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  
stealth_pug

Vts 205 Project

Recommended Posts

stealth_pug

Now that my mini is on the road my 205 has turned into the project car. Its a TU engined base model with a 1.4 xs engine and GTI struts at the front. My plan is to completely strip it down and rebuild it with full GTI suspension and a VTS engine.

I have looked into this quite a lot and have found most of the issues. One thing i was wondering was if i were to use a front GTI subframe so i get the full suspension setup would the VTS lump still fit onto the subframe mount the same or is the XU subframe different?? Also with regards to a rea beam as i am using the base model shell will i have to get my arches rolled to give room for the extra width of the beam and alloys??

 

Thanks for any help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BERTMAN

shouldnt have to get the rear arches rolled with a 1.9 beam i shouldnt think, and the XU and TU subframes are different, the gear linkage 'mounts' are different? IIRC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bren_1.3

there might be problems with the top engine mount due to a difference in shells.... but not hard to solve. only other problem i can see for you is using base model hubs / shafts, as the 1600 / 1900 gti hubs probably wont mate up to saxo shafts.

 

well worth the effort for the gti suspension alone. once ive finished putting my engine together then ill be on with this type of conversion.

 

only other problem i can see is actually mounting the engine and box into the car to be able to position the linkage mount correctly, and then take it all back out to weld the mount in place. can be done in a day i reckon.

 

good luck with it!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deejay391

Started looking into this a few months ago will om you a link to info i found :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bren_1.3
Started looking into this a few months ago will om you a link to info i found

 

not fancy posting it on the forum for us all to see??? :P:D:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy

The subframes are mostly drilled for both mounts, but the gear linkage posts are the issue. The base model subframe with 309 arms is a very good set up and alot less aggravation than the GTi subframe, My old 205 Rallye runs these and is easily the best handling 205 i've driven.

 

Don't forget you need injection tank, injection fuel pipes, modify the exhaust manifold to fit, either type of right hand TU engine mount can be modified to fit, but grind away the absolute minimum.

 

I've said it many times, it's as much if not more hassle than an Mi16 conversion and will be less powerful with the crap gearbox. I wouldn't do it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dj_mini

Tu boxs are rubish there so weak even the castings have twisted under major power. Its such a shame because the tu 16v is a great engine the only real way to sort it is do a be conversion which isnt cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bren_1.3
Tu boxs are rubish there so weak even the castings have twisted under major power. Its such a shame because the tu 16v is a great engine the only real way to sort it is do a be conversion which isnt cheap

 

now your talking my language, whats involved in doing something like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
welshpug

a bellhousing to suit the TU engine, that would allow a BE box to be mated to it, can be dione and has been recently by a PSOOC member.

 

BE4 box from a 307 would work IIRC as they are used on TU engines, as for being worse than an Mi16 to fit its just the same as any conversion, if you can weld you can do anything!

 

just take the 309 V6 as inspiration, of ask Dazza about the 306 Type R conversion, or the RWD 309 S2000 hybrid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy

Seriously think about what you're trying to acheive, consider:

 

TU 16v conversion easier than XU? Nope

Is it different? Not really, several have been done already

Is a better engine? Not IMO, it lacks character compared to the TU 8v and can't hope to match the XU £ for £ for power.

Will it be more reliable? Not in my experience, about as relaible as an XU

A great engine? A good engine maybe, but a great engine it isn't compared to its peers

Lightweight? It's about 5kg lighter than a Mi16, the same weight as the later XU16v alloy block and its CoG is much further forward.

Better gearbox? I think that's been covered!

More economical? Much the same as an Mi16 and worse than the XS 1.4

Cheap tuning? Not really, you get more for your money from an Mi16

Edited by sandy309

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
calvinhorse

what sort of power does it take to twist a tu box?

this is now my goal in life!! i will twist a box!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
d-9

Same performance as an MI? Pretty much.

Better economy than an MI? Depends how you drive it, had 38mpg out of my TU16v and could get more if it was on standard management.

Different? Yep, how many on here do you see? bow down and worship the mi.

More reliable? Going on my experiences with a standardishTU16v and a standard MI...yes, much more.

 

By "lacks character", sandy means "doesnt sound as nice", which i personally think is crap, TU16vs sound good when theyre being thrashed, the MI always has the "Im about to go bang in a very expensive way" sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deejay391
By "lacks character", sandy means "doesnt sound as nice", which i personally think is crap, TU16vs sound good when theyre being thrashed, the MI always has the "Im about to go bang in a very expensive way" sound.

 

;) haha remember my topic on other forum turning out like this :lol:

 

 

As for posting link on here its from another forum so didnt think it appropriate B) havent got the link anymore either took a bit of digging to get it :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy
Same performance as an MI? Pretty much.

Better economy than an MI? Depends how you drive it, had 38mpg out of my TU16v and could get more if it was on standard management.

Different? Yep, how many on here do you see? bow down and worship the mi.

More reliable? Going on my experiences with a standardishTU16v and a standard MI...yes, much more.

 

By "lacks character", sandy means "doesnt sound as nice", which i personally think is crap, TU16vs sound good when theyre being thrashed, the MI always has the "Im about to go bang in a very expensive way" sound.

I'm not sure I can even be bothered to answer this, because I know (from you've said to others) that you perpetuate your contrary position on this subject purely to wind me up, not because you want to give an informed or positive opinion to someone that is about to put alot of time and money into a project that could well be a dissappointment? What about what this really means for people seeking opinions based on real experience (rather than supposition) to help them make an informed decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
d-9

Actually I perpetuate the contrary position to you on this one because I simply belive you're wrong. The fact it winds you up is just a bonus :D

 

Ive had a TU16v in a p1 106 and several mi16s and I genuinely belive the TU to be better, it feels as fast or faster than the mi16, gives better economy, sounds better (at least with the magnex on the 309 and the superrudd on the 106) and has been very reliable. Maybe I havent had real experience with a standard TU16v on standard management in a 205, but then nor have you, and i thought thats what this thread was asking about. I know that if I had a 205 project it'd be getting a TU16v without question, and ive vaugely been thinking about reshelling my 106 into a 205, but it seems a lot of effort to get essentially the same car.

Edited by d-9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dj_mini
now your talking my language, whats involved in doing something like that?

You need the the torque (can spell) to brake the boxs tc or sc is going to cause problems for sure i killed 3 in two months on me paxo but that was tc a mate has a lightly tuned 16v 106 hes now broken two in a year now the ma box is just pants the be conversion is about 3k all in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy
Actually I perpetuate the contrary position to you on this one because I simply belive you're wrong. The fact it winds you up is just a bonus :D

Get a life. It's not funny and won't get you laid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stealth_pug

Thanks for all the replies..... The reason i was thinking of the VTS engine is that its a TU so i thought (correct me if im wrong) it would be an easier conversion than the mi16 as mine is already a TU car.

Secondly the insurance issue i thought it would be cheaper but i haven't really looked into it yet. I was not set in stone for a VTS engine but i never really looked into the MI.

I thought VTS would also be better as its a newer engine so would probably be easy to get hold of a good one without needing a rebuild which would be a lot cheaper than rebuilding an MI?? Im just about to go to uni so i don't have the biggest budget!! With regards to using a 205 gti front setup would it be possible to make driveshafts using 205 gti and 106 gti to fit both the hub end and gearbox?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy

I used the TU 205 shafts on mine, the drivers side one fits fine, but on the passenger side you'll need to mount the seal about 3mm proud of the housing or it'll leak, due to the thicker diff pin pushing the shaft out. A mate that ran the same box on his hillclimb 205 had a slight cv knock in tight corners, but he was running 60mm lowered! I never had an issue. I fitted a 309 TU offside shaft when I converted to 309 arms, but due to the slightly proud fit, the nearside one was ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bren_1.3
You need the the torque (can spell) to brake the boxs tc or sc is going to cause problems for sure i killed 3 in two months on me paxo but that was tc a mate has a lightly tuned 16v 106 hes now broken two in a year now the ma box is just pants the be conversion is about 3k all in

 

3 grand?????? :o its just not worth it then. how can anyone justify 3 grand on a gearbox conversion? i think ill take my chances with a few second hand chocolate boxes!! ;);):lol:

 

 

Get a life. It's not funny and won't get you laid.

 

why rise to the bait???

Share this post


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

×