The information in that article is fictitious and dangerously incorrect. I know both the Peugeot TUD3 and TUD5 very well because the TUD3 is famously a "lemon" engine with many failures and was quickly replaced by the TUD5.
I did some of the failure TUD3 failure replacements not in cars, but in Toro golf-course equipment (Toro 3000 Groundmasters). Toros run hydrostatic pump, wheel drive and cutting heads at 2600rpm.
I had to record in the Workplace Health and Safety job book (welcome to Australia) the weights used on the engine lifter and the TUD3 is 108kgs while the TUD5 is 114kgs (drained of water and oil).
The TUD3 is most certainly NOT 80kgs and that is even a tough weight for a 1.4 SI (car) engine to meet let alone a 1980's designed 4 cylinder diesel. Add to that oil, water and radiator/hoses and you are over 120kgs.
I have no more to add to this 'discussion' and wasn't intending to, but post this info in the interest of helping someone who may consider the Peugeot diesel a choice, it's not.
Hi Cheapracer, well it seems for once we agree on something! The TUD3 was a bad engine, being notorious for blowing the head gasket ! This was The PSA group´s first atempt to produce a all aluminium diesel engine . The block was too weak and couldn't deal with the loads it was subjected to, being built very similar to its SI brother . It was/is a much hated engine to overhaul because the threads on the block have the habit of striping off when you bolt on the head. My local shop where I do part time work still get one in now and then and hate to work on them, and sometimes even advise just getting a used TUD5 1,5 replacement !
As you correctly state it had short run , and learning from their mistake PSA replaced it with an upgraded version that is a fine engine, the TUD 5 . This was a valuable lesson that served well to avoid future problems with the next generation HDI family of aluminium engines .It was one could say, a "transition" engine, and as you say a lemon
! ( the engine Thielert used had similar issues in its run in Mercedes at the time, so it was also no surprise to me that it failed as it did)
This was also the last engine produced with a simple mechanical indirect injection. In fact it was that simplicity that made the constructor choose it in first place!
Given the choice I would not use that engine my self be it in the air or on in a car ( turned down a cheap offer recently, of a car that was powered by one).
I myself was surprised that it is doing well in the air having reached over a 1000 hours with no problems, but this seems to support my notion that a diesel engine has an easier life on an air plane then in a car, and in spite of the fact that I don't like it, the fact remains that its doing well, (so far) in a few aircraft built and being propelled by it!
As for the weight figures, Wouldn't stake my life on them, since I haven't checked them personally . But the fact remains that French authorities registered the aircraft , and that implies that whatever + or - weight here or there, it met the class/Type it was registered as.
Like it, or not, it also a fact that this aircraft/engine combination has set a new record for a combination of range, speed, and fuel consumption , so whatever I or you, anybody out there might think, its been done, can be done, so for me the question is not if, but how much can we improve on it with newer engines with better power to weight ratios and better fuel figures :gig:
I think a member on HBA is actually building one (Berridos I think) so we will get some first hand info in the future!
