Discussion
Apache said:
Rover SD1 2.3/2.6 absolutely guaranteed to disintegrate. I had one throw a liner into the crank, got it rebuilt and literally ten minutes later the cam seized
Agreed again
I did a thread on this same engine:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=66&h=0&t=113411
It's also overweight and NOT rugged and has a low specific output. The measures, to presumably reduce friction, by not bothering with the full 7 bearing crank, were ultimately self defeating, because the diameter of the crankshaft had to be increased to compenstate.
>> Edited by Marquis_Rex on Tuesday 31st August 18:11
No, as per my comments Sunday, the worst engine must be the Rover Mi-16 which they then proceeded to turbo charge.
Lets face it, the engine was a pile of unreliable
without giving it any more strain
Owners were very lucky if they made it to the 1st service without the headgasket going pop
Lets face it, the engine was a pile of unreliable
without giving it any more strain Owners were very lucky if they made it to the 1st service without the headgasket going pop
i admit they arnt that great in there standard form but if you give them a bit of love and a total rebuild they are one of the best block of there day for power/weight ratio.
The duratec i think has leaped ahead in this area now, but the tuning parts arnt all sorted out for the duratec yet IMHO the zetec is a bit like the Xflow and pinto, heavy but reliable, well on most days. The rover is more templemental and like everything BMC/BL with not alot of more money they could have fixed the problems to truely surpass the compotition.
The duratec i think has leaped ahead in this area now, but the tuning parts arnt all sorted out for the duratec yet IMHO the zetec is a bit like the Xflow and pinto, heavy but reliable, well on most days. The rover is more templemental and like everything BMC/BL with not alot of more money they could have fixed the problems to truely surpass the compotition.
Marquis_Rex said:
Ok so we've ad the best engine thread what about the worst?!
IMHO its the rover k-series, but thats a personal gripe!
Whats everyone else think?
TOTALLY agree with you, well certainly one of the most over rated. Beware the brainwashed "Roverdrone" types will lynch us!
Over rated because:
The Open deck block design has been so badly executed- that on the "damp liner variants" the block is downright floppy- this is ONE of the root causes for it's head gasket blowing. The Engine ISN'T smooth despite the pro-British Propaganda. Much was publicised about the through bolts that apparently lead to smoothness. In my experience the engine is NOT smooth, even in 1.4 litre form and all the through bolts do is lead to complexity if trying to overhaul! Yes, may be great for the "disposable" engine- but always puzzled me- that these are so favoured in kit cars, when one of the kit car criteria I would have thought would have been ease of overhauling...
About the best things for this engine are it's dimunitive size, and light weight. It also hit a milestone in ease of manufacture. NOT FUNCTION!
edited to say: I won't bother debating with "Rover drone" types who want to dispute this- unless they put a good engineering argument up in terms of FUNCTION from expereince- rather then reciting propaganda from PR broshures/books...etc
>> Edited by Marquis_Rex on Tuesday 31st August 18:14
Having just finished the Atom, with its gleaming k-series in the back I’d disagree. They have been fraught with little issues like the head gaskets going, but over all the engines are light and easy to gain great power.
I could change my mind in a couple of weeks, but until then I am going to enjoy the 290bhp
I could change my mind in a couple of weeks, but until then I am going to enjoy the 290bhp
Marquis_Rex said:
but always puzzled me- that these are so favoured in kit cars,
Marquis_Rex said:
About the best things for this engine are it's dimunitive size, and light weight.
Not so puzzling really!
The 1.8 was stretched a bit too far for it's own good, but the 1.1, 1.4 and 1.6 are fine engines, small, light, reasonably powerfull and perfectly reliable once the original issues that caused gasket failure are sorted out.
Mr2Mike said:
Not so puzzling really!
The 1.8 was stretched a bit too far for it's own good, but the 1.1, 1.4 and 1.6 are fine engines, small, light, reasonably powerfull and perfectly reliable once the original issues that caused gasket failure are sorted out.
That's like saying that the Stag V8 is perfectly reliable once you sort out it's overheating issues.
An issue is a problem and it shouldn't be accepted and left to customers to "engineer" out. Any engine can be sorted out, ironed out, when a dedicated enthusiast, or the brainwashed, throws enough money at it (Infact the Stag engine I can understand, it sounds wonderful). But the fact that the design flaw/manufacturing flaw shouldn't have been there in the first place leads us back to the original topic of this thread- worst engines.
BTW the minimal coolant capacity of the K (done for rapid warm up-emissions)actually DOES not bode well for tuning (No, I don't need chasis dyno quoted torque and power figures from various kit cars, I rarely believe dyno figures unless they're my own or someones I have faith in- dynos lie ALL the time!), or and nothing short of a miraculous installation will solve the harshness.
Marquis_Rex said:
That's like saying that the Stag V8 is perfectly reliable once you sort out it's overheating issues.
An issue is a problem and it shouldn't be accepted and left to customers to "engineer" out. Any engine can be sorted out, ironed out, when a dedicated enthusiast, or the brainwashed, throws enough money at it (Infact the Stag engine I can understand, it sounds wonderful). But the fact that the design flaw/manufacturing flaw shouldn't have been there in the first place leads us back to the original topic of this thread- worst engines.
BTW the minimal coolant capacity of the K (done for rapid warm up-emissions)actually DOES not bode well for tuning (No, I don't need chasis dyno quoted torque and power figures from various kit cars, I rarely believe dyno figures unless they're my own or someones I have faith in- dynos lie ALL the time!), or and nothing short of a miraculous installation will solve the harshness.
But now the causes of the problems are known, and the solutions have been engineered what is the problem? They are very popular engines for tuning and transplanting, if they were really as bad as you say everyone would be avoiding them. Most modern enigne designs have very low coolant capacities to reduce warm up times. Not a problem as long as the engine is maintained properly. Unfortunately, the K series is fitted into many cars which now in banger territory where people don't bother with regular servicing.
If you want a fragile, under developed engine that has caused many a painfull wallet, look no further than TVRs own designs.
i dont think the faithfull (but noisey) old tranny lump can quilify as its piss easy to work on and runs for ever, as long as people sling a cambelt on it every now and then. However in the mid nineties, i worked for a mobile mechanic firm i did more head gaskets on rover 820s, 214s etc, and premature cambelt failures, and pistonslap on 620-820s, than all the other makes and models put together. Not to mention the crappy weak heads and bloody linners!! I am told the build quality has improved greatly, lets hope so. However they would have to be my number 1 shitter of all time!
Mr2Mike said:
But now the causes of the problems are known, and the solutions have been engineered what is the problem? They are very popular engines for tuning and transplanting, if they were really as bad as you say everyone would be avoiding them. Most modern enigne designs have very low coolant capacities to reduce warm up times. Not a problem as long as the engine is maintained properly. Unfortunately, the K series is fitted into many cars which now in banger territory where people don't bother with regular servicing.
The causes aren't fully known, hence that's why the K is still clocking up big warranty bills in cars it's being used on- trust me - I KNOW. Notice I only pointed out the Open deck block structure being contributory- I don't know the exact reason why these things go through head gaskets.It's NOT a simple matter.
Low coolant capacity isn't a problem or SHOULDN'T be a problem in everyday use if
DESIGNED WELL
but CAN become an issue if boosting and "tuning outputs".
I explain the popularity of the engine from it's ease of obtainability and people believing all the hype of the engine- almost like supporting the underdog.
With any luck once the Ford Fiesta 1.25, 1.4 Zetec SE (Yammaha Design input alloy block engine) engines become more widely availiable these will be more widely used. Just compare their smoothness and reliablity....
Marquis_Rex said:
The causes aren't fully known, hence that's why the K is still clocking up big warranty bills in cars it's being used on- trust me - I KNOW. Notice I only pointed out the Open deck block structure being contributory- I don't know the exact reason why these things go through head gaskets.It's NOT a simple matter.
Three main causes of head gasket failure:
1) Nylon dowels between block and head did not locate the head well, and the resulting movement between head and block lead to gasket failure. These should always be replaced with the newer steel dowels.
2) Poor tolerancing on the length of the bolts that clamp the whole engine together lead to some of the bolts bottoming out before they could apply full clamping force to the head. Bolts should always be checked for correct length prior to torquing.
3) The 1800 has an especialy hard time due to the poor rod ratio causing excessive side loadings and consequent movement of the wet liners. Not much to be done about that, but the incidence of HGF in "fixed" engines is very low.
I'd have to go for the 1.0 litre 12v Corsa engine. It's so harsh! Most engines these days are fairly reliable, so I guess criticism has to be levelled at how they perform and feel.
I don't see why you would put a three cylinder engine in a car these days. If Fiat can manage to stick 4-cylinder engines in their cars and knock them out for 5 grand new, why would anyone else mess about with 3 cylinders?
I had one of these Corsas as a hire car, and it just struck me as awful. I'm not sure how economical it was, but it certainly saved me a few quid: I preferred walking.
I don't see why you would put a three cylinder engine in a car these days. If Fiat can manage to stick 4-cylinder engines in their cars and knock them out for 5 grand new, why would anyone else mess about with 3 cylinders?
I had one of these Corsas as a hire car, and it just struck me as awful. I'm not sure how economical it was, but it certainly saved me a few quid: I preferred walking.
RacerRick said:
Worst engine ever - Turbocharged 301 Pontiac V8...
Still made no power, worse gas milage, and blew up. Lots.
No parts interchangability, no parts availability, and even pontiac gave up on it after only a couple years in production.
Yeh I agree. Turbocharging that engine the way Pontiac did back then could be compared to drugging up a Shetland Pony and calling it a race horse. It aint ever gonna win the Grande National.
I read somewhere that during the filming of Smokey and the Bandit II they had too ditch the 4.9 turbo and fit an earlier 6.6 engine in order to get the car really moving.
I think we need to note a difference here - there are two types of bad engines:-
- Badly designed engines. Now these truly are awful, there is no excuse for them.
- Badly built engines. Now here you need to allow some latitude.
e.g. the Stag I-6 wasn't a badly-designed engine. it was just never screwed together properly. Ditto many TVR engines, I suspect.
On the other hand, the K-series, while very impressive in a number of ways, has a couple of fundamental flaws:-
- it's block and head are different materials, hence different thermal properties! D'oh!!!
- it can't cope with pulling heavy cars - Freelander and 75/ZT applications see it lunching head-gaskets like they're going out of fashion, yet in the Elise it's been a lot better behaved.
- it's susceptible to poor cooling (i.e. MGF / TF)
- Badly designed engines. Now these truly are awful, there is no excuse for them.
- Badly built engines. Now here you need to allow some latitude.
e.g. the Stag I-6 wasn't a badly-designed engine. it was just never screwed together properly. Ditto many TVR engines, I suspect.
On the other hand, the K-series, while very impressive in a number of ways, has a couple of fundamental flaws:-
- it's block and head are different materials, hence different thermal properties! D'oh!!!
- it can't cope with pulling heavy cars - Freelander and 75/ZT applications see it lunching head-gaskets like they're going out of fashion, yet in the Elise it's been a lot better behaved.
- it's susceptible to poor cooling (i.e. MGF / TF)
havoc said:
- it can't cope with pulling heavy cars - Freelander and 75/ZT applications see it lunching head-gaskets like they're going out of fashion, yet in the Elise it's been a lot better behaved.
- it's susceptible to poor cooling (i.e. MGF / TF)
Those two are related. The proble lies with the positioning of the thermostat, which flies in the face of convention by being on the coolant outlet rather than inlet. The intention was to reduce warm up times, and it works ok in lighter vehicles and ones with short coolant paths. In heavy cars, the load on the engine causes transient overheating, where the thermostat is delayed in openeing when a load is applied to the engine. When it does open the engine is then cooled down, obviously thermal cycling like this is not good. It is also exacerbated by long coolant paths (MGF).
Even with all it's design flaws, it's still a good engine. Caterham obviously think so as well...
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff