206 GTI 180 air induction IMPORTANT

S

spaceghost

New member
Tadpole
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
17
Location
Sydney
hi guys new member and just thought i would share this info that i got from Alert Motorsports in NZ. The guy name is Armand...anyway, i have been doing my research to find out what mods i can do for my new 206 gti 180 that i bought (love it by the way :headbang: ) and i was interested in the air induction and throttle body kit...and when i email Alert they sent me this really informed tech report that you will find (all gti 180 owners) is quite suprising. i want to say thanks for having me and will post tech and pics as i acquire them...here is the email that Armand sent me...

Hello Marcus,

Good question on the induction kit as we have done a lot of research and testing here in New Zealand on the 206 GTI-180.
The reply may be lenghty, but it warrants it as the system is quite well engineered:

We have tested the VFC263 Viper Cold Air Induction System on a demo-car, and found the original airbox to be more effective (!) with the addition of the PP1585 Panel Filter.
It has a rather complicated system, obviously well engineered by the people at Peugeot, with regulated Twin Air Intakes before the Airbox itself.
A vacuum actuator on the seconday intake pipe (operated by a solenoid and vacuum booster) opens the valve when required and lets more air in,.
The principle behind this is an old one: a slightly Restrictive Airflow can produce better torque with a certain plenum chamber set-up. However, as the rpm is increased, so is the Air-requirement. To lesson the increase in negative pressure and balance this, the computer regulates the second intake to optimise the airflow/pressure before the filter. Very clever though: The pressure is sensed from the actual Plenum Chamber itself, to lesson the effect of the Air Cleaner Element status.

Conclusion:
Although there was a gain in Torque, and 0-100 Km/Hr was 0.9 seconds better than original when using the VFC263, the best gain in Torque and BHP was made by replacing the ORIGINAL filter Element for a Pipercross Vortex Foam Panel Filter (Part No: PP1585).
This bettered the 0-100 run by 1.2 seconds, and found an overall increase of 6% in BHP.
Changing the Throttle body for a larger size butterfly type, would merely increase induction noise levels, not the actual performance.
The only other option for greater power from this well-engineered system, would be by adding a Twin Helical Screw SuperCharger, with intercooled heatexchanger.


The PP1585 is available ex our stock at $ 100.00 including GST.
We also have the VFC263 in stock at a reduced price of $ 500.00 including GST.
(Both prices exclude Freight)

Best Regards,

Armand Bueving
Motorsport Manager
ALERT MOTORSPORT

if you guys get any infor on any more of this kind of tech stuff, let us all know

cheers

Marcus
 
Sounds positive - However I'd suggest that the claimed performance increase may be a little optimistic. If you go down that track it may be worth to either invest in a G-Tech or some dyno runs before and after to check their claims. But for $100 - it's not really a big ask and if it puts a bigger smile on your face go for it!

I'd be wary of any turbo/supercharging kits for the 206's as the engine blocks arent engineered to handle the boost and usually end up in a spectacular & expensive blow up.

If you get the filter let us know how it goes & welcome to AF!
 
spaceghost said:
We have tested the VFC263 Viper Cold Air Induction System on a demo-car, and found the original airbox to be more effective (!) with the addition of the PP1585 Panel Filter.

Conclusion:
Although there was a gain in Torque, and 0-100 Km/Hr was 0.9 seconds better than original when using the VFC263, the best gain in Torque and BHP was made by replacing the ORIGINAL filter Element for a Pipercross Vortex Foam Panel Filter (Part No: PP1585).
This bettered the 0-100 run by 1.2 seconds, and found an overall increase of 6% in BHP.
Click to expand...
Im a little surprised that the OEM peugeot filter is that bad. I mean 6% is a HUGE increase. Did Peugeot overlook this simple mod... :rolleyes:
 
Im far more suprised even a supposed 6% increase in HP has supposedly netted a 1.2 sec improvement 0-100....thats going from 180 HP to 191 HP has dropped a 0-100 time from 7.2 seonds to 6.0....even if he means ATW and not fly its still under 195 HP fly.
Credit where its due hes actually trying to get you to buy the $100 part as opposed to the $500 one,but jeez.Maybe he means .12 of a second :/,either that or hes got some of them in stock hes got to get rid off.

Dont get me wrong ive looked at it myself.But i wouldnt buy it on those claims as they are obviously false.Im more interested in finding out what'd happen if you got rid of that huge back box and went straight thru exhaust.
 
Mandible said:
Im far more suprised even a supposed 6% increase in HP has supposedly netted a 1.2 sec improvement 0-100....thats going from 180 HP to 191 HP has dropped a 0-100 time from 7.2 seonds to 6.0....
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.
 
I was going to replace the airbox with either the ITG induction kit or Carbon Dynamic Airbox kit. BTW, I have used the ITG carbon box on my previous 138 before and I am using the CDA in my other car. My only concern was how they would work with the regulated twin air intake system used on the 180.

In order to maintain the low end torque, and for the time being, I have opt for the BMC panel filter which fitted in the OE airbox like a glove. The car breathes a lot easlier now (consider the amount of foam and paper element used on the OE item).

I have also enquired about a custom made stainless steel rear box from Taipan XP down the coast who did my other car. Before they even measure up for any system, the car was dyno to see what is the likely power gain from just replacing the rear box. The only difference from the "with" OE rear box and the "without" rear box runs were 4kw. By the time they play with sound deadening and back pressure, I was told the best is probably only 2kw overall gain, if I am lucky, after spending a lot of money. Apart from the deeper exhaust note, there is only very limited gain from replacing the back box.


Mandible said:
Im more interested in finding out what'd happen if you got rid of that huge back box and went straight thru exhaust.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting discussion. It's nice to hear from people who have actually done some experimenting, as I can't be bothered :D

I'm reasonably firm in the opinion that most induction/exhaust mods are fashion-related - but I'm very eager to be proven otherwise.

So to summarize the thread as it stands, there is very little to be gained from modifying the induction system or the exhaust system?
 
GTI124 said:
This thread is getting too civil. Stop it! :nownow: :nownow:
Click to expand...

Ha! It's not my fault if all the lively people aren't here, and only the boring 'ol farts like myself are left :joker:
 
GTI124 said:
This thread is getting too civil. Stop it! :nownow: :nownow:
Click to expand...

Where's jester when you need him? He'd tell you he's tested the '180 with no filter and that it revved quicker but he noticed no difference in acceleration..... :roflmao:
 
What we really need here to spice up this thread is a heap of RSC & 180 owners to debate about who's car is best and who can get the biggest gain out of an air filter change.

Seriously though. I'd love to see some hard technical data on the filter change. Either dyno results or even a g-tech or similar analysis would be good to see if their claims can be backed up.
 
I have a g-tech...well it's Brenno's. Happy to volunteer it for the purpose of this test.

BTW, both the RSC and 180 are rubbish. No torque down low ;) Oh yeah, and that GTi6 J4RS engine... yeah... no torque on that either. Let's not let the facts get in the way re: the fact the Mi16 doesn't run the same engine, shall we? I had a Mi16 once and it was crap down low, so the J4RS must be too. Shame they're different engines... :evil:
 
gti138 said:
What we really need here to spice up this thread is a heap of RSC & 180 owners to debate about who's car is best and who can get the biggest gain out of an air filter change.

Seriously though. I'd love to see some hard technical data on the filter change. Either dyno results or even a g-tech or similar analysis would be good to see if their claims can be backed up.
Click to expand...
No way in the world is a simple air filter change on a 180 going to give you 1.2sec. More likely the timing was done with a hand held watch.
 
well at least the bloke selling the parts is pretty close to bieng fair dinkum

why can't they all be like that

oh that's right their customers won't have bragging rights when they are at maccas :D
 
Hi guys. I've owned a 180 for a while, just found this site, and then read this thread. Just a couple of questions -

1. If reducing the density of the air filter improves air flow and seems to gain power, then why wouldn't removing the air box as mentioned in U-Turns post? I can understand how removing a restriction in air flow might make an unloaded engine seem to rev up faster, but under load it might make no appreciable difference, perhaps resulting in tenths of seconds improvement from 0-100km/h. Obviously that sort of thing means nothing on the road... but it matters in some fields of motorsport.
2. If reducing the density of the air filter does not effect the longevity of the engine components, why didn't the factory do it? A lot of these after market filters rely on the fact they have a lower density of material, and so less ability to filter the air. It improves air flow at the expense of your rings and bearings.
3. If all of these induction kits and exhaust mods make no difference, why are there rally teams and race teams basing their modifications around such simple 'improvements'? I mean, it's certainly not a huge gain in power, but if these mods are used in conjunction with other things to improve VE, then why wouldn't they help?

Just a final comment about the rear silencer on the 180. Has anyone noticed how big it is? I mean, youd think at something like 35L's, they might have considered the restriction a smaller silencer would impose on air flow and have used a larger volume to provide a resevoir for gas flow. I've also seen on the Peugeot sport site there is a group-n GTi180 (they call it RC, but i guess thats another story??) exhaust system that claims 6-10kW improvement ATW. Thats nearly 10% extra power from the engine by retuning the system to allow inflow and outflow of gasses... surely you guy's cant be saying the factory doesn't know what they are talking about??
 
Cleanup_754 said:
1. If reducing the density of the air filter improves air flow and seems to gain power, then why wouldn't removing the air box as mentioned in U-Turns post? I can understand how removing a restriction in air flow might make an unloaded engine seem to rev up faster, but under load it might make no appreciable difference, perhaps resulting in tenths of seconds improvement from 0-100km/h. Obviously that sort of thing means nothing on the road... but it matters in some fields of motorsport.
Click to expand...
Airbox forms a part of the tuned length pipe. Removing the portion of it changes the character of the intake system. Generally longer pipe gives smoother idle and better response and low speed. At high RPM throttle bodies are best withoutany piping.

Cleanup_754 said:
2. If reducing the density of the air filter does not effect the longevity of the engine components, why didn't the factory do it? A lot of these after market filters rely on the fact they have a lower density of material, and so less ability to filter the air. It improves air flow at the expense of your rings and bearings.
Click to expand...
Most filters flow the same when clean. KN or similar type filters seem to flow better when dirty due to honeycomb construction where dust is trapped but air gets through. A lot of reports "I gained squillions of kW when I replaced my paper filter" are from people that replaced their 100,000 kms filter with a brand new aftermarket filter. I have seen dyno graphs from a performance company in Perth that were building a monaro drag car one mod at a time. they tested 5 different types of filters on a dyno (including brand new Holden panel filter). biggest spread was 2kW at peak power (thats 1%).
 
Thanks for the reply. Just some questions about your answers...

tekkie said:
Airbox forms a part of the tuned length pipe. Removing the portion of it changes the character of the intake system. Generally longer pipe gives smoother idle and better response and low speed. At high RPM throttle bodies are best withoutany piping.
Click to expand...
So, from my understanding, if you effect the tuned length and hence resonance points, you have the potential to interfere and remove/decrease power or torque depending on the rev band the intake was tuned for. But, if i simplify the way i'm thinking down to a garden hose analogy with say a hydraulic pump on the end - i reduce the length of pipe between my working fluid resevoir and the pump, so the time to get the pump to speed reduces. I increase the length, and the time to get the pump to speed increases. I understand the resonance points effect the gas intake flow differently to my non-resonating example, but wouldn't the effect on resonance produce the greatest variations in Torque and not power? Wouldn't this mean the time to rev up at idle might be reduced without load, but under load the reduction in available torque (or the miniscule gain) produces no net beneficial effects? I've had a good look around the 180 intake, being an overly curious owner, and it just seems very complicated and long. It appears to be designed more at complying with emission and noise laws than gaining outright power. I think it's pretty clever they can get more power and torque out of the 180 at lower revs than say a GTi6 (atleast by the figures i've read on a few websites - the 180 is up by 30Nm at 1000rpm lower, and has 7-10kW more at 700RPM higher...), and still manage to comply with ever more stringent emission laws, but it does lead to question what could they do if they did away with trying to comply!
tekkie said:
Most filters flow the same when clean. KN or similar type filters seem to flow better when dirty due to honeycomb construction where dust is trapped but air gets through. A lot of reports "I gained squillions of kW when I replaced my paper filter" are from people that replaced their 100,000 kms filter with a brand new aftermarket filter. I have seen dyno graphs from a performance company in Perth that were building a monaro drag car one mod at a time. they tested 5 different types of filters on a dyno (including brand new Holden panel filter). biggest spread was 2kW at peak power (thats 1%).
Click to expand...
My experience with after market filters is that they normally use lower density materials to achieve the claimed performance gains. This led me to conclude that if the dust isn't getting trapped in the filter... it must be going into the engine. I mean, i think even the K&N published grades (in microns) of their filters is higher (orthe holes in the fabric are bigger) than for equivalent OEM products i've seen specs for. I haven't seen specs for the 180, but i'm assuming it would be a similar scenario. Still, i guess 2kW in a drag car could mean the difference between a victory and second place. Can't see the point for a road car, can't see an extra 10kW being of much value in a road car... but i guess some people want what they want without reason.

Thanks for taking time to answer my questions. I'm a much appreciative Newbie :)
 
First of all, welcome to AF!

Good to see such quality posts and valid questions from the outset!

You bring up a good point re: emmission laws. I'm wishing for a "politically incorrect" button to be fitted to all sports cars, where we can switch off such efficiencies! I'm gunning it, I don't want to save fuel now!!!

From what I've read on filters, not much can beat the paper filters for filtration efficacy. The stuff I've read is a few years old now, so not sure if much has changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top