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mistareno View Post
    NO. Please Do not EVER EVER EVER run a draw through LPG setup with an intercooler.

    If the system ever backfires you will have an entire intake manifold, intercooler and turbo full of lpg and air already pre-mixed at just the right ratio to explode.
    Oops. Whilst posting, I thought to myself, I haven't really heard of this being done so perhaps there's a fundamental flaw with it.
    504 GL Coupe '73 Silver
    504 GTDT Pickup Mini-Motorhome '83 Coral Red
    407 HDi Sedan '05

  21. #21
    Fellow Frogger! julian b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    hawthorn melbourne
    Posts
    482

    Default

    In my job as a limo driver i drive classic mercs on lpg only , and they are fitted with primer buttons on the dash which overcome cold starting problems .Some cars start easily without needing priming ,but if it needs a lot of cranking one press on the primer button starts it instantly by squirting extra gas into the inlet . I would love to convert my 504 cab to lpg ,but being a classic it would devalue it too much

  22. #22
    Fellow Frogger! callipygous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Toowoomba
    Posts
    798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mistareno View Post
    NO. Please Do not EVER EVER EVER run a draw through LPG setup with an intercooler.

    If the system ever backfires you will have an entire intake manifold, intercooler and turbo full of lpg and air already pre-mixed at just the right ratio to explode.
    Exactly what I was getting at. I don't know why the installer didn't understand me when I explained why this was dangerous. Even without the intercooler, I don't like the idea, there is still a entire manifold of compressed gas/air mixture waiting to explode when the engine backfires. Not so bad on a naturally aspirated car, but when you've got a factor of 1.5 - 2.0 times the amount of that mixture, plus a turbo compressing it, an explosion would still be nasty! On a NA car, the worst is usually a blown off hose.

    Having the balance tube pressurising the diaphragms is what I am doing with my blow through carb setup, or very similar. I had no idea that this could be done with the mixers, and it sounds interesting, possibly worth investigating.... I have to say, I'm finding this thread quite informative so far.

    Btw Scott, I took your advise and the turbo is being mounted above the exhaust manifold, only I'm sticking with the external waste gate. Going to give me a lot more room and a lot less lag I'd imagine
    Last edited by callipygous; 26th October 2011 at 12:13 PM.

  23. #23
    Demannu-facturing! Demannu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Menzies Creek
    Posts
    2,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by callipygous View Post
    Even without the intercooler, I don't like the idea, there is still a entire manifold of compressed gas/air mixture waiting to explode when the engine backfires.
    How is this any different to a petrol car with carbs?
    Scotty

    Melbourne - Dandenong Ranges

    1956 Peugeot 403 - 'Francois' - resto project

    1969 Peugeot 504 - 'Pascal' - daily driver project

    1970 Peugeot 404 Utility - 'Brutus' - resto project

    1978 Peugeot 604 - as yet unnamed - V6 on straight LPG

    1987 Peugeot 505 - as yet unnamed - project car

    1999 Peugeot 406 Coupé - 'Chloe' - 5 speed manual

    2011 Peugeot 3008 XTE HDi - 'Zoe' - hatchback on steroids

    2014 Peugeot RCZ - 'Remy'

    1999 Range Rover 4.6 HSE - 'Grover' - tow car

  24. #24
    Fellow Frogger! callipygous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Toowoomba
    Posts
    798

    Default

    I guess it isn't much different...

    ...though with the setup I am using, I have four individual carbs, one on each runner, so the plenum/airbox doesn't have fuel in it, only one runner at a time is fully charged with fuel. I was thinking of it.

    I suppose the only system where backfiring really isn't an issue is multipoint injection.

  25. #25
    Demannu-facturing! Demannu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Menzies Creek
    Posts
    2,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by callipygous View Post
    I suppose the only system where backfiring really isn't an issue is multipoint injection.
    MPI can still backfire and have the same problems.

    The only system where backfiring through the intake manifold is not a problem is Direct Injection, be it petrol or diesel.
    Scotty

    Melbourne - Dandenong Ranges

    1956 Peugeot 403 - 'Francois' - resto project

    1969 Peugeot 504 - 'Pascal' - daily driver project

    1970 Peugeot 404 Utility - 'Brutus' - resto project

    1978 Peugeot 604 - as yet unnamed - V6 on straight LPG

    1987 Peugeot 505 - as yet unnamed - project car

    1999 Peugeot 406 Coupé - 'Chloe' - 5 speed manual

    2011 Peugeot 3008 XTE HDi - 'Zoe' - hatchback on steroids

    2014 Peugeot RCZ - 'Remy'

    1999 Range Rover 4.6 HSE - 'Grover' - tow car

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •