CU / CT differences, using GVW to determine original spec

Big lumps of metals and spanners. Including servicing and fluids.

Moderators: User administrators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
937carrera
Registered user
Posts: 3599
Joined: 05 Apr 2015, 19:29
80-90 Mem No: 16333
Location: N Yorks.

CU / CT differences, using GVW to determine original spec

Post by 937carrera »

More of an answer than a question, but more info welcomed.

In the course of the thread below some doubt was cast on whether my orange van was originally a CU as it has a cable clutch fitted and I've been doing some more detective work today.

http://forum.club8090.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=165002

I checked the VIN number out again, from which I know my van was built in Hannover. Crucially the VIN plate also has vehicle weights on.

Armed with my 1981 brochure I checked the GVW which is stated to be 2360kg. This converts to 5204 lbs, yes UK brochures were in pounds back then, both 1600 and 2000 cc models have the same GVW. Axle weights are the same, but the answer came from the towing capacities.

Braked towing capacities are stated as 2205 lbs and 2645 lbs for the 2000. That's 1000 kg for the CT and 1200 kg for the CU.

So if you have a combined weight of 3360kg the van was originally a 1600, if it says 3560kg it was originally a CU.

Mine was originally a 1600

As I said in the other thread, I'm not really bothered as my van has the correct DK gearbox fitted, but I am interested in knowing if there were any other differences. From the brochure the only difference I can see other than the clutch is that the CU had radial tyres while the CT had cross plies.
1981 RHD 2.0 Aircooled Leisuredrive project, CU engine
1990 RHD 1.9 Auto Sleeper with DF/DG engine

multisi
Registered user
Posts: 1725
Joined: 03 Apr 2016, 12:01
80-90 Mem No: 12
Location: jersey

Re: CU / CT differences, using GVW to determine original spec

Post by multisi »

Is your van fitted with a brake servo ? CU engine vans had servo brakes as standard.
1992 red lle 2.2 subaru 1990 rhd caravelle 2.2 subaru 1986 california import vanagon

User avatar
bigherb
Registered user
Posts: 2579
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 13:50
80-90 Mem No: 5789
Location: West Kent

Re: CU / CT differences, using GVW to determine original spec

Post by bigherb »

Brake servo was an option with CT
Build data is on the M plate under the left seat.

http://forum.club8090.co.uk/viewtopic.p ... e#p8137850" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
1982 Camper 1970 1500 Beetle Various Skoda's, Ariel Arrow

User avatar
937carrera
Registered user
Posts: 3599
Joined: 05 Apr 2015, 19:29
80-90 Mem No: 16333
Location: N Yorks.

Re: CU / CT differences, using GVW to determine original spec

Post by 937carrera »

Thanks for that additional information. My passenger seat was already out so dead easy to take a snap.

Image

So, from the linked thread it appears that my van was made on Wednesday 27th August 1980

Destination country EG - not sure about that as it's different to the EN on the one linked but I cannot find any other country codes
Vehicle type 2520 so RHD panel van (confirming that's what Leisure Drive used for their conversion), (from Etka)
Engine / box combination 11, so 1600CT with DH, DJ, DN, DO, DY or 6D gearbox (from Etka)
Body colour E1E1 so brilliant orange from the factory (from brochure)
LN interior trim, van dyck brown leatherette upholstery, (from brochure) so the seats in the van now are from a later model

Options
BH - 1981 model year, Hannover

I also looked on http://www.t3-infos.de/t3-infos_j.html and https://www.brickwerks.co.uk/t3-m-codes/ for the option codes, after misreading the components of the chassis number for option codes :roll:

The van does have a have a brake servo fitted, at least looking at the vac connection here, I think, sorry for the dropping rubber seal, they all do that don't they :) According to the BW link M506 is brake servo, so looks like it was added at the time of the engine swap. Seems to have been done properly ?

Is there another place on the early vans where M codes are shown, or is mine just bog standard with no options ?

Probably 90 minutes work finding this stuff, even with the helpful pointers, but now I have an idea about what this means it won't take so long in the future :ok

Image
1981 RHD 2.0 Aircooled Leisuredrive project, CU engine
1990 RHD 1.9 Auto Sleeper with DF/DG engine

Post Reply