[Michael Anselm]

I stand corrected …. the newly purchased rear spheres are indeed ID 40 RX … termed “comfort spheres”. All make’s sense & now so at peace with the world … PHEW !
Can’t wait for next session when will get the ol’ girl off them axle stands to check out suspension, bleed rear brakes & maybe the tracking. DS will soon be wafting around the Island again !
THANKS for the dialogue … all helps … ,
Michael (Isle of Wight)

[Michael Anselm]

Greetings Team DS … HAPPY DAYZ !
I’m sure you will all be relieved that I now have reason to be at peace with the world….. on the tracking issue at least.
One phone call to Darrin of Citroen Classics resulted in the realisation that the cast splined top levers ARE HANDED. Guess what …. I refitted them the wrong way round with the apparently “unnecessary lump” outboard. Swapped over & all was good ! Obviously, I sort of wish I had not cut the 10mm off the threaded rods but quite a few threads can still be seen on the inside of the two clamps so I am sort of OK with that. The distance between the ends of the rods inside the adjuster sleave after tracking performed with wheels off ground is about 20mm so yeah … a 5mm cut would have been better. I’m thinking that the toe in will reduce at normal height.

Can’t wait to get the Pallas off the chocks to bleed rear brakes & tune the tracking & checking out the new rear “comfort” spheres (didn’t know until recently that there were two types). My new comfort front spheres have a “26” in it’s code & the old ones (dated 2018) had “40”. Now I’m guessing that this is the pressure in Bar units. There surely must be a damping “orifice” difference between the two for otherwise, just stick with then 40 Bar ones & they will progressively become softer with time. Like … why wouldn’t you want the DS to be “comfortable” ? Apparently, there are “comfort ” ones for the front. Is this something I should strive to get in order to experience what the DS is famous for ?

Thanks for your support,
Michael Anselm (Isle o0f Wight)

[Michael Anselm]

SO … I did cut off sufficient to enable all the LH/RH thread on both parts to be fully utilised to maximise toe in potential. To see if I was in the right ball park, as the vehicle is on axle stands, I jacked the suspension arms to a position where then outer track rod were about horizontal (as a nod to where the ride height might be). The steering wheel was turned so that the measurement between the wheel rim & the body both sides were the same to approximate for straight ahead direction. With the front inner wheel rims marked with chalk level with the centre of the wheel, I then measured the distance between the wheel rims at the front then rotated wheels backwards 180 degrees to hopefully note a greater distance. HE DISTANCE WAS ABOUT 25mm TOE OUT (still). I intend to use some old track rod parts to fit an adjustable (shorter) rod on the LHS per then existing RHS to (surely) produce some toe in (a 1 inch reduction in rod length). I believe the thread is M14x1.25mm pitch.
WHY I wonder is it SO far out. I did note that before disassembly, the RH adjuster was fully shortened & though “Woops … too much toe in here” but maybe the previous owner / technician didn’t bother to investigate further. There has been no visible tyre wear albeit I don’t do many miles at all.
The only thing I’ve done was to hammer HARD with a mallet a wedge ball joint separating tool to achieve top hub ball joint separation on both sides. Could this have distorted the toe in by a couple of inches ?
It might become obvious as I continue this journey what’s up but for now just a bit strange.
Any similar experiences out there ?
best, Michael Anselm (Isle of wight)

[Michael Anselm]

Thanks Peter … your experience has give me some hope that I not totally out or order !
I too therefore will cut about 10mm off each of the RH threaded ends of the track rod assembly. If this isn’t enough, then surely the purchase of another RH ball joint / track rod assembly to fit to the LHS would increase the available adjustment. With an adjusted both sides, the position of the steering wheel could be more easily controlled. Why did they only fit the adjuster to the RHS I wonder ? If it’s just purely access, then having spent a day just removing & refitted my starter motor, a LH track rod access would be a doddle !
I need to check out the Burton 2cv catalogue who claim their stainless steel adjustment sleeve is also suitable for the DS. If the thread on their part goes to the centre of the sleeve, then maybe extra toe in could be achieved by cutting a bit of the ends of this part.
What size & pitch is the DS part ? I wonder if a more conventional adjuster (per the Burton design) is readily available on ebay from another car for peanuts ?
Best, Michael (Isle of Wight)

[Michael Anselm]

This knowledge diversification & encouragement is worth us sharing quite a few (beers / red wine / olives and/or cheese * if ever the planets were to align) * delete as applicable.
Going to wrap up warm & tomorrow …. invite my 2cv mate over to collectively throw ourselves at this refurb job that started as a ‘simple’ clutch plate renewal all those months ago !
Excellent feedback Paul … THANKS
Michael (Isle of Wight)

[Michael Anselm]

Friends,
I have ventured onto the spares folk (e.g. Der Franzose) & have found a Clutch arm release assembly for our three fingered clutch release plate. So you say we should maybe fit new bearing (D.F. Article No. 32224 @ 33.25 Euro) into our release fork “assembly” but now wonder of I have the right release arm fork as it hasn’t “an eye”. I note there is a 1/4″ (as if !) diameter rod with a slot in the end & a locknut at it’s base just to the LHS of the release bearing (looking forward & just above & to the right of the lower bellhousing nut) & did wonder what this adjusted within the gearbox. My policy was to leave well alone (“ignorance is bliss” theory) but could this be the spigot on which the fork “with eye” you reference is located on (i.e. might we have the wrong release fork assembly …. ours should be a late 1968 hydraulic gearbox per the vehicle one might assume). If it has been running OK without an eye, should we not just replace like with like or is it definitely incorrect BUT does it matter ? Note our issue was a clutch that wore out over very low mileage after 8 years. I was guessing this was just “bad luck” but maybe the DS experienced garage adjusted the clutch too tight or was the lack of “eye” to blame ?
Well friends, please “pick the bones” out of that if you can. I want to do as good a job as I can now that it is in bits but am looking for confidence to purchase the correct parts.
Thanks, Michael (Isle of Wight)
PS I accept therefore that my DY2 engine fitted in this 1968 DS Pallas is incorrect & am thinking that the correct engine would be a DX2 ? Will trawl the internet but can I again cheat & ask you for your thoughts ?

[Michael Anselm]

Paul,
Great to have someone to talk to … your comments will help us mentally prepare for the ‘joy’ of refitting !

Reference your answer to question 2):
My main concern was how the CRANKSHAFT oil seal is replaced. If easy we might do it …. if difficult, then what’s a few more drips on the driveway !

Regarding your welcomed response to my wordy question 3)
I was hoping you might confirm that the release bearing featuring an attached tube thing is normal & that the flopping input shaft is also normal & not indicative of a shot input shaft bearing at the other (front) end. Apart from if gearbox was overfilled, are there any seals employed to prevent gearbox oil from exiting the gearbox into the bellhousing or is the design with its catchment pan & internal drain tube all there is & that lateral shaft movement is normal & not something that is a big problem when aligning gearbox to engine. Should one splash out on a custom alignment tool for the friction plate & if so … is there a good supplier for such (I know this will be the hardest thing to achieve so a few quid to make it easier is well worth it).

With regard to your response to my question 4)
Sorry I wasn’t clear but I am confused as well. It is a 1968 LHD DS but fitted with a later DY2 engine (for better or worse). You did not confirm my guessed method to date the engine to 1970 via the 5th digit on the serial number but any subtleties however would anyway be lost on me.

THANKS & ‘Keep The LHM Flowing’ (but hopefully not onto my drive once the split front suspension gaiters have been replaced !)
Michael (Isle of Wight)

[Michael Anselm]

Hi Paul,
My friend & I took the plunge & yesterday pulled the gearbox off the engine of my 1968 DS21 !
The clutch friction plate HAD worn down to the rivets … now we know. The plate was however, NOT oil contaminated from the observed leak through the camshaft oil seal. Maybe the earlier three lever design of clutch assembly is better protected by being within the flywheel ?
QUESTIONS:
1) Observed between the outer bearing attached to the gearbox bell housing & the oil seal fitted into the engine casting was a black ring of (brittle) damaged rubber about 3 to 5mm thick that if functional, might have prevented any oil leak from passing down inside the bellhousing & force it to flow out via the bearing onto the pulley maybe. Is this part standard or don’t one fit such things now ?
2) The majority of the bellhousing sticky muck would be from the above leak but thought we might push in a new CRANKSHAFT oil seal. How on earth can one do this without the seal being in 2 halves & the requirement to remove the crankshaft … surely not ! HOW ? Would it be foolish to ignore this and just accept a drip or two ?
3) I was initially alarmed at the lateral play in the gearbox input shaft thinking that it would be next to impossible to align with any accuracy for it to pass through the splines of the friction plate. However, moving the release lever pushed a strange 4″ long tube that seems to be attached to the release bearing back into a tube in the gearbox reduced the movement (if positioned over the splines) to a level where it might allow for gearbox refitment. Is this correct (DY2 engine) ? Ha … some release bearing (hydraulic gearchange) ! I guess you would recommend a new bearing in the flywheel that locates the end of the gearbox shaft despite feeling as new .. but might not if v. difficult to do (per front crankshaft seal)?
4) How can one date one’s gearbox and engine ? The g/box has a tag on it “65 126138” and the engine S/No is 0560025147. Regarding the engine, is not the 5th digit the year .. thereby being either 1960, 1970 or 1980 … clearly be a 1970 (if this rule is Citroen-wide). The vehicle is a late 1968 Pallas 21.

Thanks for any comments / assistance on the above to give me a bit of confidence as I have not done this sort of thing before. Any tips such as a method to minimise the anticipated alignment struggle would be v. gratefully received !
Best, Michael (Isle of Wight)

[Michael Anselm]

Christopher,
I seem to be experiencing the same issues going up steep hills … & indeed… I experience no sense of burning clutch … but clutch slip surely is occurring as the revs increase with no associated increase in road speed. A regime of changing the various hydraulic settings in increments beyond the modest amounts recommended in various CCC forum threads had little effect in this clutch slipping sensation. I might have proposed that a “worn clutch” would render these adjustments less sensitive.
Reluctant to go to the seemingly immense trouble of splitting the engine / gearbox to check the condition of the clutch kit that I had fitted not 9 years ago … UNLESS you folk consider 9 years to be OK for an (at worst) badly gear change set up setup.
I unscrewed the clutch adjusting hex by three turns & experienced a bit of gear complaint when changing gear … but still the issue climbing hills. There is about 15mm distance between hex and threaded bit of release arm. From what I have read herein, this is not indicative of a worn friction plate (i.e. they talk of threaded adjusted falling out of release arm thread or hex against said part). If 15mm is withing normal range, then I can only think the cause of my traction issues is a contaminated friction plate.
I also pushed down the auxiliary clutch control knob under the steering wheel from spring biased up position to down position with no change of clutch engagement or any sense of change (which surprised me confirming sadly that I clearly do not know how all these things operate !). When stationary in neutral, pushing this knob down/forward caused the viewable top of the release arm to move backwards (i.e. clutch engaged), & in the default up position (toward driver), the release arm immediately moves forward to disengaged clutch position.
Is there anything that I have missed that might be the reason why pressure might remain in the clutch slave cylinder when driving (a reason why clutch might slip) ?
I tried to stick an endoscope up from the underside but the image was not helpful to establish whether the area was contaminated. I guess no one has successfully “power washed” the bell housing / friction plate area with brake cleaner (engine running to provide clutch disengagement) to resolve a contaminated clutch ? There are no obvious rivers of oil emanating from the underside at the engine / bell housing interface.
CLUTCH CHANGE:
Is this something to be scared of doing on a DS. I have performed such on my 2cv … surely just have to be more disciplined. Can the engine be left in situ with the front end supported in a jack ? Does the gearbox simply slide out forward the required … dunno … 10 inches ? .. on a uniform axis (unlike the 2cv) for clutch access ? Could this be done with trolley jacks or are hoists needed OR is it something best saved up for to get someone experienced to do it as too many pitfalls !?
Hey … just love some comments / advice on this real issue on my used all year round 1968 DS Pallas.
THANKS …
Michael Amselm

[Michael Anselm]

Ahoy my Goddess Lovers,
Paul’s words have encouraged me (the originator of this fascinating thread) to challenge the odd brain cell I still have to ponder why have two idle jet circuits (50 pilot jet for the primary choke & a 75 jet for the secondary choke). Not thoroughly thought through yet but suggest the primary pilot jet is NOT for idle tick over but to service the progression through from initial throttle opening to (say) 25% primary butterfly throttle openings. During this phase, there will be insufficient low pressure created by the flowing of air through the primary choke to drawer mixture from the main primary jet so the required air /fuel (mixture) is delivered via various side (progression) holes in the wall of the carburettor on the air filter side of the butterfly valve.
My thoughts are that all the mixture required for idling (tick over) is delivered via a delivery hole on the manifold side of the secondary (nominally shut) butterfly. The actual amount delivered is regulated by the (sprung) adjuster screw setting & trimmed for RPM by tweaks to the secondary butterfly throttle stop screw (in effect, adjusting the amount of additional air being admitted to join this mixture (in this case, more air = higher revs).
I would love to strip a carburettor to see why Citroen has done it this way but I bet it is something to do with that large diameter brass adjusted screw on the carburettor that is opened up to realise a higher engine speed with brakes released to engage the clutch.
How that helps with my original issue whereby the engine sounds best & highest tick over with the mixture screw fully in I have not yet figured out …. unless the primary butterfly is open such to allow the 50 pilot jet to deliver mixture (but it is nigh on shut …. I believe).
As they say …. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing !
Cheers, Michael (Isle of Wight)

[Michael Anselm]

Thanks Paul for your comments.
I followed Nigel Wild’s set-up procedure as it provided more of an explanation of why the Workshop manual says what it says … which again, is in line with Chris Dubuque’s suggested procedure you kindly provided. The use of two idle jets in this carburettor is intriguing isn’t it and my observation is therefore correct that only the secondary choke incorporates a means to adjust the Mixture (although I understand that earlier carbs of this type has an Air Volume screw on the primary side which sort of makes sense).
If my engine runs the fastest & smoothest when the Mixture screw fully screwed in (i.e. closing off the air/fuel mixture being delivered from the secondary 0.75mm dia idle jet), then it is (surely ?) only getting its fuel mixture from the primary idle jet (0.5mm dia). Always seems perverse to me, but I understand that air leaks into the manifold increases the tickover speed. Although the carb was sent away for professional refurbishment, maybe I should remove it & check flatness & work out myself how & why the design is how it is.
All will be embarrassingly obvious when we find out the reason !
Thanks, Michael

[Author]

Posts