205 GTi S1 & 2
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: 205 GTi S1 & 2

  1. #1
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Posts
    396

    205 GTi S1 & 2

    G'day all,

    Advertisement


    I have heard several conflicting stories on the power output of the series 1 1.9 8v to the series 2 1.9 8v. 75kw for the 1, 90kw for the 2.

    Does anyone know if this is correct or is the 1.6 being quoted for the 75kw?

    If not, who knows what was done to the 1.9 engine to gain the extra 15kw?

    Chipper

  2. #2
    Guru davemcbean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Camden NSW & Selwyn NZ
    Posts
    2,343
    In Europe the injected 1.9 was always 90kW or more. The 75kw 1.9 was a special version for low octane fuel markets as well as very hot countries. The 75kw engine has lower compression (8.35 compared to 9+) and I've been told greater piston to bore clearance (to allow for more expansion in very hot climates). I know of some problems occuring in Australia due to the pistons having too much clearance and slopping around and failing. This happened to my friends ex group E racer 205. He replaced the pistons with the euro spec ones and it was heaps better. I'm not sure what else they did to the 1.9 to detune it down to 75kw, but they must have done other things because even the european carburettored 1.9 has about 80kW. The 75kW 1.9 has quite a low power and torque figure (142Nm) considering it is fuel injected. The figures would be considered slightly low even if it was carburettored. Even the 1.8 litre 504 engine with a tiny little single throat solex carburettor has 145Nm (DIN).

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Chipper:
    G'day all,

    I have heard several conflicting stories on the power output of the series 1 1.9 8v to the series 2 1.9 8v. 75kw for the 1, 90kw for the 2.

    Does anyone know if this is correct or is the 1.6 being quoted for the 75kw?

    If not, who knows what was done to the 1.9 engine to gain the extra 15kw?

    Chipper
    NZ Fleet
    1976 504 Ti
    1984 205 GT twin carb
    1991 205 SI 1.6GTI motor
    1994 106 Xsi
    1996 Mondeo V6
    Aus Fleet
    1955 203C
    1997 Civic Cxi (great allrounder- revy, flexible, nimble, comfortable , economical, simple and durable )

  3. #3
    Guru davemcbean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Camden NSW & Selwyn NZ
    Posts
    2,343
    I forgot to mention that the European 1.6 GTi had about 115hp (approx 86 kW) and 135Nm of torque, so this really shows how low 75kW and 142Nm are for a 1.9 litre engine.
    I think the Euro 1.9 GTi had about 160Nm of torque.


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by davemcbean:
    In Europe the injected 1.9 was always 90kW or more. The 75kw 1.9 was a special version for low octane fuel markets as well as very hot countries. The 75kw engine has lower compression (8.35 compared to 9+) and I've been told greater piston to bore clearance (to allow for more expansion in very hot climates). I know of some problems occuring in Australia due to the pistons having too much clearance and slopping around and failing. This happened to my friends ex group E racer 205. He replaced the pistons with the euro spec ones and it was heaps better. I'm not sure what else they did to the 1.9 to detune it down to 75kw, but they must have done other things because even the european carburettored 1.9 has about 80kW. The 75kW 1.9 has quite a low power and torque figure (142Nm) considering it is fuel injected. The figures would be considered slightly low even if it was carburettored. Even the 1.8 litre 504 engine with a tiny little single throat solex carburettor has 145Nm (DIN).

    NZ Fleet
    1976 504 Ti
    1984 205 GT twin carb
    1991 205 SI 1.6GTI motor
    1994 106 Xsi
    1996 Mondeo V6
    Aus Fleet
    1955 203C
    1997 Civic Cxi (great allrounder- revy, flexible, nimble, comfortable , economical, simple and durable )

  4. #4
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Posts
    396
    Dave,

    Interesting.

    So with such a low comp ratio, a Turbo conversion would almost be able to be performed on the 75kw jobbie without replacing pistons and getting a lower than N/A comp ratio (just thinkin out loud here)as I know a lot of Jap spec cars are running turbo's on about an 8:1 ratio (that'll get her moving )

    So do you think a head shave would counter the low comp ratio now that we have at least a 98 RON fuel available in Oz? Pinging? or am I up for a set of Euro or series 2 pistons if I want 90+kw? (not that I can afford either !!)

    Cheers

    Chipper

  5. #5
    Guru davemcbean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Camden NSW & Selwyn NZ
    Posts
    2,343
    Chipper,

    I think you would have to shave close to a millimetre off the head to raise the ratio enough to make a noticeable difference (i.e. 5hp) I'm not sure how much can be safely shaved off the 205 heads. I know with 504s 404s 403s etc the heads are very thick and you can basically shave as much as you want off them (up until the grinder hits the inlet valves!), so long as you shorten the pushrods. When shaving over a millimetre they tend to run out of tappet adjustment and/or the tappets hit the rocker cover unless you shorten the pushrods. With the 205 being overhead cam, you don't have to worry about pushrods, so metal thickness, and possibly cam belt idler pulley adjustment would be the only considerations.
    Using 98 octane fuel, you should be able to run 10:1 compression or maybe a bit more before pinging occurs (but I can't guarantee it). With road cars I like to keep in mind that on occasions you can be in a country area where they only sell low octane fuel, and the extra go you can gain from compression may not seem such a good idea when you put a hole in a piston in the middle of nowhere.

    Even if you raised the compression to 9.5:1, I wouldn't expect the power to increase by any more than 5 horsepower(x by 0.75 to get kW) and the torque by 10Nm. Actually I would think it would probably be less than this. This is why I think there must be other differences between the 75kW cars and the others. Maybe there are differences in the injection set up and the camshaft. Generally the wilder you go with a camshaft, the more beneficial extra compression becomes. It is usually the combination of wilder camshaft and extra compression that makes the difference.

    I'm not sure how easy it is to change the 205 camshaft, but generally OHC engines aren't too difficult. This might be the cheapest way to unleash more power. Wade camshafts in Melbourne should have plenty of specs for both standard and modified Peugeot cams. These guys have been grinding cams for over 40 years and know what their doing. To get Wade to regrind your own cam (or a cheap pitted one bought from a wrecker) is generally not much more than $100 including postage and handling. I've got their phone number around somewhere. I'm not sure if anyone stocks Peugeot blank billet cams in Australia, but the Peugeot spares sellers should be able to sell you any of the stock cams, but I haven't a clue whether their cheap or expensive.

    Compression ratios between 8:1 and 9:1 on turbo cars are alot more common now that effective intercoolers and advanced engine management systems are widely used. A 205 with a turbo (or even a belt driven supecharger) would be unreal, but you would probably need to throw away the primitive 1980s injection system and install an after market one. Actually using the latest versions of C++ and micro controllers it wouldn't be too difficult to build a much more advanced management system than the ones used in the 1980s. The main problem would be making it durable and sealed from the weather etc.

    Regards,
    Dave


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Chipper:
    Dave,

    Interesting.

    So with such a low comp ratio, a Turbo conversion would almost be able to be performed on the 75kw jobbie without replacing pistons and getting a lower than N/A comp ratio (just thinkin out loud here)as I know a lot of Jap spec cars are running turbo's on about an 8:1 ratio (that'll get her moving )

    So do you think a head shave would counter the low comp ratio now that we have at least a 98 RON fuel available in Oz? Pinging? or am I up for a set of Euro or series 2 pistons if I want 90+kw? (not that I can afford either !!)

    Cheers

    Chipper
    NZ Fleet
    1976 504 Ti
    1984 205 GT twin carb
    1991 205 SI 1.6GTI motor
    1994 106 Xsi
    1996 Mondeo V6
    Aus Fleet
    1955 203C
    1997 Civic Cxi (great allrounder- revy, flexible, nimble, comfortable , economical, simple and durable )

  6. #6
    Guru davemcbean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Camden NSW & Selwyn NZ
    Posts
    2,343
    Chipper,

    Sorry, I hope you don't take offense with what I said about 1980s injection systems. Actually on naturally aspirated cars it makes surprisingly little diffence whether you have good carburettors a simple injection system or an advanced injection system (as far as performance is concerned, emissions are another matter). It's on turbo charged cars where an advanced engine management system really makes a huge difference.

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by davemcbean:
    Chipper,

    I think you would have to shave close to a millimetre off the head to raise the ratio enough to make a noticeable difference (i.e. 5hp) I'm not sure how much can be safely shaved off the 205 heads. I know with 504s 404s 403s etc the heads are very thick and you can basically shave as much as you want off them (up until the grinder hits the inlet valves!), so long as you shorten the pushrods. When shaving over a millimetre they tend to run out of tappet adjustment and/or the tappets hit the rocker cover unless you shorten the pushrods. With the 205 being overhead cam, you don't have to worry about pushrods, so metal thickness, and possibly cam belt idler pulley adjustment would be the only considerations.
    Using 98 octane fuel, you should be able to run 10:1 compression or maybe a bit more before pinging occurs (but I can't guarantee it). With road cars I like to keep in mind that on occasions you can be in a country area where they only sell low octane fuel, and the extra go you can gain from compression may not seem such a good idea when you put a hole in a piston in the middle of nowhere.

    Even if you raised the compression to 9.5:1, I wouldn't expect the power to increase by any more than 5 horsepower(x by 0.75 to get kW) and the torque by 10Nm. Actually I would think it would probably be less than this. This is why I think there must be other differences between the 75kW cars and the others. Maybe there are differences in the injection set up and the camshaft. Generally the wilder you go with a camshaft, the more beneficial extra compression becomes. It is usually the combination of wilder camshaft and extra compression that makes the difference.

    I'm not sure how easy it is to change the 205 camshaft, but generally OHC engines aren't too difficult. This might be the cheapest way to unleash more power. Wade camshafts in Melbourne should have plenty of specs for both standard and modified Peugeot cams. These guys have been grinding cams for over 40 years and know what their doing. To get Wade to regrind your own cam (or a cheap pitted one bought from a wrecker) is generally not much more than $100 including postage and handling. I've got their phone number around somewhere. I'm not sure if anyone stocks Peugeot blank billet cams in Australia, but the Peugeot spares sellers should be able to sell you any of the stock cams, but I haven't a clue whether their cheap or expensive.

    Compression ratios between 8:1 and 9:1 on turbo cars are alot more common now that effective intercoolers and advanced engine management systems are widely used. A 205 with a turbo (or even a belt driven supecharger) would be unreal, but you would probably need to throw away the primitive 1980s injection system and install an after market one. Actually using the latest versions of C++ and micro controllers it wouldn't be too difficult to build a much more advanced management system than the ones used in the 1980s. The main problem would be making it durable and sealed from the weather etc.

    Regards,
    Dave


    NZ Fleet
    1976 504 Ti
    1984 205 GT twin carb
    1991 205 SI 1.6GTI motor
    1994 106 Xsi
    1996 Mondeo V6
    Aus Fleet
    1955 203C
    1997 Civic Cxi (great allrounder- revy, flexible, nimble, comfortable , economical, simple and durable )

  7. #7
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    302
    Hello Everyone
    Having owned two previous turbo cars
    And halfway through completing my third car a 205gtiT
    I will ad some words of wisdom to you guys contemplating running a turbo setup.
    First dave was talking was talking about running a more advanced aftermarket injection system the only problem is once
    your original compuer is removed your car becomes defective under EPA rules that why a lot of people try to work around their original setups.
    The other problem i have been thinking about
    over the years of research is that u will most likely have problems with the combustion pressure increases with the 205 because of the liners.
    Dont want to scare anybody as i am turboing
    my own car but will only use about 7-8psi
    untill i get my self an conventional iron block mi16.


  8. #8
    Guru davemcbean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Camden NSW & Selwyn NZ
    Posts
    2,343
    Murat,

    I know some people have run around 9 to 10 psi on 504s quite reliably. 504s have very thin liners.

    Dave

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Murat:
    Hello Everyone
    Having owned two previous turbo cars
    And halfway through completing my third car a 205gtiT
    I will ad some words of wisdom to you guys contemplating running a turbo setup.
    First dave was talking was talking about running a more advanced aftermarket injection system the only problem is once
    your original compuer is removed your car becomes defective under EPA rules that why a lot of people try to work around their original setups.
    The other problem i have been thinking about
    over the years of research is that u will most likely have problems with the combustion pressure increases with the 205 because of the liners.
    Dont want to scare anybody as i am turboing
    my own car but will only use about 7-8psi
    untill i get my self an conventional iron block mi16.
    NZ Fleet
    1976 504 Ti
    1984 205 GT twin carb
    1991 205 SI 1.6GTI motor
    1994 106 Xsi
    1996 Mondeo V6
    Aus Fleet
    1955 203C
    1997 Civic Cxi (great allrounder- revy, flexible, nimble, comfortable , economical, simple and durable )

  9. #9
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Posts
    396
    Dave,

    No offence taken

    Thanks for your info guys, very interesting reading.

    With the fuel injection/standard ECU etc, I would imagine you would need to replace or at least piggyback an aftermarket system onto the standard item to get the ECU to recognise boost, beit turbo or s/charger, so maybe this would overcome the 80's design/shortcomings as you can tune the system for better fuel delivery etc ????

    I would think a smaller turbo running about 5/7 psi (nothing stupid, more like a Volvo/Saab low blow set up) would spool up reasonably easily without to much lag and provide a good increase in torque/power for the midrange for things like overtaking, going up hills (and teaching Jap rice boy cars a thing or 2 about Euro performance )
    with a goal of about 120/130 kw and 200nm to play with ......I dont want a weapon, just more mid range and I have only seen the other side of 6000 rpm in my car twice so far, so top end and maximum revs are of little importance to me compared to useable power up to 5500/6000 rpm, so the turbo would only have to be smallish I am guessing???....

    Murat,

    What sort of figures are you hoping for with your setup?

    Cheers

    Chipper

  10. #10
    Guru davemcbean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Camden NSW & Selwyn NZ
    Posts
    2,343
    Chipper,

    DDS in South Africa make a "piggyback" system for augmenting a standard injection system on turbo conversions. Their website is:
    http://www.perfectpower.com/
    Go to the products section and check out the "turbo fuellers".

    Regards,
    Dave

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Chipper:
    Dave,

    No offence taken

    Thanks for your info guys, very interesting reading.

    With the fuel injection/standard ECU etc, I would imagine you would need to replace or at least piggyback an aftermarket system onto the standard item to get the ECU to recognise boost, beit turbo or s/charger, so maybe this would overcome the 80's design/shortcomings as you can tune the system for better fuel delivery etc ????

    I would think a smaller turbo running about 5/7 psi (nothing stupid, more like a Volvo/Saab low blow set up) would spool up reasonably easily without to much lag and provide a good increase in torque/power for the midrange for things like overtaking, going up hills (and teaching Jap rice boy cars a thing or 2 about Euro performance )
    with a goal of about 120/130 kw and 200nm to play with ......I dont want a weapon, just more mid range and I have only seen the other side of 6000 rpm in my car twice so far, so top end and maximum revs are of little importance to me compared to useable power up to 5500/6000 rpm, so the turbo would only have to be smallish I am guessing???....

    Murat,

    What sort of figures are you hoping for with your setup?

    Cheers

    Chipper
    NZ Fleet
    1976 504 Ti
    1984 205 GT twin carb
    1991 205 SI 1.6GTI motor
    1994 106 Xsi
    1996 Mondeo V6
    Aus Fleet
    1955 203C
    1997 Civic Cxi (great allrounder- revy, flexible, nimble, comfortable , economical, simple and durable )

  11. #11
    VIP Sponsor
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    9,562
    Funny thing is that the performance figures of the 75kw car are very good, not noticeably slower than the later ones and quicker than the MI16. The gearing could have something to do with this.

    Regards, Graham Wallis

  12. #12
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Posts
    396
    Cheers Dave,

    Good site, I had a look , but I am not sure if thats just a fuel delivery for higher rpm kit or if it makes the ECU recognise boost?? Same thing ????
    I guess either way, they would have something to piggyback with.

    Graham,

    Yeah, the gearing seems to be pretty high and it does have a reasonable amount of torque for a light car.....but, it could use a bit more I reckon

    Chipper


  13. #13
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    302
    Hello everyone,

    Dave thanks for the link for perfectpower i am checking it out, Chipper your right on the ball about the power figures and what is required to fuel a 205 i am looking for about the figures you have quoted 120-130
    but i asume i can get that figure with a little less boost as i am making a setup
    in design that the japenese use on their serious cars re-manifolding equal length runners designed for pulse effect in stainless steel, I have a 2.5 inch manderal bent stainless steel system already on the car,Now this setup is only going to be used until i can get myself a cast iron block 2L to upt the in the top 10 fastest fwd in australia it is a goal for me i once owned a xc gxl that was the second quickest in victoria 5.7 Cleveland but drove like a boat.I was looking into the link fuel controller for a mappable system they sell it at AVO in vic Mel i will way it up against the perfectpower setup.

    Murat

  14. #14
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Posts
    396
    Murat,

    How do you think a low pressure turbo from a Volvo or a Saab would go on the 205?

    Is the problem you outlined in your above post regarding the combustion pressure increase because of the liners due to a higher boost level than say 5/7 psi? or is there another problem with the liners?

    Can you elaborate?

    Cheers

    Chipper


  15. #15
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    302
    Chipper'

    I don't think the saab turbo would be suitable in a low pressure turbo setup due to lag.
    The saab runs a T03 very similar to the turbo on vl turbos
    If you went to the trouble of making or getting someone to make you equal length runners like i am it improves throttle response alot it did on my 400 hp charger that i once owned.But if you were serious about a low pressure setup and want to keep you car responsive i would go for a T25 or a T28 would be better if you do use a T03 I would want to design a good manifold as there would be plenty of lag not fun.
    I am only doing this setup as i am sick of being beaten by commodores even though i beat one on 9psi running a auto pretty good i think from a standard engine i have rebuilt it though and it is fresh and it is a euro spec not the low comp aussie version.
    Yes i am running the engine as is thats why i have posted that i am going to fabricate a large intercooler among other things to keep detonation away.
    About the piston liners i am certain the slight movement in the liners due to the increased pressure would give you headgasket problems if you try to do serious setup with the wet liner engine. Thats why i have posted that this setup is temporary untill i obtain a cast iron block engine.
    For example look at the 94+ honda vtec it runs siamesed cylinder liners yet they still move around a lot even though 94+ vtec hondas have one of the best alloy blocks compare it with a ferrari block if you ever get to see both you will be amazed with the strong webbing yet they go to the trouble of block guards and the like to reduce the movement. I think a with a iron s16 or mi16 i will be able to put the peugeot in the big league in performance i will prove it in time hope some of this has helped.

    Murat

  16. #16
    1000+ Posts PeterT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Castle Hill, Sydney
    Posts
    7,569
    The Australian 1.9 GTi also had its camshaft retarded by 4 crank degrees in an effort to control emmissions. Advancing the cam with an offset key will restore a bit of mid range. For those interested, I now have the software to complete the modification of the std. head as outlined in the performance section. If contempating a piggy pack ECU, I suggest Haltech as the std. Pug sensors are very similar electrically to the GMH versions used by Haltech.

    '92 205 Mi16
    '90 Mi16x4

  17. #17
    1000+ Posts PeterT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Castle Hill, Sydney
    Posts
    7,569
    It's also impossible to raise the comp. by milling. There is only enough metal there to straighten a warped head. Thus we have elected to add metal to increase CR and improve flow. The std. chamber is fairly ordinary.

    '92 205 Mi16
    '90 Mi16x4

  18. #18
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    302
    PeterT

    Thanks for letting us know about the cam timing
    I thought the cam timing had to be played around with as it is to much power to be lost in a drop in compression alone.
    Intresting that someone is going to the trouble of improving the 8v head i have heard that the port isn't great and it tends to detonate quite easily.
    I have read about the haltech sounds like a quality system, I am trying to work around the standard computer for one reason i am thinking of putting on a T16 wide body kit and i am worried in melbourne that in a car that stands out the police will pull me over especially if i attend the local drags i will get a defect notice for removeing the computer or i would buy a E6K and my problems would be over.

    Murat

  19. #19
    Guru davemcbean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Camden NSW & Selwyn NZ
    Posts
    2,343
    Murat,

    If you do a neat job with after market mods, make sure they're mat black or alloy coloured(not chromed) and replace after market stickers and emblems with Peugeot ones, most Police will think the car is standard. RTA or EPA inspectors are a different matter, but even they can be fooled, but with a wild body kit they would probably make the effort to check the car properly. I took a Cortina over the RTA pits once to have the engine number changed. It had larger valves, different cam, aftermarket aircleaner and all the antipollution gear was removed. To make the engine look standard I made sure all the colours were standard, I put on pre-antipollution manifolds so that there were no blanked off emissions ports, and I cut the bottom out of a standard aircleaner and placed it over the top of the after market aircleaner. The inspector never noticed a thing and the car passed with flying colours. If he caught me, I guess he could have fined me $500.
    NZ Fleet
    1976 504 Ti
    1984 205 GT twin carb
    1991 205 SI 1.6GTI motor
    1994 106 Xsi
    1996 Mondeo V6
    Aus Fleet
    1955 203C
    1997 Civic Cxi (great allrounder- revy, flexible, nimble, comfortable , economical, simple and durable )

  20. #20
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    302
    Dave,

    Thanks for the advice as your right about having shiny stainless steel and polished alloy everywhere in the engine attracts attention,But i made up my mind from the start to have the car fully engineered and no matter what i have to do thats what i am going to do the only problem i see is when i put the T16 kit on i will have to put on bigger wheels on the back for it to look natural i was reading over the adr's and it states that you can't increase the track with at all on some fwd it is to much to explain here but i was thinking of putting a subframe from maybe a 309 or even 306 i have not done the homework on it yet concentrating on the turbo system,but i would love to know how much wider the 309 or 306 track is as then you could fill out the guards without big wheels.

    Murat

  21. #21
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Posts
    396
    Murat,

    The guy I bought my Pug from has suggested the 309 subframe is at least a couple of inches wider in the rear track at most, but should bolt straight up (?).

    How far out will the T16 kit sit from the wheel arches?

    Chipper

  22. #22
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    302
    Chipper,

    Thanks for giving me an approx figure as if it is two inches at worst and i put one inch wider rims than factory it will pass the engineers,Because i think because we are not running a fully independant suspention but rather semi independent we can put one inch wider rims, Anyway chipper the politics is full of shit and slows me down, while there is cars blowing smokescreens and that are so full of rust yet know one gives a rats ass.
    If somebody can get the exact width of rear track on the 309 it would be of great help or if anyone knows if the 306 can be made to fit i know it is a lot of hassle but i am willing to do the work as that is the only way to be safe with the papers in the glovebox.

    Murat

  23. #23
    1000+ Posts PeterT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Castle Hill, Sydney
    Posts
    7,569
    Murat,
    leave the std. brain where it is and hide the Haltech somewhere else. It's easy to integrate the wiring into the harness.

    '92 205 Mi16
    '90 Mi16x4

  24. #24
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    302
    PeterT,

    I tell you what it would be worth the effort and i just might do that in the end.
    Peter i will 7-8 psi boost on this setup but i will most likely setup a HalTec
    fuel&ignition computer if i go ahead with the cast iron 2L engine turbo or i will go back to a rwd maybe a 505,504,or even a skyline we have our freind doing 13 sec flat standard computer with cosworth pistons the only thing we have added to it.I doubt i will be able to sell the 205 once it is turbo though.

    Murat

  25. #25
    Guru davemcbean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Camden NSW & Selwyn NZ
    Posts
    2,343
    Murat,

    There's a couple of turbo charged V6 505s going around Melbourne. A friend of mine had a ride in one, it was only single turbo and 3-speed auto, but he said it was quite impressive riding around Mt Buffalo in it. If you look on the Vic club website, it is the red 505 in the motorsports section. I heard he decided on the single turbo and auto gearbox after he had blown up a number of manuals when it was twin turbo.

    I have seen a supra/celica 5 speed adapted to a Peugeot V6 and fitted to a 504. It requires quite a bit of modification to the rear of the gearbox so that it will bolt up to the tailshaft housing tube.

    Personally, I prefer the Chrysler 2.2 litre engine that was fitted to the genuine 505 turbos, over the PRV V6 engine. It seems to be a better design. The most power and torque ever put through a production Peugeot RWD drivetrain was the Peugeot motorsport 505 turbo, which had 200hp and 275Nm, so I guess that around 300 Nm is probably the reliability limit of the drivetrain, which shows why the guy with the twin turbo V6 kept braking things. Above 300Nm I think some other gearbox/tailshaft/diff/driveshafts would have to be used (like toyota/lexus, skyline or jaguar). 504 V6 rally cars which use the same basic drivetrain as the 505 turbo (but with different ratios), had 240hp and 245Nm, using two triple throat webers on the PRV V6.

    I think a 505 with a 406 3.0 litre V6 with twin turbos, and a supra or skyline gearbox and diff would be an awesome weapon.

    Dave

    NZ Fleet
    1976 504 Ti
    1984 205 GT twin carb
    1991 205 SI 1.6GTI motor
    1994 106 Xsi
    1996 Mondeo V6
    Aus Fleet
    1955 203C
    1997 Civic Cxi (great allrounder- revy, flexible, nimble, comfortable , economical, simple and durable )

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •