Main Menu

compression ratios?

Started by 79estate, November 18, 2011, 09:26:15 PM

79estate

Hae fellas and Kiera,

Are Avengers high compression??

Whats good Compression for an avenger engine?

Ross, did it seem like my rings were gone??

Not sure if they are or not?

Cheers Mikey.

avenga

Avengers are relatively high compression engines. The 1250/1500 is a bit higher than the 1300/1600. They also made a low compression model but it never came out in NZ.

Here are the factory compression ratios

1250/1500: 9.2:1
1500 Low Compression: 8.0:1

1300/1600 HC upto Series 7: 8.6:1
1300/1600 LC upto Series 7: 7.8:1
1300/1600 HC upto Series 7 onwards: 8.8:1
1300/1600 LC Series 7 onwards : 7.8:1


In terms of results of a compression test my manual says your engine should be 160 to 180 lbf/ft2

You can compare my 1500 which has a Compression Ratio of 9.2:1 vs my Chargers 265 hemi which is 9.5:1 so yeah that Avenger is pretty high compression.

1975 Hillman Avenger 1300 Super, 1972 Chrysler Valiant Charger 770, 1980 Chrysler Avenger 1.3GL

http://www.carphotos.co.nz
RPM Photography

79estate

oh true, true,Groooovy!!

I understand. Whats the difference with the HC?, LC etc?

Im not sure what mine is, any ideas?

Sweet As, i will compression test my engine and see what it reads.

haha FUlly,

Cheers Mikey.

oldschool

I think your rings are fine Mikey, just your engine looks to be running a bit hot.
It may have an 88 deg thermostat fitted, better to change it to an 82 deg one.
The deg is stamped on the thermostat, so easy to check it

avenga

Quote from: 79estate on November 18, 2011, 10:35:08 PM
Whats the difference with the HC?, LC etc?

Im not sure what mine is, any ideas?

Yours will be a HC (High Compression) since they only sold High Compression engines in NZ.

The LC (Low Compression) engine had deeper crowned pistons which would lower the compression ratio so it would run on lower octane petrol etc. When they sold the Avenger in USA as the Plymouth Cricket they used the lower compression engines. I think it was also an option in UK.

1975 Hillman Avenger 1300 Super, 1972 Chrysler Valiant Charger 770, 1980 Chrysler Avenger 1.3GL

http://www.carphotos.co.nz
RPM Photography

Paddy75

LC in Europe was, from what I hear older mechanics say, about reducing the pressure on the big-end when engines went from side valve to OHV. Before multigrage oil became reliable if you had a HC engine and you had thin oil on a cold day you could quickly wreck an engine, hence most cars had an oil pressure gauge. Hillmans in particular had a reputation (1950's Minx's) for melted pistons and wrecked big-ends when high-speed highways or motorways were first built.
So by the 1970's many older buyers would opt for (say) LC 1500cc and run the car on 2 Star petrol/benzine/gas (or whatever you want to call it) (95 RON) as this was thought to work out easier ran, or less bother to tune than (say) HC 1250cc on 4 Star (98 RON).
It was also much easier to tune a LC engine and back in those days the driver would beware any pinking noises, sure there was even a ferrule on the vacum advance for easy tuning.
Its indeed noticed that the most efficient engines were, after electronic ignition, good alloy heads, better valve timing etc, and before the introduction of the catalytic converter (massive mistake) as for example a 1100cc Renault 5 with a 5 Speed gearbox could do 50+ mpg no bother - thats tuned for 4 Star.
Then came the cat, low octane and the engine has to run rich. 50mpg went to 40mpg or less whith the addition of PAS on a small car.
I was driving a 1100cc 1991 Peugeot 205 (no cat, alloy-head OHC engine with a good carbie)  a while ago and it felt like it was a 1400cc and indeed the guy that was selling it said it runs on the smell of the fuel!
A sister of mine needs a 'new' car pretty soon and as she is on welfare she can't afford nothing. So I'm looking for a pre-'93 Peugeot 309 for her, a 205 is a bit too light for a kiddy cart if someone went into the side of you. Far easier ran than after the cat and the old Peugeot is a good idea because the bodies were fully galvanized dipped. Although typically for a French car the suspension and brakes can be a real pain!
Abroad and thinkin' of avenger

kierbear

did u buy a haynes manual like i told u to? lol
Li'l Blu

avenga

Quote from: kierbear on November 19, 2011, 08:02:39 AM
did u buy a haynes manual like i told u to? lol

Hey Mikey. If you don't have a haynes manual then I have one spare I could give you.

Like Kiera said, they are worth their weight in gold.

1975 Hillman Avenger 1300 Super, 1972 Chrysler Valiant Charger 770, 1980 Chrysler Avenger 1.3GL

http://www.carphotos.co.nz
RPM Photography

79estate

hahhaha na not yet ae, Keira,

yes please, that would be mean as, cheers!!!

Ill get it off you next time i see you if thats sweet??

Cheers MIkey.

blekkja

i would have no problems owning a 205. looked at buying one last year - but my mechanic screamed at us.

were nz cars built at ryton? or in asia somewhere?
Chill Datto, bro!

Paddy75

Did you have Peugeots in NZ? The Pug were easy enough to work on, Renaults could be a major pain! The P309 diesel (1905cc XUD9A - Totota also used this lump, and no the Ren 1.9D was not the same engine!) was a great car, I had a couple of them. Very strong engine, good interior space, and could be bounced off oak trees when dru.., ahem when showing off to the buddies pretending we were 15 years old again! The 309 was gonna be called the Talbot Arizona, made in the old Avenger factory in England then Peugeot/Citroen decided to kill the brand. Likely because the Simca derived Chrysler/Talbots (Alpine, Solara, Horizon, Tagora) were even worse than Fiats!

The wee 205 was a great car, some say the best car ever made. In terms of longevity, economy, performance and handeling. The 309 was ugly but it had a wider track so it handled even better. The biggest problem with them was the back torsion axle which was just an extended 205 axle and couldn't take a heavier car. On one of mine I had Peugeot 405 wheels on the rear to lift it up, looked like a tractor!
Abroad and thinkin' of avenger

blekkja

a few - they aren't very common compared to the jappers / aussies though. that goes for all euro cars. the main problem is that if you mention peugeot, etc, 95% of people will say "oh i wouldn't buy one of those they are too unreliable and expensive to fix". this is getting a bit better with newer models - although i tried recently to convince my mother to buy a late model 206 but she still went for the uglier [and more expensive] mazda 2 for this very reason.
Chill Datto, bro!

Paddy75

I think the unreliability is a myth. Peugeots have been used here on bad bumpy narrow roads, up and down our snaketracks for years. Yes suspension parts do wear out a bit more quickly than the jap-scrap but they do drive a helluva lot better than jap white goods. Then for a diesel, the older Pug XUD9 engine cannot be beaten, the newer DW8 (HDi) is not as strong (lighter parts in it due to unrealistic EU emissions standards) and even compared to a VW (very strong body, a bit dull to drive and the engines and transmissions can be a lot of expensive trouble) they compare well.

Its bullshit really, all you have to do is replace the P-bushes once in a while and replace the water pump the second time you change the timing belt (on the diesels.) They run the best. Japaboring yokes go untill there is a massive and fatal breakdown and there is no or a very expensive repair.

See what happens when the injector pump lays down on a Toyota, or when the gearbox breaks on a Nissan and guess what, there are none left in the breakers! I personally don't like jap cars, they are like driving a washing machine. My Mother has a D4D Corolla, its bent the wheels, the suspension has gave up and replacing the bushes on it was a lot more pricey than on the Peugeot 306 Sedan SRDT that she had for nearly ten years. Then to top it all off the heater in that Corolla, despite being a 2.0 diesel is absolutly crap! Yeh jap care are the best. No, they are a type of motoring purgatory.
Abroad and thinkin' of avenger

Paddy75

Maybe this is an easy answer to wether your engine is HC or LC
I have a 1975 Avenger Owners Handbook with a number 6 on the rear cover. I got it off ebay as it was cheap and looked very clean.
On the first page it states:
High Compression Engines (indicated by 'R', 'S' or 'T' as first letter of service code) - 97 BS rating 4 star.
Low compression Engines: (indicated by 'U' or 'V' as first letter of service code) 90 BS rating 2 star.

Then on the Specifications page (page 98) it states that both the 1300 & 1600 engines have a standard specification which can be HC or LC - 1.5'' carburettor.

Or a High performance specification which is HC only with 1.75'' carburettor.

I assume the standard and high performance option was due to the dropping of the TC models and that this #6 book applies to the 04/75 on build.

The books refrence is: Chrysler UK Ltd. 1975. I.B 543 Part No. 71273994

Hope this helps.
Abroad and thinkin' of avenger

oldschool

I think all NZ assembled Avengers were made from CKD kits imported from the UK, with the panels being welded together here by hand in jigs to make the body, then the engine and running gear, etc. fitted.
The assembly was pretty haphazard compared to today's standards, have found bits of mig welding rod all over my cars, variable panel gaps and the doors and boot normally aren't water tight.
The windscreens don't usually leak, unless the rubber is stuffed.
Richard said all NZ Avengers had the HC engine, makes sense as our leaded fuel was 96 octane.
Our NZ chassis plate was dismal compared to the UK one, just displayed the engine no, chassis no, paint and trim codes...that's it, no service codes!!