Little Poll For You All....

[Grim.Badger 15]

you wouldnt really think there would be much of a difference between engines.

 

I've always been surprised how different engines can feel when they should be the same, I guess it's down to manufacturing tollerences. All of my 8v's have been different and I expect 16v's to differ as well.

 

Wish I could vote but the closest I've been is a passenger in an Mi16, but it did feel really weak under 4k.

[hexhamstu 9]

Wish I could vote but the closest I've been is a passenger in an Mi16, but it did feel really weak under 4k.

 

my old mi16 engine was fine under 4k i mean it definately came alive when you hit 4k-4.5k are but it still pulled fine below that.

[danpug 1]

Its most likely an illusion of feeling weak because it lays the power on aggresively higher up.

[24seven 104]

I voted Mi after realising that I could just about lift mine (complete minus loom) on my own, but I probably couldn't lift an RS. Widen the options a little and I'd have an XU7 built to Sandy's spec for Dixon.

[Baz 421]

Mi all the way. I've got so used to the awesome power delivery and characteristics of decent 1.6's, so have been a bit worried about losing that edge when changing back over to 16v power.

 

But an Mi on bodies is very similar, obviously it performs much better, but similar in the way it picks up and drops revs, and delivers the power up high etc.

[Cameron 16]

Mi16 for me too, purely because of the alloy block.

[dcc 855]

My mi16 was good fun while it was alive. drove it only 3 miles though. I have seen 1st hand how un reliable mi16 engines are though, from one rally even seeing 2 put rods through the block. I havent seen a gti6/s16 do this. I also think the character of the engine is down to the driver, when you want a good performing engine you can make what ever you have into a machine. Untill the timing was sorted on my gti6, it was on par with a local mi16 who could get the same speeds as the gti6. the gti6 was deffinately the quicker car to 60/70mph, but only slightly. once the timing was sorted then it was quicker than the mi16.

 

It would be interesting to see the 1.9 mi16 vrs the 2.0 s16 when both use the same inlet/ecu+map/exhaust and similar weighted shells. my personal fave is the gti6, although it seemed to hold the revs more than the mi16 I had.

Edited September 15, 2009 by dcc

[24seven 104]

There's no reason why an Mi16 should be any less reliable than a '6 engine, other than the head not draining oil properly... but there are ways to combat that.

[Alastairh 47]

I mis-read it as well! I expect a healthy 2.0 mi16 isn't far off a gti6 power-wise when in a 205.

 

I've tried it. I built a 205 S16 and 205 GTI6 both on mi boxes. The 6 was deffinatly quicker by a good margin. But still both were fun considering how cheap you can get S16 engines for and how easy the conversion is even with STD inlet with it working 100%. Probably an easier converion to a Mi actually.

 

GTI6 for me.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Alastairh

[DaveW 6]

1.1 Tu1 ftw!

[pug_ham 244 3 Cars]

Late entry from me but then I've never owned a 205 with more than eight valves.

 

I haven't read all the replies before choosing either just this topic kept slipping from my attention so I haven't checked it before.

 

I've driven (albeit brielfy) an Mi & an S16 205, neither were good conversions imo but thats a different matter.

 

I prefer the Mi for the reasons of the first few repies I did read & agree, the Mi seems to suit the 205's nature better, lighter weight etc & its the original 205 16v conversion aftr all before the iron blocked engines started sneaking in.

 

When I go 16v it'll be an XU7 with GTI-6 head, cams & manifolds & I've got an Mi downstairs partially stripped.

 

Graham.

[CosKev 16]

Bringing this topic back to the surface

 

Would people say the Gti6 engine compares well to the Vauxhall 2.0 16V XE red top in the way it delivers power/torque etc??????

 

Never been in a Mi or Gti6 powered car but had a Astra GTE MK2 16V

[CosKev 16]

Anyone compared the above

[welshpug 1,657]

all the 1.9/2.0 16v XU engines bar the 135 bhp J4R XSi engine has more grunt than an XE as standard, though I don't know a great deal about them they seem far more popular in the engine transplant choices for RWD vehicles like MK1/2 Escorts Sunbeams and the like.

 

never experienced an XE much myself

[CosKev 16]

all the 1.9/2.0 16v XU engines bar the 135 bhp J4R XSi engine has more grunt than an XE as standard, though I don't know a great deal about them they seem far more popular in the engine transplant choices for RWD vehicles like MK1/2 Escorts Sunbeams and the like.

 

never experienced an XE much myself

 

Ok,thanks

XE's go well,plenty of low-down torque and good top end grunt

[ORB 227 1 Cars]

I quite like the Redtop (or C20XE) (named redtop as it has a red spark plug cover), it is a nice engine, what I would call a classic, from a similar era to the aformentioned Pug/Citroen blocks, similar design by way of size/management and head, but the MI always seems that it revs and pulls a little better to me?

 

I think there are more people using Redtops in locost and kit cars than the GTi-6/MI for a few reasons, but the main ones I can see are:

 

- More understanding of the engine (more common)

- More fitment options (mates up to a Carleton/Omega/Manta/Chevette and the like box to run RWD)

- There are alot of people tuning them.

- C20LET (Redtop Turbo) is another easy option/variation of the Redtop that can give T-16/Cosworth power and is quite common and cheap to buy.

 

I think if the GTi-6/MI was more suited to a RWD gearbox then you would see it in a few more kit cars.

[CosKev 16]

Cheers.

Would you say the MI has got the same low down torque as the XE?????

As going by what people say on here you have to rev the MI to get the power out of them????

[welshpug 1,657]

how much torque does an XE push out? wouldn't say you have to rev an XU that much, not like Hondapower!

[24seven 104]

I always thought that it was down to mounting an XU longitudinally being problematic for kit cars because of the 30* lean they have.

[VisaGTi16v 1]

Main issue is the lack of suitable hell housing. People made ones to mate XE's to whatever boxes they use, sierra stuff I guess. Only one I know of for the XU is off the diesel sherpa vans. Then there is the fact its about 3 metres tall if mounted vertically so not much use in a front engined locaterfield. I have seen a couple in single seaters though, quick one at Longleat before fighting for FTD

[Batfink 201]

I always thought that it was down to mounting an XU longitudinally being problematic for kit cars because of the 30* lean they have.

 

oil surge was also an issue. Rears its head under acceleration and deceleration instead of corners.

[Baz 421]

This had a dry sumped S16 in;

[welshpug 1,657]

Do you know if still has one in it Baz? as it was down as a 2.3 last time out, didn't get a chance to have a peek, was right up there though, damned quick.

 

I'm sure someone like Tiger have done a Type9 bellhousing for an XU.

[Baz 421]

Not sure if it is now no, might have a Millington in it. 'tis quick though, Steve's always pedalled it well!

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

I've chipped in my vote - for MI. My reasoning is based on standard engines only, in which case the light weight and character of the engine wins my vote as per the original post - "grin factor". As you go silly-tuning numbers, things would change in favour of the XU10, but in standard fettle I think you get more smiles-per-£ with the alloy lump. And as everyone knows, I'm not convinced with the surge argument

Edited October 28, 2009 by brumster