405 mi16
- Thread starter Kroegen
- Start date
wohoo said:
Which is why there are so few left. Buggers nicked all the engines for their 205s
.As wohoo says, it's not going to be reliable or well built. It should however handle nicely, go well and be relatively comfortable. You're going to pay good money for a decent one though.
As the others have said, all of the good conditions ones (i.e. low mileage) have been purchased by people sticking the engines in their 205 GTis and then scrapping / breaking the rest.
In a similar vein, have a look at Citroen BX 16V. Also quite rare and similar size but with the bonus of hydro-suspension (i think!)
In a similar vein, have a look at Citroen BX 16V. Also quite rare and similar size but with the bonus of hydro-suspension (i think!)
Renault 19 16V chamade!
phase 1 model doesnt look hugely different to the 405 either
here's one: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1991-RENAULT-...03QQihZ012QQcategoryZ9861QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
phase 1 model doesnt look hugely different to the 405 either
here's one: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1991-RENAULT-...03QQihZ012QQcategoryZ9861QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Bought one at the weekend for £330 for just such a transplant. Christ knows why you might want the whole car, unless you have been smoking excessive quantities of crack. Designed with a set square and a ruler. And the interior is terrible.
Early mi16s had alloy block, later ones the anchor material.
Will be rapido in 205 however.
Early mi16s had alloy block, later ones the anchor material.
Will be rapido in 205 however.
Dr Who said:iirc the BX had the ally block and the Mi16 had the iron block, so the BX was always slightly more popular for transplants..
Better car as well imho
It's the other way around I think mate. The BX was an iron block 2.0l whereas the Mi16 is a 1.9 ally block.
Dr Who said:iirc the BX had the ally block and the Mi16 had the iron block, so the BX was always slightly more popular for transplants..
Better car as well imho
nope
pre 1993 emissons regs cars had the 1.9 alu block engine this is all the earlier mi16s and the bx 16vs
post 1993 they needed a cat and to cut emissions the used the 2l iron block+different management this was shared with the 306 s16/zx 16v
basically any "mi car" post emissions regs is 2l iron block any pre emissions regs is 1.9l Alu block
there not a big difference in either.
Book figures show the iron is down on power (150bhp to the alu's 160bhp) but that is with a cat, remove the cat and they become very similar, the weight diference is like 20kgs from what i remember so nothing amazing.
the 405 mi16 is a very capable car
Last edited:
yep such an anchor being only 20kg heavier also not having the oil surge probs of the 1.9l that you will get with a 205 due to cornering ability,this was the death of any mi and used to sare me with mine you dont feel confident to push it because you do often see the oil pressure gauge flicker,and you'll see this before you lose grip on a decent setup 205. and no you cant fix it with a windage tray and baffled sump its down to the heads oil drainageDfhaii said:
1.9 rebuild parts are getting hard to comeby now too, and due to the age/mileage most engines will need a rebuild if going through the hassle of a conversion if i was in the choice of doing the conversion again i would choose the xu10 2l mi engine, however the newer EW engines should be awesome for transplants once enough donors become on the market
Last edited:
I used to have a mint phase 2 405 Mi16 and I loved it.
It wasnt that quick, but the chassis was amazing. The 405 was actually quite well built as well... my car felt more solid than many more modern machines.
The 1.9 16v is regarded as the better engine @ 160bhp, but the 2.0 is a little torquier but with a touch less peak power @ 155bhp.
Its quick enough, but its really the chassis that impresses. The interior on my car was great with full black leather and air con etc, which is great for an older car.
I never had any reliability issues and totally regret selling mine. It was the Le Mans edition number 300 i think, with only 49k on the clock, which is rare for a car that old.
All, in, id have another.
Heres a wee pic of mine:
It wasnt that quick, but the chassis was amazing. The 405 was actually quite well built as well... my car felt more solid than many more modern machines.
The 1.9 16v is regarded as the better engine @ 160bhp, but the 2.0 is a little torquier but with a touch less peak power @ 155bhp.
Its quick enough, but its really the chassis that impresses. The interior on my car was great with full black leather and air con etc, which is great for an older car.
I never had any reliability issues and totally regret selling mine. It was the Le Mans edition number 300 i think, with only 49k on the clock, which is rare for a car that old.
All, in, id have another.
Heres a wee pic of mine:
yep have to agree a lot of people think the 405 is a barge the chassis is actually pretty damn impressive and would upset a lot of newer machinery that is regarded to having "uber" handling
wasnt the le Mans 4x4 aswell with the ltd ed leather
wasnt the le Mans 4x4 aswell with the ltd ed leather
Naa, only 2wd on the facelift mi16s..
they done a 2.0gl 4x4 im sure, but that was it for the newer shape.
The old 1.9 mi16x4 was a nice machine, but i think the 4x4 system was expensive to repair.
And then, the 405 t16, mmmmm... only 300 or so LHD's made.
they done a 2.0gl 4x4 im sure, but that was it for the newer shape.
The old 1.9 mi16x4 was a nice machine, but i think the 4x4 system was expensive to repair.
And then, the 405 t16, mmmmm... only 300 or so LHD's made.