Completed 2.0l Conversion

[welshpug 1,661]

Rich's Miami was one of the slowest mintiest gti's about

 

206 is about the 1150 kilo mark, nearest dammit the same as an S16, bar the 30 bhp difference.

 

 

 

I think the main trick the OP has missed is the Engine management of the engine he has fitted, Motronmic and Magneti Marelli MAP-DIS systems work soo much better than clockwork Jetronic its unreal the difference it cam make, an S16 on its original Bosch 5.1 is wonderful to drive, as is my 8 valver on Bosch MP3.1.

[Anthony 1,003]

I think the main trick the OP has missed is the Engine management of the engine he has fitted, Motronmic and Magneti Marelli MAP-DIS systems work soo much better than clockwork Jetronic its unreal the difference it cam make, an S16 on its original Bosch 5.1 is wonderful to drive, as is my 8 valver on Bosch MP3.1.

It's running Jetronic rather than the original MM8P setup.

[welshpug 1,661]

yeah, that's my point, dizzy's and AMF's? urrrgghh!

[Richie-Van-GTi 72 2 Cars]

I took a healthy up till 5 miles before change 1.9 out of my old 205 and stuck an xu10j2 in place just the same as has been done here. Running 1.9 management and also the 1.9 cam / injectors etc. it was on par with the 1.9, on motorways the extra torque was slightly noticeable high up overtaking but back roads the car was no quicker or slower that could be noticed. Only difference in question here is I assume its on 1.6 management and unsure if its 2.0 cam and injectors?

[danpug 1]

I would put money on a 306 gti6 being quicker. Not at all saying your conversion has not been worth doing, it does sound much better than a stock 1.6 or a tired 1.9 engine. My 205 with S16 engine with uprated cam approx 160bhp was almost identical to a 306 gti6, only now with tb's and 181bhp is a bit faster. Im guessing a well sorted 1.9 8v would need at least 145 bhp to keep up with a 306 gti6.

 

 

Thats dosen't sound quite right imo, perhaps 306's power varies a bit out of the factory? I've driven 3 different mi16's now (one in a 309) and all were quite alot quicker than a 306 gti-6. I drove a gti-6 once and it was pretty dissapointing in a straight line compared to my mi16, in fact in a drag race it would have mullered it.

[KRISKARRERA 2 1 Cars]

The 405 brochure said 0-60mph of 9.4 seconds for the 125bhp 8 valve 405 GRI/SRI/GTX. Interestingly when the phase 2 405 with the 123bhp 2 litre 8 valve came out the 0-60 time had dropped to over 11 seconds! Very odd. They'd have had to have made it a few hundred kilos heavier to do that, which they didn't, though it was a bit heavier. Maybe it was that 90's thing of pretending cars were slower than they really were to keep insurance down.

[Richie-Van-GTi 72 2 Cars]

The 405 brochure said 0-60mph of 9.4 seconds for the 125bhp 8 valve 405 GRI/SRI/GTX. Interestingly when the phase 2 405 with the 123bhp 2 litre 8 valve came out the 0-60 time had dropped to over 11 seconds! Very odd. They'd have had to have made it a few hundred kilos heavier to do that, which they didn't, though it was a bit heavier. Maybe it was that 90's thing of pretending cars were slower than they really were to keep insurance down.

 

 

the later 405 had a rubbish gearbox aimed solely at motorway cruising, that coupled with extra weight and restrictive cam is what caused the problem.

[jengis 0]

I took a healthy up till 5 miles before change 1.9 out of my old 205 and stuck an xu10j2 in place just the same as has been done here. Running 1.9 management and also the 1.9 cam / injectors etc. it was on par with the 1.9, on motorways the extra torque was slightly noticeable high up overtaking but back roads the car was no quicker or slower that could be noticed. Only difference in question here is I assume its on 1.6 management and unsure if its 2.0 cam and injectors?

 

 

Thats good info - exactly what I was after really.

 

Sig was missleading, its on the XU10 cam. (1.6 cam should be a "to-do"). I am running all 1.6 management, ecu, injectors, afm and dizzy (although I have tensioned the springs a wee bit to change the curve to get a bit more top end advance without the pinking low down)

 

Would love to test it back-to back with a known good 1.9 (with 1.6 gearbox to be a fair comparison). Anyone in the South lakes area?

[Saveit 0]

Yea, find someone with a healthy 1.9 with a 1.6 gearbox. Could be fun to see whether the 2.0 will be faster. Should be possible to find someone in here with a car like that.

[jengis 0]

Saveit - Interesting to hear your comments on the XU10 and it being unlikely to be any better than a standard 1.9. I take your opinion in good faith as you have many 205's with various engines and tuning.

 

You have good opinions on using the XU10 head on the 1.9 block so surely to have a bigger capacity bottom end and correctly matched bore sizes is going to be an improvement again. Or is the XU10 head conversion a "theoretical" benefit that is only realised with a racier cam and high comression (greater than 10:1)? So the XU10 cam and its 9.5:1 compresion is holding it back?

 

What are your thoughts - or anyone?

 

Cheers,

 

Kev

[Anthony 1,003]

The 405 brochure said 0-60mph of 9.4 seconds for the 125bhp 8 valve 405 GRI/SRI/GTX. Interestingly when the phase 2 405 with the 123bhp 2 litre 8 valve came out the 0-60 time had dropped to over 11 seconds! Very odd. They'd have had to have made it a few hundred kilos heavier to do that, which they didn't, though it was a bit heavier. Maybe it was that 90's thing of pretending cars were slower than they really were to keep insurance down.

I don't have a 405 broucher to hand, but from memory weren't almost all the Phase 2 models listed as being significantly slower than their Phase 1 equivilent? 2.0 Mi16 I seem to remember being listed as having acceration times listed as being closer to the 1.9 8v SRi/GRi than the 1.9 Mi16 for example....

[Saveit 0]

Saveit - Interesting to hear your comments on the XU10 and it being unlikely to be any better than a standard 1.9. I take your opinion in good faith as you have many 205's with various engines and tuning.

 

You have good opinions on using the XU10 head on the 1.9 block so surely to have a bigger capacity bottom end and correctly matched bore sizes is going to be an improvement again. Or is the XU10 head conversion a "theoretical" benefit that is only realised with a racier cam and high comression (greater than 10:1)? So the XU10 cam and its 9.5:1 compresion is holding it back?

 

What are your thoughts - or anyone?

 

Cheers,

 

Kev

 

Of course only in good faith

 

Yeah you are absolutely right about the capacity and bore size. What bothers me in this, is that the xu10 engine is rated at 123 bhp, and the 1.9 gti engine is rated at 130 bhp (jetronic). I wouldnt imagine a de-cat and a swap of inlet manifold totally transforming the regular xu10 engine in to a 135 bhp beast which suddenly just kills all the 1.9 gtis. And yes, i do think that the XU10 (which is close to rubbish) and the lower compression is holding it back. And also (with the risk of being spammed by people telling me otherwise) i do think that there is a reason that peugeot chose to build their racing editions (the gti's) on the XU9 1.9 engine and not the XU10 2.0 engine although the 2.0 engine has a bigger capacity. And i am not pretending to know why, i just dont think that the 2.0 (rated at 123 bhp) is going to be faster than a healthy 1.9 gti - but put it to the test and show me otherwise

Edited January 11, 2009 by Saveit

[GLPoomobile 958]

Of course only in good faith

 

Yeah you are absolutely right about the capacity and bore size. What bothers me in this, is that the xu10 engine is rated at 123 bhp, and the 1.9 gti engine is rated at 130 bhp (jetronic). I wouldnt imagine a de-cat and a swap of inlet manifold totally transforming the regular xu10 engine in to a 135 bhp beast which suddenly just kills all the 1.9 gtis. And yes, i do think that the XU10 (which is close to rubbish) and the lower compression is holding it back. And also (with the risk of being spammed by people telling me otherwise) i do think that there is a reason that peugeot chose to build their racing editions (the gti's) on the XU9 1.9 engine and not the XU10 2.0 engine although the 2.0 engine has a bigger capacity. And i am not pretending to know why, i just dont think that the 2.0 (rated at 123 bhp) is going to be faster than a healthy 1.9 gti - but put it to the test and show me otherwise

 

1 - No, Peugeot built the GTI using the XU9 instead of the XU10 becuase it was a developement of the the XU5 from the 1.6 GTi, obviously. I don't even think the XU10 was in production when the 1.9 GTi was released.

 

2 - Almost everybody knows that the 1.9 being 130bhp is an urban myth. Perhaps the XU10 never produced it's book figure either, but perhaps it did, and is infact pretty close to the XU9 in stock form (with a touch more torque).

[welshpug 1,661]

GLPoo is right, 130 is a myth, its 128 bhp

 

correct setting up of the management and timing WILL net you 128 bhp form a 1.9, which is where the 2.0 has its advantages, there is nothing to setup, no AFM no Distributor, just a nice ecu controlling everything.

Edited January 11, 2009 by welshpug

[Saveit 0]

Ive had a couple of mine on rolling roads, and there were no problem reaching 130 bhp. My daily driver is rolled at 129 bhp. And it is not because the rolling road reads too much, since many factory cars have been rolled according to their book figure on that particular rolling road. I have heard, as you say, that only the fewest reach the 130 bhp, but i havent had one of those at least.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Saveit

[jengis 0]

I wouldnt imagine a de-cat and a swap of inlet manifold totally transforming the regular xu10 engine in to a 135 bhp beast which suddenly just kills all the 1.9 gtis.

 

 

Who said 1.9 killing beast? Hope I never gave that impression.

 

And yes, i do think that the XU10 (which is close to rubbish) and the lower compression is holding it back.......

And i am not pretending to know why, i just dont think that the 2.0 (rated at 123 bhp) is going to be faster than a healthy 1.9 gti - but put it to the test and show me otherwise

 

I would like to know why the XU10 is "close to rubbish" when lots like fitting the head onto the 1.9. And the compressions as standard are near enough identical!. Anyone?

Edited January 11, 2009 by jengis

[Saveit 0]

It should have said that the XU10 CAM is close to rubbish... Sorry about that one But i can do no more explaining, cause i dont have the answers But put your car to the test against a 1.9 gti and lets see I still think you will loose, but it would be lovely and interesting if you could prove me otherwise.

[KRISKARRERA 2 1 Cars]

I don't have a 405 broucher to hand, but from memory weren't almost all the Phase 2 models listed as being significantly slower than their Phase 1 equivilent? 2.0 Mi16 I seem to remember being listed as having acceration times listed as being closer to the 1.9 8v SRi/GRi than the 1.9 Mi16 for example....

Indeed. 2 litre Mi16 is 9.8 seconds to 62mph and 1.9 Mi16 8.6 seconds to 62mph.

[welshpug 1,661]

2.0 Mi is a fair bit quicker than that though......

[gti_al 1]

I've owned both 205 GTi's and 306 GTi-6's and 306's just are not quick cars - in my experience, a healthy 1.9 8v will easily enough keep pace upto a fair speed, and any 205 16v will just romp away. Even my old throttle bodied 306 GTi-6 was frankly underwhelming in a straight line.

 

That is so true. My car was quicker than a 6 with the standard, low comp 8 valve. They feel good from behind the wheel, but we have found (a friend has a gti6) that 205s can keep ahead of it fairly easily

 

I think fitting the 306 management would make this much more interesting... Even if it was slower than a 1.9, it would be a much nicer car to live with

[Atari Boy 11]

I swapped my 1.6 XU5 lump for a 1.9 XU9 lump just over a year ago. I kept the 1.6 box and to me, it felt quicker and stronger.

I took it to a rolling road last weekend and it (1.9) was measured at 106 at the fly. Now I know this is way down on the claimed 128 but bizarrely the car still felt fast and pulled well etc. I admit I was disappointed with the 106 but consoled myself that if it felt fast to me so I should be happy.

The engine started knocking straight after the rolling road session which may explain the poor power output.

The upshot is that I am putting a XI10J2 in my 205 now; I know it will be heavier and I am not expecting it to be a 1.9 eater. As long as keeps up with a 1.9 and feels as good as or better than before I will be happy.

I am going to keep my 1.9 ECU and loom although I will swap over my 1.9 cam and will match up the inlet ports on the head to try and maximise things a little.

I will let you know how I get on.

[BuD 0]

I've owned both 205 GTi's and 306 GTi-6's and 306's just are not quick cars - in my experience, a healthy 1.9 8v will easily enough keep pace upto a fair speed, and any 205 16v will just romp away. Even my old throttle bodied 306 GTi-6 was frankly underwhelming in a straight line.

 

 

That is so true. My car was quicker than a 6 with the standard, low comp 8 valve. They feel good from behind the wheel, but we have found (a friend has a gti6) that 205s can keep ahead of it fairly easily

 

I think fitting the 306 management would make this much more interesting... Even if it was slower than a 1.9, it would be a much nicer car to live with

 

Other peoples experiences are fascinating!

 

I am shocked that you find a 306 gti6 slower or the same as a 205 1.9 8v. In my experience (3 x 1.9 gtis, 1 fully rebuilt, plus a phase 1 and phase 2 gti6) the gti6 is significantly quicker in a straight line at anything over 20mph (plus easier to drive faster but thats well OT). My current gti6 will stay with my cooper S and no standard 205 1.9 would do that. Maybe Gti6's are very variable in output....

 

But I do agree with the comments about 2.0 16v 205s - these are the next level again and (should if remotely healthy) leave 306 gti6 (and mini cooper S) for dust.

[danpug 1]

Maybe they do vary a bit? I drove a gti6 a few years ago and wasn't impressed by it at all pace-wise, in fact i'd say the 16v xsi my gf used to own was very similar until 5.5k..................................

[BackStreetRacecars 3]

time for my two cents!!!

 

not sure if I have lost the point of this thread..... but... My 2.1 albeit a 2.1.... is the same engine pretty much, alltho actually hold on..... yeah... 2116cc from 88mm crank and 87mm bores... sorry got confused and waffled. dont knw why i wrote it... anyway... I have absolutely trashed gti6s with it when ran, And it never ran well... . Had a 1.9 gti cam in it standard cam pulley, 4-1 branch manifold.and a 1.9 'box... It never fuelled right and the timing was out... .but it trashed 306 gti6. It never felt fast and it didnt rev out... actually felt slow but if you short shifted through the gears it would surprise!!! Think I may have got my point across whatever it was!!

[taylorspug 7]

GTI6 engines do seem to vary massively between 'good' and 'bad'. However a 16v 205 should walk away from even the quickest standard 306. With an inlet cam the 205 should be looking for mid to low 14s quarter mile, and from what ive heard will push a low boost s/c 306 up the road.