Peugeot 505 Turbo Injection kit 200 PTS

[august]

(translated)

Since the night of times, Peugeot were robust cars. But since 1949 and the 203, they was also relatively powerful cars. When the manufacturer presents the 505 in 1979, it has even as an ambition to compete with BMW on the ground of the sporting truck: the manufacturer left his claws... For that, Peugeot could have resorted to V6 PRV of the 504 and 604 (it will be made only with the disappearance of the 604, into 86), but the manufacturer will take another way. It is the old man 2 Chrysler liters which is used, with the lengthened race, that is to say 2.2 liters, and gavé by a turbocompressor. One is not on, or rather nobody dares the statement, but it would have been worked at Porsche, specialist as regards overfeeding. April 1983 and leaves this Peugeot 505 Turbo Injection, strong of 150 horses. Its worked over again frame, lowered, its wheels of 15 inches and its autobloquant differential (and yes, for our greater happiness, it was a propulsion) made of it true sporting, competitor of the BMW 52ï. A defect however, its very high consumption, which can easily exceed the 20 l/100. February 1984 and appears the first evolution (already?). A intercooler takes seat under the cap, lowering consumption (tank however increased). If on paper the engine develops 10 horses moreover, in practice the car provides lower performances: the first versions actually made much more than 150 horses... June 1984 and Peugeot Talbot Sport its Kit PTS for the 505 Turbo Injection presents: the engine, re-examined by Danielson, passes to 200 horses and 27.5 mkg! Maximum speed passes very close to the 220 km/h and it kilometer is traversed in less than 29 seconds! The shortened springs, the adapted shock absorbers and the raised tires increase the handling further: it is the signal. But the consomation brings back for us in 1983: it is a pit! November 1985 and the Turbo one connait maturity. Vis-a-vis the growing pressure of Audi 200 and other Renault 25 V6 Turbo, the 505 connait a face lift (dashboard, spoiler and becquet in particular). The engine presents to him also best precedents: the turbo one is cooled by water, the power is of 180 horses and the couple of 28 mkg. Undoubtedly the best of the versions. For the year 1987 it will receive ABS but will lose its autobloquant, because both are incompatible. Piloting does not lose there badly. One year later, the car will thus receive a Torsen differential, it is cheese and serves since it is compatible with ABS. For the year 1989, the beautiful one dies out. Peugeot 605 arrives. There will be more sporting propulsion at Peugeot. You are a player? The 505 is true sporting. Well on, the version to be had is the 180 horses (with autobloquant or Torsen), but most tested will be filled by Kit PTS...

(its interesting how this 200PTS looks PRE N9TE). hmm

[webmaster]

I like the front bumper / air dam. It looks like something in between the 81-88 (lip) and the 89 (dam).

[JunktionFET]

Yeah those are the 1986+ (series II) European market bumpers. I think they look sleek, and it really is the way the 505 was supposed to look.

The Danielson "200" modifications allegedly included the infamous Danielson head and cam, colder non-resistor spark plugs (10mm threads), a recalibrated wastegate actuator (a few extra PSI of boost), a new fuel pressure regulator, and... I think that's all. It was all offered as a kit at some point, and I've installed two of them thus far.

To be completely honest, I don't think the Danielson head is quite worth the cost and labor. I'm sure it must make a difference in power, but it is nothing compared to the raw gains from more boost/fuel and the camshaft.

The D cam profile combined with bigger injectors, more fuel, and colder spark plugs (with a fine-tuned gap) will go a long way on that motor.

Speaking of the D wastegate actuator, I installed one of them on my brother's car. He has an '85 Turbo and his wastegate actuator failed. The one from the Danielson kit will not fit on the new smaller water cooled turbochargers, but will work on the original '85 unit (in the US anyway). The spring is so tight in it that I barely have the actuator rod threaded and it does 9.5 psi of boost. From the factory, his car is supposed to run with 8.7 psi.

[august]

Do you know if they used the Bosch 804 injectors with the 200PTS kit, or the 240PTS kit? From what i remember, the 240 PTS kit is the one with 1.17bar boost, so i'm imagining the 200pts kit was 1bar or a little less.. hmmm

[V-M]

There is two stage set from Danielson 200hp and 236hp

200hp (stage 1) is:

- Cam

- FPR (3.2bar)

- actuator (stiffer ~1bar)

236hp (stage 2) is:

- Head (with 10mm sparkplugs (NGK C8E and repositioning on plug hole near exhaust valve)

- Cam

- FPR

- Actuator

V-M

[august]

thanks for clearing that up V-M!

Interesting that they claim a 36 HP Increase due to just the head. How much boost are they running with the Stage 2 kit?

[JunktionFET]

thanks for clearing that up V-M!

Interesting that they claim a 36 HP Increase due to just the head. How much boost are they running with the Stage 2 kit?

1.15 bar (16.7 psi)

Considering that 1 psi is worth about 12-15hp on the stock motor (in US trim anyway), 1 psi is probably worth closer to 16-19hp with the D cam... thus the head probably doesn't do a whole lot for power itself. It may help the curve or provide more favorable combustion characteristics (reducing knocking potential), but the seat-of-my-pants dyno must not be too far off.

[august]

aaaaaahh ok, now it makes sense..

thanks y'all

[Toni Lindroos]

thanks for clearing that up V-M!

Interesting that they claim a 36 HP Increase due to just the head. How much boost are they running with the Stage 2 kit?

Danielson kits were also discussed here. ;-) I'm really not sure about the boost levels Danielson used? Over 1 bar sounds pretty high? I know that those "competition versions" used 1,15 bar but how about those cars with stage I and II kits which were used in normal roads? Does anyone have any official information? V-M (you had that white 1986 Turbo with stage 2 kit)? I remember seeing 0,72 bar mentioned somewhere (not in an official document).

[V-M]

In my knowledge boos level in both stages are under 1bar (stiffer actuator is fully open in 1bar).

I have weak memory but boost should be 0.8bar for those hp ratings.

Yes, I know at i sounds strange at head gives that 36hp more so I guess at boost is bit higher

than that? But this over 1bar sounds bit high? Should give more than 236hp with stage 2 and

1.15bar? That will be coming allready with normal head and stage 1. Toni do you remember

haw was Tama:s 505 turbo boost level? He have this stage 1 set and he has 238hv ja 358Nm.

If I remember right he has 1bar boost max. He's 505 head is mild moderated std head.

V-M

[august]

ok, after looking through some notes, i think it was the DANIELSON Preparation "Trophy" edition that ran 1.15 bar.. i'd imagine this would be Stage II with more boost.. (but still only producing 240hp).. maybe the HP number are from the wheels?

One 505 2.3L Turbo Injection "Trophy" Preparation DANIELSON:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injection BOSCH, Air-to-air heat exchanger, Turbo Garett with 1.15 bars

Rims Aluminum 6J15, Power with the liter of cubic capacity: 107 CH, poids/puissance Report/ratio: 4.3 Kg/Ch DIN

Puisance 240 CH, Couples maximum 33.6 mkg with 3800 tr/min 

[Toni Lindroos]

In my knowledge boos level in both stages are under 1bar (stiffer actuator is fully open in 1bar).

I have weak memory but boost should be 0.8bar for those hp ratings.

Yes, I know at i sounds strange at head gives that 36hp more so I guess at boost is bit higher

than that? But this over 1bar sounds bit high? Should give more than 236hp with stage 2 and

1.15bar? That will be coming allready with normal head and stage 1. Toni do you remember

haw was Tama:s 505 turbo boost level? He have this stage 1 set and he has 238hv ja 358Nm.

If I remember right he has 1bar boost max. He's 505 head is mild moderated std head.

Hmm, anyone want to e-mail and ask Danielson or Politecnic detailed boost information?-) When Tama measured those performance figures with Streetdyno his car had also that big front mounted IC, original T03 and original exhaust. He said the boost level was maybe about 0,7 bar (but it peaked at 0,9 bar).

[JunktionFET]

In my knowledge boos level in both stages are under 1bar (stiffer actuator is fully open in 1bar).

I have weak memory but boost should be 0.8bar for those hp ratings.

That would be really cool if those engines made that much power with less than 1 bar of boost. Based on experience, I definitely think 200hp is possible from an engine with stock camshaft and less than 1 bar of boost. I think that some exhaust work, timing adjustments, and spark plug experimentation would yield very near 200hp with perhaps as little as 0.8bar of boost. It probably wouldn't be very consistent power, but it would definitely be more than 180hp most of the time.

[Trevor]

My newly rebuild motor with stock cam, very mild head porting, FMIC and 11 psi boost was consistantly putting down 195-200 ftlbs torque and 160-170 hp. These are gtech numbers (at the wheels) using a car weight of 3350 with me alone in the car. Not sure of the exact weight of the car but this is our best estimate that we've always used for our hp/tq comparison numbers. This means with about 15% drivetrain loss we're looking at around 200 hp to the crank. So yes it's possible.

[V-M]

Do you know if they used the Bosch 804 injectors with the 200PTS kit, or the 240PTS kit? From what i remember, the 240 PTS kit is the one with 1.17bar boost, so i'm imagining the 200pts kit was 1bar or a little less.. hmmm

Nope... stage 2 doesn't include new injectors. Originel ones (200) are good for 260-270hp with rised fuel pressure.

V-M

[august]

Nope... stage 2 doesn't include new injectors. Originel ones (200) are good for 260-270hp with rised fuel pressure.

V-M

that's interesting though.. the 200 (0 280 150 200) injectors are 300cc/min @ 3bar. danielson offered a 3.2 bar FPR in the stage 1 kit?

200 @ 3.0bar = 300cc/min

200 @ 3.2bar = 315cc/min

200 @ 3.5bar = 326cc/min

200 @ 3.7bar = 336cc/min

200 @ 4.0bar = 351cc/min

the '804' injectors (0 280 150 804) were 337cc/min @ 3bar. why didn't they offer those with the stage 2 kit?

...and what about these? anyone know the specs? (from the Politecnic website

Injecteurs BOSCH (le lot de 4)                                                                                      412,00 €

[V-M]

that's interesting though.. the 200 (0 280 150 200) injectors are 300cc/min @ 3bar. danielson offered a 3.2 bar FPR in the stage 1 kit?

200 @ 3.0bar = 300cc/min

200 @ 3.2bar = 315cc/min

200 @ 3.5bar = 326cc/min

200 @ 3.7bar = 336cc/min

200 @ 4.0bar = 351cc/min

the '804' injectors (0 280 150 804) were 337cc/min @ 3bar. why didn't they offer those with the stage 2 kit?

...and what about these? anyone know the specs? (from the Politecnic website

Injecteurs BOSCH (le lot de 4)                                                                                      412,00 €

There was no reason to change injectors? those 200 ending are good for ~260hp and dani stage 2 is 236hp

rising fb was enough.

And actually those 200 endin are giving 324cc at 3bar 100% open. I have tested 12 sets of those, and all were around that number. I believe at those "dani" injectors are those 804:s.

V-M

[Trevor]

V-M, have you ever been able to test the 804 injectors in the same manner?

[JunktionFET]

Holding an injector open at 100% for long periods of time can damage the solenoid windings. The "standard" for testing injector flow rate is to pulse them with an 85% duty cycle square wave. Of course, the ECU is never going to hold an injector open for that long... unless it is modified. I forget what the maximum duty cycle for the N9Txx. If it is open too long, the injector's transient response becomes an issue and it may never close completely before it is time to reopen... thus a higher flowing injector is necessary, etc, etc...

An 802 injector is capable of over 250bhp if held open long enough, and certainly with added fuel pressure, but it just isn't practical, nor possible with the stock ECU.

I do vividly recall reading or being told that the "240bhp" 505 Turbo used the 804 injector along with an otherwise unmodified injection ECU. And from experience, the 804 injector seems to work perfectly from an enrichment point of view when running 1.15 bar of boost.

At one time I penciled all the fuel flow rates based on two known models, and the percentage increase of fuel flow given by the 804s was almost required by 240bhp... that is assuming that the 802 and 200 injectors are correctly suited for their respective power levels.

[V-M]

V-M, have you ever been able to test the 804 injectors in the same manner?

Nope. Many other ones are tested. So those listings which are floating in net are not accurate. Cause those readings are informed by different sources some are by 80% and some 100% duty cycle.

V-M

[V-M]

Holding an injector open at 100% for long periods of time can damage the solenoid windings. The "standard" for testing injector flow rate is to pulse them with an 85% duty cycle square wave. Of course, the ECU is never going to hold an injector open for that long... unless it is modified. I forget what the maximum duty cycle for the N9Txx. If it is open too long, the injector's transient response becomes an issue and it may never close completely before it is time to reopen... thus a higher flowing injector is necessary, etc, etc...

An 802 injector is capable of over 250bhp if held open long enough, and certainly with added fuel pressure, but it just isn't practical, nor possible with the stock ECU.

I do vividly recall reading or being told that the "240bhp" 505 Turbo used the 804 injector along with an otherwise unmodified injection ECU. And from experience, the 804 injector seems to work perfectly from an enrichment point of view when running 1.15 bar of boost.

At one time I penciled all the fuel flow rates based on two known models, and the percentage increase of fuel flow given by the 804s was almost required by 240bhp... that is assuming that the 802 and 200 injectors are correctly suited for their respective power levels.

Have you broken any injectors because of 100% duty cycle? I have not seen or experienced any of those claimed "injector burnings". We eaven run with GTA firebird 5.7L V8 with rotrex compressor with std injectors over year. Normaly in accellerations dyty cycle were 118% openings when reading system log.

GTA dyno

As said before dani stage 2 were not included with injectors. Those 802 which are used in katalysator models

are giving 20-40cc less than those 200.

V-M

[Yq397r]

Anyone know if the front and rear bumper from that version pictured would bolt up to an 83' turbo diesel? I think it would be a great improvement if the bumpers could even be found.

[JunktionFET]

Have you broken any injectors because of 100% duty cycle? I have not seen or experienced any of those claimed "injector burnings". We eaven run with GTA firebird 5.7L V9 with rotrex compressor with std injectors over year. Normaly in accellerations dyty cycle were 118% openings when reading system log.

I think the dyno software probably isn't interpreting the duty cycle correctly because 118% would imply that the injector pulse is longer than the possible "on" time of the square wave... which isn't possible. That would be like getting 3 liters of soda from a 2 liter bottle.

The windings in the injector use very small guage wire, almost like that of a voice coil in a tweeter or small speaker. At 3 ohms it will try to draw over 4.5 amps of current at 14 volts. That's over 60 watts of dissipation and a good deal of that is going to go up in heat. While this is fine for brief testing, as you have done, it would not be a good idea to do this in a car for long periods because the injector's life will be greatly reduced. In fact, even in bench testing you can sometimes feel the injector body warm up pretty quickly when power is applied for a few moments.

As said before dani stage 2 were not included with injectors. Those 802 which are used in katalysator models are giving 20-40cc less than those 200.

Under identical test conditions the 802 injector supplies 16 cc/min less than the 200 injector. But of course this is all relative: The catalyst and noncatalyst ECUs are undoubtedly tuned different.

I've seen charts that list the flow rates of numerous injectors, but the important thing is that they state the conditions of the test. So even if their figures are different from yours, at least the injectors can be compared on equal ground--that is what's important.

By the way, your website is awesome, as is the work you've done on your car.

Anyone know if the front and rear bumper from that version pictured would bolt up to an 83' turbo diesel? I think it would be a great improvement if the bumpers could even be found.

You'd need the bumpers and valences from a 1986 or newer non-US 505 sedan. Additionally you would need the parking lights, taillights, probably the rear license plate panel, and exhaust that exits on the right hand side. The front fenders would need to be modified by removing some sheetmetal that's normally hidden by the gigantic US bumpers. Or you could just use the corresponding non-US fenders.

FYI, the 1989 and later US spec bumpers/valences are not the same as these, but the front fenders allegedly are the same.

But I agree, I'd love for my 505 to have those parts... makes the car look really tidy.

[V-M]

think the dyno software probably isn't interpreting the duty cycle correctly because 118% would imply that the injector pulse is longer than the possible "on" time of the square wave... which isn't possible. That would be like getting 3 liters of soda from a 2 liter bottle.

That was from cars ECU software, not from dyno. ECU SW

V-M

[Trevor]

V-M: 118% injector pulse is an imaginary concept as you probably know. Maybe that number is interpreting something different than we assume? Maybe 118% of 'normal' enrichment? is the car running a wideband o2 sensor in the loop for enrichment feedback? There must be more to this. Any ideas?