Saxo gti6..?

10th May 2012, 19:55

No I have no intentions to do this, I'm just curious as to why it's not done.. There must be be a reason..?

10th May 2012, 19:59

too much fab work

the gearbox and engine are quite wide..the box is rather big lol

its been done... but for the size/weight vs amount of fab for gains its not really worth it

theres a twin gti6 engine saxo kicking about somewhere

10th May 2012, 20:00

Search you douche

10th May 2012, 20:02

The 205 is no bigger though, if any thing smaller and goes straight in spanner wise.. And they have tu's fitted too..?

10th May 2012, 20:10

Different engine mounts and inner arch clearance. GTI-6 engine drops straight in on a 205 and can be done in a few hours with the right knowhow.

10th May 2012, 20:16

If you ask jpsaxo there was a gti6 engined Saxo when he went to the ring and it was rapid apparently

10th May 2012, 20:23

Thaught it would be something major but it just baffles me how the 205 is smaller and some has has more room lol..

With 170hp out the box I'd of thaught it would of been an easier option ( read cheaper) than bodies, cams etc etc.

10th May 2012, 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniGibbo

Thaught it would be something major but it just baffles me how the 205 is smaller and some has has more room lol..

With 170hp out the box I'd of thaught it would of been an easier option ( read cheaper) than bodies, cams etc etc.

thing is unless you can do all the welding yourself its going to put a fauir wedge on the build..then you got wiring..not a massive prob but again if you cant do it theres more pennies

and of course you have to buy the engine..box..mounts..shafts/hubs and so on

10th May 2012, 20:38

Very true, wiring is an arsehole.

10th May 2012, 20:39

lol you love wires mate

10th May 2012, 21:42

only the lower spec 205's used tu engines the gti's had xu engines, which is the same as a gti-6

10th May 2012, 22:58

theres around 3 gti6 106s going about that i can think of never seen a saxo tho, theres one in fits performance workshop, on going project there was a black one on ebay a few months back, and iv seen a red one kicking about

10th May 2012, 23:23

Theres quite a few been done, as blackie said i imagine its mostly down to price vs gain thats the reason more people dont do it.

12th May 2012, 23:52

Theres a 106 gti on ebay atm with an xu 1.9d engine in, could probably drop a 2l gti in there i would of thought with the mounts etc already done!

13th May 2012, 08:47

theres a 106 on moaners at the moment with one fitted, going for 4k. you could easily get a ~160bhp gti/vts for less than that.

13th May 2012, 09:07

Quite a few of these done in the past (106s), a guy on the old PGTi forums had one, had an issue with full lock using the 6 speed box

13th May 2012, 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom5190

Theres quite a few been done, as blackie said i imagine its mostly down to price vs gain thats the reason more people dont do it.

Off the shelf 170hp..?

13th May 2012, 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniGibbo

Thaught it would be something major but it just baffles me how the 205 is smaller and some has has more room lol..

With 170hp out the box I'd of thaught it would of been an easier option ( read cheaper) than bodies, cams etc etc.

the 205 engine bay is actually a fair bit bigger though
compare yours to an 8v and loom at all the space you have beind the engine and by the cambelt side

its been done in saxos and 106s lad on here had a 106 last year but for the effort and cost similar gains can be had from a tuned 16v

13th May 2012, 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniGibbo

Off the shelf 170hp..?

all well and good going oh this has 170 standard but if its not a direct bolt in fitment then it wont really be as simple as that

the saxo runs a very different engine mount to your 205 and thats the issue

a series 1 xsi or rallye has a mount similar to the 205 but the bay.in them barely fits round a 16v let alone a gti6

its.a.case of the chassis will need at least some welding for it to fit and suddenly then its past most peoples comfort zones

13th May 2012, 10:45

My main issue with this conversion is for the effort (having to change pretty much everything) you might aswell use a better/lighter engine to start with.

13th May 2012, 10:54

I suggest Honda K20 from an ep3

13th May 2012, 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sophia_Bush

I suggest Honda K20 from an ep3

I wouldn't gav.. No one wants to do that :/

13th May 2012, 11:17

if i was going to all the effort i think a duratec might be my choice

13th May 2012, 11:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannygti

I wouldn't gav.. No one wants to do that :/

if you got Tams number give him a bell he fitted one to an AX years ago not running but just bolt in the bay I think size wise etc and iirc it fitted ok it would be my choice bit of tuning get it up to 300bhp n/a all motor on itbs 9k rpm thank yoou

13th May 2012, 11:42

there was fella with the yellow 106gti who had a gti6 engine, trying to think of his username

13th May 2012, 12:04

Duratec on bodies would be nice,

13th May 2012, 14:40

Going off topic slightly now but forgive my ignorance but whats so great about the "duratec" theyre massively popular in kits cars and the such..?

13th May 2012, 14:47

Light, and extremely tuneable. Lots of bits available for them. Can mate a not chocolate gearbox to them, Reliable etc

13th May 2012, 15:52

Suppose, the old favourate was the K series wasnt it but i guess now its discontiuned spares arent as widely available.

13th May 2012, 16:14

Played with a Caterham with a Duratec engine, wasn't impressed at all, nor was he when I hurtled past him!

13th May 2012, 16:23

Think I'd rather an EW in there, much easier to build a good engine than a Duratec, easier to make fit as they sit more upright than the XU, also quite light being all alloy.

13th May 2012, 16:25

Ew being..?

13th May 2012, 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniGibbo

Ew being..?

C4 VTS, 206 GTI etc

13th May 2012, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniGibbo

Off the shelf 170hp..?

There rarely 170hp off the shelf, ive seen quite a few not make 160. Its not just about the power through, granted if you get one in thats 165hp you will have more lb/ft than you would see from a J4 at that power but the driving/handling of the car changes a fair bit too. If you could fit the engine yourself and not have to pay anybody anything other than materials then yes you might be able to pick up everything you need and have it running for a reasonable amount.

I would only really consider a bigger engine if i wanted to see 280-300hp N/A and then really the cost of fitting one wouldnt be the main cost of the project anyways. Also i wouldnt use that engine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexB

if i was going to all the effort i think a duratec might be my choice

This ^^

13th May 2012, 17:13

So to some this thread up it's not a better/cheaper/easier alternative to tuning the tu to 170hp and if you want a gti6 buy a 205

13th May 2012, 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniGibbo

So to some this thread up it's not a better/cheaper/easier alternative to tuning the tu to 170hp and if you want a gti6 buy a 205

Pretty much, i do see your point about it i think if it was just that little bit simpler to fit then alot more people would be doing it at home same as fitting 16v's. And 205Gti-6 is full of so much win its un-true i really really want a 205 as soon as possible.

13th May 2012, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshpug

Think I'd rather an EW in there, much easier to build a good engine than a Duratec

that's a load of rubbish. Can you buy off the shelf 280hp+ kits for a EW?

There are proper off the shelf products for the duratec and it's certainly not hard to build a good engine with them. Cosworth make a lot of duratec parts and you can even use a ranger bottom end and make into a 2.3l.

I've driven duratec engines from 150hp to 300hp NA and they're awesome!

13th May 2012, 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannygti

that's a load of rubbish. Can you buy off the shelf 280hp+ kits for a EW?

There are proper off the shelf products for the duratec and it's certainly not hard to build a good engine with them. Cosworth make a lot of duratec parts and you can even use a ranger bottom end and make into a 2.3l.

I've driven duratec engines from 150hp to 300hp NA and they're awesome!

This^^ Yea im not too keen on what ive seen from the EW either to be honest i know duratec is 'over used' but there is a reason for that is an awsome engine.

13th May 2012, 18:09

Yeah it's pretty easy to get 230bhp out of duratec with cams and bodies...

And there's also a lot more to come If you want to

13th May 2012, 18:11

k20, b18c someone do it

13th May 2012, 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannygti

that's a load of rubbish. Can you buy off the shelf 280hp+ kits for a EW?

I know a man that can indeed

13th May 2012, 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshpug

I know a man that can indeed

I have the feeling it's the same 'man' that I know too. The thing is there are dozens of 'men' who can extract 300hp+ and good torque from a duratec and probably for less ££ too

13th May 2012, 18:29

It wont cost any less at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandy

I've done several Duratecs on just bodies and the results are very similar to standard Mi16 or GTI6 on bodies. In Ford terms it's a good engine (and the later Zetecs weren't all that bad), but it's not that remarkable if you're used to Peugeots or Hondas. In terms of parts availability, everything you can buy for the Duratec, is available for the EW, rods, pistons, cams, pulleys, cranks, you name it. If you want to take advantage of mass market high quality parts, then none can get close Honda engines. Building a Duratec using low-medium quality components will be very much the same deal as an XU or EW, using the better stuff will be just as expensive. I'm not kidding around about this, on the Duratec we've engine dyno and in car tested just about every available rod, piston, crank, cams, inlet set up, exhaust manifold, head (inc our own, Cosworth and other CNC ones) in 2.0 and 2.3 litre form, even several other builders complete engines! I know what I've seen and felt and I don't think the engine deserves any exceptional credit over the best of the rest, including the EW.
Incedentally, as a nugget that is worth taking heed of, the best results we've seen from a 2 litre Duratec (in terms of overall delivery), have been from the worst performing head on the flow bench (a head we ported according to what we felt was right by eye/measurement and only flow tested after). Which serves to reinforce my belief that flow benches are a distraction in most cases.

Comparisons between the EW and XU are arbitrary unless you can align the specifications enough to be truly objective about it. But as i've said already, a stiffer, more advanced and lighter block design is good for high stress applications, especially improved reliability. The heads are clearly developements of the XU design that I feel overcome the limitations of the XUs; not necessarily for outright peak power or flow bench results, but for making a better engine overall. Playing top trumps with pure numbers isn't what it's about for me; I look to improve the way the power is delivered, how it drives (often a function of how well it maps and that's an important feedback loop) and that helps it to perform well for longer; less worries for me and better value for the users.

That weight quoted is literal, with a race flywheel, inlet, wet sump, no fluids. I'm not sure what the exact weight of comparable XUs are off the top of my head, but if I get the chance I'll weigh them too on the same scales.

The middle bottom 3 bolts on the exhaust manifold are in the same place relative to the exhaust ports as the GTI6/late XU heads, I have a double drilled dyno manifold I use on both, the in car angle will be all wrong!

Perhaps using the Mi16 crank (I haven't tried it), would enable a choice of 50mm BE journal rods from the standard range, to mix and match, you'd have to figure that out for yourself.

Trying to fit an 8v head crosses the mind, for sure, but on a rational level... why bother?! The oil feed is in the right place, coolant holes close enough, but oil drains would need to be external.

Using mildly upgraded factory EWs, will always be limited by the hydraulic followers really, before anything else and I see no reason why it shouldn't be fine with a 7200-7500 limit, unless you use it like an idiot! Beyond that, it's becoming a race engine and like any engine, careful scrutiny of components is sensible (even Honda engines need attention for sustained 8000rpm use if modified).

13th May 2012, 18:38

I've read that before..

I hope your not so narrow minded as to just take onboard ONE engine builders opinion.

I guarantee there are several tuners/engine builder who would say the oppsite.

I like sandy and his work, he has learned and improved so much over his short spell in engine building and if I was building a pug race engine.. He is the man!
BUT there are lots of other people out there are also very successful with race wins to back up their engines.

Unfortunately one mans opinion won't sway my feelings towards this issue.

13th May 2012, 19:05

I believe he's been building engines for over ten years, long enough for me, works with several other respected engine builders with a lot more knowledge, most of JRE's engines come with a Sandy map on them for the past couple of years.

13th May 2012, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshpug

I believe he's been building engines for over ten years, long enough for me, works with several other respected engine builders with a lot more knowledge, most of JRE's engines come with a Sandy map on them for the past couple of years.

I don't believe it's been that long, I could be wrong.

Just to reiterate, Sandy's work is top draw and he's certainly getting the credit he deserves.

But he is not the 'only' super engine builder. I've seen some pretty special duaratecs built by non-company's and some ok engines built by big company's. There are lots of talented builders that no one in the pug scene knows about.

13th May 2012, 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sophia_Bush

k20, b18c someone do it

Would be the best saxo around!

13th May 2012, 22:05

B16 has been done, ok in a 106, but its been done

14th May 2012, 09:31

I had my hands on a k20 when they first came out, even had it sat in the bay of my saxo. Back then i felt it was beyond my capabilities to do the conversion and let the engine go

After driving my mates supercharged K20 elise, its certainly the route ill be going if my EW goes bang.

As for the EW vs Duratec debate. The main reason Duratec's are popular is because of the gearbox options. Being so in demand means there will endless off the shelf tuning packages for them.

If the EW bolted straight on to so many gearboxes im sure that would be the engine of choice??

Both are good engines with a lot of potential.

14th May 2012, 09:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christian555

Would be the best saxo around!

It's been done.

http://www.saxperience.com/forum/sho...ight=vtec+saxo

14th May 2012, 13:31

not as fwd

14th May 2012, 14:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sophia_Bush

not as fwd

Yeah because we all want faggot wheel drive

14th May 2012, 15:46

depends....
Its probably easier to get a faster car out the box with FWD as the suspension does not have to be re-engineered. I've not been massively impressed with most rear engine conversions when it comes to going round corners.

14th May 2012, 16:08

I had the same opinion tbh but there was a thread a while back where everyone on here seemed to disagree argueing theyre great and comparing them to ferraris ie both being mid engined rear wheel drive...

Then again theyre the same people who think a 300hp 106 will be faster lap for lap than a 300hp evo/scoob/m3

14th May 2012, 16:24

a 300bhp saxo could be faster depending on spec.
I'm finishing off my 205 racecar next year. 180 - 200bhp against 350bhp BMW M3's. Doesnt sound competitive does it but theres more to driving fast than accelerating in a straight line and higher terminal speeds.

14th May 2012, 16:27

Which is the exact reason Im dubious the small hatches getting anywhere near the far superior longer chassis.

14th May 2012, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniGibbo

Which is the exact reason Im dubious the small hatches getting anywhere near the far superior longer chassis.

Swb was enough for metro 6r4, Audi quattro, lancia stratos etc
But hey what did they know? Shoulda bought a maybach

14th May 2012, 16:37

Danny you've mentioned rally cars which benefit from a short chassis to change direction quickly. Traditionally a longer chassis can give more stability when cornering at high speed. With RWD it can help the driver control power delivery. Its a small part in the overall package and theres a multitude of other things to look at such as COG, trackwidth to wheelbase ratios etc etc

14th May 2012, 16:40

All I'm saying is you don't see mini's entering dtm...

I knew I could reel Dannygti in

14th May 2012, 16:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by KamRacing

Danny you've mentioned rally cars which benefit from a short chassis to change direction quickly. Traditionally a longer chassis can give more stability when cornering at high speed. With RWD it can help the driver control power delivery. Its a small part in the overall package and theres a multitude of other things to look at such as COG, trackwidth to wheelbase ratios etc etc

You have pointed out the obvious, you should know I know this.

It was a poor effort to show my point I admit.

There is a balance for sure..

The track and wheelbase of my Peugeot is not much different to a Westfield/caterham. Which are beautiful handling cars when setup.

The lack of experience shows when some people voice their opinions really shows. But they are entitled to them for sure.

14th May 2012, 16:46

lol - but minis used to be in the BTTC

14th May 2012, 16:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniGibbo

Which is the exact reason Im dubious the small hatches getting anywhere near the far superior longer chassis.

What is there to be dubious about??

You cant argue that a 300+ bhp 106/Saxo wouldn't piss all over a 300+ bhp scoob/evo/M3 in a straight line.

As for handling, a well setup 106/Saxo is well matched if not better in some cases than the above. It depends on the circuit!.

14th May 2012, 16:48

Think kam mentioned the main point, overall package and final use

14th May 2012, 16:51

Straight line speed plays to the hatches for obvious reasons..

Soon as you get to a corner they'll be lift off over steering and under steering into the gravel traps like noobs..

14th May 2012, 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniGibbo

Straight line speed plays to the hatches for obvious reasons..

Soon as you get to a corner they'll be lift off over steering and under steering into the gravel traps like noobs..

Where do you get this from lmao??
I did think you knew what you were talking about

14th May 2012, 16:54

What gives you the impression the short fwd chassis is the greatest chassis which lets cut to the chase you're saying.

Maybe you should give ferrari a call and tell them they're doing it wrong.

14th May 2012, 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniGibbo

Straight line speed plays to the hatches for obvious reasons..

Soon as you get to a corner they'll be lift off over steering and under steering into the gravel traps like noobs..

It funny you should say that.

Thats exactly what happend to a 340 bhp scooby trying to keep up with me at Donnington. That was with 200bhp N/A.

14th May 2012, 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniGibbo

What gives you the impression the short fwd chassis is the greatest chassis which lets cut to the chase you're saying.

Maybe you should give ferrari a call and tell them they're doing it wrong.

Sorry I didn't understand that.

I'm not saying they are the best chassis full stop but Im sure as hell confident they're a lot better than your saying.
I have first hand experience that is why I'm putting my point across..not just 'dubious' about it.

14th May 2012, 16:58

I can the same about an aerial atom I passed at castle Combe in a 200hp 1200kg rwd, dosent mean it'll happen Everytime..

Might as well say I'm faster than the Ferrari I past parked in waitrose.

14th May 2012, 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniGibbo

I had the same opinion tbh but there was a thread a while back where everyone on here seemed to disagree argueing theyre great and comparing them to ferraris ie both being mid engined rear wheel drive...

Then again theyre the same people who think a 300hp 106 will be faster lap for lap than a 300hp evo/scoob/m3

your evo is nearly twice as heavy as saxo +all the power drain through the transmission --so yes on a race track a 300bhp saxo should be quicker by a margin
assuming drivers of equal ability and its a dry day .
look at u-tube AXO16V
against alot more powerful evo,s +skylines (400+bhp cars) and that ax had std brakes --,thats why in the vids you will see the bigger cars catch up into the corners ,the AX also used s/h tyres from a formula ford ,which they had thrown off cos the grip had gone,so all he could do was poke it up the straights and brake very early into to the corners
Tam had no money so could not afford proper brakes +tyres
more than 1 flat out lap or the tyres and brakes went OFF drmatically and it became undrivable and that car had a max of 240@wheels,not even 300bhp

I personally do not like the "z cars" way sticking all that weight in the back it will make them hard to drive .
use an Audi or passat trans axle+front suspension crossmember and struts+ shafts and have the engine of your choice in the middle of the car and that would be a different thing all together .
I see the attraction of using a FWD complete power unit in the back for simplicity --but would suggest if you are chopping the shell about anyway ,whats the difference in making it mid engined like the old R5 and just accept its a 2 seater

14th May 2012, 18:20

if you think a 300 bhp whatever will walk over a 300 bhp 106/saxo, have a look at how well Nick Charles was doing, and how Will DiClaudio is doing with around 220 bhp from Sandy brown engines against 450 bhp Audi TT's, seat leon's and Rover Tomcats around Castle Combe.

14th May 2012, 19:46

Like this? http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2414420/1998-peugeot-106

14th May 2012, 20:10

Read this start to finish and just want to qualify a bit on the Duratec debate... I've been building engines professionally for only 5 and a bit years! The but is I work very closely with John Read (better known as JRE), one of my closest friends and he's catapulted the depth and standard of my work. He's been in it for 25 years, his engines have won just about every major UK and Ireland rally and as well as doing all his mapping now, I've become deeply involved in his development work of late, especially the Duratec. I've probably done more dyno development with it than any other engine and that has included testing some of the best Duratecs from the best in the business. If you're into RWD Escorts, then you'll know how much they want a killer Ford engine and how resistant many are even to running Vauxhall derivatives or Japanese motors, let alone any French stuff! The industry is largely built around this desire and demand which spreads across to kit car and race car chassis' that have such a large Ford component base. The Duratec is a light, modern engine that ticks many boxes for these customers, is capable of substantial and respectable figures done right and has the crucial Ford badge (we'll ignore that it was mostly designed in Japan!) John and I argue regularly about the value of the engine against its peers, but what I do know is that the highest lbft/litre we've seen on the dyno from a 2 litre to date is one of my Peugeots! I haven't yet built a 2 litre to the spec of the best Duratecs, XEs, YBs, K20s we've done, but EW head castings are capable of being ported in such a way that you simply can't with any of the others mentioned because of the casting limitations and the sandwiched alloy block is closest in design to the K20, a superior design to the skirted Duratec or alloy YB blocks. I could go into alot more detail if confidentiality didn't prohibit, but suffice to say that when people hold up the Duratec as a superior engine; I do wonder how they came to that conclusion!

14th May 2012, 20:38

I'm glad you've had an input sandy.

But you must appreciate you are one of many engine builders ad there are lots of people will have different opinions. Perhaps other engine builders do things differently to you to achieve a different result.

Another thing to factor in is cost, yes YOU may be able to yield these fantastic results but can a normal person just buy bits and add them like you can with the ford engine. It's huge fan base and the fact that most hillclimb cars use them now to replace the c20xe means that parts are there and ready.
No doubt the EW has the potential, but for me the duratec would still be my first choice.

15th May 2012, 04:49

Of course I appreciate that Danny! As I said, even between ourselves we argue about the virtues of the Duratec. There's alot of bulls*** talked about it and most of the claimed results have been proved to us to be nonsense, but the parts are sold on the promised results, so that's what companies do. Especially where rolling road results, (so easily misread or given too much trust), are used. Of all the parts/engines we've tested (and we've tested just about everything available), only SBD's came close to their claims. We've done some cracking Duratecs, but John's XEs still trump it as an overall package and when you consider the gearbox option for a 106 is the IB5 chocolate box...
If the context is parts availability and DIY (ish) potential, the Honda K20 is so much better out of the box and in re-worked form and has a far superior gearbox, it's a no brainer for me. The quality/cost parts availability is the best of any engine.
If the context is fitting in a 106, then all of these options with forward facing induction are going to be problematic in the 106/Saxo engine bay, the taper of ther bonnet severely limits the induction design options and the bulkhead is right where the exhaust manifold will want to be. We got quite far down the road of putting a K20 in a friend's 106, until we decided it would be much easier and make a better car in the 309 shell, which we saw through to completion.

15th May 2012, 08:22

I couldnt agree more. The Honda engine is fantastic from the research I've been doing. Not your cup of tea but in boosted format anything upto 600whp has been made on a standard engine. That's impressive. And the gearboxs are great like you say.

If someone was to put a k20 in a 106/Saxo I'm sure it would make for a superb package even if the engine was standard. I'm sure the standard inlet would fit under the bonnet?