Jump to content

Welcome to the brand new 205GTIDrivers.com website! We hope you'll enjoy it! Read the full notice here.

  • 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.

Andy

[Car_Upgrade] Yet Another Mi16 1.9 Build

Recommended Posts

petert
Posted (edited)

All standard. There are two types of 205 heat exchanger. Early type has a barb facing each way. Later type has the barbs facing the same way. Because the oil hoses are so old now, they burst and need replacing. I recently bought a new top radiator hose from here:

http://www.boutique-de-la-404.com/fr/equipement-moteur/1542-1343-e9-durite-sup-piquage-205.html

 

 

205 oil pipes.jpg

Edited by petert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SRDT

The 205 is the only one with it, on the 309/405/BX it's not remote as there is more room in front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mmt

Thanks Peter. Great help as always. 

 

Would you know Where to buy the relocation kit and the exchanger? Here in Denmark I’m stuck with the normal air/oil cooler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petert

Put an add on AussieFrogs. There’s still plenty around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Putte205
On 8/23/2019 at 4:48 PM, mmt said:

Thanks Peter. Great help as always. 

 

Would you know Where to buy the relocation kit and the exchanger? Here in Denmark I’m stuck with the normal air/oil cooler. 

Someone here in sweden or norway should be able to help you out too. However the swedish forum is dying because of fb, so try the fb group “peugeot sport club” or “svenska peugeotklubben”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy

At the risk of hijacking my own thread, car update . Still not managed to sync the cam and crank sensors. ECU supplier has ‘confessed’ to a slight software issue concerning a single tang crank sensor and a 60-2 crank sensor . What they mean is that they had not programmed that option . Anyway, they have now and a firmware update is on its way.

MOT booked for Wednesday morning. I have got a reasonable tickover but it is a bit rich (afr around 13.3) If I weaken it off the tickover becomes very hesitant and as soon as it gets some load ( ie the fan cuts in) it falters and stalls. I will go to the test armed with laptop and , if I have too, weaken it whilst on test ( no, it is not a VW in disguise ) 

As for the brakes, initial impression is o.k. They need a firm prod but not a huge effort. With the amount of travel I have on the pedal( very little) I think I can go from my 0.625 front and 0.7rear to 0.5 front and either 0.625 rear or even 0.5 rear too. The is would give me a 28% increase in pedal travel on the front ( with 28% increase in line pressure ) and at the back, depending on what I decide , either nearly 20% or 100% . The advantage of the latter is that the front- rear pushrod travel would be more nearly equal , making the balance bar much less offset under no load. Rear line pressure would go up , but if I could not balance out on the bar, I still have an option of using my AP pressure limiter plumbed into the rear circuit .

 Feel free to lob in thoughts on any of the above. Not bought any more cylinders yet . Peter, if you read this, at tickover using your stage 2 solid cams, what would your expectations re AFR be ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petert

I assume you're running in multipoint mode and wasted spark then until you sort out the issue? The idle mixtures will improve when you change to sequential. However, with those cams it will be difficult to get a reliable, true AFR at idle. I would set it at 1200 in order to get a reliable flow, then bring it down to 1000. An AFR of 13:1 is acceptable with those cams. It may not be acceptable for MOT however. In which case, lean it out as much as possible for the test. Do you have maps for 1000,1250 and 1500? And zero throttle? It sounds like it needs a map at 1250 in order to make a smooth transition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy

Cheers Peter,

 I have mapping cells at 800,1000 and 1200 which have helped a bit . Sequential should be up and running this week, but probably not until after the test. Certainly at 1200 it smoothes out and stabilises  .I will try to blag my way through the test ! Once the throttle is open, wow, does it want to draw some air . Bodes well for a RR session 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy

Update . Firmware file arrived via email this morning. Installed, calibration file uploaded with all my saved setting. Car started straight away. Once warmed up, The afr is much more stable and at around 14.2 probably o.k for the MOT . 

In the past folk have debated the relative merits of batch vs sequential injection. Well, as always, Peter is correct.At low speed the difference between batch / wasted spark and sequential injection and ignition is night and day .At high rpm/ wide throttle , the difference may be less, but at low speed, there is no contest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy

MOT passed. Tax done .Mapping booked for early October. The next challenge is to avoid getting into a fight with a Range Rover . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petert

Awesome, well done. Please refresh my memory. Which cams did we use?

 

edit: found it 16S420 on the inlet

Edited by petert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy

Hi Peter,

 stage 2 solids .

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petert

Unrelated, but what plugs are you running?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy

Good question. NGK standard grade for the XU9J4 Mi16 engine. Probably a bit on the soft side but will be o.k for running in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
welshpug

they'll be ok for now, I'd put a fresh set of 7's in when you take it to be mapped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petert

Maybe. Isn't it only 11:1? I'd err on the side of caution stay is 6. Whilst 7's will work on the dyno, it will be harder to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy

Yep. 11.2 to 1 CR . Reminds me that I should do a compression check fairly soon, just our of interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy
On 6/15/2019 at 8:14 PM, Andy said:

The Stackdash fitting details suggest that 4 pulse per Rev will be an adequate trigger. However. I will try it and see how slowly I can rotate the hub and still get a reading on the dash as all is now wired and operational. As for the EPAS, using the speed sensor input will be a nice thing to do, but not at the top of my ‘to go’ list. I really want now to build the engine, as I have all the bits, head assembled and shimmed . I wanted to get all this wiring sorted first as it is so much easier to do with an empty engine bay .Thanks for your input. It has prompted me to go and check !

Andy

Finally occurred to me that I had not responded to this . You were right. I need to be travelling at around 4/5mph before I get a speed reading . Not a problem but a consequence of only 4 pulses per Rev. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy
On 2/25/2019 at 6:25 PM, Andy said:

Real progress on the brakes. Hubs and callipers dropped  on , hydraulic lines connected and the moment of truth...... To my surprise, after bleeding  ( which took and age ) the pedal travel is not excessive. In fact, it is almost exactly as I had calculated, but based on an assumption about the running  clearance between pad and disc . So, 0.625” front and 0.7” rear master cylinder bore with standard rear calipers and six pots on the front ( 28/32/36mm ) seems to give reasonable travel on a 6:1 pedal ratio. What they fee like on the road I will not find out for a few months yet, but for anyone else who is considering a pedal box with a bias bar , the sizes I have used are a fair starting point .If the pedal effort turns out to be  a bit on the high side, I could  get away with a 0.6” bore  front M/C  to up the line pressure by 8.5%

Update.  After the MOT, the test data showed that whilst the front brake torque was fine, the rear was very little higher than the hand brake, so not enough rear brake bias. I adjusted the balance bar to improve things , but at the expense of front brake effectiveness. That is , 

pedal effort went up. Plan ‘b’ was to swap the front 0.625 MC to the rear and install a 0.55MC on the front . Downside is a bit more pedal travel, and the pedal feels slightly soft compared to the previous arrangement . However, few tweaks of the bias bar and , on a nice quiet road, I could get from front lock up first to rear lock up first and hence a point in between . I cannot help thinking that some really good rear pads in place of the nameless motor factor supplied rear and some Mintex 1144  up front  would improve things even more , but I am content to know that the above MC combination with a 6:1 pedal ratio and no servo gives me good brakes without excessive pedal effort and the ability to lock the wheels with relative ease .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy

Brake update .Mintex 1144’s arrived yesterday and were immediately re housed in the front and rear calipers . Tried a test run today and the brakes have been transformed . Excellent bite from stone cold.better pedal feel and the pedal effort now required to pull the car up sharpish is little more than it was with a servo  before , so , as they say, well pleased . Somewhat surprisingly, the fronts feel much more secure from cold than they did with the Ferrodo DS2500, which did not work so  well from cold but, to be fair to them, became excellent when hot . 

So, in summary, 14mm front M/C, 16.8mm rear M/C , 6:1 pedal ratio , Mintex 1144 pads, 283mm front discs ( standard rear) . The front calipers are silly really, but in terms of total piston area, very similar to an AP 4x 38mm .

I think that the single thing that has struck me most is the amount of  pedal travel. I spent a long time on brake calculations , became satisfied that line pressure would be o.k but very concerned about fluid displacement . I was allowing 0.5mm of pad travel per side , so 1mm I total per caliper. Well, it is nothing like that . Given the measurement I have made on the actual M/C pushrod movement , pad travel is more like 0.2mm per caliper at the front , and about 0.4mm at the back . So , for anyone else travelling this road, worry not about displacement, line pressure is king 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petert

I've got 0.7" on the front and 0.625" on the rear. Four pots on the front and have dialed in almost zero rear brakes (Mintex 1144). My son prefers the long pedal travel, I don't. So it's a compromise.

 

The BE3 electronic speedo drive is 8 pulses per rev. I'm going to use that for my electric PAS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy

0.7 and 0.625 gave a brilliant pedal with very little travel. I cannot help feeling that with the pads I now have, it might not still be a better option. However, at the moment I am not sure I want to remove the master cylinders again, reset the balance bar and bleed the brakes, at least until after I have the mapping done .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy

Well.Rolling Road day came and went. The good news is that nothing broke. The bad news is that  an hour into the session, the connection between the laptop and the ecu dropped out. Changing laptop, leads had no effect. It would connect but the drop out after a few minutes . It has never done this before , but it did it on Tuesday . A bit irritated . So, my ignition and fuelling maps are great between 0 and 2000 rpm and 0-100% throttle but after that .......

I also seem to have  a bit of noise on both the throttle pot and the WTS feeds, despite screened cable, shielding at the ecu end only and a single point star earth for all engine related systems ( coils, injectors, ecu, Lambda ) and all fed by independent relays . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petert

Bugger. A fault with the ecu then perhaps? I can't help on the noise. It sounds like you've got the screening correct. How did you discover the noise? I've never screened TPS or MAP sensors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jackherer
2 hours ago, Andy said:

The bad news is that  an hour into the session, the connection between the laptop and the ecu dropped out. Changing laptop, leads had no effect. It would connect but the drop out after a few minutes . It has never done this before , but it did it on Tuesday . A bit irritated .

That sounds familiar...

 

Does it stay connected if the engine is not running?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×