Ruan's GTi6 (XU10>XUD9) - Subject to Change ;)

[Atterz]

You know my views on economy, mine does 35-40mpg grannying it! And having driven it hard against a fair few of my mates supposedly superior cars it aint far off at all Brilliant engines in my eyes, good low down torque and 167bhp up to with decent economy. Good foran engine introduced in 1996 in my book .

[cwspellowe]

You know my views on economy, mine does 35-40mpg grannying it! And having driven it hard against a fair few of my mates supposedly superior cars it aint far off at all Brilliant engines in my eyes, good low down torque and 167bhp up to with decent economy. Good foran engine introduced in 1996 in my book .

For 1996, yes, but they didn't change it at all, in fact pretty much the only change was they dropped the rev limit after the phase 1 ended production. Desperately needed updating as other manufacturers caught up and eventually overtook. CTR anyone?

Low down torque is crap on the GTI6 too, one of the reasons I didn't like it. You'd be lucky to peak at 150lbft on a good engine, and even that's at about 5500rpm.

Don't get me started on economy too. If they'd put a longer 6th on it then yes, could probably get 35mpg every day of the week. Instead they fitted it for POWAHHH. 70mph at 3.5krpm is far too high in the UK.

[Atterz]

As above, my experiance is vastly vastly different to yours then. My car feels nice and torquey for a N/A petrol low down. My economy is great and im more than happy with 440 miles out of a tank of fuel. And after having a spirited drive with a EP3 (standard) type R there was next to nothing in it. The K20 is a better engine i dont doubt, but im really unsure why ive had such a different experiance with my Rallye?

[lewisdmz]

440 miles per tank! I wish!

Low down torque on the 6 is crap in comparison to what other n/a's spellowe?

edit: don't say bmw m5 or something.

[cwspellowe]

I wasn't talking about NA's, I was talking in general. The engines really aren't that amazing.

If anything i'd say they were underpowered, so considering the engines were already tuned pretty hard when Peugeot made them they're hardly setting the world alight. Bit of a faff of a design imho, and for what exactly?

[Atterz]

I average around 380-400 to a tank now im doing a lot of short journeys and spanking it a lot more. But was getting 440-450 on long journeys, and know another Rallye owner that has the same experience.

O and because it doesnt have VVT and is still driveable on the road? 170Bhp in that respect is quite impressive for a standard engine, and when used in the 306 maxi produced 300hp at 11k Rpm. Definatly not a shit engine! Although a little heavy!

[cwspellowe]

That's like saying it's a good engine because you can get 250bhp with low boost charger. They didn't come with a charger from the factory, ergo insufficient.

They have a hugely interfering design with regards to valve size and head design. They have no MAF sensor so respond poorly to breathing mods. They're very heavy. They have a poor cambelt design. The exhaust mani is a compromise because of the lack of space.

As I said, good for 1996. But this is 16 years later. Yes they made 167bhp, quite often more. And peak torque is relatively low for a tuned NA engine, although not amazing levels of torque. But without serious work they don't make much more and for that reason, i'm out.

You seem to forget I spent years working on this exact engine, trying to fiddle with it every way possible, and was never happy. Without spending £3k or more I never WOULD be happy.

[Dan!]

You seem to forget I spent years working on this exact engine, trying to fiddle with it every way possible, and was never happy. Without spending £3k or more I never WOULD be happy.

So, Chris... What engine do you have now? :geek:




:mrgreen:

[cwspellowe]

The gti6 ran at least

How's your points and empty wallet feel?

[Atterz]

Having read your threads and to reitirate i have no issues with yourself and love where you are going with your estate, ie its gorgeous.

I understand that you did try a lot of things to improve the engine, but i feel that in standard guise its a really good engine even by todays standards. There are most certainly compromises and the cambelt design should have been changed soon after manufactuer. The interference is to produce the power that it does from a non-variable valve timing engine, long inlet runners help provide torque in the lower rev range, this combined with the very long inlet system. Then the 4-1 equal length manifold there to allow the power higher up the rev range. I really do stand by my opinion that it is a great standard engine, especially given the limits of technology when it was made!

To add, and although it would have been very silly to given the cost, you never remapped your engine after the modifications you made, or you could well have seen gains. You didnt try a 4-2-1 manifold, experiment with ITBs, or even change the cams which with PT81s has shown to give an increase in both power and torque (around 190hpish). Given its not amazing by todays turbocharged or variable intake system designs but gains are there to be had, and unfortunatly they cost a lot! But in comparison to the K20, things are seriously cheap!

Again we must remember that the XUD9 was 93bhp from factory (should have been 120 but hey ho, Peugeot needed people to buy XSIs etc), but with a few choice mods can most certainly be quicker than a 6 at a seriously reduced cost. But to finish, i really cant understand why people think the RS engine is shit?

[Jonny b]

They should have stuck with the real petrol engine tbh, the mi16/s16 would love my old mi lump back

[Atterz]

But the RS is a better and improved engine?

[Ruan]

Thing is, the Mi16 produced 160hp and 133lb.ft without a cat from day one in 1985 or whenever it was they came out... They made 7 more HP and 11lb.ft more on an engine that came out 10 years later... Which is heavier, less reliable, more finnicky... The only thing that's improved is the oil surge, but it's not fixed...

They're not BAD engines for their time, but there's a lot better you can pick up today... The best thing you could do to a GTi6 IMHO is shove an EW10 in... Lighter, more efficient, more powerful... But everyone currently is blinded by Lynx and Rotrex.

I find the GTi6 you're always fighting the gearbox on the road, they're great on LONG tracks, but around town, the first 3 gears are too long and the last are too short - they're simply not powerful enough to pull off the gearbox, I just always find I've not got the right gear and changing down would be a waste of time, they're moderately quick, but not proper set your pants on fire stuff, which for the 25-30mpg average I'm getting, they're not worth it.

[Atterz]

Agreed on the EW10, but we have already been over this . To overcome the first couple of gears being so long, just be aggressive and clutch kick . Im really shocked that your only getting 25-30 mpg though mate!

[NiallGTI6]

Some of you have no idea about bad economy! I've had the gti6 for 2 weeks no going from my classic impreza averaging 17-19 mpg. Did'nt even think that was too bad! Had an ibiza cupra before that with 210bhp which was averaging 27-28 and i'm getting 35 easily out of the 6 i think it's fantastic! Considering it's such an old engine. Disagree with the lack of torque, your going from something which boosts hard and has short diesely ratios so of course it'll feel down on torque. But compare it to say a clio 182 very similar engine outputs feels just as strong low down, plus you get that lovely grunty note and scream up top. And to say there not that quick, i originally bought the 6 to tie my over before another VAG turbo car yet it's quicker than a mates EP3 CTR (alot quicker to 80!) a 330ci and a mapped fabia so far! Not at all bad for a £1000 car!

[silverzx]

Personally can't see a GTi6 being quicker then any petrol BMW straight 6..

[NiallGTI6]

You ever been in a straight 6 bmw E46? other than an M3? Hugely underpowered for their weight. Plus it was from the lights so big weight advantage, i have no doubt up top it would have pulled considerably away. but in real world situations from lights and from low speeds there not quick.

[Midnightclub]

Trent the 0-60 on a e36 and a e46 325i and 328i is pretty much identical to a 6'

[mark_airey]

You ever been in a straight 6 bmw E46? other than an M3? Hugely underpowered for their weight. Plus it was from the lights so big weight advantage, i have no doubt up top it would have pulled considerably away. but in real world situations from lights and from low speeds there not quick.

Neither is a 6

[Ed Doe]

Bashbashbash.

Imo 1st & 2nd are way too long for tighter bends to get a decent level of power down. Past 2nd and you're being a naughty chappie, so really imo the gearbox is the stumbling block. Which has already been said. Hence a fair few fit the 205 1.9 gti box iirc, as it's closer in the first 3 gears... Less top end obviously, but quicker to get there.

But then if you boost a 6 the gearbox is perfect!

I still find... Sorry, found my gti6 to be very impressive realworld. I've shown some pretty expensive machinery a clean pair of heels round my favourite driving roads.

[Ruan]

Saying that, my 1.9 8v Diesel has had a 328i until naughty mph, I dread to think if I'm already rolling - as I've already pointed out numerous times, my Diesel is quicker 30-70 than an Audi S4, S6, Volvo S60R and is the same as an Evo FQ300... Naturally it'll dust me off past there, but then when you consider in real life driving, you're blatting it down twisties and getting the power on out of corners... And a significant amount faster than a EP3 Type R in almost all situations...

Then when you consider it still returns 55mpg... It's just another reason I should be keeping my shit, rattly, unreliable, smokey, clattery, boat anchor up front Diesel

[mark_airey]

Saying that, my 1.9 8v Diesel has had a 328i until naughty mph, I dread to think if I'm already rolling - as I've already pointed out numerous times, my Diesel is quicker 30-70 than an Audi S4, S6, Volvo S60R and is the same as an Evo FQ300... Naturally it'll dust me off past there, but then when you consider in real life driving, you're blatting it down twisties and getting the power on out of corners... And a significant amount faster than a EP3 Type R in almost all situations...

Then when you consider it still returns 55mpg... It's just another reason I should be keeping my shit, rattly, unreliable, smokey, clattery, boat anchor up front Diesel

Even if the GTi engine is heavier than the XUD

/ arguement

[Ruan]

Well yeah, we won't point that out, that's quite a sore subject!!!!

Haha!

[Alee83]

Wow... This thread has turned into a real bumfight... All I can say is, it's how you drive what you got, and what you like! :grin:

[Matt]

this should be a we hate gti6 thread hahaha

[Ed Doe]

[silverzx]

Cheeky edit.

[Atterz]

All I can say is, it's how you drive what you got, and what you like! :grin:

Boom, end of argument really I love both engines in equal measures. Enjoy the difference!

[jammapic]

I agree with you Atterz..

I've got the DT, and Kirsty's got a GTi-6... both great in their own way. My DT will dust the GTi-6 any day of the week, any gear any speed. But you can't get over the way the GTi revs and the lovely tight gearbox it's got on it.

Also, I'm with you... torquey low down, revvy high up and she gets 35-40mpg out of it, town driving etc.

JP

[Dave]

You learn to love what you have, we're all biased.