Jump to content
  • Welcome to 205GTIDrivers.com!

    Hello dear visitor! Feel free to browse but we invite you to register completely free of charge in order to enjoy the full functionality of the website.

Sign in to follow this  
GTI-6Sam

Saxo Vts Engine In A 205?

Recommended Posts

GTI-6Sam

Hi

 

i dont know if its been asked before but is this engine conversion possible?

 

What would i require to do it?

 

Cheers Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bren_1.3

search "conversion" covered in depth...................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
damien

can be/has been done, try searching for 106 gti engine conversion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTI-6Sam

Cheers chaps

 

Found everything i required

 

Seems an MI16 conversion would be better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
d-9

Theoretically yes the mi16 is better, however in my experience I'd take a low mileage VTS engine with the right exhaust and intake. Its definitly fast enough in the 106 and theres not a massive weight difference.

 

Its a more involved conversion than the mi16, as you need to move the gear linkage pivot and the wiring is less well documented, however theres a lot more chance of the damn thing working reliably when its in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dj_mini

Iv done a couple of vts conversions on saxos and 106's admitedly but the wiring isnt bad at all once you have looked at it a few times theres only four wires that need conecting to get the engine to run the rest is just sensors and warning lights so to conect it to a 205 loom cant be that bad. I spend a great deal of time working on these engines 160 is easly achiveable with a decent exhaust, head, cams, decent filter and a remap. Thats a good strong 160bhp with no oil surge problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTI-6Sam

ive had a 160bhp saxo and never had any problems with it

 

was my daily driver and used to take a hammering round track without any complaints

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
d-9

Its worth doing, you would also have to do something imaginative with the exhaust manifold, as the standard item points straight at the 205s subframe, but assuming you could get that sorted and flowing nicely, theres no reason you couldnt see good power from one.

 

My relativly standard VTS engined 106 is comparable to an average mi16, faster than the last couple ive driven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy

Having actually had this engine in a 205! I say don't bother. it's too heavy for the power, the MA gearbox is pants and it's going to need lots of money to give the same power as a standard Mi16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
d-9

So why is my 106 comparable in performance to a standard mi16?

 

Isnt the weight roughly the same as the mi16 engine?

Edited by d-9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bren_1.3
Having actually had this engine in a 205! I say don't bother. it's too heavy for the power, the MA gearbox is pants and it's going to need lots of money to give the same power as a standard Mi16.

 

sandy is in all fairness quite right, if you want 16V then the XU MI16 wins all day long. its *160bhp* straight out the box, and backing up his quote the BE gearbox's are much stronger.

 

im all for light 'high' power TU 8 valves. anything over 1400 isnt worth the effort really, your treading on XU toes in the 1600's.

 

its not a straight fit, and there are differences that dictate which engine mounts you use. early gti shells have an top engine mount located further towards the wing which makes things tricky.

 

Theoretically yes the mi16 is better, however in my experience I'd take a low mileage VTS engine with the right exhaust and intake. Its definitly fast enough in the 106 and theres not a massive weight difference.

 

Its a more involved conversion than the mi16, as you need to move the gear linkage pivot and the wiring is less well documented, however theres a lot more chance of the damn thing working reliably when its in.

 

for the amount of time it takes to wire it all up and sort out the linkages and mounts (depending on which shell your putting it in) and then wave the magic modification stick on it, you could have rebuilt your high mileage MI16 and dropped it straight in to a GTi. kind of even stevens really.................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
christopher
im all for light 'high' power TU 8 valves. anything over 1400 isnt worth the effort really, your treading on XU toes in the 1600's.

 

Bren Just how much heavier is a 1.6 TU block then a ally one? You have any idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bren_1.3
Bren Just how much heavier is a 1.6 TU block then a ally one? You have any idea?

 

how much heavier is a 1600 cast iron block over an 1600 alloy block? is that what your asking? or are you asking the difference between an XU and TU 1.6?

 

ive never looked into cast blocks in TU's really. cant imagine it being a big difference or the UK rallye would have been a pig handling wise compared to an XS or euro rallye. i dont have any definitve figures though. what TU engines in 1600 form are cast iron? the saxo engines arent cast AFAIK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
d-9

AFAIK,all the TU 1600's are iron, so the VTR, VTS, 1.6 XSI and 1.6 rallye engines are all iron.

 

Some of the 1.4s are iron, I think the 1.4 xsi engine is. the 1.3 rallye engine is ally, ive got a feeling theres an ally block 1.4.

 

From what people have said in the past, the VTS engine weighs roughly the same as the mi16 engine. On paper the mi16 makes more power, but the last few ive driven have felt slow compared to my VTS engined 106, and when I had a little play at the traffic lights with a mate in his freshly rebuilt 205mi16, there was no real difference.

 

VTS engine is just nicer than the mi!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Batfink

i'd go mi16 because of the tu chocolate gearbox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
d-9
i'd go mi16 because of the tu chocolate gearbox

 

They really arent that bad, mine was crunching into second when i got it. After 8000miles of hard driving, its still crunching into second, just slightly worse. How is that different to a BE box?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bren_1.3
ive got a feeling theres an ally block 1.4.

 

yep theres an ally block 1400 in the XS.

 

AFAIK,all the TU 1600's are iron, so the VTR, VTS, 1.6 XSI and 1.6 rallye engines are all iron.

 

my bad!!!! didnt think any of the saxo engines were iron! :D:P ill shut up now ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Josh
Its a more involved conversion than the mi16, as you need to move the gear linkage pivot and the wiring is less well documented, however theres a lot more chance of the damn thing working reliably when its in.

 

Doug, so tell me why an Mi conversion should be unreliable compared to a 16V TU conversion? And capacity is always going to win at the end of the day ;)

 

 

 

Josh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TEKNOPUG

It seems a lot of additional work for little gain.

 

Fair enough if you can get a low-mileage TU 16v for the same price of a high mileage Mi16 with need of a rebuild. Otherwise it doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if you were limited to 1600cc for competiton use, it would still be easier to reduce the capacity if an Mi to 1.6 and drop it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
d-9
Doug, so tell me why an Mi conversion should be unreliable compared to a 16V TU conversion? And capacity is always going to win at the end of the day ;)

Josh

 

Because they never work for more than about a month without something breaking. The wiring looms are all 15 years old and were made out of s*ite wire to start off with, the dizzy caps are fragile and cost the earth, the airflow meters...welll. Then the starters are old, the altenators are old, and generally when you disturb them by swapping the engine everything breaks for a few months.

 

Mi16s are good, my old one was fun, however my TU16v has been 100% reliable, unlike most mi16s that I know of or have had, and there really is very little difference in performance, ask veero :D

 

The other thing is the power delivery feels better with the TU, on the mi it has a burst of torque, then nothing for a few thousand rpm, then it comes on cam. The TU is a lot more linier until it comes on cam, at which point it pulls like a train till 7800 or wherever i have the rev limiter set today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bren_1.3
Doug, so tell me why an Mi conversion should be unreliable compared to a 16V TU conversion? And capacity is always going to win at the end of the day

 

Oil surge??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy
Bren Just how much heavier is a 1.6 TU block then a ally one? You have any idea?

23kg heavier, before you add the additional weight of the 16v head and large cast exhaust manifold.

The TU 16v may be similar in weight to the Mi16, but that weight is further forward in the car and power to weight the Mi16 wins hands down, you may have experienced a few dodgy mi16's recently Doug, becuase they always feel faster than 16v 106's to me! Think about the upgrades as well, putting bodies on the Mi16 is cheap and simple compared to the TU.

 

I really don't buy the oil surge argument, i've never suffered it in the Mi16's i've had and believe that most big end failures could just as likely be down to tired rod bolts stretching during sustained high rpm, as to lack of oil supply. Mi16's have always been reliable for me.

 

The TU 16v makes sense in a 106, but I wasted alot of time and money putting it in the 205; the car was more enjoyable with less power and a lighter 1.4 8v.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy

For anyone that's interested, here's another whore post of my old 205 rallye with the TU 16v on bodies:

 

http://www.dcoe.net/gallery/Sandy/07reduced.JPG

 

http://www.dcoe.net/gallery/Sandy/DSC00386Reduced.JPG

 

The final spec was stndard head with PT51 cams, Janspeed exhaust manifold and system (exhaust is a major faff btw), Jenvey SF TB's, DTA ECU. It gave 137bhp at the wheels (same as my previous healthy 309 Mi16 strangely!) and I recorded repeatable 0-60 of 5.7 secs and 0-100 of 14.6 secs, using calibrated SPA digital speedo. It weighed 830kg. i ran a quaife box on it for a bit, but it wa a waste of time, becuase the gears were too close for the power, acceleration times were virtually the same. the clutch was Helix cerametallic paddle with standard cover, which worked brilliantly, the OE plate couldn't take the power repeatedly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Josh
Because they never work for more than about a month without something breaking. The wiring looms are all 15 years old and were made out of s*ite wire to start off with, the dizzy caps are fragile and cost the earth, the airflow meters...welll. Then the starters are old, the altenators are old, and generally when you disturb them by swapping the engine everything breaks for a few months.

 

Surely that's just down to a bad installation? I would always make a new loom when installing an Mi, just for the reliability. I can't abide unreliable cars.

Things like starters and alternators are things that should have been changed on a well maintained 205 anyway.

 

 

Josh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
d-9
Surely that's just down to a bad installation? I would always make a new loom when installing an Mi, just for the reliability. I can't abide unreliable cars.

 

I dont think so, more a fact that when you disturb 15yo wiring, everything brakes. You'd make a complete new engine management loom? How much do you charge? Ive been thinking about that for mine but havent figured out where to buy the ecu plug from :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×