[Project] Starting My Xu5T Build

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

Well nothing more to report yet really. I've got a pipe made up ready to replace the oil drain, instead of push fit and jubillee clips I've got for unions and taper fittings now, it will need an adaptor making for the turbo, and the sump taking off and something welding to it though. The oil leak is also coming from the driveshaft seals, annoying as these are not that old, anyway I've got some more so will replace these soon I hope.

The other good news is that the driveshaft I've took back has been agreed as warranty, so I got my money back for that!

[GLPoomobile 958]

I read through this whole topic again the other night Tom, as it's a project I really like. Bloody took me about 3 hours

 

One thing I wondered while reading though, is with the addition of the turbo, how does it change the character of the engine? To be more specific, do you think it would feel different to a 1.9 8v turbo, or even say a 2.1 8v turbo? Does it still feel like a 1.6 but with a kick up the arse when it spools up?

 

Those hub nuts are in the post too. Sent them on Wed afternoon, so probably be stuck in a sorting office until next spring

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

I personally think it is still quite like a 1.6. Certainly up to the boost threshold it is eager like a 1.6, the only thing it doesn't do so well is scream round to the redline, but that is more down to my (lack of) mapping skills than anything else; with more ign advance over 5k rpm I think it would be more lively and probably crack the 200bhp mark too.

At idle it still sounds like a 1.6 too. But when you get to 3500rpm and it is fully on boost it doesn't half move. Ask M@tt what he thinks, he has driven it.

[GLPoomobile 958]

It would be interesting to get a back to back comparison with a 1.9 8v turbo (although with the amount of variables in the set up, maybe it wouldn't really prove anything). I suppose where I'm really going with this is, we all know the difference in behaviour between an NA 1.6 and 1.9, so does the addition of a turbo change the 1.6 enough that there's maybe no point in doing the turbo conversion (unless you happen to have the parts "in stock" ), when you could instead have a more grunty 1.9 turbo? Personally if I was in this boat, I'd prefer to turbo a 1.6 in theory but then when it came down to it I'd probably get tied up in the figures and end up going 1.9. I'm not entirely sure I've articulated what I'm thinking, but hopefully you get the gist of what I'm on about

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

Basically looking back, I probably should have started with a 1.9 8v is what you are saying, and you are probably right! However, I'm one of those awkward f***ers who likes to have something no one else has got, which is why I've got a turbo 1600, and why I've got home drilled oil jets, and why I've got vented rear discs that I don't need, etc etc etc.

All this makes my car unique, I quite like that about it. Plus I already had a 1600 engine sat there. You may be interested to know that I now happen to have an Mi16 engine "sat there" too.

Its also quite entertaining to have someone in a 306 GTI6 struggling to keep up, and then really piss them off by telling them it is a 1600.

The actual numbers to me were a pleasant suprise but kind of incidental. How the car drives however is much more of interest, speak to any of the yorkshire lot who followed me from Glossop to Holmfirth one dusky evening with it banging and spitting flames and I'm sure they would have no qualms recommending a 1600 T for pure fun factor!

Edited October 30, 2009 by Tom Fenton

[GLPoomobile 958]

No, I'm not saying you should have started with a 1.9 (see, I knew I wasn't putting my point across properly).

 

What I mean is, we all have a prefence about certain engines partly based on how they drive. The 1.6 and 1.9 NA being very different. But most of us also crave more power, and that in most cases also means that you change the character of the engine in pursuit of that power increase. Now if, in simple terms, your set up behaves very much like an NA 1.6 but now with 200bhp and s*it loads of torque, then that would be enough for me (if I was looking to do this) to go down this route rather than using a bigger block. If on the other hand your end result is an engine that has now totally changed and doesn't really retain the qualities that we love about the NA 1.6, then I'd probably take the attitude that it's probably not worth bothering with, and that you might as well just start off with a bigger block.

 

But I agree that it's good to be different, and being able to wipe off the smug grins with the "it's only a 1.6" put down gets mucho kudos

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

Hmmm. I think I know what you mean. My preference for the 1600 is that it revs happily right round. The 1900 doesn't do this as well. And anyone who has ever driven an 8v Mk Golf GTI will know that these REALLY don't rev. Anyway, back to 205's. Sizing the turbo is always going to be a compromise. For example the 16v drag Mini will rev to 9500rpm, it makes peak power at 7200 of 220bhp. But it then does not fall flat on its arse all the way to 9200rpm. However it won't come on boost till nearly 5000rpm. With the XU engine, if you size the turbo to move the boost threshold into a useful street rev range, then its never going to rev to 9000rpm (plus plenty of other things such as valves/cam/rods etc that won't allow it too). So the turbo is always going to be either boost lower down, or a screamer high up, but not really both.

I suppose it is what you really want. I like that mine still spins up quickly, and the turbo means torque is more than enough. But I reckon a 1900 would make more, it is just common sense. However it would probably need a different turbo really to do this, plus it would be more difficult to get the compression down.

There is no right answer I suppose, it is just buggering about for fun really!

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

And it certainly does look quick and fun in that hill climb video with your little bro in the car Tom. Lovely noise and it shifts.

 

And Steve, don't forget that 1.6>1.9 is the same block. The difference in CCs is from crank and rods, and it's this change in stroke plus a different cam shaft that gives the difference in characteristics between the standard engines.

 

And let me see if I get what you were articulating too.

 

Tom had a 1.6 (and forgetting the 'interesting project' factor) and turboed it and got power & fun gain X.

 

Am I right in saying you are asking from a purely 'effort & cost versus power & driveability' reward point of view, whether someone should really bother turboing a 1.6 or start straight away with a 1.9, because that way do they gain 1.5X or 2X?

 

And if I'm right perhaps Tom would answer: if you could click your fingers and it would become a 1.9, would you want it, or is there something that starting with a 1.6 brings to the party?

Edited October 30, 2009 by DrSarty

[Galifrey 1]

Epic build... Really interesting read, and some nice work mate!

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

It is what it is really, how a 1900 would compare I don't know, and I'm not about to build one to find out either! The 1600 I started with had 9.25:1 CR so was already ideal for turbo use.

Obviously Henry Yorke has a turbo 1900, but his runs less than half the boost that mine does, but still has 160-odd bhp.

Considering it is essentially a pretty standard bottom end, head, cam, valves, with a standard exh manifold & turbo from a 406 bolted on, using a standard inlet manifold and throttle body, its doing pretty well. If it was a serious build then it would be revving to 9000rpm and have mega power like something else it shares the garage with, but as it is, its a fun thing done without fancy pistons or any fancy engine parts really, that let us remember, might have thrown the head gasket out the side the first time it had some boost up it.

I'm pretty confident there is some more power in it yet, but as it is I've just forked out for a new daily car, so I'm not intending spending anything on it for a bit now really, considering all the list of bits it has had in the last 12 months.

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

Right, well the not intending spending anything bit has gone out of the window already!

 

I've never really been that happy with the oil drain from the turbo, I re-used a second hand standard 406 drain pipe but its never been great and has been leaking slightly.

 

So with the drag Mini gone away into hibernation for the winter I have got the 205 in and set about it.

 

Bye bye old lobsterback drain elbow

205T by Tom Fenton, on Flickr

 

Whilst I was making grinding mess in the sump I decided to make an addition to the baffle plate too

205T by Tom Fenton, on Flickr

 

So my new drain pipe has -8 fittings, so I needed to mount a -8 nipple in the sump. So I scrounged a couple of 3/4 UNF nuts, however they were nylocs and not ideal for inside the sump, so I made a half-nut from one of them.

205T by Tom Fenton, on Flickr

 

And welded it inside the sump

205T by Tom Fenton, on Flickr

 

In a bit of a fit of keenness I then DA'd the sump and etch primed it. Those of you who have followed my thread will know I don't often paint things!

205T by Tom Fenton, on Flickr

 

As the lower strut brace had to come off to get the sump off I took this back to bare metal, etched it, and painted it shiny red. Everyone knows this is the fastest colour.

PICTURE MIA

 

So my next task was the pipe from the turbo. It was always very close to the master cylinder and has been rubbing it, so this needed modifying.

205T by Tom Fenton, on Flickr

 

So with it off, I made a cut and then got it ready to TIG back together.

205T by Tom Fenton, on Flickr

 

And voila one pipe joiner with a slight kick over away from the master cyls.

205T by Tom Fenton, on Flickr

 

By this time the sump had dried so I wazzed some poxy Simoniz wheel silver on it. I was going to paint it black but thought this probably would not be great for tracking oil leaks. Then I thought about red but decided this would be a bit gash. So silver it was.

205T by Tom Fenton, on Flickr

 

 

So next installment will be making an adaptor for the turbo end, and refitting the now shiny sump.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Silver is almost as fast as red.

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

Only 1 meagre picture tonight I'm afraid.

 

I've bolted the sump back on with a new gasket and some wellseal, fingers crossed no leaks from here, no picture either as you know what a sump looks like.

 

So next job was to make the adaptor for the turbo end of the drain hose.

 

And voila here it is. Very simple but took a while to make nicely.

 

205T by Tom Fenton, on Flickr

 

So when this is fitted I can trial fit the drain hose and then get the other end of it swaged.

[EdCherry 34 1 Cars]

Some very nice welding there Tom.

 

Barclays banker as well Pinsentry gets on my f***ing nerves!

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

So I've got the new turbo drain fitted today. I had to trim the wastegate actuator bracket to make room for the union at the turbo end. It does clear everything by 1/2" minimum although it does look close to the shaft in the picture. I'll have to keep an eye on it and then maybe bracket it at a later date if needs be.

 

Untitled by Tom Fenton, on Flickr

 

With the underneath jobs done I removed the stat housing and caught as much of the coolant as I could. With it off the alloy plug pushed out with little more than finger pressure! So I ground a prep on it.

Untitled by Tom Fenton, on Flickr

So I set about trying to get it clean enough to weld, what a horrible job, even after scotch brite, and thinners, it still was horrible to weld.

So to make sure after welding I've run some wellseal round the joint inside, hopefully when that goes off it should stop leaks, fingers crossed.

 

Untitled by Tom Fenton, on Flickr

 

Not the prettiest ever. But the coilpack covers it up!

Edited July 24, 2017 by Tom Fenton

[Henry Yorke 269 3 Cars]

Obviously Henry Yorke has a turbo 1900, but his runs less than half the boost that mine does, but still has 160-odd bhp.

Considering it is essentially a pretty standard bottom end, head, cam, valves, with a standard exh manifold & turbo from a 406 bolted on, using a standard inlet manifold and throttle body, its doing pretty well. If it was a serious build then it would be revving to 9000rpm and have mega power like something else it shares the garage with, but as it is, its a fun thing done without fancy pistons or any fancy engine parts really, that let us remember, might have thrown the head gasket out the side the first time it had some boost up it.

I'm pretty confident there is some more power in it yet, but as it is I've just forked out for a new daily car, so I'm not intending spending anything on it for a bit now really, considering all the list of bits it has had in the last 12 months.

Toms and my CTI are different animals even though some of the things on paper look similar. The main difference is that mine has not got a mappable ECU on it. I think why they make good power compared to a lot of 2.0T conversions is that we both have new turbos. Most 2.0T's have 80k turbos in them so are not necessarily at their best. The other side is that we are both running the standard meaty GTI inlet and throttle body which is 57mm instead of the horrible XU10J2TE one with a measily 50mm TB. Mine would release a lot more horses if on an ECU (Miles said he has had over 200bhp on an XU10J2TE with just good mapping). If I was doing this, then I would also go for a GTI head with the bigger valves and increase the compression. However mine has been reliable for over 3 years and it has also been done as a curiousity project. They key thing is they work and are enjoyable for a weekend blast I would rather have a working 160 bhp than a project 200 bhp! I'm looking forward to M@tt getting his turbo CTI on the road too! Allans supercharged one will still wipe the floor with us though and probably also Jamies charged GTI6!

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

So the end of November draws near, and with the tax running out this is coming off the road.

 

Plans over the winter include a different steering rack for quicker ratio, I've also got hold of an electric PAS pump so may try and fit this at the same time. The newly fitted oil drain has a small problem, basically when the engine is cold and the oil thick, it must be restricting the drain from the turbo as it smokes. Let it run for 2 min and the oil warms and thins, and it stops. However this is no good so I'm going to have to look at that again. It may be as simple as opening out the adaptors slightly.

 

But other than that I've enjoyed it over the last 6 months, hopefully when it comes back on the road next year I can scrape together enough dosh to have it remapped properly, I'm sure there is slightly more power to be had.

[Galifrey 1]

So the end of November draws near, and with the tax running out this is coming off the road.

 

Plans over the winter include a different steering rack for quicker ratio, I've also got hold of an electric PAS pump so may try and fit this at the same time. The newly fitted oil drain has a small problem, basically when the engine is cold and the oil thick, it must be restricting the drain from the turbo as it smokes. Let it run for 2 min and the oil warms and thins, and it stops. However this is no good so I'm going to have to look at that again. It may be as simple as opening out the adaptors slightly.

 

But other than that I've enjoyed it over the last 6 months, hopefully when it comes back on the road next year I can scrape together enough dosh to have it remapped properly, I'm sure there is slightly more power to be had.

 

Another Xsara VTS convert?

 

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

If I can source one for sensible money I will, but otherwise I have 2 complete 205/309 type power racks in stock so will probably use one of those for now. I had a Xsara VTS as a road car a few years ago and it did have great steering feel.

[Galifrey 1]

If I can source one for sensible money I will, but otherwise I have 2 complete 205/309 type power racks in stock so will probably use one of those for now. I had a Xsara VTS as a road car a few years ago and it did have great steering feel.

 

I paid £60 inc shipping for the one in my car and £80 for another which I have just sold, the price seems to be rising tho.

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

There is the answer then, power rack which I have in stock versus laying out upwards of £60=power rack from stock installed to car!

[jackherer 543]

Xsara racks are great but the prices are too high now, I got three for £30-35 each but those prices have clearly doubled or even tripled in some cases.

[James_m 0]

Sorry to hijack Toms thread but perhaps 306 racks could be a compromise? Sure i have read they are 2.8 lock compared to 3.2 of the 205 power racks. Could be wrong on this however...

[jackherer 543]

I think 2.8 is about right, the only problem is once you've tried a Xsara VTS one anything else feels like a tractor. Anyone thats driven a reasonably recent MX5 with quick steering will know what to expect, you literally never have to take your hands off the wheel, even for the tightest hairpin.

[Galifrey 1]

I think 2.8 is about right, the only problem is once you've tried a Xsara VTS one anything else feels like a tractor. Anyone thats driven a reasonably recent MX5 with quick steering will know what to expect, you literally never have to take your hands off the wheel, even for the tightest hairpin.

 

Its true, my wifes new A3 feels like a bus