Tuning 306 XRDT

shane.white

unread,

Sep 1, 2001, 7:10:04 AM9/1/01

to

Does anyone know of any places in the Herts / Beds area which can check /
tune a 306 turbo diesel?

TIA,

Shane.

Tim Blank

unread,

Sep 1, 2001, 7:30:39 AM9/1/01

to

I would also be intrested to know.

Thanks

Tim
"shane.white" <shane...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Nl3k7.20911$%P3.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...

G.T

unread,

Sep 3, 2001, 4:08:15 PM9/3/01

to

Don't tune ! Let your car like it wasn it's the better way to avoid
problems. I know a guy which often posts here which is a specialist of what
he calls the "detuning"...
I knew loads of tuned cars, and when it's getting old (sometimes less than
100 000km) they have a worn cassis, gearbox, and so on... I even know a
Fiesta 1.8D with wide 14" alloys (185/65 tyres), Green induction kit &
Sebring exhaust... Eats 7 to 8l/100km, and it doesn't work better than my
(full original) '93 205 dsl.

Really, let it as original.

Regards,
G.T
g....@worldonline.fr
mi...@ironmaiden.com
205 Diesel & Turbo - Diesel : http://perso.worldonline.fr/205d

Tim Draper

unread,

Sep 4, 2001, 8:30:26 AM9/4/01

to

so what? your saying the manufactures are running their engines right on
there limit?

B*LLOX!

that fiesta with alloys, 'zorst and air filter, and drinks fuel (i presume
7-8l per 100km your talking bout fuel) is shagged. something is obviously
wrong mechanically.

"G.T" <g....@worldonline.fr> wrote in message
news:PqRk7.202$fM4.3...@nnrp3.proxad.net...

G.T

unread,

Sep 5, 2001, 4:08:32 PM9/5/01

to

Hi,

> B*LLOX!
Not really. Pushing hard a car over its "factory limit" (say running a 205
GTi @ 160HP instead of the original 130) is "dangerous" for the engine life.
OK ?

> that fiesta with alloys, 'zorst and air filter, and drinks fuel (i presume
> 7-8l per 100km your talking bout fuel) is shagged. something

Of course it's shagged. Perhaps the accessories (I prefer calling them like
that) have made its life shorter. Use one of the good softwares avalaible on
the web to make an effort simulation, you'll see I'm right.

Julian Stafford

unread,

Sep 6, 2001, 6:39:10 AM9/6/01

to

G.T wrote in message <4Dvl7.1094$4d.25...@nnrp3.proxad.net>...

>Hi,
>
>> B*LLOX!
>Not really. Pushing hard a car over its "factory limit" (say running a 205
>GTi @ 160HP instead of the original 130) is "dangerous" for the engine
life.
>OK ?

Codswallop, since you like using examples to make a point, I will do the
same:

Audi Coupe 2.3L 130BHP
Audi quattro turbo 2.3L (same basic engine) 200BHP and reliable

Rolls Royce CV12 Diesel 26.1L 397KW at 1800RPM BMEP10.15bar (industrial
use)
Rolls Royce CV12 Diesel 26.1L 900KW at 2300RPM BMEP18bar (general use) and
reliable

PSA XUD9 70 BHP
PSA XUDT9 92BHP and reliable

Like was said before there are numerous very good reasons why engines
produce x amount of horsepower, marketing being one. I think the above
examples show that a higher power need not make an engine life 'dangerous' I
also note that your example uses an engine that leaves the factory in quite
a high state of tune initially, the engine we are discussing does not, quite
the reverse in fact.

Regards Julian.

Simon DS

unread,

Sep 8, 2001, 5:20:13 AM9/8/01

to

In those examples maybe the internal componets are higher spec to enable
higher BHP?

"Julian Stafford" <julian....@nospam.virgin.net> wrote in message
news:0jIl7.8742$592.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

Tim Draper

unread,

Sep 8, 2001, 10:46:55 AM9/8/01

to

and not only that G.T, you were talking bout Air filters, and MINOR mods-and
i was replying to that.

i do agree with you to some extent, modding an engine beyond a sensible
limit will wear the engine quicker.but most newer cars can take a few ten's
of bhp more than the factory.

"Julian Stafford" <julian....@nospam.virgin.net> wrote in message
news:0jIl7.8742$592.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>

G.T

unread,

Sep 7, 2001, 5:03:48 PM9/7/01

to

Hello,

> Audi Coupe 2.3L 130BHP
> Audi quattro turbo 2.3L (same basic engine) 200BHP and reliable

Yes. But it is a "factory enhancement" (sorry but my english quickly shows
its limits). I was talking about a "DIY enhancement", with no special
engineering before it.

> Rolls Royce CV12 Diesel 26.1L 900KW at 2300RPM BMEP18bar (general use)
and
> reliable

Marine engine ? Or for use in a Diesel power plant ?

Man Dxxxx (can't remember it) V10 18L twin turbo, 600 HP @ 1800RPM. The same
(marine version) was able of 760 or 820HP. Note you'll find the first one on
Man 19.603 models.

> PSA XUD9 70 BHP
Where have you seen this engine ? I believed it was only 65HP DIN.

> PSA XUDT9 92BHP and reliable

XUD9TE, so with an intercooler. An intercooler-less version also was
available (83HP if I remember correctly).

> also note that your example uses an engine that leaves the factory in
quite
> a high state of tune initially, the engine we are discussing does not,
quite
> the reverse in fact.

True. I perflectly agree with you, it was a bad example.

Détuning-man ou Alexandre ;o)

unread,

Sep 13, 2001, 12:02:43 PM9/13/01

to

Hello !

> > PSA XUD9 70 BHP
> Where have you seen this engine ? I believed it was only 65HP DIN.
>

71 HP on 405 et 306, 65 on 205/309 and other...

> > PSA XUDT9 92BHP and reliable
> XUD9TE, so with an intercooler. An intercooler-less version also was
> available (83HP if I remember correctly).

90 HP

@ bientôt,

Alexandre

Julian Stafford

unread,

Sep 14, 2001, 6:28:02 AM9/14/01

to

Détuning-man ou Alexandre ;o) wrote in message <9nqnfm$oua$1...@wanadoo.fr>...

>Hello !
>
>> > PSA XUD9 70 BHP
>> Where have you seen this engine ? I believed it was only 65HP DIN.

306 LD 70 BHP/4600RPM 89lb/ft 2000 RPM.

Regards Julian.

shane.white

unread,

Sep 14, 2001, 8:30:04 AM9/14/01

to

What is the lb/ft figure for the 92bhp 1.9 306 turbodiesel then??!

Shane.

"Julian Stafford" <julian....@nospam.virgin.net> wrote in message

news:BTko7.7457$mj6.7...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...

AteYerCheese

unread,

Sep 14, 2001, 7:06:43 PM9/14/01

to

"shane.white" <shane...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:PKmo7.3283$QV4....@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...

> What is the lb/ft figure for the 92bhp 1.9 306 turbodiesel then??!

It's around 150lb/ft I believe at somewhere around 2500rpm maybe give or
take a few hundred.

Julian Stafford

unread,

Sep 15, 2001, 4:17:06 AM9/15/01

to

shane.white wrote in message ...

>What is the lb/ft figure for the 92bhp 1.9 306 turbodiesel then??!

144 Lbs Ft @ 2250 RPM, which is more than the 2L petrol makes at 4000.

I think mine is maybe about 160-170 Lbs now (butt dyno)

Regards Julian.

shane.white

unread,

Sep 15, 2001, 8:00:12 AM9/15/01

to

What have you done to yours then??

Shane
306XRdt 93L

"Julian Stafford" <julian....@nospam.virgin.net> wrote in message

news:23Eo7.12946$Pm5.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

Julian Stafford

unread,

Sep 15, 2001, 8:30:20 AM9/15/01

to

shane.white wrote in message ...

>What have you done to yours then??
>
>Shane
>306XRdt 93L

More boost (18.5 PSI) and more fuel of course. Bigger I/C to follow maybe.

Julian

shane.white

unread,

Sep 15, 2001, 12:04:50 PM9/15/01

to

Did you get that done at a garage, or did you adjust it yourself?

How much quicker does it feel compared to how it was previously, or is the
difference minor?

Cheers,

Shane.

"Julian Stafford" <julian....@nospam.virgin.net> wrote in message

news:BLHo7.13739$Pm5.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

Julian Stafford

unread,

Sep 15, 2001, 1:22:28 PM9/15/01

to

shane.white wrote in message
<4_Ko7.6359$QV4.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...

>Did you get that done at a garage, or did you adjust it yourself?
>
>How much quicker does it feel compared to how it was previously, or is the
>difference minor?
>

DIY, Allard do a useful booklet for guidance.

Car now much quicker, 60 in about 10secs guessing about 110 BHP

Julian