c2/206 xsi head

[dannygti]

basically after some info on these.
do the 106 gti/vts cams fit into them with no problems?
ive heard you have t use the gti/vts vavle springs if you use them?
what head gasket do you use gti or c2 (c2 is thinner)
would the newmans ph3's have valve piston contact without modd'd pistons?

calling for the experts really as i dont want false info.i do realise that for most answers ill have to ring some company's like qep and such like.:y:

[dannygti]

come on engine guru's

[woogie]

Would love to know the answer to this as looking to do the same!

I was told by LAD that the GTI/VTS cams can be put into the C2 VTS engine but need the GTI/VTS or uprated valve springs and the piston recesses are apparently slightly different. Not sure about the head gasket.
I'll call QEP or GMC and i'll let you know.

Regards,

Matt

[dannygti]

cheers matt for the reply,im sure of a couple of vts running these heads,andyou need gti/uprated springs because the c2 springs are too soft.
thats the main thing i wanted to find out is what valve piston clearence would i have with the newman ph3's.

[Jackman]

basically after some info on these.
do the 106 gti/vts cams fit into them with no problems?

yes the cams do if, you will be looking at 140-150 bhp with the standard gti cams.

ive heard you have t use the gti/vts vavle springs if you use them?

you have to use the gti followers and springs as the c2,xsi head the followers are too weak

what head gasket do you use gti or c2 (c2 is thinner)

use a standard gasket for a gti.

would the newmans ph3's have valve piston contact without modd'd pistons?

i don't know about the newman cams but the Peugeot sport cams fit as i have them in one my my engines.

[dannygti]

cheers for the info jackman.do you know what the maximum lift is on the peugeot sport cams?

[williamsvts]

you would need to skim a bit off the head to get the compression ratio back up if using it on a gti/vts engine, so piston-valve contact wont be an issue if using, gti/vts pistons

[Toad]

Nice one Williams. Bit of a toughy, but do you know if the skim is purely required due to the combusiton chamber being different, or the fact that head sits higher than the GTI head? This really leads on to the bigger question of clearance with higher lift camshafts, such as 708s. IIRC, with correct timing, 708s give about 3mm clearance at TDC on the GTI. Will this be about the same with C2/XSI head in replace of the stock GTI head?

[williamsvts]

combustion chamber shape as diff as the pistons on that are domed ) whereas gti are flat ], get it?
gti/vts has 1.5mm clearance on 708s.
if you stick a standard c2 head on without being skimmed you'll be down on compression and wont have any clearance issues.
i dont know how much need to be took off though.

[Toad]

Ok, gotcha.

Danny, you'll need to find out what the clearnace will be mate, and also how much you're going to need skimming for optimum CR.

[dannygti]

well this iis good info guys keep it coming.
williams if i was to go down the forced induction route would i use the gti/vts head gasket to further more lower the compression?

very true toad,ive got a few BIG decisions to make of which direction im going with the car;)

[williamsvts]

if you have a normal gti engine in you would use the c2 head to lower the compression ratio.

call QEP for the lowdown on clearance and shit.

[Toad]

Forced induction? WTF???

[williamsvts]

its the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dannygti]

lol toad i can almost smell 200bhp atw with boddies would get me 150ish atw.
as wlliams said it the future,and with todays technology these turbos have virtually no lag.

[Toad]

Traitors, the lof of you! lol

[dannygti]

lol i worked it out that if i got 250bhp at the fly and got my car down to weigh 850kg both are possible the the power/weight ration would be almost 300bhp per tonne who can argue with that figure?

[Toad]

Remember, it's a front wheel drive car, and the lighter you make it, the harder it's going to get putting power down in a straight line.

[KamRacing]

N/a FTW..

non of this forced induction rubbish

[Toad]

Come on Danny, don't let the side down! haha

[jpsaxo]

lol i worked it out that if i got 250bhp at the fly and got my car down to weigh 850kg both are possible the the power/weight ration would be almost 300bhp per tonne who can argue with that figure?

Or get a 210bhp longman's 206 engine, stripped to 800kg's and have 260 per ton and very usable power :P

[Toad]

You tell him son! lol

[KamRacing]

in full race trim the F2 kit cars (106 maxi) were pumping out near 235bhp. The saxo was 210bhp.

Alternative is to fit a non TU engine. I've always thought that the ford duratec engine would fit nicely with a little work. 220bhp with just throttle bodies and plenty more to come.

no need to go FI when all you're going to do it blow up*




*i'm being deliberately antagonistic

[dannygti]

lol, its a super hard decision tbh, i think n/a power is the best form in terms of responsiveness and livlelyness but to get good gains id have to spend 5 grand in parts,where as 3.5 grand worth of turbo goodies will see me a very good spead of horsepower and torque.

[Toad]

You wouldn't have to spend 5 grand in parts to get good power. I'd leave the turbo charging to cars which are already designed for it, and preferably, ones which are AWD.

[Sean84]

lol, i bet all those who drive an NA car and rave about them have never driven a forced induction saxo/106/ i bet a few opionions would change then!

[KamRacing]

I think people forget that its not all about being the fastest. The fun factor is what a tb'ed engine has going for it. Instant throttle response and the fantastic bark of the induction makes you feel like a kid in a sweetshop.

I do like turbos but that initial throttle response puts me off a lot. I havent driven a turbo saxo but i've driven a few other tuned turbo cars, including a rally Escort Cosworth.
If I had the choice i'd go N/A with a straightcut gearbox and LSD for reliable fun and plenty of noise to leave a permanent smile. In fact this is in effect what I am doing, even going down in engine capacity to get a more revvy engine (shorter stroke + longer rods)

Also what annoys me about turbos is they flatter bad drivers and car setups, fast in a straight line but lacking in cornering ability. N/A takes a little more finesse to match the higher powered car..

Kev

[jpsaxo]

lol, its a super hard decision tbh, i think n/a power is the best form in terms of responsiveness and livlelyness but to get good gains id have to spend 5 grand in parts,where as 3.5 grand worth of turbo goodies will see me a very good spead of horsepower and torque.

Either way get your deposit for the RR day paid up so you know what shes pushing out at the moment :P

[dannygti]

Either way get your deposit for the RR day paid up so you know what shes pushing out at the moment :P

lol josh i think id better.:P
looking forward to it by the way.

i agree with everything said in this thread, as its down to personal choice there is no better/worse way of doing it.a well setup turbo car will be devastatingly fast where a highly tunes n/a engine will be much more fun.

[Dibz]

N/A all the way! Just cant beat a high revving engine with linear power! The problem with 250bhp in a 106/saxo especially with a turbo will be the front wheels breaking traction. It was bad enough in my mates 190bhp ibiza!