205 Gti 1.9 0-60

[Toddy 7]

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!

 

 

Replace 5 th gear from an Mi box, gives final drive of 21.9 mph per 1000rpm iirc

[Anthony 1,003]

Replace 5 th gear from an Mi box, gives final drive of 21.9 mph per 1000rpm iirc

The resulting 4th to 5th jump is annoying as hell though, or atleast, I certainly thought so on similar cars that I've driven.

[dee205 3]

At the risk of being shot down, I once drove a mates 1.9 with a td box and it was pretty decent from what I remember but as to ratios or anything I can't recall.

[Paul_13 212 1 Cars]

Replace 5 th gear from an Mi box, gives final drive of 21.9 mph per 1000rpm iirc

 

Would you really want to rip a MI box apart for the fifth gear?

I'd rather just put the whole MI box on personally

[Anthony 1,003]

Diesel 5th is the same Paul (0.76 ratio) and obviously much more plentiful

[C_W 3 1 Cars]

 

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.

 

 

Correct. I think Baz believes by removing rev limiter it taps in to hidden power, I never EVER hit a rev limiter in my 8v as it just wouldn't pull to it anyway and it was a pretty good one.

 

End of the day the gearing is not long for the 1.9 8v engine and the ratios as said are perfectly close with similar gaps 1st through 5th. Of course gearing is always a compromise and it's also relative but I reckon the 1.9 gearbox is as close to spot on for the 8v engine as you can get.

 

 

btw I'm pretty sure the rev drop doesn't change when you fit a 1.6 gearbox... (1st to 2nd gear excepted).

[petert 588]

Diesel 5th is the same Paul (0.76 ratio) and obviously much more plentiful

 

Are you sure? I thought they were 0.81:1, like the Mi16x4 5th.

 

I agree that you should just stick an Mi16 box in. It gives an overall 5th which is the equivalent of a 3.94:1 diff in the 1.9L 8V box.

[Anthony 1,003]

Correct. I think Baz believes by removing rev limiter it taps in to hidden power, I never EVER hit a rev limiter in my 8v as it just wouldn't pull to it anyway and it was a pretty good one.

To be fair, there is a MASSIVE variation in standard 1.9 8v engines out there - some are nasty wheezy pieces of junk that are throwing in the towel past 5000rpm, and others will pull eagerly all the way round to the limiter. Trying to rev out the former is only going to succeed in making noise and no meaningful forward motion, whereas the later could well potentailly gain from a slightly higher rev limit - certainly it'll be past peak power, but there would still be useful power made up there.

 

Having driven it fairly extensively, the 1.6 in Baz's Miami does spin round surprisingly easily to 7k with the rev limit removed - it is a very quick example that loves to rev.

[Anthony 1,003]

Are you sure? I thought they were 0.81:1, like the Mi16x4 5th.

Maybe both types were available depending on age and spec? Certainly 0.76 was available in atleast some.

 

Edit - this link seems to back up the theory that both 0.81 and 0.76 were used in diesel 'boxes

Edited June 23, 2011 by Anthony

[petert 588]

Maybe both types were available depending on age and spec? Certainly 0.76 was available in atleast some.

 

Edit - this link seems to back up the theory that both 0.81 and 0.76 were used in diesel 'boxes

 

 

Good link. Gutmann is the way to go if you can find the parts.

[C_W 3 1 Cars]

To be fair, there is a MASSIVE variation in standard 1.9 8v engines out there - some are nasty wheezy pieces of junk that are throwing in the towel past 5000rpm, and others will pull eagerly all the way round to the limiter. Trying to rev out the former is only going to succeed in making noise and no meaningful forward motion, whereas the later could well potentailly gain from a slightly higher rev limit - certainly it'll be past peak power, but there would still be useful power made up there.

 

Having driven it fairly extensively, the 1.6 in Baz's Miami does spin round surprisingly easily to 7k with the rev limit removed - it is a very quick example that loves to rev.

 

I don't see the relevance of someone's quick 1.6! we know the square 1.6 likes to rev, very different to the 1.9 generally. You say yourself most 1.9s are bit wheezy, but even a good one was never really that rev hungry and it's rare to get one running in to a limiter with ease unless pushed; generally the car is quicker by changing earlier than that.

 

Actually even with my Mi16 on a 1.9 gearbox I got a quicker 0-60 time by almost a 1sec vs SteveC's on a BX 16v box (who I am sure had light engine modifications too), mine was 6.3s and Steve could not dip below 7 no matter how many times he tried! And this is with the 16v engines. The reason the Mi16 and BX had those lower ratios of course was the extra weight of the car and arelatively peaky engine to get it moving briskly, not so such a problem in a 900kg 205 though! Even after driving an M Coupe the 205 felt more eager to move off the line efforlessly due to low weight. That said the 1.6 final drive with the Mi16 does make it much more flexible for less hard driving, something I never felt with the 1.9 8v though.

[Baz 421]

I stand by what i've said, perhaps the doubters want to re-read what i've said properly and then research what you're arguing a little more, i haven't plucked that figure from mid-air, the theoretical top speed of a 1.9 gearbox is 160-odd or something similarly ridiculous, whether or not the standard engine or revs will alow is irrelevant, i never claimed such and you're missing the point, check out all the gearcalc info and you'll see.

 

So whether or not the engine behind it is capable, i don't see the need for such a long box. Neither did i ever say the gap between each gear was huuuge, a few of you seem to be incapable of reading what's written without leaving out a few key words here and there, thus forming what you want to read then ridicule.

 

It's all a matter of opinion and how you like to drive/use your car anyway. If you're average Joe that doesn't want to use a car to it's full potential, bimbling around the same as you could in any bland eurobox, sure a 1.9 box on a 1.9 is 'fine'. My opinion based upon how i like to use my cars in general; i don't like 1.9 box's if that's ok with everyone, you don't have to agree, that's fine with me, i'll live.

 

If they're so good, why do you not see people putting 1.9 gearboxes on 1.6 engines? or is that because it has 'less power and torque' in theory...??

 

Onto my next point; I think you're also forgetting that the majority of 1.9's never made book power too, so 20 years of use on top of that isn't going to help either, so yes, some 1.6's are actually quicker than the 'average' 1.9, i don't care what you think or say!. Why are people so blinkered into believing the 1.9 is the better engine? When in fact it's actually only worth considering case by case. 1.9's are just a stroked 1.6 anyway, a square engine stretched into a long-stroked lazy engine, that ultimately isn't as hardy as the original either. I think they'll be some hardened multiple 205 users like me on here that will agree, 1.6's seem to take a battering for well over 150k without major issue, you can't say the same about 1.9's, but that's another story to a degree i guess...

 

Plus, need i remind a few, but this is an internet forum not a dating site, so no i don't care how i or my posts 'seem' funnily enough, i care not for airs & graces.

[Baz 421]

I don't see the relevance of someone's quick 1.6! we know the square 1.6 likes to rev, very different to the 1.9 generally. You say yourself most 1.9s are bit wheezy, but even a good one was never really that rev hungry and it's rare to get one running in to a limiter with ease unless pushed; generally the car is quicker by changing earlier than that.

 

 

Ok to the same reasoning, why are you using your experiences of 1.9's to form your opinions and replies then?!! And there you go, you say it yourself, it's rare to get a 1.9 to the limiter with ease... changing earlier than that! So what's the point in the long gearbox if you're short-shifting? yes if we're talking 0-60... but what use in real-terms is that anyway... so even more of a reason not to have a long gearbox on it, you can do the same with a shorter gearbox, keep the engine in it's 'power-band', a shorter box doesn't mean you're having to rev constantly around 9k where there's no power, rev the engine round to where the power tails off, not where the gearbox runs out of it's gear... or are you still not able to grasp this slightly different theory to your own...?

 

Someone earlier said i'm 'narrow minded'...

Edited June 23, 2011 by Baz

[Cameron 16]

TLDR..

[C_W 3 1 Cars]

I stand by what i've said, perhaps the doubters want to re-read what i've said properly and then research what you're arguing a little more, i haven't plucked that figure from mid-air, the theoretical top speed of a 1.9 gearbox is 160-odd or something similarly ridiculous, whether or not the standard engine or revs will alow is irrelevant, i never claimed such and you're missing the point, check out all the gearcalc info and you'll see.

 

So whether or not the engine behind it is capable, i don't see the need for such a long box. Neither did i ever say the gap between each gear was huuuge, a few of you seem to be incapable of reading what's written without leaving out a few key words here and there, thus forming what you want to read then ridicule.

 

If they're so good, why do you not see people putting 1.9 gearboxes on 1.6 engines? or is that because it has 'less power and torque' in theory...??

 

 

You can't be serious, you are you joking right!? Putting a 1.9 gearbox on a 1.6 engine? that's the WHOLE point, one gearbox suits one engine, the other gearbox suits the other. Otherwise there would be one gearbox and every engine in the world is running it LOL. So that big torquey Corvette V8 which would generally do 60mph in 1st will now do 35 and will be faster. Not.

 

btw 160+mph is NOT attainable on a 1.9 gearbox, even at 6500rpm in 5th it, as has been said is around 135pmh. To hit 162 it would need to rev to 7700rpm. Of course it is relevant, it's suited to the engine so that it can reach red line in 5th not some figure that it would never reach by either revs it will never turn or lack of power.

 

Why do you get so worked up? Who's "ridiculing"? Who's getting "blinkered" about 1.9s? I don't see anybody! It is what it is and we all know it's a stretched 1.6. The fact that it's longer stroke could tell you why they don't last as long as 1.6...

 

You said the rev drops you out of the power band but the ratios are the same in both 1.6 and 1.9 boxes, the rev drop is the same. In fact the HIGHER you rev the engine the BIGGER the rev drop will be, but as they're close ratio even swapping at 6000rpm it it still within the "power band", in fact anything over 4000rpm is in the 1.9 powerband.

 

Ok to the same reasoning, why are you using your experiences of 1.9's to form your opinions and replies then?!! And there you go, you say it yourself, it's rare to get a 1.9 to the limiter with ease... changing earlier than that! So what's the point in the long gearbox if you're short-shifting? yes if we're talking 0-60... but what use in real-terms is that anyway... so even more of a reason not to have a long gearbox on it, you can do the same with a shorter gearbox, keep the engine in it's 'power-band', a shorter box doesn't mean you're having to rev constantly around 9k where there's no power, rev the engine round to where the power tails off, not where the gearbox runs out of it's gear... or are you still not able to grasp this slightly different theory to your own...?

 

 

"What's the point of a long gearbox if you're short shifting?" Seperate the revs from the gear ratio, it's just relative. I didn't say short-shifting, merely that there's not a huge point going anywhere near the limiter in a 1.9. Not every engine revs to same rpm. So if you have a lower revving engine, you generally don't want short gearing. It is so simple. It's not "theory"!!!

 

I don't think you understand gears, gearing, and engine characteristics and what suits what best AT ALL, which honestly I'm quite surprise at. You may prefer the better response and feel of shorter geared cars but at best in an average 1.9 8v you'll be sawing away for less performance than the original gearbox.

 

Someone earlier said i'm 'narrow minded'...

 

Not sure if narrow minded is right, but there's certainly some issues going on.

[ally7th 7]

just to mix things up I have a 1.9 box with a standard 1.6 engine in my rally car

although it has a 4.8 final drive and I use 175/560 14 tarmac tyres and 175/65 14 forrest tyres

the gear ratios are spot on for me

[Carbs4me 45]

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.

 

56Mph? im not sure which 1.6 model of gear box ive got, i think its the BE3 (reverse on the same side as 1st) but for some reason my 205 will do 70mph in 2nd... with the 1.6 gearbox... and my previous 205 i had did 75 in 2nd with a 1.9 Gear box.. ill be honest the 1.6. its not brillent in 1st. but 2nd gear is better....... 3rd and 4th feel exactly the same as the 1.9 and 5th deffinty has more power... BUT on a over all.... the 1.9 gearbox is much better... the car is lazyer but faster in the bends.

 

Thats just my opinion

 

everyone is to there own though right?

[engine killer 6]

Dear all,

 

As per my calculation (I guess I have got it right), if the rev limiter is set at 6,500rpm and the tyre size is 195/50-15, 1.6 box should give 201km/h or 125mph top speed and 1.9 box should give 221km/h or 137mph.

 

Since the difference between a complete 1.6 box and 1.9 box are 1st and fd, discarding the engine speed drop from 1st to 2nd, the engine speed drop from 2nd to 3rd, 3rd to 4th and 4th to 5th are exactly same. The 1.6 fd shifts all the gears speed lower, you lose the top speed a bit. Since it shifts gearing to a more practical zone (lower top speed for each gear), it makes us "FEEL" faster and it is really pulling faster as with the 1.6 fd, the total ratio (shall I call it driving ratio?) is higher.

 

The 405Mi16 box seems closer is only because of its FD. If the gears ratios I have got is correct, it certainly is not a closer ratio box than 1.9. Mi16 vs 1.9GTi, 1st to 2nd - 1,588 vs 2,606, 2nd to 3rd - 2,188 vs 1,881, 3rd to 4th - 1,775 vs 1,519 and 4th to 5th - 1,553 vs 1,355. Apart from 1st to 2nd, 1.9 box has a lesser engine speed drop than Mi for all gears.

 

The best original box is probably from the 306GTi6, 1st to 2nd - 2,560, 2nd to 3rd - 1,732, 3rd to 4th - 1,332, 4th to 5th - 1,218 and 5th to 6th - 1,165. Although the calculation is based on shifting at 7,000rpm, but it only shifts every engine rev drop a bit higher.

 

Correct me if I am wrong.

205 Mi16.pdf

[engine killer 6]

By the way, will the speedometer and odometer have any diviation after so many years of usage?

 

I know even same tyre size but different made and different pressure make a difference.

[Tesstuff 222]

 

I don't think you understand gears, gearing, and engine characteristics and what suits what best AT ALL, which honestly I'm quite surprise at. You may prefer the better response and feel of shorter geared cars but at best in an average 1.9 8v you'll be sawing away for less performance than the original gearbox.

 

 

This is true Baz, you seem to have proven for certain you dont understand gears, gearing and rev limits at all yet argue as though you do, it's quite strange.

 

It is a very simple mathematical multiplication that gives you your theoretical top speed, not driving 100+ 205's in different specs.

[SurGie 54]

[GLPoomobile 958]

I can't decide if the last 5 pages have been really useful, or a total f***ing waste of time

[harryskid 193]

It all seems like the "chicken and the egg" !

[Batfink 201]

everyones a bit venomous today...

[dcc 855]

Just to throw some log onto the fire, i prefer the gearing on a xsara box! boom, flame me!

 

Stu had a stupid close ratio box on his old miami and he said, to thsi day, that he hated it.