111S VVC Head

[Russ H]

I looked into the DVA 175bhp conversion but with fitting (I think they are keen that it
is fitted by themselves) then its £1500 plus. Quite a lot though I do understand its
a quality kit.

Anyone know/got/fitted a piper exhaust cam to this head? This seems a reasonable price.

I have the Larini club sport box and plan on fitting the manifold, they E mailed the
other day saying the manifold coupled with the box could yeild an extra 15-20 bhp!

That looks optimistic to me. Im not after massive power and I like the torque of the
K series but an extra 20 bhp would be nice, mainly to offset my 95 kg 'penalty'..


Russ.

[bogie]

dont believe the hype ...these guys claim 60bhp for an exhaust and sports cats from the engine in my aston...shame that AM themselves have to increase it from 4.3 to 4.7L just to get 40bhp

[LivinLaVidaLotus]

and at the same time increased the official mpg by 2mpg, not bad going.

[Russ H]

Thing is I WANT to believe the claims

Russ.

[kambites]

If it was that easy to get over 160bhp from a 1.8 K-series reliably without the VVC mechanism, do you really think Rover would have bothered to design the VVC?

[Thorburn]

I thought VVC was designed to give a wide torque band to make the cars easier to drive while still having a reasonable amount of power, rather than to enhance reliability?

[kambites]

Thorburn said:

I thought VVC was designed to give a wide torque band to make the cars easier to drive while still having a reasonable amount of power, rather than to enhance reliability?

It certainly wasn't designed to make it more reliable. It was designed to mimic the power curve of a larger capacity engine without hurting fuel consumption, emissions, or reliability. The VVC certainly seems more reliable than the 160bhp VHPD K-series though.

Edited by kambites on Monday 16th June 09:55

[bogie]

15-20bhp is laughable, and its claims like these which put me off buying from a company forever if they are just bullstters ...it would be nice to take a car to a dyno, and do a before/after run, proves it makes like 5bhp etc...but of course then you are into aguments about dyno reliability and the chosen car not being ideal...its so easy for these people to make silly claims and get away with it ...and the gullible be taken in ....grrrr...

[S Works]

kambites said:

Thorburn said:

I thought VVC was designed to give a wide torque band to make the cars easier to drive while still having a reasonable amount of power, rather than to enhance reliability?

It certainly wasn't designed to make it more reliable. It was designed to mimic the power curve of a larger capacity engine without hurting fuel consumption, emissions, or reliability. The VVC certainly seems more reliable than the 160bhp VHPD K-series though.

The VHPD isn't a 160, it was either 177bhp stock, or 192 with the upgrade pack. It's also not the head that's the (only) problem (I believe some were less good than others), but it's a lot of power on a standard bottom end that'll end up hurting you.

With a good head, some cams, an Emerald and a good map, 4-2-1 and good back box, 170bhp can be done leaving the car eminently driveable with lots of torque and power. Mine has this, and it's great.