Xmt - Sarty's Xsara GTI6 Turbo

[jackherer 543]

Even if I thought it was a good idea to split the thread as a moderator I can tell you that there is zero chance of actually enforcing something like that!

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Not wishing to sound like I'm defending myself here (and after all it is 'my' thread), another two reasons I'm focussing on the wiring are:

1) To make fitting the engine a literal plug and play, and;

2) Because there was a parasitic drain causing the battery to go flat after a few days. I wanted this cured before I added my toys.

 

Re item (2):

I've followed all instructions and isolated things to one fuse in the engine compartment fuse box, as pictured below. The process is described below the picture if anyone's interested, but it's easy enough to find on YouTube and even do. The problem is, I don't know what this bloody fuse is!

 

I don't have an owner's manual, it's not in the Haynes manual (!), there are no numbers I can find against the fuses in the car nor any diagrams on fuse box covers etc.

 

Grrr! What is this fuse for please? Please note it's a 5A fuse, removed in the photo, and the engine fuse box shouldn't have any 5A fuses according to any diagram I do have, let alone two!:

 

 

I'll post my wiring planning docs shortly (for those interested )

 

*Parasitic drain location technique:

- Ignition off

- Remove earth lead from battery

- Put circuit tester thingy onto DC amps (10A a good start point)

- Place tester between (now removed) earth battery clamp and battery earth terminal

- If tester has a reading then ensure you have the door closed and the courtesy light is off

- If all obvious lights etc are off and there's a reading above 0.05A you have an unacceptable drain

- Pick a fuse box, then remove 1 fuse at a time and watch the ammeter reading. Ensure you know where the removed fuse belongs!

- If there's no drop, put the fuse back...you'll then repeat the process working your way through the fuses in a logical fashion, again, 1 at a time

- If or when a fuse removed drops the amp reading (read: current draw) but not totally, mark it and put it back. Then continue finding other circuits that are drawing current/draining the battery when the ignition is off. Again, an acceptable draw (alarm etc) is around 0.05A.

- If 1 removed fuse drops the draw to 0.05 (or even zero), YOU HAVE THE BUGGER! It may however be a combination of several fuse removals to get down to (near) zero

- You then have to find out what circuit that fuse is part of - where I am now BTW - and investigate that circuit, e.g. faulty part (shorting internally), damaged wire rubbing on an earth e.g. broken wire insulation allowing the core to touch chassis metal

Edited April 9, 2017 by DrSarty

[wicked 103 3 Cars]

I hope my questions related to the wiring did not gave you the impression that you have to defend yourselves.

It just didn't look like to obvious first step to do in a build like this.

 

Related to the fuse, I found this picture on the internet:

 

And if you google on F14, it hints at:

 

F14 10A - Front/rear screen wash pump

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

That's brilliant! That LH diagram is a definite match to the fuse compartment photo of mine (rotated right 90deg of course), and F14 definitely looks right.

 

I will now put the fuse back in (multimeter in place) and remove the front, then rear washer pump and see what happens. Hopefully it'll be just a replacement pump or pumps. If not, it could be the wires to the pump(s) shorting against the body somewhere (which would be harder to find).

 

But - and as the fault finding journey often is - it's a start.

[welshpug 1,657]

single washer pump with two outlets, stalk switches the polarity like the window switches do for the motors.

[jackherer 543]

The pump should only see voltage when it's operated so I can't see any way it can fail and draw current, even if it was a direct short it would only blow the fuse when you operated the pump. Switches and relays are where I would be looking.

[maturin23 10]

Hello chaps

 

This is excellent Rich - just read the lot.

 

Glad to see you're still getting your hands dirty.

 

I do admire your iterative, low ceremony approach to design and development

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Thanks Ian. Hope you can make this Sunday's meet....? (See 'Old Skool' topic).

 

I now have flanges (from China) for fabrication of the exhaust gas feed and waste piping. This may involve a few mock-ups. I plan to have two x 4mm laser cut flanges made and joined to make an 8mm thick manifold to head flange using an Mi16 exhaust gasket for hole and port alignment, although I'll pair the 8 head ports into 4. One flange will be extended out clutch side to incorporate a support bracket for the turbo, including the twin scroll feed flange. I'll post a diagram later to show what I mean. I'm not expecting the manifold pipes alone to support the weight of the turbo. It's possible that the extension will need an angle or even a kink, so I'll probably build 2 hinges into the mock-up if the angles/space doesn't work.

 

I also had delivered the Bosch MAP sensor recommended by our friend in Norway. Nice job.

 

Can anyone supply me with a suitable engine top mount arm please? I'm guessing most 205 ones will be compatible. I have the big bit for the block; I just need the arm. Anyone coming to Mytchett this Sunday able to help?

 

Pics soon I promise. Prep and planning are key.

[Anthony 1,003]

Can anyone supply me with a suitable engine top mount arm please? I'm guessing most 205 ones will be compatible. I have the big bit for the block; I just need the arm. Anyone coming to Mytchett this Sunday able to help?

205 8v ones are different Rich, 3 bolt and a different shape. I'll have a look to see if I've a spare 1.9 Mi16 one, although even a few years back they were pretty scarce.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Quick Q in pursuit of efficiency:

 

For turbo piping mock ups, can I leave the Xu7 lump in? Specifically, will the exhaust port height be the same?

 

If yes, noting that I will be relocating the battery to the boot and clearing that space for my 'snail' I can save a big job (current engine fully out) until I'm ready and just remove some ancillaries such as alt, steering pump, air box etc once I'm prep'd from a plumbing and wiring POV.

 

Type R is getting the JP4 head, so I have 3 weeks or so.

[welshpug 1,657]

yes, block height and angle is the same as the Xu9, afaik the bottom row of exhaust studs is in the same place, the top row is different.

 

some of the coolant pipework is different too, though not vastly.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Thanks Mei.

 

I was thinking about cooling and turbo oil feed stuff yesterday. A few more queries/ideas then please:

- Can I route the turbo's water feed straight into the engine coolant?

- Re above: I was thinking - considering the expansion tank is built into the rad - water dist union on rear of block to heater matrix then matrix to turbo in, then turbo out to stat housing on head and housing back to rad. I'll knock up a diagram based on responses. Sounds to easy but seems to make sense.

- Turbo oil feed from sump via oil temp sender hole modified, and return to the S16 head via the hole above the stat housing (that the XU9J4 head doesn't have)?

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

P.S. Some posts from my mobile hence typos. Sloppy!

[Anthony 1,003]

Oil feed won't work Rich. Needs to be pressurised feed from oil gallery and a return downwards - the vac pump oil return will be too high I suspect. The XU9 oil level sender hole might be workable though for a gearbox mounted turbo.

 

Found an Mi top mount arm too btw.

[Andy 105 1 Cars]

Hi. How is it all going? Have you managed to make any progress recently? Really keen to see how a turbo engine shapes up in a Xsara.

Andy

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

OK. This may be humble pie time, or a revisit to design options based on me eventually pulling my finger out, assembling the parts and paying a visit to a motor engineer.

 

In short, I am thinking it may be better and easier (although a tad boring perhaps) to use the XU7 lump in the Xsara now. Whether it's with the standard head, a J4R, J4RS or even an Mi16 (XU10J4) head is TBC. Basically most of the 10 liners I have, plus the Mi crank are a little too far gone in terms of lips and/or rust. The XU7 bottom end at least seems a better starting point. Additionally, finding an engineer with the skills, equipment and confidence to height-match, 2-axis machine and possibly rebore wet liners is perhaps more hassle (and cost) than it's worth.

 

So the key questions now are:

1. Standard XU7JP4 head? - I think not, as it doesn't apparently flow that well, but porting is possible
2. J4R head? - see above
3. J4RS head? - Hoping Anthony still has one.....
4. Mi16 head?

First step is to understand the CR resulting from each possibility. Can you guys help? I don't know what I should be aiming for, i.e. someone mentioned 10:1 earlier but that seems too high to me; shouldn't it be 9.5:1 or less? And in conjunction with the head choice question, if all of the options result in a less than ideal CR, what could I do to drop it if needed? Thick HGs seems to be a suggestion, but it also seems a bit of a bodge.

 

- If the Mi head can work I MAY have the dreaded oil issues, but I have the cams and verniers already. However, the exhaust manifold to suit the TST may be more complex. Oil filler plumbing is tougher too. (I may have talked myself out of the Mi head here....ooops!)

- If I use a J4RS head I can possibly exploit the OE exhaust manifold (even just the flange) which'll save costs, it has an oil filler cap in the cam cover simplifying plumbing, I have a chance to use a cam timing sensor, but I'm unsure of the cam suitability for TST engine. I'd also be compelled to buy aftermarket vernier cam pulleys as whilst the OEs are adjustable, I've had one shatter on me!

- Are there any benefits at all from using the current head or finding and using a J4R head, where rumours of 'porting' benefits could be explored?

 

If not, it's just a question of 2 heads....

 

As part of this revisit, as the XU7JP4 is 83mm bore, could either Mi16 D6C (10.4, stamped 'Z') or (9.7, stamped 'X') DFZ pistons be used with the mix of XU7 bottom end plus XU10J4RS head including J4RS cams? I suggest this to [a] perhaps help with the CR issue and deal with rumours of 'chocolate pistons'. There also seem to be lots of aftermarket piston options e.g. http://www.ecosse-peugeot.co.uk/search.asp?catid=2&appid=8. I believe there may be a challenge with rods here though if Mi pistons are used due to 81.4 vs 88mm stroke differences (1.8 to 1.9).

 

Cutting to the chase, this isn't supposed to be stupidly complex nor expensive. I want to find the optimum 'off the shelf' solution as per usual which basically boils down to head and cam choice, because the XU7 bottom end is now likely a dead cert; too much cost will be incurred if I stick with the XU9J4 bottom end route. If we then throw pistons into the mix, we have what I hope is room for a healthy discussion, set of recommendations and a final design decision. My gut reaction says XU7JP4 bottom end incl pistons, thicker MLS gasket and a J4RS head with either RS or R cams, plus aftermarket vernier cam pulleys and an alloy crank pulley.

 

Help!

Edited October 16, 2017 by DrSarty

[welshpug 1,657]

combustion chamber on the later heads are all 37.5cc, the MI16 is 40cc.

 

the XU7 and XU10J4R use some fairly mild valve springs, plus a valve stem seal integrated into the lower spring seat, J4RS seal and lower spring seat can be fitted after machining of the top of the valve guide and spring seat if you wanted to use J4RS or wilder camshafts in those castings.

 

the MI16 head can work, but I'm not sure why you think there will be less oil issues, what with the MI16's history of oil issues.

 

 

can't help with a target CR for boost, but you'll be around 10.4 with any of the three later heads on an XU7 piston and crank, or nigh on 11 with them over an XU9J4 piston and crank (I can do the numbers later) what power level are you aiming at?

[welshpug 1,657]

oh and liners do often pop up on ebay relatively cheaply http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Laufbuchse-Zylinderlaufbuchse-Goetze-Engine-CITROEN-FIAT-PEUGEOT-1704850-/382076882519

[Anthony 1,003]

I was wondering the other day how you were getting on with this as you'd gone off the radar for a while.

 

Sold my RS head I'm afraid Rich.

 

XU7 head is horribly restrictive as standard, so I'd exclude that. Take a look at the ports when you remove it and you'll see what I mean - it's like Peugeot deliberately throttled it.

 

The J4R head from memory actually looked quite nice with similar sized ports to an Mi IIRC - it's what I'd planned to use when I planned to build an XU7 based engine myself a few years back, but I never got around to it as with many other things. The valve springs are marginal with RS cams though and the standard cams are pretty mild.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Firstly @Welshpug: I corrected my typo after you sent yours; the Mi16 head MAY keep the risk of oil issues. My bad. Power target seems to be around the 300bhp mark, and delivery is more about road usability under 6k rpm and smooth continuity rather than peaky 'woomph'.

 

While I have the option of staying with an Mi XU9J4 block and getting new liners, I'd also need a new crank and I'd have to do a complete engine swap. I'd also keep oil issues in the equation perhaps regardless of head choice.

 

In the interests of pragmatism and ease, AS LONG AS I CAN GET THE CR DOWN for which I still need a proper solution, it seems to make sense to keep the XU7JP4 bottom end in the car and just swap the XU7JP4 head for an 'R' or 'RS', assuming I can find a decent one. It seems porting wouldn't be necessary with either choice.

 

Also, providing the comments re valve springs, seats and guides are nothing to fret about if I use the RS head, then - again, providing I can get the CR down - the RS head on the XU7 bottom end seems to be the way to go.

 

So if anyone can help on the CR lowering, I think I can shortly commit and get moving. Less work in the engine bay, reduced oil and plumbing issues, ability to use the RS exhaust manifold as a starting point and to get this running sooner. The Mi route perhaps doesn't make sense anymore....

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Silly question perhaps, but would the DFW (low CR Mi16) pistons fit - or be made to fit - the XU7JP4 rods? Then it's a complete XU7 bottom end but with Mi pistons, and an RS head. Just a thought.

Edited October 16, 2017 by DrSarty

[welshpug 1,657]

MI16 piston is too tall to use on XU7 rod and crank, you could easily get the dish in the piston enlarged though.

[petert 586]

Why couldn't you use Mi16 rods and DFW pistons? Wouldn't the compression height then be the same, or very similar?

 

From my tinkering, I can't see anything different between an XU10J4R head and an Mi16 head, in terms of port sizes and valve sizes. The limitation as said earlier, is the valve springs. I'd imagine there are upgrades available. However, if turbo, why do you need to open the valve so high? The RS head has doubles because of the lift. R springs will all but coil bind with an RS cam. Keep the lift under 0.385" and you'll be fine.

 

As for the Mi16 head, I don't see an issue, unless you're planning to put sticky tyres on and do track work. With XU10 sump, windage tray etc. It will be fine. The obvious advantage is that you already have the parts and cams etc.

 

NB: DFZ is XU9 8V, low CR with cat.

Edited October 16, 2017 by petert

[welshpug 1,657]

mi16 rod and piston will only work in that block with an 88mm crank, not the xu7's 81.4mm stroke and 150mm rod, smaller 45mm journals too.

[petert 586]

Yes, I meant with an 88mm crank. You could possibly find a forged crank from a turbo diesel? Given this is a low boost project, any 88mm crank would suffice.

Edited October 16, 2017 by petert