Xmt - Sarty's Xsara GTI6 Turbo

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Donor car acquired today for £290.

 

MkI (2000, so a late MkI) Irish spec VTS which means a 1.8 XU7JP4 (I think) engine. The lump will be dumped!

 

XU9J4 with low comp pistons, new cams, twin scroll turbo, Emerald ECU PLUS ITBs awaits!

 

Pictures to follow of the donor vehicle, which appears to be in very good nick bar the driver's RH seat bolster and some s*itty 'Lexus' rear lights, plus a minor dent in the front right wheel arch.

 

Design priority queries for your kind and immediate attention please:

 

1) OE/replacement light cluster/lenses/rubies from what please? Must be a mkI Xsara? Anyone got one or both for me please?

 

2) Front brake & hub options/recommendations (bearing in mind circa 300bhp target)?

 

3) Driveshaft options (related to Q2). E.g. can I fit 406 or Xantia hubs like I have on my 205 in order to provide bigger brakes and to accept 306/Xsara driveshafts?

 

4) (Related to Q2 & 3) What wishbone options are there? I have 306 wishbones on my 205 and have a spare set, so will they fit?

 

5) Rear beam: Expect I should remove and refresh; should I change trailing arms, dampers and torsion bars, or any combination of the above?

 

6) Wheels look crap! Too small, too narrow and would need refurbishing anyway (which costs money), hence thinking either a wider R15 or R16 wheel would be better (doing my utmost to avoid TSW). Any OE swap ideas please; and what about a slight lowering of the car? For example: do 16" wheels not work at all?

 

Ultimately this is supposed to become a 'clean and tidy sleeper, with comfy seats and raw power on-tap'.

 

Hope you can help.

 

@Mods: Please edit title to show 'XMT' (not Xmt). Ta.

Edited March 19, 2017 by DrSarty

[Andy 105 1 Cars]

Evening,

I so enjoyed reading your first build thread which was indeed an epic, so I expect this new project will be just as interesting and informative. Just one question for the moment. Did you have any particular reason to go for a Xsara rather than , say , a 306 . The engine you have planned sounds absolutely cracking.

Andy

[calvinhorse 870]

Awesome! Really looking forward to this, mk1 xsaras can look really cool with the right mods

 

306 wishbones will fit but obviously watch out for your ball joint size.

 

406 hubs won't fit unless you maybe replace your bbj with a spherical bearing in a custom housing.. no idea what this would do to your geometry, probably best just sticking to 306/xsara hubs

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Thanks for your responses and interest.

 

I can stick with the current hubs (with new bearings of course), although I am keen on bigger brakes. So I'm looking forward to hearing any driveshaft and brake options please.

 

Why a Xsara? We'll it's different. It's less obvious than a 306 (read: ugly), but likely delivers the same experience, or better, and parts may be cheaper despite being interchangeable with more popular variants.

 

Plus - and the biggy for me - the Xsara was a massive WRC success and looked great. However, the production variant should've and perhaps could've looked as good. The ZX16v is a good parallel - ugly but great! For some reason (I think) the 306 simply looks better, although the under-pinnings are the same.

 

7.7 secs 0-60 is not to be sniffed at, and that's before adding all my stuff!

Edited March 19, 2017 by DrSarty

[welshpug 1,657]

 

 

 

1) OE/replacement light cluster/lenses/rubies from what please? Must be a mkI Xsara?

I believe so, phase2 have a different part number.

 

 

 

2) Front brake & hub options/recommendations (bearing in mind circa 300bhp target)?

 

standard hubs will suffice, they're the same as the full fat VTS and there are plenty of 400 bhp cars running standard here, plenty of aftermarket brake options available, same as the 205 in this respect, everything big brake for 205 will fit.

 

 

3) Driveshaft options (related to Q2). E.g. can I fit 406 or Xantia hubs like I have on my 205 in order to provide bigger brakes and to accept 306/Xsara driveshafts?

 

 

 

good stock are likely to be fine unless abused, the joints are more beefy than standard 205, they just share the same spline inner and outer ends.

 

 

4) (Related to Q2 & 3) What wishbone options are there? I have 306 wishbones on my 205 and have a spare set, so will they fit?

 

 

yes as they are identical, but not the balljoint, you have to use the xsara balljoints as they are shorter (narrower track than 306)

 

 

5) Rear beam: Expect I should remove and refresh; should I change trailing arms, dampers and torsion bars, or any combination of the above?

whatever budget allows and what is already fitted, not sure on the spec of this car, 21mm can be found on the british VTS, also larger roll bars (24mm, same as 306 xsi/gti/rallye)

 

 

6) Wheels look crap! Too small, too narrow and would need refurbishing anyway (which costs money), hence thinking either a wider R15 or R16 wheel would be better (doing my utmost to avoid TSW). Any OE swap ideas please; and what about a slight lowering of the car? For example: do 16" wheels not work at all?

 

 

 

16" will work fine with a 205 45 tyre, I wouldnt go any larger, you can fit a decent size brake under a 15" still and tyres are a lot cheaper.

 

lowering, I wouldn't do much, the chassis sits an inch lower than the 306 which is the same platform!

 

 

 

 

 

instead of binning the XU7 you could just turbocharge that, as its going forced induction I doubt you will miss the 120cc, much less oil control issues, fresher block. this was actually the basis for the WRC engines in the 206 and xsara.

[allanallen 528 2 Cars]

Now then!

 

It uses 306 wishbones already doesn't it? 406 hubs will require custom longer wishbones and shafts.

 

I don't think you'll have driveshaft issues at that power level, the standard ones stand quite a lot of torque on hdi's no problem.

 

Brakes again, no idea what's fitted already but gti6 calipers and decent pads would be well on top of the job, dare I say 266s for the weight saving?!

 

Refresh beam, budget allowing....21mm bars from vts, 24mm arb from gti6, Bilstein grpA dampers.

 

Wheels, tsw venoms

 

Why ITBs?

[allanallen 528 2 Cars]

What Meirion said!

 

Didn't realise xsara bbjs were narrower.

[Type-R 3]

I've got basically the same car (Mk1 UK VTR). It really needs wider wheels, (rear especially).

I think deep dish 5 spokes (compmotive, revolution, azev etc) would look good, and some cut/rolled rear arches.

Agree with Welshpug, makes more sense to turbo the 1.8 to me, you won't notice 100cc when you've got boost.

[Andy 105 1 Cars]

Of course, I forgot about the WRC car. !

[allye 530 3 Cars]

 

Its amazing how such a ugly car can be so good looking in WRC guise.

[welshpug 1,657]

I much prefer the Phase1

 

[dobboy 231 2 Cars]

I saw Chris Meeke drive Colin McRae's Xsara at Knockhill, what a machine, and very very smart looking. The thing just took off from standstill.

 

Everytime he went by the crowd on a lap he done a donut or two which the crowd loved.

 

There was half a dozen guys from the French Citroen museum who immediately cleaned down and checked over the car as soon as it came off a session.

 

Meeke said it was an absolute weapon.

 

https://youtu.be/OyucHfjEaSo

[jackherer 543]

We can't edit the title, the forum just changes it back to 'title' case automatically.

I think I've still got one or two Xaara VTS parts left, maybe some hubs and a partial rear beam, they're yours if you can use them.

Agree with Welshpug, makes more sense to turbo the 1.8 to me, you won't notice 100cc when you've got boost.

The capacity may not be much less than an Mi16 but the head, valves, cam etc are very restrictive on the 1.8 16v which is why it only makes 115bhp, the same as a 1.6 8v 205 engine!

[welshpug 1,657]

not such a problem when you strap an angry snail to them though, right can always swap to a j4r or rs head, they go straight on with standard xu7 covers and engine mounts.

[jackherer 543]

Depends on your point of view, some say it is even more important! You're going to make a lot more power from a lot less boost if the head flows well.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Interesting feedback and discussion.

 

I'm going with the Mi lump, not for the cc but because I have 3 engines in the garage that I need to build and move and I'd know everything about the Mi/XU9 lump rather than taking on an unknown XU7.

 

I'd also need to find a replacement head. My J4RS head's scrap due to the exhaust cam pulley shattering and bringing the timing gear to a rapid halt smashing valves. Finally, I know there are turbo manifolds off the shelf (DP Engineering IIRC) all ready for the Mi/S16 head.

 

I'd love your spare bits please K for a few beers. Could drive to Ipswich like before or perhaps meet in Newmarket or Bury?

 

ITBs: Well, I love them and I thought it'd be interesting. Good for a Pulsar GTR and perhaps other rapid cars, so why not?

 

A few more questions please:

1) URGENT: I've found a 2000 Y reg Xsara being broken; is this a ph2? The rear light lenses look the same size. Would the entire clusters fit? (Mine's a Sep 2000 X)

2) Are Xsara 1 BBJs the same for all models and also same as Berlingo jobbies?

3) Does anyone think ITBs will make a blind bit of difference compared to a single throttle butterfly?

4) Do ZX trailing arms make a difference? Think I saw that mentioned earlier.

5) Are there any solutions to the Mi oil starvation issue? I've heard mention of using XU9J2 con rods (or was it the crank, or both?), and even removing the crank oil spray bars (?!). I'm sure the Mi crank is different to the 8v crank; counter balanced?

 

Thanks for your comments. Pics to follow shortly.

Edited March 20, 2017 by DrSarty

[Anthony 1,003]

If you do decide to go down the RS head route Rich then I've a spare one in the garage.

 

Y plate will be a Ph2 unless it's a late registered car - if you've a picture of the car then just check the front headlights, but otherwise generally speaking Phase 2 is Y reg onwards.

 

Personal opinion is that if you're going forced induction then keep with a standard single throttle, but take the opportunity to use a GTi-6 inlet manifold and not an Mi one. The money for ITB's would be better spent elsewhere on the build IMO.

 

I think the 8v rods were proved not to cure the oil starvation issues, despite initially looking promising. The only proven things to lessen or eliminate the issue seem to be an extended pickup, going to solid lifters, or ideally, a dry sump.

[jackherer 543]

I'm not sure I agree about ITBs on turbos, I think you'll get all the same benefits you get with an NA engine.

 

There are some interesting posts in this thread - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1129473 - by someone calling themselves 'Max_Torque' who has an impressive looking Renault turbo with ITBs. It's obviously complex to get right and it's probably the sort of thing you want to speak to your mapper about before actually building!

 

I'll have a proper look in my garage later Rich, from memory I have VTS hubs, driveshafts and a beam minus the ARB. If you want the beam you might have to come here as I don't think it'll go in my car.

[Type-R 3]

2) Are Xsara 1 BBJs the same for all models and also same as Berlingo jobbies?

3) Does anyone think ITBs will make a blind bit of difference compared to a single throttle butterfly?

4) Do ZX trailing arms make a difference? Think I saw that mentioned earlier.

5) Are there any solutions to the Mi oil starvation issue? I've heard mention of using XU9J2 con rods (or was it the crank, or both?), and even removing the crank oil spray bars (?!). I'm sure the Mi crank is different to the 8v crank; counter balanced?

2) Wouldn't 306 ones be better to gain some negative camber? Idk

 

3) To reduce lag I'd go with electronic throttle and wastegate actuation, not ITBs.

 

4) Xsara arms tend to have the most toe in out of all the interchangeable arms.

So more high speed stability and less agility. Do you want that? Up to you.

 

5) Assuming sump baffles are a given, external oil drains is the way it's solved in France.

I'd want as much oil spray cooling as reasonably possible with forced induction.

Or you could just keep the 1.8

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

It's tempting to stay with the XU7 (1.8) bottom end and bolt on (Anthony's) J4RS (GTI6/true VTS) head. Hmmmm...

 

It's also tempting to go with the GTI6/true VTS plenum. Would a GTI6 throttle body (TB) be sufficient? I ask because that link from Jackherer indicates there's quite a science to turbo engine design and plumbing!

 

It's difficult to change though because I'd like to use up one of the Mi engines I have and I'm also stubborn (as you no doubt know). The ITB money could also be usable or be a saving. I'm also wondering if going XU7 means me having to make CR considerations which I'd already taken care of using the Mi by using the lower CR (DFZ I think) pistons I got from PeterT. I also have plenty of Mi cams, including a stage I and stage II regrind from PeterT plus a Kent or Catcams fast road cam (I can't remember which).

 

Perhaps I could stay Mi, but use the ITB money for dry sumping and solid lifters.

 

Decisions decisions.

 

Also:

From Type-R: " Wouldn't 306 BBJs be better to gain some negative camber?". Good idea?

 

And I'm determined to make the Xsara look a little meaner/WRC-like.

[welshpug 1,657]

Your N-A cams wouldn't be particularly suited to a turbo application, too much overlap typically, you end up blowing the charge straight out of the exhaust valve rather than filling the cylinder in worst cases.

 

 

with a supercharger on a 100% standard gti6 makes 250 bhp with half a bar with the Lynx kits that uses a Rotrex charger and a restrictor ring, with a larger ring & lower compression they run 400, so as you can imagine, they dont need much more air and any cam at all to make really good power.

[Andy 105 1 Cars]

Welshpug has beaten me to the punch, but in general forced induction engines do not respond well to valve overlap. The other point I would make is that getting the best possible air flow potential in the head is a huge bonus for a turbo engine as it allows you to maximise the advantages of forced induction without having to resort to very high boost levels, so selecting a head with good flow capacity is the best place to start.

[petert 586]

I disagree. It all depends on where you want the power range. The critical thing is minimising the valve overlap period, which is easily done be advancing the exhaust cam with a vernier pulley. I'd use the Stage I inlet and standard exhaust cam. This has been done before on T16's with great success.

 

I also support the Mi16 head idea. If you can use less boost to make the same hp, then isn't that a better outcome?

Edited March 20, 2017 by petert

[allanallen 528 2 Cars]

I personally feel ITBs are unnecessary and over complicated for your goals. are they not often junked on pulsars and skylines in favour of single throttle body anyway?

 

Having been involved in building a 16v turbo I honestly wouldn't concern myself about boost being lost on overlap using N/A cams etc etc. a standard engine will make north of 270bhp/300lbft on 10psi, turbo dependant with considerably little lag. You want to worry about making it grip and go around corners.

[Type-R 3]

In the real world does it matter if you made your 300hp target with 25psi instead of 15psi? Who cares?

A target like that could probably be done with a stock compression XU7 with just a turbo adaptor.

Wasn't there a Dutch guy here who made over 450hp with a stock XU10 and a decompression plate?

The main issues are heat management, crank pressurisation and soft valve springs. Oiling if you go with an Mi16.