306oc - Peugeot 306 Owners Club & Forum

Not 100% on doing this yet or go for a v6 but want to no if irs a plug and play or splicing looms? And about the engine mounts they the same or need a few bits welding to the chassis?

ask Dumdum...
he is doing it!

Oh is he? Nice one chap

Darren says the mounts are different, I dont believe him.

You cant plug the 2.2s loom into a 306 loom but most of the sensors are the same as the 306 ones.

alot depends on which 2.2 you go for, 8v or one of the many 16vs. That said if you have your heart set on a HDi darren and ruan like to bang on about how the 2.0 16v is better

I'm not gonna post exactly what I think as I don't yet know. hopefully my 2.2 will be in in a month or 2 so ill be able to tell you then.

Engine size doesn't have a direct correlation with power, there's a reason why so few people have done a 2.2 conversion

Is Andy with the Dimma still about? That was a 2.2 16v wasn't it?

(11-09-2013, 12:03 PM)Scott Wrote: [ -> ]Engine size doesn't have a direct correlation with power, there's a reason why so few people have done a 2.2 conversion

it does

If you want to be pedantic, I mean there's more to getting power than just displacement. Just because you have another 200cc doesn't mean you're going to get more power.

(11-09-2013, 12:06 PM)THE_Liam Wrote: [ -> ]Is Andy with the Dimma still about? That was a 2.2 16v wasn't it?

Someone else has it now

Yes it does Scott, thats why the pd engines make less power than the hdi.

Personally, I think if you're going to all that effort, you'd be best off going for an early 2.0 16v. From the research i've done they seem to be the easiest to convert for the power you get without chronic amounts of emissions nonsense to fight with.

Same reason why there's a 1.6 HDi producing more power than we've ever seen from a 2.0 8v, 2.0 16v or 2.2 16v... Because someone didn't f*ck about with silly hairbrain ideas that will never work and did things properly from day one.

The engine mounts are DEFINITELY different, they're a longer block - that's why the conversion is more hassle.

Everyone knows my opinion on this, from a first glance, the 2.0 8v engine will produce the same power as a 2.2 or a 2.0 16v - you can eventually get more from the 2.0 and 2.2 16v with funkier head porting, but the 8v as a basic design is easier to extract power from since it flows better from the factory - that's all down to emissions... You're better off with the lighter 2.0 engine, no hassle with mounts...

The way I see it - you can buy a 2.0 8v HDi for sub £200, if you spend as much on the 2.0 8v that everyone knows how to map and don't fanny about with shitty hybrid turbos, stick on a DECENT turbo, get some decent manifolds made, sort out the valvetrain issues and stick some hosepipes for injectors in it - 250hp is childs play.

OR you could spend the money putting a 16v in, making everything fit, pissing about with management, probably sticking with the standard turbo etc - you could see 180hp with a remap.

Put it this way 1.9 PDs with a GTB2260vk on with some big injectors are quite easily seeing 300hp - that's a pretty regular figure, yet we're still wanking over 180hp HDis... Do the same with a 2.0 CR TDi and you're talking 320+hp - put one of the 66mm GTB specials on, 350+ isn't unheard of.

1.6 16v hdi , someone needs to do it

^^

Issue with the 1.6 is that it sits upright, it's not VASTLY different weight wise - but would wreck the weight distribution.

(11-09-2013, 02:02 PM)Ruan Wrote: [ -> ]^^

Issue with the 1.6 is that it sits upright, it's not VASTLY different weight wise - but would wreck the weight distribution.

Guessing it's far heavier than a TU?

It's a bit heavier than a 1.6 16v GTi engine - which in turn isn't VASTLY different than a 2.0 8v...

The 1.6 16v GTi is like 125kg - 2.0 8v HDi is 140kg ish, but sat slanted back over the driveline... So I'd rather the 2.0 8v lump as I would suspect the DV6 is worryingly close to that of the 2.0 8v HDi.

At least it does in it's standard installation, all itd take to fix that is mounts, a sump and a suitable oil pick-up...

Many other things to think of than simply just where the engine sits in terms of oil pickup - sort of oil drainage, water flow etc... And also remember that the 1.6 is a "semi" crossflow engine - the CR pump is on the back, half the manifold is behind the engine, exhaust manifold on front - if you slant it it'll shove things upwards that shouldn't be and bits downwards that'll foul... There's no way I'd make one slanted - especially knowing their horrific issues with Turbo oil drains already!

(11-09-2013, 01:56 PM)Ruan Wrote: [ -> ]The engine mounts are DEFINITELY different, they're a longer block - that's why the conversion is more hassle.

I'm not gonna argue till I've proved it but they aren't.

As you know, with the 2.2 not all the animals are equal. I'm sure some have different blocks for different mounting holes. I've done my research and the DW10 top mounting arm DEFINITELY bolts on.

The bottom engine mount takes a shaft with the same length between the center bearing and the box as the 306 one and the center bearing to mount offset appears to be the same.

The stroke of the engine is only 10mm different so I cant see the engine being that much taller (i know the head is bigger and the sump is deeper too). I took many photos of 406s with 2.0s and 2.2s at Pugfest so that I could compare and have a fair guestimate at measurements

(11-09-2013, 02:29 PM)Ruan Wrote: [ -> ]There's no way I'd make one slanted - especially knowing their horrific issues with Turbo oil drains already!

They reckon more than 10-15* off vertical for the oil passage through the turbo and you'll start to ruin it quite quickly

It's the bottom engine mount - it sits lower on the block.

The bottom mount that attaches to the block is what's different per car - the 2.2 uses a longer, taller block and therefore the deck height is taller - therefore the mount on the back of the block needs to be different since the lower mount bracket is different... If it wasn't the entire mount points on EVERY CAR would need to change as there's be a 10mm difference.

Also after seeing the 2.0 16v mount on the top left, I can't believe they changed that entire mount from the 2.2 - and I've seen that it has to change on the 2.0 16v... Which will fit, but would need modifying.

I have tested. I have a top mounting arm off a HDi and a 2.2 engine. THEY BOLT UP.

As for the bottom mount well see. I'm quietly confident.

Meh, haven't poked about inside one yet, so don't know exactly, but it's never going to be much more than that. No worries about stuff not fitting either, its a damn sight smaller than a 2.0, besides why would I make new mounts that would make parts foul?

Half their issues are down to the retarded idea of longlife servicing, my brother has been thrashing one from cold for 60k, but it's been serviced every 10k, and you'll never guess what...

At the end of the day it's like any conversion - stuff needs changing about to suit, goes without saying. Besides, it'd be a bloody boring world if no-one ever tried.

The engine mounts arnt a "problem", its all minor problems you can overcome, altho im suprised your top mount " bolts right up" because both ive seen needed modding, but it all depends what vehicle its from, as they all have different designs / castings.

I just dont personllly see the point in the 2.2 over the 2.0 Its the same head between engines, but the 2.0 is conventional dw10, everything is just the same lines up, no farce with water flanges and stuff. the 2.2 was a fail that got sacked off instantly...

From a tuning point of view, the 2.0 8V dw10 is where its at, the heads are far better...now that im going CR again, im seriously looking at using an 8V motor again, but will likely stick with what I have just to be interesting. But you have to do hours of work to the 16v head just to make it flow like the 8v ehad does stock.

You have to remember the 16v heads are nothing to do with performance from factory, its all to aid emissions..like everything is these days on modern diesels

16v head has the advantage of injectors without stupid plane angles.

Gotta say I don't think the 16v head is as bad as you and Ruan think, need to do some reading and measuring when mine comes apart and work out the c/s area of the inlet tract and the back of the valves. I gotta be honest I think, like the GTi6 manifold, that the entry to the manifold is going to have a smaller c/s than the combined 4 or 8 ports but we'll see.

Also you know the reasons I'm going 2.2, partly to be different, partly for the status of having a 2.2 rather than just another 2.0 and a million other little reasons but mainly because I love the low down grunt of the bigger displacement.




On the intake flow subject Im pretty sure that the 2.2 is a pair of 30mm valves and the 8v is a 36mm both with 6mm stems so the 2.2 16v will flow more at the valves (if a very quick mental estimate is right)

Im not just basing what im telling you on "what I think" for refereance...gas flow tests dont lie

And yes, your very right about plane angles, WHY THE heck out do you think i used a 16v motor to mtdi?!

I dont think Dumdum is doing this for the "I have the most power and flow rates" contest.......and for that, he wins.

but for the OP.....V6 is mega big, heavy and takes a LOT of modding. Not worth it IMO.

Have you ever met Dum-dum? Thats exactly what hes doing it for!

(11-09-2013, 09:40 PM)Piggy Wrote: [ -> ]I dont think Dumdum is doing this for the "I have the most power and flow rates" contest.......and for that, he wins.

but for the OP.....V6 is mega big, heavy and takes a LOT of modding. Not worth it IMO.

The V6 isn't actually that heavy, not really any heavier than the '6 engine, it's just not canted back.

(12-09-2013, 05:45 AM)Poodle Wrote: [ -> ]Have you ever met Dum-dum? Thats exactly what hes doing it for!

no, he doing it to say, 'my engines bigger than your engine'

---

(12-09-2013, 05:57 AM)THE_Liam Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2013, 09:40 PM)Piggy Wrote: [ -> ]I dont think Dumdum is doing this for the "I have the most power and flow rates" contest.......and for that, he wins.

but for the OP.....V6 is mega big, heavy and takes a LOT of modding. Not worth it IMO.

The V6 isn't actually that heavy, not really any heavier than the '6 engine, it's just not canted back.

but the v6 is heavier than the '6 engine...and that is already half the weight of the moon.. dont you notice the tides change when theres a 306 meet?!

Lol good point, right you are.