RE: Shed Of The Week: MG TF

[sparkyhx]

I was always told the issue with the K series was not in its original guise but in the bigger capacity bored out ones.

[dbdb]

A friend's girlfriend had an MGF in the late 1990s. I was quite impressed with it.

[BlimeyCharlie]

A 'sportscar' for people who drive them wearing glasses on chains with a baseball cap.

[suffolk009]

A friend worked with a bloke who sold his Lotus Elan s3 coupe to buy one of these when new!

I don't understand the constant problem people have with the K series. The head gasket is a known issue, easily fixed. I've had K series in 2 Caterhams and a Rover BRM, all three ran perfectly.

If it was my money I was spending, I'd be scouring the ads for a Eunos.

[Riknos]

Drove a friend's 160 - Very quick off the line (0-60 in sub 7 seconds) handled well in the bends. Bargain to buy - sub £2k for one with a sorted head gasket and coolant pipes

The driving position is not good - sit on it rather than in it, doesn't feel right, the interior looks and feels cheap.

[After_Shock]

They aren't bad to drive, good bit of top down fun in the summer and never did look bad, in TF guise anyways.

Not actually much to go wrong on them, providing the head gaskets done anyways.

However, not particularly comfortable, gearshift was always heavy on them and they will creak/rattle. Drive a boxster after one and you can see how vastly different the engineering capabilities of Rover/MG was to proper companies.

Plus sides as said cheap top down fun in summer, and surprisingly economical as they don't weigh much.

[B'stard Child]

Wow - opened up expecting much hate....

Actually pretty balanced in viewpoints

My old boss has one for summer month commuting (80 miles a day) he didn't pay much for it and it's been both reliable and fun.

Not my cup of tea

[Lowtimer]

s m said:

Yes, nice cars - quite safe in a crash too weren't they ( compared to similar cars of the time )?

Dunno. A mate of mine was killed in his when someone hit him at a junction.

[mgrays]

kambites said:

AW111 said:

kambites said:

At the time, it was arguably the best inline-four engine available for a small sports car <snip>

I think a few Japanese manufacturers might disagree...

They might, which is why I said "arguably".

I would argue for mass production engine of that size/age/weight it was the best. Show me an all alloy, through tie bolt with bottom bearing plate 16V Japanese car engine.. I think Peugeot nearly got there with their 1360cc version but the tie rods stopped short of crank and it was 8V. My MX-5 block weights the same as a complete K series (lifted both of them). Reliability of course comes with completed development...

[paulmaurice99]

RacingBlue said:

Driven a few of these, and whilst they are quite fun, the driving position is horrendous - you sit on it, rather than in it.

This. Nice enough cars, but when the MR2 is around for a few hundred more, why bother? Better made, more reliable, far better sports car.

[Blackpuddin]

Be lucky to find a non-rusty MR2 even for a few hundred more

[teacake]

J4CKO said:

The K series engine is great, people seem to think that due to its ownership (Rover) and well publicised issues (Headgasket) that it isnt a nice engine, for the capacity they are pretty good, I had a Rover BRM and the engine was great, until it broke.

Yeah, it's in the last bit of the sentence that your definition of pretty good diverges somewhat from mine.

[vtecyo]

paulmaurice99 said:

This. Nice enough cars, but when the MR2 is around for a few hundred more, why bother? Better made, more reliable, far better sports car.

Or a MK2 with the 3S-GE which will outlive cockroaches and is a much better drive for less..

[chris watton]

I preferred my MGF Trophy 160, but didn't like the standard MGF, and didn't like the brand new TF160 I part exed my Trophy 160 for - the TF felt more of a 'diluted' experience compared to the Trophy. The TF looks good though, even today.

I bought my wife another Trophy 160 in 2005 - we still have it, and no signs of rust anywhere!

Edited by chris watton on Friday 28th November 12:50

[paulmaurice99]

vtecyo said:

Or a MK2 with the 3S-GE which will outlive cockroaches and is a much better drive for less..

Agree to disagree on which is better to drive... But I thought mk2 values were on the up whereas mk3 are sadly (as an owner of one that will probably have to go in the new year) not. Mine isn't rusty and I doubt it will fetch much above 1250... Pah!

[snowen250]

this one could be quite entertaining.....

http://www.maidstonesportscars.co.uk/projects/hond...

[kambites]

vtecyo said:

paulmaurice99 said:

This. Nice enough cars, but when the MR2 is around for a few hundred more, why bother? Better made, more reliable, far better sports car.

Or a MK2 with the 3S-GE which will outlive cockroaches and is a much better drive for less..

You mean the one which weighs almost twice(!) as much as the K-series?

I'd also argue that the K-series VVC (which admittedly the car in the article above doesn't have) is a much nicer engine to drive, but that's obviously personal preference.


If you'd cited the Honda K20A, you might have had a point.

Edited by kambites on Friday 28th November 13:12

[jamespink]

The article mentions they had Metro suspension but omits to say the whole chassis is in fact an entire Metro back to front. Its little wonder that despite being quite pretty (in an MX5 way) the dynamics were "somewhat" compromised. It's this kind of massive shortcut, in place of proper investment, that cost the UK it's car industry. I guess coming from the company that foisted the Marina and Allegro on a tasteless British public, it was a better effort...

[kambites]

jamespink said:

The article mentions they had Metro suspension but omits to say the whole chassis is in fact an entire Metro back to front.

You see this claimed a lot, but sadly it's complete and utter rubbish. The front subframe of the MGF is lifted from the metro with relatively few modifications (mounted forwards); the rear subframe is a significantly modified version of the front subframe of the metro (also mounted facing forwards). The rest of the chassis is bespoke. The subframes of the TF are significantly different from the F, let alone the Metro.

There's less in common in the chassis design between a Metro and an MGTF than between an Audi TT and a Golf or between a Boxster and a 911.

Edited by kambites on Friday 28th November 13:21

[anonymous-user]

kambites said:

I think coolant temperature is actually more than oil temperature for the head gasket, although obviously oil temperature is important in other ways. It's not wear you're trying to avoid, it's thermal shock.

It was less a 'thermal shock' issue than a basic design/installation problem. Loads of info on the remote thermostats and different temperature thermostats and what they can do out there. Mine failed due to liner heights and head porosity around the fire ring. Another major cause of failures were aftermarket head bolts, plastic dowels, poor balancing, non VP2 shells.... Considering the original design limits it is a solid performer, not to mention a compact and light package.

To grow from a 1.4 80HP engine into a reliable 1.8 170HP output was, and still is impressive. The 1.8 runs fairly happily at 180-200HP with a reasonable lifespan but after that it gets expensive and fragile. My own was up to about 240HP but without more revs that was about it. It had a pretty standard crank but steel rods, big valve head, Jenveys, etc. I wont mention the 1.9 (250HP) and/or 2.0 Judd (270HP) as they were a bit trick.

If I did it all again I would probably stick with the 1.6, it is far sweeter spinning that the bigger engine but can deliver some proper output with a bit of work.

However. I'd take a B18C over both.