MG ZT V6 (facelift)

[smilerbaker]

MattW said:

Ok not wanting to spark massive K series HGF debate but I was told by a mechanic when I mentioned I was thinking of getting one of these that the V6 was essentially two K series engines welded together.

Therefore the issues I have had with my MG’s (HGF) would potentially be experienced on both parts of the ‘V’. I.e. two head gaskets prone to letting go, therefore twice the cost and twice the risk.

So is this correct, or is the V6 completely removed from the K series?

LOL LOL LOL get a new mechanic

[Silver Pellet]

The ZT isn't a bad car at all but I struggle to think of many ways in which it betters an E39 BMW 528i.

[rfn]

Silver Pellet said:

The ZT isn't a bad car at all but I struggle to think of many ways in which it betters an E39 BMW 528i.

Second person to suggest an E39 of any variety in this thread. I'd love an E39, my father had a 530d for two years and I loved it, however I'm not a particular fan of the "SE" looks, but having a bad back means I need to look for something with supple but still taught suspension, hence the thought of the MG.

[Garlick]

Sorry about the thread haircut chaps. It's so nice to see the newer members adding quality comments

[smilerbaker]

flatfour1 said:

Maybe I was a tad harsh with that reply. But I always bite when I get some pillock posting replies like that.

maybe you should have read the other replies before going off on one.

post a silly answer expect a silly response.

[300bhp/ton]

MattW said:

Ok not wanting to spark massive K series HGF debate but I was told by a mechanic when I mentioned I was thinking of getting one of these that the V6 was essentially two K series engines welded together.

Therefore the issues I have had with my MG’s (HGF) would potentially be experienced on both parts of the ‘V’. I.e. two head gaskets prone to letting go, therefore twice the cost and twice the risk.

So is this correct, or is the V6 completely removed from the K series?

ok a lot wrong here - mostly ignorance and a dumb mechanic.

The V6 is indeed a KV6.

But its a fantastic engine and not know of HG failures.

Only dumb mother f$%^$ complain about K-series engines because they know nothing.

The K-series was available as a 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 in 4 pot and as the 2.5 KV6.

Only the 1.8 ever had issues, and then the interweb has blown them all out of proportion.

If I do my sums right 2.5 is not two 1.8s.

And no the V6 is not basically 2 K-series welded together and any mechanic that things that is how engines are made and developed should really consider a new career. But as they can't add up, as in 4 + 4 would be and not 6, they should also stay away from anything with numbers.


We had a Rover 800 Vitesse with the 2.5 KV6 in it. This was R reg - it ran fine, never a problem. I know who owns the car still - still no problem.

My brother recently sold his MG ZS180 2.5 KV6 - again no problem at all, great engine.

I've got a friend who is now on his 2nd Rover 75 2.5 KV6 - again not a single issue.

Very very good engines.

So don't be put of from internet bull and idiots

HTH

[kambites]

Wasn't there a 2.0 KV6 as well?

[smilerbaker]

kambites said:

Wasn't there a 2.0 KV6 as well?

yes

[MattW]

300bhp/ton said:

MattW said:

Ok not wanting to spark massive K series HGF debate but I was told by a mechanic when I mentioned I was thinking of getting one of these that the V6 was essentially two K series engines welded together.

Therefore the issues I have had with my MG’s (HGF) would potentially be experienced on both parts of the ‘V’. I.e. two head gaskets prone to letting go, therefore twice the cost and twice the risk.

So is this correct, or is the V6 completely removed from the K series?

ok a lot wrong here - mostly ignorance and a dumb mechanic.

The V6 is indeed a KV6.

But its a fantastic engine and not know of HG failures.

Only dumb mother f$%^$ complain about K-series engines because they know nothing.

The K-series was available as a 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 in 4 pot and as the 2.5 KV6.

Only the 1.8 ever had issues, and then the interweb has blown them all out of proportion.

If I do my sums right 2.5 is not two 1.8s.

And no the V6 is not basically 2 K-series welded together and any mechanic that things that is how engines are made and developed should really consider a new career. But as they can't add up, as in 4 + 4 would be and not 6, they should also stay away from anything with numbers.


We had a Rover 800 Vitesse with the 2.5 KV6 in it. This was R reg - it ran fine, never a problem. I know who owns the car still - still no problem.

My brother recently sold his MG ZS180 2.5 KV6 - again no problem at all, great engine.

I've got a friend who is now on his 2nd Rover 75 2.5 KV6 - again not a single issue.

Very very good engines.

So don't be put of from internet bull and idiots

HTH

Interesting, thanks for that, to be honest I didn't pay that much attention to him when he said it as I was also receiving news about HGF on my TF at the time so was a bit anti-rover at that exact point. Think I'll do some digging over in the MG forums and add the car back on to my list of 'potential barges' for future ref.

Matt

[smilerbaker]

MattW said:

300bhp/ton said:

MattW said:

Ok not wanting to spark massive K series HGF debate but I was told by a mechanic when I mentioned I was thinking of getting one of these that the V6 was essentially two K series engines welded together.

Therefore the issues I have had with my MG’s (HGF) would potentially be experienced on both parts of the ‘V’. I.e. two head gaskets prone to letting go, therefore twice the cost and twice the risk.

So is this correct, or is the V6 completely removed from the K series?

ok a lot wrong here - mostly ignorance and a dumb mechanic.

The V6 is indeed a KV6.

But its a fantastic engine and not know of HG failures.

Only dumb mother f$%^$ complain about K-series engines because they know nothing.

The K-series was available as a 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 in 4 pot and as the 2.5 KV6.

Only the 1.8 ever had issues, and then the interweb has blown them all out of proportion.

If I do my sums right 2.5 is not two 1.8s.

And no the V6 is not basically 2 K-series welded together and any mechanic that things that is how engines are made and developed should really consider a new career. But as they can't add up, as in 4 + 4 would be and not 6, they should also stay away from anything with numbers.


We had a Rover 800 Vitesse with the 2.5 KV6 in it. This was R reg - it ran fine, never a problem. I know who owns the car still - still no problem.

My brother recently sold his MG ZS180 2.5 KV6 - again no problem at all, great engine.

I've got a friend who is now on his 2nd Rover 75 2.5 KV6 - again not a single issue.

Very very good engines.

So don't be put of from internet bull and idiots

HTH

Interesting, thanks for that, to be honest I didn't pay that much attention to him when he said it as I was also receiving news about HGF on my TF at the time so was a bit anti-rover at that exact point. Think I'll do some digging over in the MG forums and add the car back on to my list of 'potential barges' for future ref.

Matt

OMG tell me it wasn't the guy fixing your TF that told you that!!!

[300bhp/ton]

kambites said:

Wasn't there a 2.0 KV6 as well?

Not sure tbh, what was it in?

The older Rover 800 used the Honda 2.7 V6 before the KV6 but the 2.0 litres where O and R series engines, all 4 pots.

Never understood why they didn't make an MGF GT KV6, it always seemed the logical thing to do.

[kambites]

300bhp/ton said:

kambites said:

Wasn't there a 2.0 KV6 as well?

Not sure tbh, what was it in?

The pre-facelift Rover 75, by the looks of it.

[smilerbaker]

300bhp/ton said:

kambites said:

Wasn't there a 2.0 KV6 as well?

Not sure tbh, what was it in?

The older Rover 800 used the Honda 2.7 V6 before the KV6 but the 2.0 litres where O and R series engines, all 4 pots.

Never understood why they didn't make an MGF GT KV6, it always seemed the logical thing to do.

space and cooling issues, iirc they made one at the factory. A couple of people have managed to shoe the v6 into the f/tf but its not simple.

[Chris71]

andy-xr said:

Anyone know what they're like for spares/repairs availability?

I had no problem getting KV6 bits when the variable intake system packed up on my ZS. The nature of the motor industry is that most things are made by external suppliers and/or shared with other platforms anyway. I think hordes of numpties going 'don't touch MG Rover stuff, you'll never get parts' has played rather nicely into the hands of the less alarmist petrolhead!

[300bhp/ton]

kambites said:

300bhp/ton said:

kambites said:

Wasn't there a 2.0 KV6 as well?

Not sure tbh, what was it in?

The pre-facelift Rover 75, by the looks of it.

Cool, never new that

[300bhp/ton]

Chris71 said:

andy-xr said:

Anyone know what they're like for spares/repairs availability?

I had no problem getting KV6 bits when the variable intake system packed up on my ZS. The nature of the motor industry is that most things are made by external suppliers and/or shared with other platforms anyway. I think hordes of numpties going 'don't touch MG Rover stuff, you'll never get parts' has played rather nicely into the hands of the less alarmist petrolhead!

So true. It's like they haven't built TR7's since the very early 80's and Triumph doesn't exist anymore, but I can almost any part for it brand new still.

Unipart used to do Rover parts, then I think it went to Cat, not sure who it is now, but can't believe most parts can be that hard to get.