Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
i did a shop of the one bloke with some eagle wings 
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Butler
quote:
Originally posted by Cupra Steve
yeah they made a series 1 xsi with a 1.4 which was 105bhp, then a 1.6 xsi with gayer seats and a bit more colour coding, but it only had 95bhp due to catalytic converter laws etc, the later 1.6 is basically a vtr.
1.4 was 90bhp, 1.6 is 105bhp.
no it weren't.
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cupra Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Butler
quote:
Originally posted by Cupra Steve
yeah they made a series 1 xsi with a 1.4 which was 105bhp, then a 1.6 xsi with gayer seats and a bit more colour coding, but it only had 95bhp due to catalytic converter laws etc, the later 1.6 is basically a vtr.
1.4 was 90bhp, 1.6 is 105bhp.
no it weren't.
the 1.6 uses the same engine and gearbox as a vtr so how does that work out? I know the 1.4 was 105bhp as i had one, this was due to lairy cams as standard in comparison to the 1.4 tu in a west coast saxo and no cat. Not sure on the exact figure of the 1.6 but i know for a fact it was less than the 1.4.
[Edited on 21-12-2006 by Cupra Steve]
|
Carl
Member
Registered: 9th May 04
Location: Jimmy Bennett's la la land.
User status: Offline
|
i always thought the 1.6 had slightl more bhp than the 1.4 but not as much as expected, it defanatly didn't have 10 less thats for sure.
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carl
i always thought the 1.6 had slightl more bhp than the 1.4 but not as much as expected, it defanatly didn't have 10 less thats for sure.
so how come mine had 105bhp or 100bhp and it beat vtr's???
|
Carl
Member
Registered: 9th May 04
Location: Jimmy Bennett's la la land.
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cupra Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Carl
i always thought the 1.6 had slightl more bhp than the 1.4 but not as much as expected, it defanatly didn't have 10 less thats for sure.
so how come mine had 105bhp or 100bhp and it beat vtr's???
the phase 1 vtr's are down on power quite a bit to phase 2 vtr's. phase ones only had 90 brake compare to 100 of the phase 2's thats maybe why.
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carl
quote:
Originally posted by Cupra Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Carl
i always thought the 1.6 had slightl more bhp than the 1.4 but not as much as expected, it defanatly didn't have 10 less thats for sure.
so how come mine had 105bhp or 100bhp and it beat vtr's???
the phase 1 vtr's are down on power quite a bit to phase 2 vtr's. phase ones only had 90 brake compare to 100 of the phase 2's thats maybe why.
well the 1.6 xsi had the same running gear as a phase 1 vtr.
|
Carl
Member
Registered: 9th May 04
Location: Jimmy Bennett's la la land.
User status: Offline
|
Wikipedia
1.4 L (1361 cc) TU3 I4, 95 PS (93 hp/69 kW) and 86 ft·lbf (117 N·m)
1.6 L (1587 cc) TU5 I4, 105 PS (103 hp/77 kW) and 97 ft·lbf (132 N·m)
Parkers
1.4 XSi 3d 1360 100 118 9.7 - 10
1.4 XSi Cat 3d 1360 95 118 9.7 - 10
1.6 XSi 3d 1587 105 121 9.7 35 11
Can't be arsed looking anywhere else, Maybe the 106 1.6 xsi was catless and thats why it perfroms different to early VTR, they obviouslt must be some difference somewhere.
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carl
Wikipedia
1.4 L (1361 cc) TU3 I4, 95 PS (93 hp/69 kW) and 86 ft·lbf (117 N·m)
1.6 L (1587 cc) TU5 I4, 105 PS (103 hp/77 kW) and 97 ft·lbf (132 N·m)
Parkers
1.4 XSi 3d 1360 100 118 9.7 - 10
1.4 XSi Cat 3d 1360 95 118 9.7 - 10
1.6 XSi 3d 1587 105 121 9.7 35 11
Can't be arsed looking anywhere else, Maybe the 106 1.6 xsi was catless and thats why it perfroms different to early VTR, they obviouslt must be some difference somewhere.
they only mage the 1.6 k or l reg onwards therefore having to be cat'd!!
I don't get it.
|
Tom
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: Wirral, Merseyside
User status: Offline
|
1.4 was 100 bhp i'm 100% sure as mate had his on the rollers 
|
Carl
Member
Registered: 9th May 04
Location: Jimmy Bennett's la la land.
User status: Offline
|
the XS was same engine that VTR not xsi, according to www.pug106.vo.uk
XS / Saxo VTR (1.6, 90/98 bhp)
The '98 XS came with the same engine as found in the '96-'98 Saxo VTR's and this has proved to be a very tunable, and reliable engine.
The '98-'00 VTR's came with a slightly revised head, identified by it's silver rocker cover, which appearantly offered better effeciency, although the only known difference is that this engine used roller rockers.
on a page regarding engine transplants, also had this on, 1.4 XSi (100 bhp), 1.6 XSi (105 bhp)
These engines are probably only options for Mk1 owners.
The 1.4 offers a potent free revving option which pushes just under 100 bhp in standard form, but the 1.6, although only up by around 5 bhp, offers superior torque, and would offer better performance on the road.
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom
1.4 was 100 bhp i'm 100% sure as mate had his on the rollers
They were, at one point there was only 2 1.4 or under hatches that were quicker, none that were NA though!! They are a hoot t drive and were supposed to be better and quicker than the 1.6. who gives a shit.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
what 1.6 n/a hot hatches are faster than the 106gti apart from the civic ek9?
|
Carl
Member
Registered: 9th May 04
Location: Jimmy Bennett's la la land.
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cupra Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Tom
1.4 was 100 bhp i'm 100% sure as mate had his on the rollers
They were, at one point there was only 2 1.4 or under hatches that were quicker, none that were NA though!! They are a hoot t drive and were supposed to be better and quicker than the 1.6. who gives a shit.
"Not sure on the exact figure of the 1.6 but i know for a fact it was less than the 1.4." 
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
what 1.6 n/a hot hatches are faster than the 106gti apart from the civic ek9?
none that i know of tbh. zetec s is no where near, corsa sport isn't as fast, none that i know of, just trying to think of more!!!!!
|
Ojc
Member
Registered: 14th Nov 00
Location: Reading: Drives : Clio 197
User status: Offline
|
1.6 XSi was much quicker than the 1.4 XSi
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ojc
1.6 XSi was much quicker than the 1.4 XSi
fuck off!!
|
Novaneil
Member
Registered: 26th Oct 06
Location: Leamington Spa
User status: Offline
|
Haha, What a quality read!
Thats taken 15mins to go through. Im not going to add my comments (as much as I hate standard ride height  ) But this post has kept me very entertained.
Cheers
Neil
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
what 1.6 n/a hot hatches are faster than the 106gti apart from the civic ek9?
Mits Colt Cyborg
|
Ojc
Member
Registered: 14th Nov 00
Location: Reading: Drives : Clio 197
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cupra Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Ojc
1.6 XSi was much quicker than the 1.4 XSi
fuck off!!
They are though?
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by jr
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
what 1.6 n/a hot hatches are faster than the 106gti apart from the civic ek9?
Mits Colt Cyborg
stats?
|
Baskey
Member
Registered: 31st May 06
User status: Offline
|
^^^ turbo i thought
|
Cupra Steve
Banned
Registered: 7th Nov 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Baskey
^^^ turbo i thought
yep.
|
Tom
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: Wirral, Merseyside
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ojc
quote:
Originally posted by Cupra Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Ojc
1.6 XSi was much quicker than the 1.4 XSi
fuck off!!
They are though?
They really aren't much quicker.
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
engine - type 4G92
type: transverse in-line 4
bore x stroke: 81.0 x 77.5
capacity: 1597cc
valve train: dohc 16v with MIVEC
compression ratio: 11.0:1
fuel system: (Mitsubishi) multi-point fuel injection
power: 175ps at 7500rpm
torque: 17.0kgm at 7000rpm
didnt think they were FI
|
