[race_prep] Guernsey Hillclimb 205 Build

[wardy18 33 1 Cars]

Thought it would be easier to start a more general build thread for my engine rather than starting new queries in the Cambelt Thread.

 

 

1) Are all XU10 Top Engine mounts the same, ie do they all bolt to the front of the block?! Has anyone got any good photos of the Mounts?!

 

 

2) Sump spacing, obviously im goingt o have some clearence issues at the bottom of the engine as i am removing a 88mm stroke crank and fitting a 96mm stroke. The XUD9 has no sump spacers etc. I would like to utilise my XU9 Sump Baffle from Shenpar Motorsport but how do i extend the sump and more importantly the Oil Pump Pick Up?!

 

Best Regards

 

Simon

[wardy18 33 1 Cars]

More specifically, would either of these top engine mounts fit, the XU10J2/4 or the XU7. Both of which bolt to the front of the block and look rather the same bolt patern as the front of the XUD9 block (where the Bosch Fuel Pump normally bolts).

 

Even if they didnt fit exactly i could always make a steel conversion plate to bolt to the block and then bolt either of these mounts to the plate

 

XU7JP4

 

XU10J2/4

[welshpug 1,655]

XU7 will only fit the XU7 block, and I don't know if the XU10 will fit the diesel block.

[wardy18 33 1 Cars]

But it may if i made a Steel Conversion Plate

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Surely you can just use the beginnings of an XU9/9D/10 block part (if they are different), and have someone slice and weld the other half of a suitable mount for the job in hand.

 

They're usually just a chuck of ally or iron. It's only an engineering task.

 

These things were sent to try us Simon, and I do admire your persistence. Perhaps trying to keep all of your myriad of questions in one project topic may be an idea though. Easier to keep track of all of your answers and clever solutions that way.

Edited November 3, 2009 by DrSarty

[wardy18 33 1 Cars]

Surely you can just use the beginnings of an XU9/9D/10 block part (if they are different), and have someone slice and weld the other half of a suitable mount for the job in hand.

 

They're usually just a chuck of ally or iron. It's only an engineering task.

 

These things were sent to try us Simon, and I do admire your persistence. Perhaps trying to keep all of your myriad of questions in one project topic may be an idea though. Easier to keep track of all of your answers and clever solutions that way.

 

Yes i could use the XU9 205 mount and like you said have a slice of ally or iron welded to the block for the extra 'mount to block' bolt, however i am exploring all alternatives before i jump in as i usually go the long route and find out at a later date that an XU10 would have fitted and could have cost me practically nothing!!

 

I have set up this New Build Queries so can do just that rather than a new thread per query and going on tangents within that thread.

[welshpug 1,655]

do you have a picture of the front face of the block where the mounting bolts on?

[wardy18 33 1 Cars]

Here's some XUD9 block shots

 

Front of the block as requested ( note the 4 red dots show the possible mounting holes for a XU10 engine mount (these were the holes for the XUD9 Diesel Fuel Pump) )

 

 

Here's some extra shots showing the top side down the bores and a close of one bore, note the little spray bars in the bottom right of each bore

 

 

Edited November 3, 2009 by wardy18

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

 

I'm no engineer but providing those 4 (red dotted) holes can accommodate a thick enough bolt with a good (chunky) thread deeply enough, I'd say get a custom iron/steel plate made and go for it.

 

Also will the block and sump combination accept a windage tray?

 

Looking quite good Simon, providing you can get the block mounted.

[wardy18 33 1 Cars]

I was having a final look at the block last nite before i boxed it up ready for QEP today and i think it would be easier and cheaper to down the XU9 mount route (2 large bolts into side of the head) and make up the following angled bracket to then bolt to 3 of the Red Dotted holes and allow for the block bolt on the XU9 Mount to be bolted to the plate

 

 

[sub205 5]

the xu7/xu10 mounts are the same, despite that the xu7 does not seem to have the hole for the alternator-bracket.

 

the xud-engineblocks have other mountings, see a thread about a xu10j2te that turned out to be a diesel block.

 

i would not recommend the xu9-mounting because the weight orientation of the xu10 is different, only the xu10-mounting make sure that the engine sits correctly with the lower mount removed. personally i like the xu10 mounting more because you can take off the head without removing the mountings.

[wardy18 33 1 Cars]

I had wondered whether the XU9 mount (2 bolts to the head and one to the block mounted bracket as attached) will be strong enough to hold the extra weight of the Iron block, i dont want to put more strain on the head bolts as the block will be hanging on them in theory!!

 

I think ill buy a 5 - 6mm thick steel plate big enough to make the bracket for the XU9 mount and also big enough to make a conversion plate so i can fit an XU10 mount, ill then also obviously source an XU10 top mount, this way i can test both methods and see which im happier with.

 

Onto the wanted section

 

 

ALL I NEED TO SORT OUT NOW IS THE SUMP ISSUE

 

DrSarty - Sorry to answer your earlier question, i dont know how the Windage Trays fit in, please explain, i am hoping desperately that i might be able to use my XU9 Sump Baffle from Shenpar, looks like this: (i think it has a slight windage tray if i have the right idea of what one is)

 

 

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

XU10 blocks (the J4 at least) use a windage tray - item 29 in the below doodle I knocked up ( ).

 

 

Your baffle set-up stops the oil sloshing to one side and thus starving the pump pick-up.

 

I believe a windage tray's purpose is to 'cup' around the underside of the crank, and effectively stops frothing and airating (sp?) of the oil with the crank whipping through the oil reservoir.

 

It's just another addition to aid the lubrication system.

 

For some reason I have it in my head that a diesel XUD9 iron block will be similar to an XU10. It would be very useful for you and us if you were to picture and document the differences.

[wardy18 33 1 Cars]

The XUD9 has no windage tray whatsoever so i would need to source an XU10 to test fit, however would the 96mm stroke of the crank clear a std XU10 Windage Tray.

 

What do people do for a Windage Tray when converting an XU10 block up to 2.3ltr?!

 

I am more than happy to source one to test fit and document as you say but this will not be until next year now when i get the block back from QEP, currently in the post to them as we speak.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

I think you're getting confused about crank strokes Si.

 

The Peugeot 2.1 Turbo diesel crank (XUD11) is in my 2.2 engine and that's only 92mm. I have an XU10 windage tray.

 

Which crank do you have?

[wardy18 33 1 Cars]

DW12 96mm Crank from 406/607 2.2 HDi

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Right. For my own sanity, I request that if this is a one stop thread for your engine project then we just clarify what you're doing. You've hopped about so much I've got myself confused.

 

Can we clarify please? (some of the below borrowed from Wikipedia):

 

You're building a bespoke 8v, upped-displacement engine to sneak by MSA regs for your motorsport events. The regs (that you only wish to bend not break) state the cylinder block must've been fitted to that car from factory.

 

Hence you have chosen an XU PSA diesel block and crank.

 

The XUD is a family of straight-4 Diesel engines:

 

XUD7 — 1.8 L (1769 cc)

XUD9 — 1.9 L (1905 cc) **This is your block**

XUD11 — 2.1 L (2068 cc) or 2.1 L (2138 cc)

 

The EW/DW is a family of straight-4 gasoline and Diesel engines:

 

EW7 — 1.8 L (1749 cc)

EW10 — 2.0 L (1997 cc)

EW12 — 2.2 L (2231 cc)

DW8 — 1.9 L (1868 cc)

DW10 — 2.0 L (1997 cc) turbo

DW12 — 2.2 L (2179 cc) turbo **This is your crank**

 

The XUD9 had a displacement of 1.9L (1905 cc), with a bore of 83mm and a stroke of 88mm. (This is the same as the petrol 1.9 engines).

 

I have also just found out that the XUD9 engine was fitted to the Rover 200 (89-95), 400 (90-95), Suzuki Baleno (95-07), FSO Polonez Caro ( ) and the LDV Pilot (97-06) van ( ). This was just a bit of fun, but it shows that if this is a useful block to use, there are millions of the buggers out there in addition to being fitted to nearly all Citroens and Peugeots.

 

So: if you are not boring out the block to use larger than 83mm (forged?) pistons, then your DW12 crank will give you a new displacement of:

(83/2)^2 x 22/7 x 96 x 4 = 2079cc (~2.1L)

 

Just as a little aside here, as you appear to have chosen to use the XU10 8v (86mm chamber) head, I was wondering if there is enough meat in the XUD9 iron block to overbore it to 86mm (a big 3mm jump I know but I thought I'd ask) to match the head, AND, potentially use off the shelf PSA 86mm diesel or petrol pistons?

 

I'm sorry if I've hijacked your thread but you have so many, it's difficult to follow what you're doing and offer suggestions or answers in context of the bigger picture.

 

Another reason is I'm intrigued greatly by the combinations potentially possible with these diesel blocks and cranks. What I'm expecting to get is a kick in the nuts, such hear that the big end diameters will make rod matching difficult or something like that.

 

The ONLY thing I would be wary of - from a recent conversation with Sandy - is that when going for quite under square engines, where the stroke is considerably larger than the bore, apart from it perhaps not becoming a very revvy engine, extra forces are placed on the pistons and rings inside the bore and this could have an effect on reliability.

 

All told I'm impressed with the way you appear to me to be trying something different. Keep it up.

Edited November 4, 2009 by DrSarty

[wardy18 33 1 Cars]

Ok here's the build:

 

XUD9 Diesel Block (Iron, 83mm Bore)

Bored to 87mm

DW12 96mm Crank

S16 Con Rods (152mm)

Custom Pistoms (ordered to suit once everything measured up)

XU10 8v Head

 

Displacement - 2283cc

 

Yes your right, this is the only Iron block i can use to meet the MSA Regs due to it being the only Iron block fitted to a 205 (other than XUD7 of course)

 

There does seem quite an amount of meat on each bore but this will be evaluated by Matt at QEP when he receives the block before he orders the pistons.

 

No issues with the hijack, all opinions are very welcome and much appreciated as you guys have so much experience i can learn from. Sorry for all threads, not sure how everyone else does it but as i think of things i need to answer i research and also ask you guys which means a new thread as previous ones may be in the wrong section or not relevant to the new topic. I have now started this thread and will not stray from it, promise.

 

This engine should be a very Torquey unit, not a revvy one which is good for Hillclimbing in my opinion, the car now has so much grip, the current engine just gets bogged down so i need something to drive round and through the corners with some pace and launch me up the straights. I would have thought a Revvy would have more reliability issues than a low down torque unit??

 

Let me know what you think and please dont hesitate to post with anymore ideas/queries/issues etc etc

 

Regards

 

Simon

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

I will be amazed if Matt (& Nick ) manage to get 83mm up to 87mm rebore. Fair play if they do and think it can handle it.

 

On that basis - and I'm sure Matt has this is hand - then the cyl head/combustion chamber will likely be opened up too from 86mm to 87mm to unshroud the valves and match the bore.

 

Should be quite a thumper this, and you've already got me making plans in my head for my 1.9 8v engine to explore some different but similar ground, but staying at 86mm to use OE pistons.

 

Very best of luck with this. I'll stay quiet for a while.

 

EDIT: Ref reliability. I agree that revvy (or over revvy I should say) will break engines too. This is to do with the lateral forces placed on the pistons, rings and gudgeon pins inside the bores AND stresses on the crank, IF you have a large difference in bore to stroke. If you'd stayed at 83mm, then 96mm is a comparitively low ratio. 87mm is getting it back towards square, and thus the stresses are reduced. I've extrapulated this from both my conversation with Sandy, and it's also mentioned in Wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke_ratio

Edited November 4, 2009 by DrSarty

[wardy18 33 1 Cars]

Fingers crossed they come back and say all is well

 

How much would you say is a safe/reliable minimum bore wall width?

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Leave that to the experts.

 

I tried in vain to search for a general rule of thumb for that very question.

[wardy18 33 1 Cars]

Ive been told approx 4mm is a good guideline

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Ive been told approx 4mm is a good guideline

 

I can't comment really, other than to take an engine which is running 'high' comp, say 11:1 or more and compare liner or iron block wall thicknesses. As a layman I would just say that's an indication rather than a science, as I suspect there's more involved.

 

What has got me curious, is exactly how different is an XU9D to XU10 block? We've seen in your thread there are differences, such as mounting points, but if one is not restrained by MSA regs then is there any advantage in starting with an XUD9 block? My guess is no.

 

But this does make me feel that an XU9D block and XU10 block are probably the same chunk of starting iron, so therefore this jump from 83mm to 87mm bore is possible, but is only 'necessary' for YOUR build to beat the system.

 

Does that make sense?

 

In short what I'm saying is, I am concluding that the XUD9 block creates a lot of extra work and cost in an upped-displacement engine build, because if you haven't got regulations to get round, then an XU10 block is a simpler starting point.

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

Baffle wise I;d look at the Proper Pug Sport one (France that is) as it's a multi trap door and the design was used on the TC 306's here and some Maxi's

[wardy18 33 1 Cars]

Makes perfect sense, I had originally bought a Gti6 engine for a 2.3 build but conscience got the better of me and looked for alternatives which lead me to the XUD9!

 

I believe there are probable disadvantages in using this block, like you said starting with smaller bores and having no windage tray, also the diff mounts, tensioners - I could go on!

 

I'm hoping your right in saying that both originated from the same block only with build variations and so similar wall thicknesses, I do remember looking at the thickness but not taking an exact measurement and to me 2mm of the bore wall didn't look a great deal compared to its overall thickness

 

Time will tell

 

 

Back to windage trays for the time being anyway, do you think I can get away with fitting an XU10 unit and have enough clearence (2mm more than your 92mm crank)?? Also would this be fitted along with my sump baffle or aswel as??

 

Thanks for your advice and opinions with this, its good to talk and not just spend hours in my own head!