Confusing Engine Id, Any Ideas

[309jazzpanda 41]

I purchased a supposed 1600 Cti xu lumps many many moons a go for next to nothing, I say supposed because its a bit confusing which engine it is.

It is from a CTI that i do know and I believed it to be a 1.6 because there is no spacer plate at the bottom but it has lambda sensor wiring on the loom which i didn't think the 1.6 had? also the engine plate is quite unreadable i can only make out the last letter of it which is a Z. Am I correct in thinking that none of the xu5 engines had a z at the end of the engine code? only the 1.9 (DFZ/DKZ). A bit vague but hopefully someone will be able to help.

Thanks

[welshpug 1,662]

if it has lambda and is multipoint then it'll e a 105 bhp DFZ.

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

Z = CAT Engine, Most 1.9's never had the sump skirt fitted, only the high power GTi versions

[309jazzpanda 41]

Is that the lower compression engine? Any bits worth keeping from the internals

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

Flat top pistons, Cambelt safe as well the chambers are that deep on the head

[309jazzpanda 41]

So a d6b head on it and it would reach the same compression ratio as 1600 pistins? Or am I being to optimistic

[petert 591]

DFZ pistons are 1.6L pistons.

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

With Flat top's and a GTi head the compression will be a fair bit higher over 1.6 piston's

[309jazzpanda 41]

Are we looking in the mid tens or higher?,also Would the standard starter be able to cope, it's a slim one so I'm assuming it should be fine. I had better get my spare head 3 angled with a decent cam then, I believe I read somewhere the 285 isn't much of an improvement over the original d6b cam or is this wrong? And I will have to be on the lookout for some motronic or a decent ecu

Edited April 30, 2015 by 309jazzpanda

[pug_ham 244 3 Cars]

I believe I read somewhere the 285 isn't much of an improvement over the original d6b cam or is this wrong?

I think you'll have read that the Piper / Kent 270/2'cams aren't much over standard but the 285' cams are quite a step above & won't run very happily on the standard ecu or I believe (from welshpugs experience) on Motronic MP3.1.

 

285' is roughly the same spec as the old PTS 7048 group A max torque cam iirc.

 

g

[309jazzpanda 41]

Quite surprised by that I thought it would be improved with the motronic, yes the Sprint carved look after runs standard management with a 285 cam and 1.6 pistons it drives well but you wouldn't want to sit in traffic with it

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

Having used a unknown CAT cam profile and a Group A piper, I'd go with CAT cam's all day long, the piper had a huge dip in midrange power and torque, Never been a fan of Piper well what ever they are called as they have changed names so many times

[petert 591]

285' is roughly the same spec as the old PTS 7048 group A max torque cam iirc.

 

 

 

No, it's a bit smaller. If you compare the lift at TDC figures you'll notice the 285 is only open 2.74mm, where as the Group A and Catcams 4900366 run at 3.15mm @ TDC. Also the 285 has 11.05mm total lift (less than standard) compared to 12.0mm for the Group A and 49000366.

 

You need to be careful with the Group A/49000366 profile however. Total lift of 12mm is very close to coil bind with the standard springs.

[Henry Yorke 269 3 Cars]

1.9 CTI comes with Jetronic and an ECU which ends in 345. It will have a box which is shorter than a 1.9 but slightly longer than a 1.6. If the CTI has a power hood, then chances are it is a 1.9 too (though it was an option on 1.6's around 1991)