RE: The Red Octagon Returns, Along With The 'K-Series
Discussion
I would like to think that there would be a fair chunk of torque available which is where most of these new turbo units do there work, along with ok-ish MPG. The old SAAB 9-5’s etc only had 150bhp from a 2.0L 16v unit in low pressure form but they went ok and no one condemned it as a poor unit?
MDT said:
I would like to think that there would be a fair chunk of torque available which is where most of these new turbo units do there work, along with ok-ish MPG. The old SAAB 9-5’s etc only had 150bhp from a 2.0L 16v unit in low pressure form but they went ok and no one condemned it as a poor unit?
That was launched well over ten years ago though.Turbo 1.4 engines is where the contemporary market's at.
Oddball RS said:
Its a straight copy isn't it? the 1.8t in the ZT was rated at 150Bhp. Judd get the K2000 to 270Bhp, but its a weeny bit more expensive.
Yep, one gets the feeling that they have replaced the gasket previously made from Kraft Dairylea to something made with a combination of metals .. then rev-limited the engine to stem any reliability issues .. at least until the car has done 100k miles after which it will be consigned to a scrapheap. Sorry, i don't care what it looks like there is absolutely no reason i would buy something with an engine that's based on a 1.1. Metro - there are so many better cars out there, and almost as cheap.
kambites said:
ewenm said:
That power figure (147bhp) is pathetic for a turbo'd 1.8 - I've got a NA Rover 1.8 VVC K-Series in the Caterham that produces 160bhp out of the box and can easily be tuned to 190+ so how have they produced a 1.8 Turbo with less power than that? 
It'll be tuned for economy not power, I suppose. Or they're aiming to have gazillion mile service intervals. matchmaker said:
The 1.8T in my 2004 Octavia puts out 231 bhp and can still give high 30's mpg figures on a long run. And when not set to long life servicing has 10000 mile service intervals. Progress?
How are we meant to know whether it's progress when we don't know the MG's mpg or service intervals? What a daft question. Anyway, I suspect the fundamental design of this engine is older than that in your Skoda and it will also have to meet other emissions requirements that your Skoda probably can't.
I am by no means an MG and/or Rover fan, most of their recent cars were complete rubbish, but people seem to just critise them for no reason.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 17th February 11:12
matchmaker said:
The 1.8T in my 2004 Octavia puts out 231 bhp and can still give high 30's mpg figures on a long run. And when not set to long life servicing has 10000 mile service intervals. Progress?
And to ensure a fair and balanced view on this the same engine in other VAG cars pumped out what? 150bhp.
I don’t think the MG talked of is aimed at the same sort of customer who wants a hot hatch?
MDT said:
I don’t think the MG talked of is aimed at the same sort of customer who wants a hot hatch?
Although interestingly the preliminary road tests said that even if they changed nothing from the pre-production prototypes, the 6 would be one of the best handling cars in its class. mgv8 said:
I like the way every one is putting it down before its even started. What is it with the MG brand that makes people what to kick it in the nuts?
Er...because it's a chinese knockoff of a 10 year old knockoff of a 20 year old Honda, with an engine that should have been put to rest 15 years ago?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff