205 Gti 1.9 0-60

[Collier 0]

I know that on paper.. 0-60 in a 205 gti 1.9 is 7.6 seconds..

 

But i am thinking of fitting a 1.6 box and 1.6 flywheel..

 

Anyone know what the 0-60 i could be getting roughly with the 1.6 box and wheel.?

[Anthony 1,003]

I'd guess if anything it'll be a little slower, as it won't do 60mph in 2nd with a ~6500rpm limiter on a 1.6 'box, so you'll need to change into 3rd.

[Collier 0]

oh. i thought putting 1.6 box in 1.9 made them much faster on bottom end?

[welshpug 1,661]

it probably is to 56 then you have to change gear whilst the 1.9 is still pulling past 60... also 1st gear has a wider gap on the 1.6 so the revs drop further, so there's probably not much in it

 

In gear acceleration and cross country a/b road driving you'll notice the difference rather than a straight dash.

[C_W 3 1 Cars]

IMO the 1.9 gearbox perfectly suits the nature of the 1.9 8v engine. Most of the 1.9s are not great at top end revs which means shorter gearing is not going to necessarily be better.

[Tesstuff 222]

Agreed CW.

 

Like most things to do with the 1.9 I think Peugeot got it spot on.

[Cameron 16]

As above, 1.6 box isn't really the "super mod" it's sometimes claimed to be!

Edited June 21, 2011 by Cameron

[matt.f 16]

My 1.9 is spot on with a 1.6 box and 4.4 cwp

[dee205 3]

It's horses for courses realy.

[Baz 421]

The 1.9 box is way too long IMO, i can't see how it'd help having a longer box in an asthmatic 1.9 that doesn't rev so will take an age to use a gear, that doesn't make any logical sense at all, if you don't rev it as hard as a result of it not wanting to, every early gear change results in the next gear falling way down the revs with a 1.9 box, off the power, and because it's such a long box it will then actually take you longer to climb it!

 

Theoretical top speed of something like 162mph (if you had the power and revs to reach it) or something equally ridiculous, when are you likely to need that? If anything 1.9's should've come with a box similar to Mi/VTS ratios, it's way too long.

 

 

Longer ratios also make it harder to balance the car through corners on the throttle too, but that's another kettle of fish...!

 

 

I'd guess if anything it'll be a little slower, as it won't do 60mph in 2nd with a ~6500rpm limiter on a 1.6 'box, so you'll need to change into 3rd.

 

Or take the rev limiter out.

[Tesstuff 222]

Yes Baz

 

And all the official performance figures and all the magazine tests of the day really show that don't they.

 

The 205 1.9 Gti always got reviews mentioning all your above nonsense didn't it.

 

But maybe a very narrow minded and short sighted person would just be making a very unfair comparison with how a 205 Gti can be now with the benefit of 16v engines and aftermarket management?

 

[Anthony 1,003]

As with everything, gear ratios are a compromise.

 

Depending on your individual requirements, preferences and wants, that compromise might be unacceptable and there maybe another option that better suits you.

 

Taking a couple of extremes as examples, to someone rallying a 205, a 1.9 box is going to be FAR too long, hence they frequently put 4.4 (or shorter) FD's in to make a very short ratio gearbox that's much better suited to their needs. However, that same gearbox would be awful on a car that spends its life trotting up and down the motorway, and they'd argueably benefit from a 'box longer than a 1.9 (like for example the 405 SRi/GRi ratios).

 

As compromises go, I think the 1.9 GTi box ratios are pretty good given the role/aim of the car when it was new.

 

I personally run a hybrid 'box that's pretty close to a 1.6 - partly because it suits the power delivery of my engine better than a 1.9 box, and partly because even though I'm not sure it would be quicker against the clock, it certainly *feels* quicker, more fun and frantic with the shorter ratios, whilst still maintaining day-to-day useability. If I was starting again I'd probably use a 1.9 CTi gearbox, which is somewhere between the two in terms of gearing, but since I've already got the box I have I'll stick with it.

[Baz 421]

I don't run 16v engines and aftermarket management so i wouldn't know. I think you mean; 'Realistic but perhaps a little opinionated person viewing the 205 GTi as a hot hatch, driving it as such, not as an average under 70mph motorway-mile muncher'?

 

Admittedly i can only speak from real world technical and practical experience of 10+ years and probably around 100 205 GTi's, but as you say, what would i know? Press and manufacturer statistics never lie.

 

I think you're forgetting, the 1.6 gearbox came on a 1.6, the 1.9 gearbox came on a 1.9.

 

There's 2 reasons a 1.9 is quicker to 60, the gearbox allows it in one gear change and because it's already a more powerful engine to start with.

 

I've never seen any reviews from a healthy 1.6 with the rev limiter removed, however i'm pretty certain mine does 60 in second gear and i'd hazard a guess is quicker than most standard average 1.9's.

 

A longer gearbox does not maketh the quicker car. It may save a gearchange to get to 60 and is therefore quicker 0-60 on paper, but don't be so naive to think that longer gearing equals higher speed so equals a quicker car in real world, anything other than straight line comparison.

[C_W 3 1 Cars]

The 1.9 box is way too long IMO, i can't see how it'd help having a longer box in an asthmatic 1.9 that doesn't rev so will take an age to use a gear, that doesn't make any logical sense at all, if you don't rev it as hard as a result of it not wanting to, every early gear change results in the next gear falling way down the revs with a 1.9 box, off the power, and because it's such a long box it will then actually take you longer to climb it!

 

 

Longer ratios suit lower revving cars! Higher revving cars generally have lower ratios.

 

As said gears are a compromise and the 1.9s are pretty much spot on for a not that high revving engine, nice close ratio too - I've yet to be in a car 1st through 5th that has such sorted gearing, bar a Caterham. Shorten the gearing and you're suddenly at that asthmatic zone sooner (or rather in it all the time if you want the rev drop less) - it makes perfect sense. Bit like diesel cars, they don't like low ratios.

 

Fit an Mi16 engine on a 1.9 gearbox and it of course becomes apparent that this higher revving engine goes much better on shorter gearbox ratios.

[Tesstuff 222]

 

A longer gearbox does not maketh the quicker car.

 

That is so untrue as it depends on so many things.

 

 

 

I think matching the gearbox ratios and final drive to the specific car is pretty much always a compromise from the manufacturer, performance vs economy etc, and I accept a little fine tuning with final drive and hybrid set ups can improve performance in certain areas, but that still leaves it compromised some way.

 

With a light car and 'enough' power, gear changes happen so fast that it can only make the odd tenth of a second difference here and there either way anyway.

 

This is with regard to 0-60 and in gear, not top speed, which obviously can be changed greatly with the right changes.

[Cameron 16]

Longer ratios suit lower revving cars! Higher revving cars generally have lower ratios.

 

+1, sorry Baz but you're talking poo-poo.

 

What's the point in having short ratios (i.e. ideal for high-revving engines) on a lazy engine that's breathless at high rpm but makes plenty of low-midrange?

[Baz 421]

Poo poo or just another train of thought that's different to yours because i speak from experience rather than theory?

 

Of course in theory for a lazy revving/torquey engine(in general) you want a longer spread of gears to make the most of it, of course i know that, but not in this case, what good is a veeery long box if the engine doesn't rev? It's hard enough pulling a 1.9 box up to it's higher speeds with a healthy engine...

 

For what you're talking about you want a bigger gap between each gear, not necessarily longer ratios...

 

Plus we're talking very specifically about 1.9's that are 'average', ie. no longer revving high because they're tired or have issues, hardly comparitive or even worthwhile to a degree is it.

 

That is so untrue as it depends on so many things.

 

 

 

Indeed, but we're talking about 205's here, there's not many depending factors really in the great scheme of things!

 

I stand by that i think 1.9 gearboxes have no place in most forms of NASP 205's, in my opinion.

 

They're dull, sluggish and boring, only suited to lazy driving up the motorway. Fit a 1.6 box (or ideally a hybrid but speaking simplistically here) or even an Mi/VTS/S16 box and the car becomes a whole different animal, making it feel alive! A lighter flywheel has a similar effect!

[Tesstuff 222]

Baz you seem to not be able to 'discuss' unless you are mocking the opposing view(s).

 

Some of your content in this thread thus far has been , to be blunt, inaccurate rambling.

 

How do you get this theoretical '162 mph or something equally ridiculous' as a top speed of a 1.9 using it's own gearbox?

 

The 1.9 has a fifth pulling 20.9mph per 1000 revs, times that by the 6500(approx) and we get 135.8mph theoretical top speed.

 

I know you often exaggerate but that's a bit too much to suit your argument.

 

And don't forget that this and your discussion is only about the gearboxes in a 1.9 with 1.9 power.

 

A 1.9 gearbox with another engine is a different subject.

 

Further to your amazing(in a crazy world way) comments about the gap between the 1.9 gears being soooooo far, it falls off power between changes then has this looooooong delay until it climbbbbbbbbbbbs soooooooooo far back up that huge mountain of revs to get back in the power band. LOL

 

I have never driven any 1.9 Gti anything like that and I've driven plenty.

 

The 1.9 with it's own box feels right. No gaps, no delay waiting for the next gears produce.

 

Even my original Gentry with slush box auto power sapping delayed torque converted delivery of 105 bhp revved sweet as a nut and pulled quickly through the gears as a one extreme to the other example.

 

If your angle of argument was anything near correct, a 1.6 with its own gearbox should be competitive with a 1.9 with its own during in gear times, that lonnnnnnng box you describe not allowing the lazy revving 1.9 to get through some of those increments as quickly as that snappy quick revving 1.6.

 

Truth is the 1.6 cant come close.

 

The 1.9 gearbox isnt too long and most definitely isnt 'way too long' to quote my left field learned colleague.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Tesstuff

[Cameron 16]

I've had a 1.9 GTI on both gearboxes actually and found the 1.9 'box to be much better suited. There's some experience for you!

 

1.6's love short ratios as they don't make much torque, so you need a higher torque multiplier (i.e. shorter gearing) to make the most of what you have; the 1.9 has more torque so a lower torque multiplier (i.e. longer gearing) is needed. And there's some theory for you. Why do you think big lazy V8's have such long gearing?

 

Putting the 1.9 on a shorter ratio box makes it feel like it has more top end and encourages you to rev it higher, so that's what makes it feel like the engine "comes alive". In reality are you really going any faster, or just tricked into thinking you are?

 

16V's are a different story - 6 speed FTW.

[Anthony 1,003]

At the end of the day, as I said earlier, gear ratios are a compromise.

 

If I'm understanding Baz correctly, to him the compromise made on a 1.9 box to facilitate better fuel economy and lower cruising rpms on the motorway isn't acceptable, and he prefers the shorter, more frantic gearing of a 1.6 'box as that suits his use of the car and his take on the GTi ethos better. The next man will think different.

 

There's no right or wrong answer to that, it's down to personal preference.

 

That's not to say that I agree with the slightly flawed / poorly worded arguement that he's putting forward - given that the ratios themselves are almost identical between a 1.6 and 1.9 box, the rev drop between gears is identical (other than 1st-2nd) but you'll be going at a lower speed with the 1.6 box owing to the shorter final drive. You can't thus fall off the powerband with one box and not the other - the only difference is that the engine will pull harder in a given gear with the shorter final drive.

 

1.6's love short ratios as they don't make much torque, so you need a higher torque multiplier (i.e. shorter gearing) to make the most of what you have; the 1.9 has more torque so a lower torque multiplier (i.e. longer gearing) is needed. And there's some theory for you. Why do you think big lazy V8's have such long gearing?

Whilst I agree with the point that I think you're trying to make, you're not telling the whole story there - it's not just about torque, but the way that the engine delivers power. A peaky engine that needs to be revved will benefit from a shorter ratio 'box, whereas a torquey engine with plenty of low down grunt will happily pull (but not necessarily be quicker with) a longer box.

 

If it was purely a torque based thing as your post above implies, an Mi16 would want a TD box seeing as it's got more torque than a 1.9 8v

 

Putting the 1.9 on a shorter ratio box makes it feel like it has more top end and encourages you to rev it higher, so that's what makes it feel like the engine "comes alive". In reality are you really going any faster, or just tricked into thinking you are?

In a way I'm not sure that it really matters whether or not it actually *is* faster if it *feels* like it's faster, atleast from an enjoyment point of view rather than setting lap records. Something like a 205 XS is a good example - on paper it's not quick at all, but drive one with it's revvy engine and short-ratio box and it feels far quicker than it actually is, banging through the gears keeping the peaky engine on song is wonderfully entertaining.

 

16V's are a different story - 6 speed FTW.

RH steering lock FTW

 

(I actually really like the ratios on a 6 speed box - especially with the slighter shorter FD on the later cars - but the steering lock limitations ruin it for me)

[Arahan 4]

On most 1.9's I've had, I've always strived to put a 1.6 gearbox on it as they just make it feel much quicker. But I also always aim to put a lighter 1.6 flywheel in too...

[Cameron 16]

Yeah to be honest as much as I harp on about it being "not that bad" I reckon I'd be driven mad if I used a 6 speed on a daily..

 

And yeah, you're right.. I was refering to torque in the way I usually hate it being referred to, as in low-mid rpm grunt.

[Tesstuff 222]

On most 1.9's I've had, I've always strived to put a 1.6 gearbox on it as they just make it feel much quicker. But I also always aim to put a lighter 1.6 flywheel in too...

 

I agree revs make it feel faster, but actually is it any quicker?

 

 

...and a well structured reply Anthony

[Flozman 4]

I know that on paper.. 0-60 in a 205 gti 1.9 is 7.6 seconds..

 

But i am thinking of fitting a 1.6 box and 1.6 flywheel..

 

Anyone know what the 0-60 i could be getting roughly with the 1.6 box and wheel.?

 

Put your handbags away ladies

 

Anyway back to the point, in theory it would be more or less the same 0-60. But it would be stronger exiting corners and feel much more racey, everyone knows the 1.6 is better anyway

[Paul_13 212 1 Cars]

I felt that the 1.6 box really suited the 1.9 engine, really pulled well but 2nd gear limiting you to under 60 is annoying.

GTI6 engine on a 1.6 box is fun for a short while... until your ears start bleeding on the motorway!