Xu5J - Xu5Ja - Fueling Differences?

[ALEX 98 1 Cars]

After recently finding out that most CTi's have the slower 104 Bhp XU5J engine and not the 113 Bhp XU5JA.

Unlike the Gti, where the later XU5JA was fitted to all 1.6's after 1986 the Cti carried on using the older XU5j engine for some time after, I'm not even sure if they even made a 1.6 Cti using the XU5JA engine?

This actually contradicts the info here http://www.205gtidrivers.com/articles.html/_/articles-guides/205-gti-basics/technical-specifications-r12, but I have to beleive with what I'm seeing as mine is a 1988 1.6 CTi with a XU5J engine.

 

I'm currently having difficulties trying to get my cti from not over fueling at idle and giving enough fuel when underload (It's pinking and ignition retarding isn't helping).

The ECU is original, but the AFM is from a late 1.6. (056) with the same number as the original knackard one. But I can't get it to pass an emmisions test without tensioning the spring flap by about 5 clicks with the mixture adjuster screw fully out.

 

My question is:-

 

If the engine isn't the same, then why does the ECU and airflow meter have the same number as found on the XU5JA.

You'd think they would need to be different to match the engine?

 

The only differences I've found with regards to adjusting the mixture is that my Injectors are black (not blue) and the ceramic plate inside the AFM has a different code printed on it.

 

My plan is to refurb the knackard original AFM, but I'm not confiden't it'll make a difference as the number on the cover would mean it's the same (Youd think?) or are each AFM adjusted by the factoy to suit the engine?

Edited November 4, 2014 by ALEX

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

No CTi had the 180a (105bhp version), All had the 115bhp version from release until the 1.9 version came out along with the UK Gentry

If you have black injectors and a 2.5 bar FPR, you need to confirm engine type

Edited November 4, 2014 by Miles

[ALEX 98 1 Cars]

No CTi had the 180a (105bhp version), All had the 115bhp version from release until the 1.9 version came out along with the UK Gentry

If you have black injectors and a 2.5 bar FPR, you need to confirm engine type

That contradicts what the Haynes Workshop manual states and unless my engine has been swapped before I bought the car, mine is deffinatley an XUJ5 (180A) 1988 (F plate)

I've also heard of other Cti owners having said they have black injectors too, which makes me think they are original and standard.

Edited November 5, 2014 by ALEX

[jackherer 543]

I've only ever seen XU5JAs in 1.6 CTIs. I've never heard Miles get anything 205 related wrong either, unlike the Haynes which is full of errors.

 

There will be date castings in various alloy and plastic parts on your engine, check some of them to see how old it is, I imagine it will be pre-1987 if it is a 105bhp 1.6.

[ALEX 98 1 Cars]

I've only ever seen XU5JAs in 1.6 CTIs. I've never heard Miles get anything 205 related wrong either, unlike the Haynes which is full of errors.

 

There will be date castings in various alloy and plastic parts on your engine, check some of them to see how old it is, I imagine it will be pre-1987 if it is a 105bhp 1.6.

No need, its definatley a XU5J engine. see the pictures are in my project thread in my sig.

I sent the original block off for bead blasting and it came back with an hole in it.

So Speno kindly sold me an engine from a H plate 1.6 Gti for the proce of the block. (Top Man) . It was then I noticed the differences, bigger inlets, thicker valve springs, shaped piston crowns.

As I'd just spent over £300 on the head and Piston work from the original. I fitted everything to the new block. So its an original XU5J - 180A engine but with a XU5JA - B6E block.

 

edit: (My understanding the B6E it the same as the B6D but the B6E has the eccentric cam tensioner. - The block was the same has my holed 180A one, even had the tapped holes to put the spring tensioner back on.)

 

I'm still not conviced that all Cti's have the later XU5JA engine edit: is there anyway of properly finding out?

 

even Wiki suggest the 1.6 cti is XU5J http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_XU_engine

 

Eitherway back to me original question, what, if any, are the differences in fueling?

There has to be something different as the power output isn't the same!

Edited November 5, 2014 by ALEX

[jackherer 543]

Wikipedia is not authoritative and there are no citations for any of the XU5 engines on that page. In fact there are five engines with citations in total and most of them are pretty vague offline sources. That is one of the worst wikipedia articles I have seen in terms of sources that hasn't been plastered in 'citation needed' links.

 

If you want something concrete I would look for some magazine articles from the CTI launch. This one - http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/august-1986/34/peugeot-205-cti - strongly implies the CTI has the 115bhp engine but if you search for longer than I did you'll find something more convincing.

[Anthony 1,003]

Original 1986 CTi road test confirms 115hp engine too...

 

[welshpug 1,661]

looking through servicebox the XU5J shares every single component with the XU5JA, injectors, ecu, afm, dizzy, FPR.

 

the head and cam are different, and to a certain extent if you only suck so much air in the ecu will only throw a certain amount of fuel in, they never were that precise, which is why many of them don't run so well and often are severely down on power when you factor in 30 years of wear and tear and bodgery/cluelessness.

 

something which is not a trait found with the later management systems in general.

Edited November 5, 2014 by welshpug

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

The B6E also came with the sliding type tensioner. I've had two of them like this, one being my 64k laser green car that has never been "molested".

[Anthony 1,003]

B6E is the slightly lower compression (9.25:1 vs 9.8:1 IIRC) 1.6 GTi engine and had the later 086 dizzy with screw-on cap.

 

As far as I know, B6E's were suitable for 95RON unleaded out of the box thanks to the lower CR, whereas earlier B6D's needed the ignition timing pulling back slightly.

 

As Tom says, early B6E's had the spring-loaded sliding tensioner and 113 tooth cambelt and late ones had the eccentric tensioner and 114 tooth cambelt. The 1.6 from my '92/J 205 GTi had the eccentric tensioner on it although I've seen other 92's with the earlier setup.

 

Fueling parts including AFM, ECU, injectors etc were the same between B6D and B6E.

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

Ref the black injectors, these are fitted to the 1.9 low comp 105bhp late CTI engine.

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

The 306 XSi 8v had them as well from memory,

 

The 105 engine's never had the cam cover breather pipe or Throttle body breathers so someone's been playing in the past as It does look like it's been swapped out as the box is a early one with 1986 stamped on it without the place for the crank sensor, what year is the car?

[ALEX 98 1 Cars]

The 306 XSi 8v had them as well from memory,

 

The 105 engine's never had the cam cover breather pipe or Throttle body breathers so someone's been playing in the past as It does look like it's been swapped out as the box is a early one with 1986 stamped on it without the place for the crank sensor, what year is the car?

 

Just read the Haynes again, and I must really get my eyes checked as it now reads

"As from Febuary 1986, Gti models may be fitted with the Xu5JA engine. The Cti model had been fitted with this engine since its introduction in April 1986"

 

I reckon Miles has snuck into my house and changed the book

 

So going with the idea that my engine has been swapped before I bought the car, and by looking at the valve springs in the photos on my project thread and the valves you can tell its the XU5J (180A). So assuming it's been in the hands of someone who likes to mess and had easy access to spare parts. Now the next question is, did the XUJ5(180A) have Black injectors or Blue? as its the only explanation I have left for my symptoms.

 

Iteresting though when looking for more information about the engine, the Autocar and Motor magazine review. (Published in my 205 Gti enthusiasts companion (by Motor Racing Publications,on page 45))

The 105 bhp 1.6 Gti performed better than the 1.6 115 bhp?

ie. autocar 1/4 mile results were 16.6 secs for the 105 bhp and 17.4 secs for the 115 bhp?

 

Miles the Gearbox internals are original (Assumed its not been changed before I took it appart ). The original had a chunk out of the large half of the bell housing which I swapped from another BE1 box possibly not from a 205. They were similar enough to fit together (breathers were different) but it work s fine.

[ALEX 98 1 Cars]

Ref the black injectors, these are fitted to the 1.9 low comp 105bhp late CTI engine.

 

The guy I bought it from had a 1.9 Cti as well!

It could be where they came from. The first Photo in the project is from the Ebay advert.

[welshpug 1,661]

as I mentioned above, the servicebox listing says the same injectors for 5J and 5JA.

 

XU5J, XU5JA.

 

1984 32, which is 0 280 150 211. flow rate at 3 bar 147.1 cc/min

 

XU9J1

 

1984 54 which is 0280150734, flow rate at 3 bar - 200 cc/min.

 

XU9JA.

 

1984 55, 0280150762, 213.9 cc/min

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

All 105 and 115 1.6 engine's had Blue injectors and a 3.0 bar FPR, worth checking also

[ALEX 98 1 Cars]

Just organised the injectors i recieved from Anthony to be cleaned.

Been using a service near Hull http://www.injectorcleaning.co.uk/, what do you lot use?

[Ryan 99]

I used the same place to get my Mi16 injectors cleaned some years ago. I got them back in a couple of days and can't fault the service.

[bondyshambles 23 1 Cars]

http://forum.205gtidrivers.com/index.php?showtopic=106738

[ALEX 98 1 Cars]

Got the Blue Injectors back from cleaning and they're in and running.

Not had chance to test it yet or connect my gas tester, but it runs OK.

I've reset the AFM back to the original spring position.

[ALEX 98 1 Cars]

result.

 

With the AFM flap spring set back to it's original position the CO reading is below 2%

 

Runs alot smoother than before, but not had chance to take it for a drive yet, but I'm feeling positive after noticing it doesn't stink of petrol anymore!

[johnsimister 10]

Original 1986 CTi road test confirms 115hp engine too...

 

I wrote that road test! Definitely 115bhp.

 

John

[ALEX 98 1 Cars]

I wrote that road test! Definitely 115bhp.

 

John

did the 105 bhp one have a quicker 1/4 mile time than the 115, or is it a miss print in my book? Edited November 17, 2014 by ALEX

[johnsimister 10]

It's an error, but not the fault of the book if you're talking about Dave Thornton's Sporting Peugeot 205s. The table at the back gives Motor's figures for the 105bhp GTI 1.6 and Autocar's for the 115 bhp car's. Looking at the Motor test, the standing start acceleration figures are uniformly slower than for the Autocar test except for the standing quarter, so there is obviously a mistake somewhere which the Thornton book faithfully reproduces.

 

Motor later tested a 115bhp car. I haven't got the standing quarter figure to hand - we figured it for a group test in which only a selection of figures, not including the quarter, were quoted in the magazine - but Motor recorded a 0-60 in 8.2sec against 8.7 for the 105bhp car. Autocar recorded 8.7sec for the 115bhp car, which suggests its car was slower than Motor's, that weather conditions were poorer or that the Autocar testers weren't as good at getting the times. All are possible but I can now reveal another factor, which is that Autocar used a Correvit optical measuring device whereas we at Motor used a Peiseler transducer driven by a 'fifth wheel'. About three years after we started using a new Peiseler unit, we discovered it was incorrectly calibrated. Which meant that we produced three years of road tests showing cars to accelerate slightly better than they really did.

 

That error also caused the CTI in the Motor test on page 1 to seem quicker than it was, which explains its impressive quarter-mile time that beat Autocar's GTI. Given that the Motor 105bhp and CTI tests both show quicker quarter-mile times but slower 0-30, 0-60 etc times than the Autocar test, it seems that the mis-calibration also shows itself in a 'quarter mile' which wasn't quite a quarter mile long. Despite my loyalty to Motor, I am more inclined to trust Autocar's figures here because the Correvit is pretty much guaranteed to be accurate - unless the ground is wet, when spray will confuse the lens. But you wouldn't normally take figures on a wet track anyway, for obvious reasons of traction.

 

John

Edited November 18, 2014 by johnsimister

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

Also it's worth noting the 105 had a C/R gearbox over the 115 version which of course will effect things, I would stick my neck out here and also say the 105 was a feather bit lighter too