Turbo systems for X1/9's

[Dr.Jeff]

If you google "dry sump oil pumps" you'll get a lot of info.

Mike, I completely misunderstood what you were referring to. I was discussing direct replacement stock type oil pumps that might have a higher volume - like from a later model Fiat for example. So when you said there are many to choose from, I thought that's what you were referring to, not a dry sump system. I'm not looking for a dry sump system, but that certainly would offer a lot more choices.

 

[lookforjoe]

I do recommend a bigger muffler. I will look for something to reduce the noise at least when going far. On race track and short trips it will be ok but I'm sure I am very close to the 95 dB restriction we have here.

I was more surprised that ppl have said they didn't need a muffler with the turbo. I think exception would be one of those tuned heimholtz (sp?) pipes. I have never owned a turbo (Volvo) that wasn't unbearable without a good exhaust. I have tried many combinations (mufflers & resonators) over the years, and most are uncomfortably loud for street use. I have switched to exhaust cutouts now, controlled by boost. That way, it's street friendly unless I romp on it.

This is my C30 with open pipe

I got rid of the electric cutout & use a WG - that way there are no electrics to fail (which is commonplace).

 

[Dr.Jeff]

I was more surprised that ppl have said they didn't need a muffler with the turbo.

I have heard (in person) some turboed vehicles without any muffler that were not loud. Especially at idle, and really not too loud under full acceleration. I think it might depend on the application. For example a smaller engine with a smaller turbo with a lower boost will have a lot less exhaust energy emitting from it than a big engine with lots of boost. Since heat energy is what makes the sound then it would make a big difference. That would also explain the difference between the nose level at idle vs full load. Speaking of which, I'll never forget the first time I attended a MotoGP event and was standing on the side of the starting grid. When the bikes were idling they were very quiet. But when the green light went on and they all hit wide open throttle at once, my god the explosion scared the crap out of me (almost literally).

 

[Bjorn Nilson]

Had the X on dyno today. Mapping done and the result as expected

I am very happy with the result 205 whp and 267 Nm torque. I guess that means 225-230 hp on engine. Unfortunately the weather is wet and with R-tyres the car becomes very dangerous so I can not tell about perfomance yet.

 

[Dr.Jeff]

Nice Torque curve @Bjorn Nilson. Builds immediately from idle and keeps climbing to 5000. Doesn't appear there will be any lag. That's what I'd like to see, even if mine will be a lesser total (lower boost, more conservative setup).

My personal view is those numbers are about the maximum you'd want for a street/road X1/9. I think much higher than that and it could get sketchy.

 

[MikeHynes]

By any chance did you weigh your car before/after the Uno Turbo install? I would assume that the turbo and it's equipment would add some weight, it would be interesting to compare that with the added weight of a K20 install.

 

[Bjorn Nilson]

By any chance did you weigh your car before/after the Uno Turbo install? I would assume that the turbo and it's equipment would add some weight, it would be interesting to compare that with the added weight of a K20 install.

No I didn't weigh it before the UT swap. The engines are more or less identical in size and weight. Could be a few kilos extra for turbo and intercooler. I have a water to air IC so also maybe another 4-5 kilos extra weight for cooling media and heat exchanger as well.
I assume the much bigger K20 is heavier than the tiny 1.3 l UT and X1/9 1.5 l engines?

 

[Dr.Jeff]

I have a UT exhaust manifold, turbo, and related components sitting in a box I can weigh. The manifold may actually be lighter than the X's stock exhaust manifold - it is smaller. All of the intake stuff is identical, as are the accessories, etc. With the UT being a 1300 vs the FI X being 1500 it may actually come out the same total weight.

 

[Bjorn Nilson]

This is my C30 with open pipe

I absolutely agree. A muffler is needed, at least w/o a Cat. In a strange way I think my car is not as loud after mapping. Could be that the idle finally is working as it should (it was really tricky to have the PWM valve working). Or maybe my hearing suffers after having the car roaring and screaming for 5 hours on the dyno.
Your C30 sounds great but it is impossible to hear how loud it is when listening on a video file even with decent speakers.
I also had a C30 T5 R a couple of years ago. I miss it very much and I regret I sold it. It will definitely become a classic, they are rare even here in Volvo country.

 

[MikeHynes]

Unless you want to win drag races with your X, you probably don't want to ADD weight to the rear of the car. Add weight and here's a good chance you'll find out what oversteer is like. The rear of the car goes through the turn first.
If installing an Uno turbo engine in your X results in 200 + HP, and the same, or less weight in the rear (probably not less), then that's a recipe for a fun X!
Why, oh why didn't Fiat do it?!

 

[Dr.Jeff]

If installing an Uno turbo engine in your X results in 200 + HP, and the same, or less weight in the rear (probably not less), then that's a recipe for a fun X!
Why, oh why didn't Fiat do it?!

So true. This is why I'm experimenting with adding the small turbo to the stock X engine. Something of a compromise, to build a engine similar to the UT but without having to source one here.

 

[rachaeljf]

Jeff, the 3rd generation 1.4/1.6 engines appeared in the code 159.A2 and 159.A3 Tipo and 146.A8 Uno Turbo Mk2 models and introduced the 67.4 mm crank and "open deck" block. These engines still have the three threaded holes in the end of the block for the snail mount but the block end cover plate is no longer used, there is just a core plug.

The 4th generation twin cam 16 valve engine came in with the Bravo/Brava and Marea models. They are recognisable by the harp shaped inlet manifold on top of the engine. The 182.A4 engine code (1995-2002) is 86.4 bore x 67.4 stroke to give 1581 cc as per the 3rd generation 1.6. The 182.B6 code (2002-2005) is 80.5 bore x 78.4 stroke to give 1596 cc, used in the Stilo and later Mareas. I believe some 182.A4 engines do exist in the US. These engines oddly retain one of the threaded holes (the bottom left one) that would fit a snail mount, but the other holes would have to be drilled and tapped, or a different mount made up to fit the engine in an X1/9. As the 16V blocks are derived from the original sohc (but 16V heads do NOT fit the sohc block!), the X1/9 gearbox, coolant pump and ancillaries will bolt on. A dogbone mount also needs to be made up or some other arrangement made to hold the power unit correctly.

 

[Bjorn Nilson]

If installing an Uno turbo engine in your X results in 200 + HP, and the same, or less weight in the rear (probably not less), then that's a recipe for a fun X!
Why, oh why didn't Fiat do it?!

I think Fiat (or actually Bertone at the time) didn't do it because a lot of redesign would have been necessary. The UT engine itself is bolt on in X, but turbo, IC, oil cooler etc doesn't really fit. The time was running out for X anyway in the late eighties, and instead Hot Hatches based on "standard cars" (like UT) became popular. IMO the whole car industry became boring in a way, as many car manufacturers stopped producing their sport cars in favor of standard family cars with high performance engines.
But 240 hp from an UT in a X is fun I can promise. But if you think the UT engine is bolt on, think again. A lot of tweaks is necessary to get serious power and reliability from it.

 

[Rupunzell]

Fiat Management despised the X1/9 in every way. Fiat management did not want to build the x1/9 from the very beginning, they wanted a front wheel drive two seater to replace the 850, not a mini Lambo Miura. Eventually they got this in the fiat barchetta.

As for power upgrades... Know Bertone took over the x1/9 early 1980's as Fiat lost interest mid-1970's as the production numbers were way too small. Fiat management wanted the x1/9 gone and not have anything to do with it then. Bertone was forced to purchase a pile of 1500cc/5sp power trains from Fiat, Fiat did not care if Bertone put them into cars or rolled them into the ocean. This is one of the prime reasons why the x1/9 never got a third power train upgrade beyond Fiat never wanting to have anything to do with the x1/9.

Could this have been done, absolutely. There was zero support from Fiat, the pile of 1500cc/5sp power trains sitting at Bertone that needed to be used and a long list of related reasons why. Point being, every possible negative was stacked against the x1/9 to be developed into what it could have been.... as noted in the Gandini interview on YouTube.

Bernice

Why, oh why didn't Fiat do it?!

 

[Dr.Jeff]

Jeff, the 3rd generation 1.4/1.6 engines appeared in the code 159.A2 and 159.A3 Tipo and 146.A8 Uno Turbo Mk2 models and introduced the 67.4 mm crank and "open deck" block. These engines still have the three threaded holes in the end of the block for the snail mount but the block end cover plate is no longer used, there is just a core plug.

The 4th generation twin cam 16 valve engine came in with the Bravo/Brava and Marea models. They are recognisable by the harp shaped inlet manifold on top of the engine. The 182.A4 engine code (1995-2002) is 86.4 bore x 67.4 stroke to give 1581 cc as per the 3rd generation 1.6. The 182.B6 code (2002-2005) is 80.5 bore x 78.4 stroke to give 1596 cc, used in the Stilo and later Mareas. I believe some 182.A4 engines do exist in the US. These engines oddly retain one of the threaded holes (the bottom left one) that would fit a snail mount, but the other holes would have to be drilled and tapped, or a different mount made up to fit the engine in an X1/9. As the 16V blocks are derived from the original sohc (but 16V heads do NOT fit the sohc block!), the X1/9 gearbox, coolant pump and ancillaries will bolt on. A dogbone mount also needs to be made up or some other arrangement made to hold the power unit correctly.

Thanks Rachael. I like the idea of changing the cog pulleys to alter the drive ratio for the aux shaft (distributor is already replaced with ECU controlled ignition). The difficult part for me will be sourcing the pulleys. I don't suppose you have any access to part numbers for them? That usually provides the best searching results, but without those models existing here it is hard to even find part number references.

By the way another thought occured to me. Earlier you mentioned these all use a different pattern of tooth belt, which means the cam pulley must also be changed. With the second option (4th gen twin cam), is the cam pulley for a twin cam engine the same size/fit as our SOHC?
Thanks again

 

[Bjorn Nilson]

I had the car on a track yesterday to see if the UT build is holding up on high load. I went to Scandinavian Raceway 70 km/43 mi from home. This track is one the fastest in Sweden with a history from F1 racing during the seventies. It is also used as an airport. IMHO this track fits best for big GT cars with a lot of hp.

As expected my car was the only classic and it looked tiny together with all BMW M3, Porsche GT3, AMG, Corvettes etc. I got lots of comments how fun it is to watch a such little fast car. Unfortunately it was a little bit wet so I didn't dare to go for full power (1.6 Bar/205 whp). I started with 0.9 Bar/165 whp and later when a little bit dryer I had 1.2 Bar/192 whp. The car is amazingly quick, even the M3's had hard to catch up on the long straight. The track is really scary at the end of the straight. As you see on the picture, the road is narrowing and bending a little bit, and it feels like driving in to a funnel breaking from top speed (127 mph@7k rpm) down to 40-45 mph. I was definitely not the fastest car around the track but neither the slowest. The modern cars had ABS, Antispinn and other cheats that probably helped in this slippery condition. The suspension, tyres and engine is new to me so it requires some adjustment and time to get used to. And my driving skills can definitely be improved as well.
My learnings:
The car handling is very good, but his car does it best on twisty tracks, slalom and hill climb. Not on fast F1 tracks.

My oil cooler and engine room cooling setup works fine.
Cooling/radiator is not enough for this kind of power when running harder. We ran in 30 mins passes in cloudy weather at rather low temperature (16C/60F). Engine/water temp was climbing at the end of the passes. I even had to slow down a couple of laps sometimes to avoid overheating. I moved the radiator 30mm back to make room for the IC heat exchanger in front of it. I also have the single stock fan only. Obviously there is a problem with air flow that need to be fixed and possibly also having an aluminum radiator.

The stock breaks works reasonably good but my pads are completely finished after this day. I thought "Yellow stuff" are good stuff. -The are not. Suggestions for brake pads that will handle this kind of abuse would be appreciated.

My biggest concern was that the gearbox would break, but strangely it is still working.
Finally I learned not to forget charging the GoPro cam

 

[MikeHynes]

For brake pads I use Portefield R4s. They seem to work OK, and will last at least 4 or 5 race weekends.

 

[myronx19]

Mapping done and the result as expected

Holy crap that's awesome! I take it it's not the stock X1/9 transmission or Mk1 engine management.

I have an UnoT engine/ECU "kit" which is finally getting closer to being put into my car. I have a PWR water to air intercooler - but I'll keep the ECU stock, and not turn up the boost until the engine is broken in (full rebuild, including the IHI turbo). Final drive is a 3.59:1

 

[Bjorn Nilson]

I take it it's not the stock X1/9 transmission or Mk1 engine management.
- but I'll keep the ECU stock, and not turn up the boost until the engine is broken in (full rebuild, including the IHI turbo). Final drive is a 3.59:1

Mine had new rings, bearings and valves otherwise stock internals. It has standard X1/9 5 speed transmission and it past the first test at least, but I doubt it will hold up in the long run.
My management system is MaxxECU from Sweden.
If going for more than 140-150 hp you cannot use stock ECU. You also need to upgrade injectors and turbo at a minimum.

 

[Dr.Jeff]

The car handling is very good, but his car does it best on twisty tracks, slalom and hill climb. Not on fast F1 tracks.

That is understandable. At a facility out here they have a couple of courses, including a smaller/shorter/slower one and a larger/longer/faster one, and there is a big difference which cars perform best at each track. I'll bet those other cars would not be able to catch you on a course more suited to smaller cars.

Your feedback about the turbo system at high load is excellent. I suspect part of the cooling issue during longer runs might be because some of the excess heat coming off the heat-exchanger in front of the radiator. The thermal levels from the turbo would certainly go up, and all of that heat has to be removed by the exchanger, so it will increase the cooling system radiator temp in the process. Pushing it up over its limits to remove enough heat from the coolant. There are ways to lower the total temp, like spraying water or nitrous over the heat exchanger/radiator. But I'm not a huge fan of that approach. I'd prefer to increase the heat removal abilities of the radiator (and/or heat exchanger) by increasing their capacity and air flow.

I have to say I'm impressed at your success with the stock trans and brakes under these conditions.

Overall sounds like a really fun day, thanks for sharing it.