2088cc Mi Bottom End

[phatgti 0]

i personally dont think its necessary to spend all that amount of money on Tb's on a standard engine, i spent £140 on 270 regrinds, i improved the cylinder head a little and made just over 180bhp, spending 1500 to get a little more than that seems silly to me.

[huckleberry 0]

I don't think it's just about BHP. Torque is in the picture here too. Still I think TBs are best to complement other tuning. And the sound is worth it too I guess.

 

Tim

[TB_205GTI 1]

Increasing capacity without increasing head flow makes very little difference to power. All that happens is the rpm at which everything happens comes down in similar proportion to engine size. If engine size goes up by 10% then very roughly peak power rpm and peak torque rpm will fall by 10%. Torque will of course go up which feels faster on the same gearing but gearing really needs to then be raised by 10% so that peak power rpm comes at the same road speed as before. Once that is done the wheel torque and acceleration stay the same.

 

Yes you gain a small amount of power but not in proportion to increase in engine size. A rough rule of thumb for small increases in capacity is you gain 3% extra power for every 10% increase in capacity if head flow stays the same.

Hmm sorry for turning back to the engine size again..

 

What you say here makes sense to me (woohoo, I understand it..)

Take the 205 GTI 1.6, this one makes 115BHp. It shares the head from the 1.9, but the 1.9 uses a different cam. If the 1.6 cam was used in the 1.9 engine the poweroutput will roughly be 120Bhp, right? If we take a well used 1.9 cam (lets say 200.000Km)). Then the profile is certantly not the same as when it left Peugeot in the 80'ies Now with this cam the flow potential for the 1.9 is almost the same as the 1.6, and the power output is on level with a 1.9 fitted with a 1.6 cam. The peak rpm for the 1.9 goes very well with the theory you posted. Or am I talking out my arse?

 

Keep up posting like this! I know for sure that I learn by this.

[eob 7]

Seems to have gone off topic a bit without getting down to the nitty gritty of getting a 2045/2088cc Mi16.

 

1: Mi16 pistons, crank, rods, head fitted to a 1.9 XUD block gives 2045cc's? Correct?

 

2: Does the diesel engine block have two pre-tensioners to suit the Mi16 head?

 

3: What's the final compression ratio?

 

My Mi16 block is damaged, possibly beyond repair, so if this conversion can be completed without too much fuss, I'll start on building one this weekend and post how I get on.

[Hilgie 16 2 Cars]

1: Mi16 pistons, crank, rods, head fitted to a 1.9 XUD block gives 2045cc's? Correct?

 

No...it's a 2.0Mi16/S16 cast iron bottom end with matching pistons.

 

1.9 crank (8V or 16V)

 

Mi16 or S16 head (which are basically the same)

 

1.9 XUD bearings.

 

The reason for using the XUD bearing is that that engine is a cast iron block with a 1.9Mi crank.

[sorrentoaddict 1]

Hilgie,

 

is that the thrust bearings, main bearings, or conrod bearings from XUD9 ?

(or all three "items" come from the XUD9 engine for this combination (88mm stroked XU10J4)

 

 

Cheers

 

 

Alex

[Hilgie 16 2 Cars]

I used all three.

[Guest Lemans197]

I used all three.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a Le Mans whose cam tensioner failed recently (damage as yet not known), a spare XU10J4 and quite keen on the 88mm stroked idea for better torque and perhaps a bit more power. Anyone have an opinion on the flow limitations of the standard dual inlet tract fitted to the 2L MI16s and on the exhaust manifold? Not strictly 205, but opinions greatfully received.

[petert 586]

No...it's a 2.0Mi16/S16 cast iron bottom end with matching pistons.

 

1.9 crank (8V or 16V)

 

Mi16 or S16 head (which are basically the same)

 

1.9 XUD bearings.

 

The reason for using the XUD bearing is that that engine is a cast iron block with a 1.9Mi crank.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can anyone tell me what the squish height (or deck height) is with this combination?

 

i.e. is the piston below, flush or above the deck at TDC? And by how much?

[B1ack_Mi16 67]

Can anyone tell me what the squish height (or deck height) is with this combination?

 

i.e. is the piston below, flush or above the deck at TDC? And by how much?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Block height = 234.8mm (At least we found it to be that when measuring)

Rodlength Xu10J4 = 152mm

Piston Compression height = 39,1mm

Half the stroke 86/2 = 43mm

234.8 - 152 - 39.1 - 43 = 0,7mm

 

Which means that in a standard XU10J4 the pistons sit 0.7 down the bore.

Adding the extra 1mm with the 88mm crank will make them sit 0.3mm over the deck..

[Guest mi daza]

here another question on this matter

 

what about if you bore the block and use the 1.9 crank what would that give up or you be able to do it

[rich_w 0]

there was a bore/stroke chart link posted on this forum cant find it though

 

i dont think the 2l iron block can be safely bored over 88mm

[hiflow 1]

2.1 Mi16. I found the car more tractible & also give it a wider power band. One thing i dislike about the 1905cc , it they are breathless low down, need to be thrashed to get 100% out of them. Others tuners scoff at 2100cc, due to being cast block, but they are stronger & not really that much heavier than the 1905cc. The YAnks are right , you cannot be Cubes. The increase CC allows the head to flow better. 1905cc Suffer from a lack of low down torque due to oversize inlet ports (low port volicity). That larger piston improves that. For me, i,d go 2.1, good low down grunt, with the lovely 4500rpm + powerband. from an marketing point of view, very want to invest on the unknown, which is a shame Should be finshed our 2.2 Mi16 , by the end of the month.

 

BTW, before you ask. 88mm stroke , 88mm bore.

[B1ack_Mi16 67]

2.1 Mi16.  I found the car more tractible & also give it a wider power band.  One thing i dislike about the 1905cc , it they are breathless low down, need to be thrashed to get 100% out of them.  Others tuners scoff at 2100cc, due to being cast block, but they are stronger & not really that much heavier than the 1905cc.  The YAnks are right , you cannot be Cubes.  The increase CC allows the head to flow better.  1905cc Suffer from a lack of low down torque due to oversize inlet ports (low port volicity).  That  larger piston improves that.  For me,  i,d go 2.1, good low down grunt, with the lovely    4500rpm + powerband.  from an marketing point of view, very want to invest on the unknown, which is a shame    Should be finshed our 2.2 Mi16 , by the end of the month.

 

BTW, before you ask.  88mm stroke , 88mm bore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Has anyone actually put for example a 2.1 or 2.2 Mi16 engine into a 205 GTi on here and done test, 0 - 60, 1/4 mile ++ ?

 

Hope my 2299cc 88mm bore 94.5mm stroke will work well and hope it will rev past 7500rpm without hassle too.

 

When asking CatCams for a cam that would give approx. 250bhp they told me to use the 4901504. Lift @TDC on this is 4.25 / 3.70mm. I think I'll go for the 4901503, my head is likely to flow a lot better on the 88mm bore so probably need a bit lesser cam to make it work good

 

What cams are you going to use on the 2.2 Mi16 your're building then?

[TB_205GTI 1]

Has anyone actually put for example a 2.1 or 2.2 Mi16 engine into a 205 GTi on here and done test, 0 - 60, 1/4 mile ++ ?

 

A mate has a 205 Rallye, fitted with a 2.3L 8V engine, Omex management, Throttlebodies, and a 296 degree cam. We have measured it several times to under 6 seconds. The best was 5.71. I cannot remember the 1/4mile time though. The gearbox is a std. Rallye 1.9 (Same ratios as GTI 1.6). Here is the power graph for it: http://2200kbhn.dk/temp/andrew.jpg

[B1ack_Mi16 67]

A mate has a 205 Rallye, fitted with a 2.3L 8V engine, Omex management, Throttlebodies, and a 296 degree cam. We have measured it several times to under 6 seconds. The best was 5.71. I cannot remember the 1/4mile time though. The gearbox is a std. Rallye 1.9 (Same ratios as GTI 1.6). Here is the power graph for it: http://2200kbhn.dk/temp/andrew.jpg

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nice

I'm planning on using the standard Mi16 box on my engine, with limiter at approx 8000rpm I should be able to do 100km/h in 2'nd gear also.

 

Under 6 seconds is starting to get serious, were you running standard tyres, or slicks og semi-slicks (roadlegal slicks)? He's got an Quaife or other sort of uprated diff.?

[easypug 0]

Has anyone actually put for example a 2.1 or 2.2 Mi16 engine into a 205 GTi on here and done test, 0 - 60, 1/4 mile ++ ?

 

Hope my 2299cc 88mm bore 94.5mm stroke will work well and hope it will rev past 7500rpm without hassle too.

 

When asking CatCams for a cam that would give approx. 250bhp they told me to use the 4901504. Lift @TDC on this is 4.25 / 3.70mm.  I think I'll go for the 4901503, my head is likely to flow a lot better on the 88mm bore so probably need a bit lesser cam to make it work good

 

What cams are you going to use on the 2.2 Mi16 your're building then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Also would like to hear more info on what cams used and power/torque output? (sorry aimed at hiflow)

Edited August 2, 2005 by easypug

[crf450 0 1 Cars]

Nice

I'm planning on using the standard Mi16 box on my engine, with limiter at approx 8000rpm I should be able to do 100km/h in 2'nd gear also.

 

Under 6 seconds is starting to get serious, were you running standard tyres, or slicks og semi-slicks (roadlegal slicks)? He's got an Quaife or other sort of uprated diff.?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't reckon under six seconds for a fwd is that hard to do, we were looking at my slip from Santa pod the other day when I ran a 14.1 on road legal tyres, we reckon I must have been below 5.5 to sixty with only 172bhp.

[B1ack_Mi16 67]

I don't reckon under six seconds for a fwd is that hard to do, we were looking at my slip from Santa pod the other day when I ran a 14.1 on road legal tyres, we reckon I must have been below 5.5 to sixty with only 172bhp.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then 100 in 6 should be possible I guess

My engine is also coming togeather now.. But the car probably won't be ready until the spring again, as it's just too much work needing to be done on it.

[bobs205 0]

Do you have to use a 1.9mi16 crank or can i use a 1.9 8v crank or is it not as strong as a mi one?

[petert 586]

the 16v crank is fully counterweighted, so yes, it's less prone to whip (flex) at higher rpm's

[Guest mg3]

Question,

 

I have a 2.0L 8v engine, a 1.9 mi16 head, pistons, rods and crank. As well as a set of 2.0L mi16 pistons.

 

What would be the best thing to build. Using the 2.0L iron block ??

 

Thanks

 

Mauro

Edited March 9, 2006 by mg3

[petert 586]

Question,

 

I have a 2.0L 8v engine, a 1.9 mi16 head, pistons, rods and crank. As well as a set of 2.0L mi16 pistons.

 

What would be the best thing to build. Using the 2.0L iron block ??

 

Thanks

 

Mauro

 

1.9L crank,

8V rods

2.0 16V pistons

1.9L Mi16 head

 

although you'll probably need to get the rods bushed to accept the full floating Mi16 pin.

[Sam 4]

Does the XU9 crank in an XU10 block really need XU9D main bearings?

 

I'm building a 87mm bore x 88mm stroke turbo engine.

[Hilgie 16 2 Cars]

Does the XU9 crank in an XU10 block really need XU9D main bearings?

 

I'm building a 87mm bore x 88mm stroke turbo engine.

 

The XU9D bearings are the same as the 2.0T bearings.