Tandem Mi Engine Build

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

I'm going to build two engines. I will document as much as I can here with photos to drool over and use as reference for other similar builds.

 

I've discussed this with Dan Taylor, PeterT (ironically another Taylor), Maxi, SPGTI, Tesstuff and SorrentoPete and the outline plan is as follows:

 

To build 2 almost identical Mi16 engines, both with upped compression ratio (CR) ~10.8:1, where one will be circa the original 1905cc with decked (height reduced) liners and decked alloy block (0.4mm deck) and the other circa 1995cc (is that correct?) in a fairly decked iron block, both with a *526 Catcam inlet camshaft on a vernier (adjustable) pulley, running the Mi AFM (airflow meter) and Mi PeterT chipped ECU management, through GTI6 inlet and TB (throttle body) and Maniflow 4-2-1 2.25" exhaust manifold, downpipe and system. One will have an Mi head, the other an S16 head; but I believe they are more or less identical spec wise.

 

The goal is to enjoy building them and testing them. They will both run on a 1.6 box and we will compare whether 100cc displacement makes any difference when it has to haul an extra 23kg (block weight).

 

I'm trying to write this so there are no abbreviations any newcomers or less experienced forum users don't understand.

 

My plan is NOT concrete, but it's where I am now. We may see 180-190BHP out of these if we get it right, but may be reaching the limits of the AFM and single TB inlet system.

 

Everyone's comments, ideas, criticisms and technical info are welcome. These engines will both be for sale at some point, and at least you'll know exactly what you're getting for the money. In fact these engines could even be installed in forum member's cars as part of a deal. I have 4 cars and don't need anymore, although I'd probably sleep with an engine given half a chance, and having 2 to tinker with is my idea of non-mobile fun.

 

The aim of these cars/engines is an absolute road hoot. They will be completely new, with ARP bolts and fresh bearings etc lovingly put together, with the warm fuzzy feeling of reliability and completely accessible road power, turned up a notch. Fuel economy should be good too.

 

So here's what I think I know and what advice/comments/answers I'd like: ? is a clear I don't know / (?) is a please confirm

 

XU9J4 alloy block

- weight = ?kg

- liner bore = 83mm (?)

- standard CR = 10.4:1

- stroke on Mi 1905cc crank = 88mm (?)

- block plus liners seated properly height = ?mm

- piston height WRT (with respect to) liner at TDC (top dead centre) = ?mm

 

XU10J4 iron block

- weight = ?kg (23kg more than XU9 (?))

- block bore = 86mm (?)

- standard CR = ? :1

- stroke on Mi 2.0L crank = 88mm (?)

- block height = ?mm (I know this is 11 or 12mm taller than the XU9)

- piston height WRT block surface at TDC = ?mm

 

Standard pistons will be run and I appreciate they may need valve pocketing. Cam timing may well be set as per PeterT's advice of 108-109deg. This is slightly different from the Catcam recommendation and is a point of interest for me.

 

The Catcam in question is detailed here: click

 

The GTI6 inlet will have the resonator chamber removed. The GTI6 ICV (idle control valve - or stepper motor) will be hollowed and used as a union to mate in the Mi16 ICV. (Good idea Dan). The GTI6 TB may need a custom joiner to mate it to the AFM, and I am unsure currently whether PeterT's chips work with either a 2 or 3 row ECU or both. I personally am unsure of the difference between the 2 ECUs. The TB to AFM joiner will position the cone filter in the most ideal cold air feed location, perhaps behind the headlight.

 

The Mi/S16 heads will have triple or even (as advised by PeterT) quadruple cut valves seats, as I understand from when I visited Pete that the port or throat casting benefits from a further 'step' to aid gas flow.

 

So the aim is to make the engines fairly comparable. One will have a displacement advantage but a weight handicap. The CR's may be slightly different too. We shall see what happens.

 

Comments, abuse, ridicule, support, free donor parts and general back patting all welcomed. Interest in buying these engines also welcome, although they won't be ready until Xmas.

[GLPoomobile 958]

There's nae need for tandem topics about it you double posting, s*it internet connection, monkey boy!

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

There's nae need for tandem topics about it you double posting, s*it internet connection, monkey boy!

 

 

Thanks for the technical input you tree sap covered, relay tinkering, totally stationary Mi16 owning arse bandit.

[Alastairh 47]

Sounds good. But what cars are they going to be tested into?

 

Al

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

The solid block will make more BHP, more TORQUE and will make a faster 205. I stand by that.

 

Cam timing will be everythign to this and needs to be cock on for both engines Rich. I would go with the std catcam settings.

 

One question, why a gti6 inlet manifold? If you are running mi management I would be running a std/shortened mi inlet manifold.

 

I think you also need to decide your goal with the two engines. Dare I say it, are you heading for high torque, or peak BHP?

 

Its something you really need to decide VERY early on as it will vastly differ how you want to put the engines together in the form of ingredients. Remember, you ARE the chef at this banquet, I dont want HP on my f***ing Roast pork!

 

I have a request, if you buy a shell to put one of these engines in, may I convert the one to take the solid block. I miss doing them, better see if I still have the touch.

 

Maxi

Edited July 24, 2009 by maxi

[petert 588]

Lovely idea. A couple of things come to mind.

 

1. Deck Height

Both engines love reduced deck height. I would be skimming the iron block as well, and bring it up to at least 10.8:1. I think from memory a 1mm skim gives 11:1.

 

2. Cam Timing

Ignore Maxi. That's what the adjustable pulley is for. I happy to put a fiver up though, that 108-109 gives the best powerband.

 

3. Inlet Manifold

Stick with the GTi6 manifold. It's definitely an improvement over the square entry Mi manifold.

 

4. ECU

Definitely go 3 row. I'm happy to donate a chip and ECU.

 

5. Bore and Stroke

To be reasonably fair, keep the iron block at 86x86 (1998cc). It might be hard to find a good low km block however.

 

6. FINANCE

Ask the forum for donations. After all, everyone on here is benefiting from the project. Why should you fund it yourself?

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

Lovely idea. A couple of things come to mind.

 

 

2. Cam Timing

Ignore Maxi. That's what the adjustable pulley is for. I happy to put a fiver up though, that 108-109 gives the best powerband.

 

3. Inlet Manifold

Stick with the GTi6 manifold. It's definitely an improvement over the square entry Mi manifold.

 

 

Bit blunt. Everyone has their own ideas and on these two points I beg to differ. Nothing hostile, I just dont agree, sorry!

 

As for 3 row management, that should go without saying!

 

Maxi

Edited July 24, 2009 by maxi

[petert 588]

I guess it was a bit blunt! It's amazing how a few G/T's can change your perspective. Given you've got a vernier pulley however, why wouldn't you optimise on the dyno? Otherwise, you may as well lock the cam with a key and save money.

[Crazy-legs! 0]

Sounds like this could be an intresting project! Just for the record, an XU10 is 86mm bore AND stroke. And 1998cc.

 

Marc.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

I guess it was a bit blunt! It's amazing how a few G/T's can change your perspective. Given you've got a vernier pulley however, why wouldn't you optimise on the dyno? Otherwise, you may as well lock the cam with a key and save money.

 

Bluntness forgiven; it was 'Gordon', not Peter talking.

 

No arguments on here please. Constructive debate. I can only make one choice in the end so someone will feel ignored, but it's not meant that way.

 

Adam> (Maxi)

Done. We will find a shell and you can do the iron block conversion onto 3 row management. That's one decision that has been made. NO sly changes though Ad; we must be completely transparent and honest about how we do this. I was surprised you wanted the iron one though.

 

I shall do the alloy conversion, and both 205s must have 1.6 boxes and full interiors. When they sell people can do what they like. In fact these engines will really only be about £1,500 away from getting 200-210BHP+ via the addition of ITBs, programmable ECU and map.

 

As for power and torque (...the forum groans...) I have road driveability as a goal, and I'm guessing that the guiding factor in this is the blend of the cam (including its timing) and the 3 row ECU with Pete's chip in it.

 

Pete's recommendation for spread of power is what delivers the driveability but will reduce top end. So that means peak BHP is not the goal. However, because both engines are being set up the same, i.e. broad, usable spread of power, then the BHP figures will be comparable although perhaps not as high as they could be. I hope that makes sense.

 

Peter>

Thanks for the chipped ECU donation. I have a second 3 row ECU from SorrentoPete so will buy the chip from you or could exchange for an Mi cam for you to regrind and sell on. Only fair, although donations to see this happen are warmly accepted.

 

As for specifications:

XU9 - Displacement 1905cc

Am I right about the 1.9 Mi crank or rods being different?

Because if stroke = 88mm

(83/2)^2 x 22/7 x 88 x 4 = 1905cc

 

XU10 - Displacement 1998cc

If stroke = 86mm

(86/2)^2 x 22/7 x 86 x 4 = 1999cc

 

SorrentoPete has helped with almost the complete iron block engine. Thanks Pete. This wasn't a donation, but I'm sure he'll give me, nay us, friend pricing.

 

I'd already decided on (and have bought 1 of the 2) GTI6 inlets, simply because I believe it's a better design. It has the ram tubes inside and is angled such that there's better clearance than a standard Mi one. I know Maxi said shortened inlet, but I'm not going to move on this choice, as I believe with the larger TB and better runner design it will yield better overall results. The shortened Mi job is more work, but may improve top end BHP, so point taken. Ironically I'm not aiming for peak torque, rather a nice spread of it, but I am suspecting that the iron block due to the higher CC will make more torque. It will be very interesting to see how the two pan out.

 

Things I currently need are:

- The second GTI6 inlet including fuel rail

- 1 x set of yellow Bosch Mi injectors

- An Mi16 ICV

- 2 x Mi16 AFMs (is the 2.0L one different to the 1.9?)

- 1 x Mi16 flywheel

 

Edited July 24, 2009 by DrSarty

[petert 588]

Bluntness forgiven; it was 'Gordon', not Peter talking.

 

Bombay actually.........so smoooth. The 2L doesn't have an AFM.

Edited July 24, 2009 by petert

[GLPoomobile 958]

Just a quickie from me....having been following a few projects on here, one thing I picked up on is the wobbly vernier pulleys from a certain manaufacturer, that have reared their ugly heads a few times recently. You might want to bear that in mind when choosing your pulleys.

[Anthony 1,003]

Things I currently need are:

- The second GTI6 inlet including fuel rail

- 1 x set of yellow Bosch Mi injectors

- An Mi16 ICV

- 2 x Mi16 AFMs (is the 2.0L one different to the 1.9?)

- 1 x Mi16 flywheel

I have most of that lot available Rich

 

I definately have the Mi flywheel, GTi-6 inlet, and set of Mi injectors, and probably an Mi AFM and ICV as well.

 

Drop me a PM and we'll sort something out price wise.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Bombay actually.........so smoooth. The 2L doesn't have an AFM.

 

Ahhhhhh: please enlighten me as to how this effects the whole plan?

 

Does this mean neither will need an AFM? Did the 3-row do away with the AFM?

 

Will the 1.9 have an AFM with a 3-row, and the 2.0 not have an AFM even though it too is on a 3-row ECU? Or are the 1.9 and 2.0 ECUs different? How does the 2.0 standardly manage itself then? Does it have IAT and MAP sensors?

 

I need help here now please.

 

 

 

Just a quickie from me....having been following a few projects on here, one thing I picked up on is the wobbly vernier pulleys from a certain manaufacturer, that have reared their ugly heads a few times recently. You might want to bear that in mind when choosing your pulleys.

 

DW8 diesel cheap skates mate. No wobble and less than a tenner.

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

I think I was one of the first to do this conversion well over 10/12 years ago now, The S16 with 1.9 ECU Etc and it work's pretty well and a few people have now copied this after saying back then it wasn't a good idea. The sqaure config of the 2.0 is much better than the 1.9 engine which come's into the driveablity of it.

A few little mods to do but nothing hard at all

As said the 2.0 doesn;t run a AFM so just use all the 1.9 stuff

[petert 588]

You will still need two 1.9L Mi16 AFM's. The 2L engine didn't have one as it sensed engine load via manifold pressure. The 2L ECU is different. You'll also need one 1.9L knock sensor (and stud) and one 2L knock sensor.

[Anthony 1,003]

Will the 1.9 have an AFM with a 3-row, and the 2.0 not have an AFM even though it too is on a 3-row ECU? Or are the 1.9 and 2.0 ECUs different? How does the 2.0 standardly manage itself then? Does it have IAT and MAP sensors?

2.0 Mi management is completely different to the 1.9 stuff - it uses a MAP sensor for load, proper TPS, individual coils, knock sensor etc.

 

You'd probably be better swapping it back over to run on 1.9 Mi16 management.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Right, I'm happy now, and thanks for the rush to help from everyone.

 

So in simple terms using the above:

 

Both engines will run Mi 1.9 litre (i.e. alloy block) 3 row ECUs (with PeterT chip).

 

They will also have a knock sensor each as per Pete's advice and use Mi AFMs.

 

Brilliant help from everyone.

 

Now: how do I distinguish between a 2.0L and 1.9L ECU, as I definitely do not want any 2.0L ones?

 

Pete's donating one of them already chipped, so I suppose I could wait until I have it. But I'd still like to know how to tell the difference please?

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

The S16 one's have a inbuilt Map Sensor so have a vacume pipe sticking out of them, plus it's MP something rather than Motronic, Also there's about 3 different Motronic types 2, I should have 1 or 2 kicking around

[Anthony 1,003]

Now: how do I distinguish between a 2.0L and 1.9L ECU, as I definitely do not want any 2.0L ones?

Different part numbers, and cosmetically slightly different to look at as well.

 

1.9 Mi16 2-row ECU's are - 0261 200 119, 125, 139 and 140

1.9 Mi16 3-row ECU's are - 0261 200 354 and 355 (plus 162? which we don't get in the UK)

2.0 Mi16 ECU is - 0261 200 218 (possibly others too?)

[Batfink 201]

I'm not convinced there will be any surprise in the outcome of this regarding straight line pace. I think the iron block will be a superior engine, but it will be interesting to see the handling effect of the weight at the front - you may just dispell a myth, or prove it once and for all....

How are you going to be testing the cars? I'd be glad to help. You might want to look at a location where the chassis dynamics can be put through their paces so you can guage the effects of the weight on cornering balance.

You will need to think about the donor cars too. What condition their suspension is will influence the handling.

 

Good stuff. Its not often someone has the funds or the interest to do such an experiment. Care does need to be taken to ensure there is no bias either way, but it look like you have that in hand.

 

I've got a bare alloy block if you need that weighed?

 

K.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

I've got a bare alloy block if you need that weighed?

 

Excellent comments Kev. Somehow I knew you'd volunteer.

 

Yes please; weigh the alloy block. I can get mine weighed but since you've offered. Someone might as well weigh an iron block too, as mine's with SorrentoPete still built up with crank etc. Just the block weights please anyone.

 

I've also chatted to Miles, and he's mentioned the issues of fitting the Maniflow to the iron block and having bulkhead clearance. To that end I may well buy one of Miles' own 4-2-1 manifolds for the XU10 build to avoid this issue. I don't think it will drastically change the outcome, as it's just a matter of slightly different angles of manufacture. Good old Miles; nice sneaky sales tactic. But I have asked him to refurb the 2 x 1.6 BE3 gearboxes because he's so darn good at it.

 

I'm kinda hoping that 2 people will see this as an opportunity to get 2 really great cars. I certainly don't need 6!! We need, as Kev says, 2 fairly identical (I would say standard) rolling chassis. Someone who has one and wants a stonkin' engine put in and can wait 6 months should speak up. It's not going to be given away naturally, but it would save me buying 2 cars/chassis when there maybe 2 out there just needing good engines. Enquiries welcome.

Edited July 24, 2009 by DrSarty

[maturin23 10]

Excellent project - there's so much conjecture on the xu9/xu10 topic and to be able to do repeated back-to-back comparisons in a fairly controlled manner will be very illuminating.

 

I'm stating the obvious (as I have nothing else to contribute ) but it would be interesting to see the corner weights of the cars before and after the changes.

[Paul_13 212 1 Cars]

Got a S16/MI flywheel if thats of any help, said you need a MI one above ^

Edited July 24, 2009 by paul_xiii

[petert 588]

Different part numbers, and cosmetically slightly different to look at as well.

 

1.9 Mi16 2-row ECU's are - 0261 200 119, 125, 139 and 140

1.9 Mi16 3-row ECU's are - 0261 200 354 and 355 (plus 162? which we don't get in the UK)

2.0 Mi16 ECU is - 0261 200 218 (possibly others too?)

 

 

1.9 Mi16 3-row ECU's are - 0261 200 158, 161, 167, 354 and 355

 

160 and 162 are 8V Motronic 1.3