Used to work in the insurance biz, before getting into IT (thank God). The manufacturers always understate the horsepower for insurance and marketing reasons. Insurance companies like limited HP and owners love getting something they did not expect...
Don't totally agree with that. Some might (fully believe Peugeot did, as they underquoted performance figures too) but some cars don't hit the numbers they're supposed to. Alfa Romeos and TVRs are two of the worst I've run on here for not hitting the numbers, and some Fords are pretty bad for it.
@@maxeluy I had a ‘Dumpit’ in Kingfisher blue as my first car. I regretted selling it in 2010 and still regret it now. Some gimp wrote it off a year later. I’d love to have another one!
Something about the old TU and XUD being such good units. We all just thought the cars were light so they were quick but this proves they were over performing.
I am thankful for Hubnut for bringing me to UPnDown RU-vid Channel. Peugeot, Renault and Citroen have all departed Canada in the 1980's, I really appreciate the fact that Kitch is keeping Peugeots and Citroens alive.
When I was young and stupid I didn’t like the S2 Rallye because I had an S1 Rallye and I thought the S2 was a bit lame in comparison. Now I think the S2 is utterly, utterly fabulous and feel ashamed that I was a silly immature moron. 🤷♂️
Love these Dyno runs. Very impressed with these French engines. Back in 1996 i purchased a Golf 8V GTI, but just before, I drove a 1.6 205 GTI. The 205 just felt so much faster.
And this is the dyno that you thought had no further use... Glad to see it in regular usage, the videos are strangely compelling! Very clean exhaust this time, that's good to see.
From a business POV it has no real use here, but from a RU-vid POV it's strangely brilliant! Vids are quicker and easier to edit, too. I could handle a lot more than I'm currently doing.
One particular thing I remember from my 2001 Saxo 1.1 Asics, other than it going like mad, is that the starter motor was..........very eager as to always say: "Yay! Where are we going?, where are we going? C'mon mate, time to rev my tits off. like some jumpy spaniël. And the fact shifting gears was like stirring petrol(I believe a common issue)
They dont lose any at all, in fact they gain. Its also been the case since the 1980s at least that cars dont "wear out" with normal driving in the way most people consider the meaning, in ways that could make them lose power. So if you have heard otherwise later than 1980s, you have been taken for a ride. Probably just outdated knowledge that lives on, like with many other things. Some car magazines have done 125k mile dynotesting on lots of different cars since back then and all have shown same or better power than new.
I agree with the comment that some manufacturers understate their figures. A friend who was in the tuning industry for rallying said a lot of the Homologation cars under performed but it was very simple to make them over perform. Likewise many press cars were tweaked , Lotus for instance had better cams and the rev limiter"adjusted " , this did result in a few tired press cars after a while , but they were certainly impressive , a friend had an old Elan that went like the clappers but smoked, when it was finally overhauled did we find a big valve head and L1 ? cams. we were told it was an old development car that had been loaned out to the press.. Motor bikes were much the same , with a friend going to the bike show and saying to a man on the manufacturers stand that his bike did not go as expected , the man wrote down a part number and told him to order it off a dealer and it would eliminate " the flat spot "!! the resultant warp drive scared the hell out of me. So I'm pretty sure cars are tuned for which ever entity is going to set a standard......
I overlaid them to show the owner on the day. The 16v just has more of everything, though the curve is steeper once the revs build. The 8v is more linear.
These Dyno runs are such fun to watch, makes me very curious how my the 206cc 1.6 16V i bought my parents would perform since it has a good punch to it up to about 6Ks..but then again theres a "Dyno" Right outside the house, but i would love a 106, dad had a blue low spec model (likely dumpit spec) when was young to move on from a Zafira/dodgy corsa b, i was a very happy passenger across speedbumps and tight roads! Though if one had money a 306 GTi6 would be nice..
I had a 1996 106 GTi back before I had the skills and confidence to push a car in anyway, but I do remember it being a hellova machine. There is currently a phase 2 Rallye like this one parked next to my cars which belongs to a neighbor, but I don't know where he lives and I don't feel like dropping a note on it to ask if it has a price on it. Oh how I miss that 106 GTi.
In theory there's no difference at all. The highest placed Saxo/106 on the leaderboard is a VTS-powered Saxo VTR with 128bhp. I've had another VTS on there before but for the life of me I can't find the graph.
@@UPnDOWN thats sad to hear. Although the State off healh might make a small impact & the vts & gti's having a slightly different gear ratios from what ik. A modified example would also have been intresting (not big mods like cams etc, just exhaust & intake to free it up a bit to see what difference it would make) although someone might already have done so without me knowing. Would be potensial for sone decent context. Next up in line i guess would be a 1L mk1 106 or a 1.4L 106 either mk2 or mk1 xsi
If you want Dumpit in a fat suit to give it a go, I'd be happy to trot my 306 XSI down for a crack! Would love to know how accurate the 135hp figure is
That would be interesting. I've never dyno'd anything with the RS engine in. My old C4 VTS 180 actually made 173bhp (once I'd finished playing with it - started off at 165!) Closest I've done is the 1.9 16v in the BX - lots of them. Always between 152-160bhp (book figure is 160). Nothing's over performed like the 106 has, but then they're not TU engines...
@@UPnDOWN Have you ever dyno'd anything with the TUD3 / TUD5 diesel engines? Not exactly a ball of fire, but would be interesting to see if the book figures were lower than they should be for them.
I have a 306 rallye but never had it on a dyno. It feels good to me for the 167bhp but you never know! Most I've seen back in the day did make standard or slightly over power. Sounds like you were unlucky!
@@timgass5426 I think mine was cursed! HG blew the day I bought it and again about a year later. Peugeot main dealer who did it the first time set the timing wrong, gave it back to me sounding like a sewing machine with what felt like about 60hp.. Had a Lynx Rotrex supercharger conversion fitted, 260-270 hp, was v.fast but it blew up after 6 months as the garage who fitted it (who had a good reputation on the forums) cut corners/bodged stuff. I won't name Carl Grimsley from C.G cars in Leicester LE3 2FN as that wouldn't be fair. Glad to hear you've got a good one, they're lovely cars with a timeless design.
Moreover, that last run was made with the lights on: the extra load on the electrical system would have been robbing power at the wheels. (I know, about 150 Watt max, but it's all about engagement. That, and the chance to begin a RU-vid comment with the word "moreover".)
@@carcontrolcommitment Well, there you go, the way the numbers get rounded on this wall of champions means that that could make the difference of one horsepower. Which could mean a place, in the tightly packed mid-field.
Iv got a totally standard Peugeot 405 SRi that iv had from new that I'd love to see on your rolling road as iv always harboured a thought that it was more powerful than its original figures suggest???
Fun! If you ever get the chance, do a run with an 1980's Audi 5cyl , they systematically UNDERperform. (2.3L: 134hp claimed and it hardly ever gets more then 125hp)
@@UPnDOWN I have a Passat GL5 with the JS 2.0 5 pot, with K-jet you could try, it's closer to Linwood than your rollers though... Of all the 5 cylinder cars I've driven, the JS was my favourite. Would love to know how it looks on the dyno. The 7a engine is another I'd like to see. They were a bit of an oddball, with 20v head, naturally aspirated, it was really closest to a 5 cylinder version of the Mk.2 Golf GTI 16v KV engine. Early ones had a fantastic fabricated 5 to one equal length manifold which was substituted for a boring cast job on later cars, yet the book power figures stayed the same...
@@mmllmmll22 You're quite right, I did mean KR. The KV was the 2.2l NA 5 cylinder concurrent to the JS mentioned above. Had all of them at different times, sign of the times I can't get the engine codes right!
I had the Saxo 1.6 Sport (VTR in some countries) with that 8V TU engine. It was really fun and really torque - it was just pulling and pulling. There were a shitload of tuning kits especially for the 8V.
Was present at a rolling road session years ago with the car and car conversions pug 306 Rallye and it to delivered a lot more than the book figure as well and also they took it and the magazines ep3 type r civic to the nurbugring and the Peugeot crushed the civic quite conclusively.who would have thunk it eh.
My Mitsubishi Lancer is supposed to have 98BHP, be lucky if it’s got 80😂. Still drives nice for an auto (now disabled 😢), can’t complain too much as I’ve kept it for 4yrs now😊
Very tempted to put one of these power plants in my Citroen C3…..currently it’s that asthmatic that it’s called “Pleurisy” rather than “Pluriel”……. 😂😂😂
Oh please please dyno my S2 106! 1.6 8v NFT silver top, Ported Flowed cylinder head, billet flywheel, 421 manifold, remapped ÉCU and quite a bit more! Revs to 7500 :) I am in West Sussex lmk! I also have a 1.0 MK1 SPI with a 4 speed box too :)
@@GoldenCroc more like it stood still for 12 years in a shed before being recommissioned. maybe its 100hp but still. dont actually know until i dyno it.
My first car.. 106 gen2 (facelift) i think you called it but with the tower of power that was the 1.5 Diesel... could you find one of those and test lol
Would be really interesting to see how the S1 rallye does. Surposubly simular power but a smaller 1.3. A mate had one and it was totally immature riot of a car. No low end what so ever - all it did below 4k was egg you on into pushing it a bit more and before you know it your at 7k again, woops. Only shopping car I’ve ever driven that never managed 30 mpg but it was an enjoyable way to burn fuel. Guess the S2 offers the same thrill but doesnt have to be driven that way if your not in the mood - better car but less character?
Very intriguing I have an AX Sport TU24 1.3 the same as 205 Rallye and it sure feels like more than 95hp/103hp announced (the 205 Rallye had slightly longer intake ence the 8hp more suposely) I can tell you that much! I would love to see what it actually makes. Hopefully like 105/110 heheheh
I do love a rallye. 106s in general really, I was on the owners club years ago. I had an indy for 7.5 years. I do have a suspicion my twingo GT is making more than it's book figure. 1149cc single cam turbo, it's suppose to have 100bhp, but it feels quicker.
@@UPnDOWN I don't any Renault engines are wet belt. I think they are a mix of normal cam belt and chain. (That is one of the main reasons that makes me stick more to Renaults on the newer stuff). The later 1.2 that was in the clio / qashqai / pulsar / duster had an oil burning problem. But the older 1.2 tce was a good little engine. (In the twingo 2, clio 3, modus etc). It's the old the 1149cc D4F that was in the mk1 twingo, clio mk 1,2,3,4 etc. It's an old cast iron single cam engine from the 90's. They just slapped a turbo on it in the 00's. Renault have made things confusing that they have two completely different engines with the same name.
So, I’m more of a Renault man than the PSA side of French goodies. What happened with the 1.1 C2s? I had one, I knew someone else that also had one, and they were utterly gutless with the 1.1 engine. Was it purely down to weight of the car over the Saxo/106? Or did they add any electrical gubbins that slowed it down? I really liked the C2, it was ahead of its time especially on the interior. But my lord it was slow.
Love me a TU, back in the day there was a rumour that the performance figures psa printed were from fully laden vehicles, and that the actual performance was much better, that might be how they hid the higher power figures?
I've heard quite a few rumours, but never known anything concrete. Peugeot and Citroen have different figures for the 106/Saxo, so that suggests something's off straight away as they should be pretty much the same.
Could these anomalies be related to gearing? Not a dyno expert but read that some people run in 3rd gear as this creates a higher and false reading to show off to their friends. If TU engined Peugeots have lower overall gearbox/final drive gearing then 4th gear might not be totally representative. Conversely, perhaps Bella Berlingo needed to be run in 3rd gear as being a diesel it has lower gearing (actually I doubt that as Bella is probably too far gone!).
Again, if it were the case it would apply to all cars. Had a Honda Beat on there a while back, with a 9000rpm rev limit - that had shorter gearing still, yet didn't overperform. All gears are geared down from a wheel output POV because of the final drive. 4th is normally the closest 1:1 on most cars - not all, but most - but it's still not a 1:1 output because of the FD ratio of the diff. I don't know how the dyno accounts for this, but it certainly seems to!
Could it be (you may have mentioned it beforehand) that the TU engine(s) need to loosen up a bit before they really give their best? I've (still) got a bike (a Honda VFR750) whose engine is like that: it had ~60,000km on it before it was really delivering.
i hope you are not comparing the mk1 rally with the mk2 mk1 100bhp 1.3 1993 to 97 mk2 103bhp 1.6 replaces the former 1998 with your dyno check they just seem to get better with age unless that engine has been tweaked
Combination of things: Lower friction and/or the possibility that the engines were underquoted when new for insurance/taxation reasons. Still possible for an engine to 'wear out', so once it gets to that stage the numbers start tumbling. I've had 250,000 mile engines on here that weren't worn out, though, so that figure really depends on the engine. A Rover V8 with 250k miles would have a completely ruined camshaft, for example.
I wonder if these make the same power as a 205 GTI? From memory, those claimed 115bhp without a catalyst & 105 with. It also makes me wonder if adding a catalytic converter to a TU engine actually has any effect?
@@ferrumignis Thanks for the correction. For some reason I'd got this mixed up with the 106 XSi 1.6, also rated at 105 horsepower. Makes me wonder why the TU5 was never used in the 205?
You may be right about the dino, but in order to own a Peugeot you will need a personal exorcist! Those cars have been notorious for being absolute disasters that fall apart with minor gushes of wind. Maybe not those made in the 90's, but those made in the 90's are reaching 30 years of age now, and they were engineered to last 5 years? 7? So, anyone here thinking "Oh, I will just buy one of these for fun" - Mate, no! It's not going to be fun, it will be a world of tears. Unless you buy it according to its weight, because that's how you buy scrap metal.
Unreliable… well I guess… I bought mine 2 years ago with 110k km, and now it has 173k km with only one problem which was my fault. I knocked off shifter linkage 😂. And one H4 bulb.
@@AJVAN_ PSA engines from this era tended to be very reliable. The electrics and interior trim quality not so much. I had an AX GTi which was hugely fun to drive, but it felt like I was regularly replacing/repairing bits of interior trim that would randomly fall off.
Well, I have to say my Toyota Yaris is a veritable PoS... bought for £1000 in December, have spent nearly £2000 since and last week the heater matrix ejected coolant into the footwell.
