Why did Rover release the 75 with a 116HP engine and a 130HP engine, when the only difference between them was the engine map?
And, why does the same engine produce 150HP in a BMW, again with nothing more than the computer code changed? I reckon the lacklustre performance of the CDT diesel in the 75's crippled their sales.
Was this a restriction placed upon Rover by BMW, who didn't want their share of the powerful diesel market infringed upon?
|
The engine fitted to the Rover 75 was of old technology pre common rail design, unlike the 150 bhp fitted to the 3 series E46 BMW from September 2001 and now 163 bhp as fitted to the latest E90 3 Series.
If you were running a company like BMW, you can`t exactly blame them from witholding the latest technology from their competitors.!!!!
|
|
THe engine in my cdti 75 looks very common rail to me. I will look & make 100% sure before i have a pop at dude
|
|
It is surely a common rail engine, especially if all it needed was remapping to increase the power output.
|
|
Definitely common rail. Started with no hanging around for glowplugs when I drove it.
|
This is not a defining characteristic of a common rail diesel - it's a characteristic of a direct injection diesel of which this (and most others nowadays) is an example. IDI engines require a longer heating time. The system of fuel delivery is a separate issue.
659.
|
|
|
|
The engine fitted to the Rover 75 was of old technology pre common rail design, unlike the 150 bhp fitted to the 3 series E46 BMW from September 2001 and now 163 bhp as fitted to the latest E90 3 Series. If you were running a company like BMW, you can`t exactly blame them from witholding the latest technology from their competitors.!!!!
Absolute carp! just done my homework & it's the same engine as 320D AND it's common rail
Oh & someone mentioned heater plugs that just depends on how cold it is as to when heater plugs kick in
|
|
|
The engine fitted to the Rover 75 was of old technology pre common rail design, unlike the 150 bhp fitted to the 3 series E46 BMW from September 2001 and now 163 bhp as fitted to the latest E90 3 Series. If you were running a company like BMW, you can`t exactly blame them from witholding the latest technology from their competitors.!!!!
>>
Not so, they are common-rail, as I think are the engines in LR Freelanders, which are just de-tuned E46 BMW engines.
|
|
|
|
Why did Rover release the 75 with a 116HP engine and a 130HP engine, when the only difference between them was the engine map?
Perhaps it was to do with positoning of the models in the range. Skoda offered the 1.9TDI in either 90bhp or 110bhp (although i think different turbos were involved as well), and i think there's still different states of tune offered in the Skoda range. my guess is that the car manufacturer can charge even more for the more powerful and well equipped car.
|
|
|
Why did Rover release the 75 with a 116HP engine and a 130HP engine, when the only difference between them was the engine map?
Its very simple really. Marketing and Economics.
AT the time 115hp was a good output for a oil burner, and 130+hp was really sporty,
So you had sufficient power for your regular range, and more power (and a higher selling price) for your sporty range - with no extra cost as its the same engine. Your average punter dont know that tho.
And then later, as a late life range kicker, you introduce more power from the BMW engines.
However BMW themselves kicked out. so there was no upgrade line.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Its often puzzled me what motivates some people to sit at a keyboard and write stuff about a topic they know nothing about - in the process just confusing people and spreading mis-information.
The engines used in the Rover and BMW are very similar (both CR!!), but not the same. The 204D4 used in the 320td etc is a 1995cc engine with Bosch CP3.2 injection and 17:1 compression. The Rover engine (115) was 1950cc with Bosch CP1 and an 18:1 compression. Although the engines look the same they are not actually identical. This is something to be aware of if buying a 75.
The reason for this must be cost and marketing (the CP1 system is a little cheaper than CP3.2) and the 75 was aimed at a different market. The Rover was not a 'competitor' to BMW because Rover was simply a BMW 'brand'.
|
Its often puzzled me what motivates some people to sit at a keyboard and write stuff about a topic they know nothing about - in the process just confusing people and spreading mis-information.
All I said was that it is a common rail engine. I am correct?
|
All I said was that it is a common rail engine. I am correct?
YES!
|
|
|
All I said was that it is a common rail engine. I am correct?
Yes, you are correct. I was refering to the post further up saying that its not a CR engine.
|
|
|
All I said was that it is a common rail engine. I am correct?
a) It's a Rover
b) They don't make Rovers any more
Therefore it's definately uncommon ;-)
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
|
|
|
Hi Aprila
Did a good root under my bonnet this afternoon & you are quite correct sure enough on my diesel HP pump there is a CP1 number on the type
Now then! on CRD sysytems i'm familiar with Cummins for example the HP pump is identical from the small 6 cylinder(10 litre) right up to the V16 sequential turbo 1.2 MW Gen sets
So is bosch selling us a dummy here??
|
I don't know the answer - but at the risk of incurring Aprilia's wrath... ;-)
Cummins engines using the PT fuel delivery system, and its computerised derivatives have always returned a large proportion of the fuel that is raised to manifold pressure back to the tank. Indeed, during harsher winters, once running, Cummins engined trucks have been more resistant to fuel waxing problems, becuase the tank actually gets warm!
The power required to do this is the manifold pressure multiplied by the flow-rate through the pump. As the amount of fuel injected is small compared to the amount flowing in the manifold, there is no need to fit different pumps to each engine.
This is a little wasteful, but robust and reliable - which is more important for most operators.
Number_Cruncher
|
The 'CP1' doesn't so much refer to the pump as to the whole system. As with petrol injection systems, Bosch make a range of CR Diesel systems that differ somewhat in the sensors and actuators used and the processing power of the ECU etc. The systems are all similar in concept, but differ in the detail.
Ref. the Cummins systems - well, the Bosch are similar. The pump can supply vastly more Diesel than the engine can ever use. Most of it is returned back to the tank via a valve just after the pump outlet. Fuel rail pressure is sensed by a pressure sensor in the rail; the signal from this goes to the ECU which controls the valve position to maintain desired rail pressure.
|
It;s glaringly obvious that it's common rail - the name says it all; CDT
C DT
common rail diesel turbo
|
Why is it not cRdt then?
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
|
|
|
