Rover K series education
Discussion
Spurred on by the info in the Caterham buying guide, I'd like to ask for the collective wisdom of the gurus on here...
I've got a 1.8l 160bhp K series (originally I believe from a MGF Trophy) in my GTM Libra. It's my daily, so around 25k miles a year.
It's entirely stock, MEMS3 ECU, catalytic converter (which isn't necessary for MOT in mine). Mid mounted.
What can I do to a) keep it reliable, b) give it more oomph (as it's a daily torque is as important as power, and I'm not really interested in forced induction) and c) sound better?
I've digested DVA Power's page, but that's one tuner, with a clear preference for Emerald ECU, removal of VVC and throttle bodies - which collectively don't seem to provide the gains you would perhaps expect, although torque isn't really mentioned.
Thoughts on the above?
Cheers
I've got a 1.8l 160bhp K series (originally I believe from a MGF Trophy) in my GTM Libra. It's my daily, so around 25k miles a year.
It's entirely stock, MEMS3 ECU, catalytic converter (which isn't necessary for MOT in mine). Mid mounted.
What can I do to a) keep it reliable, b) give it more oomph (as it's a daily torque is as important as power, and I'm not really interested in forced induction) and c) sound better?
I've digested DVA Power's page, but that's one tuner, with a clear preference for Emerald ECU, removal of VVC and throttle bodies - which collectively don't seem to provide the gains you would perhaps expect, although torque isn't really mentioned.
Thoughts on the above?
Cheers
If it's a standard 160bhp engine, it'll be a VVC unit? If so, tuning for more torque would be hard (it's not a million miles off theoretical peak torque for its dimensions) and tuning for more power would almost certainly come at the expense of torque (because as you say you'd end up removing the VVC unit).
I think you'll spend a lot of money getting not very much unless you go for forced induction or a swap for a bigger engine.
I think you can drop a 2.5 KV6 straight into the Libra. That'd give you more torque (and a better noise, too).
I think you'll spend a lot of money getting not very much unless you go for forced induction or a swap for a bigger engine.
I think you can drop a 2.5 KV6 straight into the Libra. That'd give you more torque (and a better noise, too).
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 3rd December 20:13
Cheers chaps, it is indeed the VVC lump.
When you say it's near it's theoretical peak torque for dimensions, would that also remove the potential for filling out the torque curve through the rev range?
I'm thinking that exhaust manifold, decat and intake improvements must do something?!
Unfortunately the KV6 won't fit - GTM modified the monocoque to enable fitting.
I suppose this is a reason why a lot of the Elise boys swap to a Honda VTEC?
Lastly, considering the staggering outputs achieved by Caterham (over 200bhp), what's the effect on the torque curve?
When you say it's near it's theoretical peak torque for dimensions, would that also remove the potential for filling out the torque curve through the rev range?
I'm thinking that exhaust manifold, decat and intake improvements must do something?!
Unfortunately the KV6 won't fit - GTM modified the monocoque to enable fitting.
I suppose this is a reason why a lot of the Elise boys swap to a Honda VTEC?
Lastly, considering the staggering outputs achieved by Caterham (over 200bhp), what's the effect on the torque curve?
Rawwr said:
Speak to Dave, the K-Series god: http://www.dvapower.com/
Hey fella, how's things? I've been reading his page a lot!
Seems to be two main options, add 15bhp and some torque for approx. £1500, or get 30th and improved throttle response and noise for £2500 - no mention of torque on that option and not sure what removal of VVC would mean to everyday driving?
Rawwr said:
Speak to Dave, the K-Series god: http://www.dvapower.com/
Yup, I've got a Dave Andrews engine - 1.8 putting out 175BHP. Lovely powerplant.In a n/a engine max low down torque and peak power are a choice of one.
Make it breathe as freely as possible, wide short inlet tracts, wide free flow exhaust, etc, and you lose torque, and gain peak power. And vice versa. Cam timing is also one way or the other but with variable lift and timing you can have both in one engine, nevertheless you are generally stuck with the other variables in most cases.
In reality unless you create an absolute screamer with correspondingly awful low down torque and poor drivability, 160 bhp is already quite a bit from an 1800, I'd say that around 200 is tops for a drivable engine that has not been designed from the ground up for that sort of thing.
If you want more, and don't want the penalties, it's forced induction all the way.
Make it breathe as freely as possible, wide short inlet tracts, wide free flow exhaust, etc, and you lose torque, and gain peak power. And vice versa. Cam timing is also one way or the other but with variable lift and timing you can have both in one engine, nevertheless you are generally stuck with the other variables in most cases.
In reality unless you create an absolute screamer with correspondingly awful low down torque and poor drivability, 160 bhp is already quite a bit from an 1800, I'd say that around 200 is tops for a drivable engine that has not been designed from the ground up for that sort of thing.
If you want more, and don't want the penalties, it's forced induction all the way.
Sway said:
When you say it's near it's theoretical peak torque for dimensions, would that also remove the potential for filling out the torque curve through the rev range?
That's exactly what the VVC is for, and it already does this job extremely well.A KV6 has to be one of the better ideas to keep some semblance of road manners and reliability, unless you would be happy to go with forced induction.
I have had a number of K series engines in a variety of cars Kit Cars, MGF's TF's and several Freelanders. Some, including the current K series in my current daily driver Freelander have been absolutely superb reliable engines. Covered over 20,000 miles so far on that engine not the slightest problem just routine maintenance. Some including the MGF and TF's have been as bad as the K series can be. Blown head gaskets which have been repaired and then worked for a while but then failed again despite doing all the necessary work. Repeatedly.
The MG application in the rear engine position IMO places additional stresses on a cooling system which on the K series engine is particularly fragile. The recognised problems and multiple replacement parts and various positions suggested for the thermostat, water pump and hoses etc etc on this engine reflects the reality that the cooling system was not a well designed solution in this application. Equally the cross bolted method of construction, which permits much less mass in the castings and smaller webs in the crankcase, is another weakness in reliability, in comparison to, for example the strength of the Duratec engine.
This cross bolt method required much higher manufacturing tolerances than Rover were able to consistently sustain in production. That is why so few other manufacturers have attempted that technique in volume car engine production. I personally find that on song, the high output K series is a brilliant engine. Fantasticly high revving, very high torque engine. But I think it is also flawed and that in a rear mounted application, with greater cooling difficulties, it can be fragile. Particularly in the rear mounted applications. I would go for it with these engines but be aware that the slightest cooling hiccup or the slightest water loss of any sort require instant attention. The engines must not be driven if the head gasket or cooling system is showing the slightest sign of failure. I do wish you well. I am thoroughly enjoying mine!
The MG application in the rear engine position IMO places additional stresses on a cooling system which on the K series engine is particularly fragile. The recognised problems and multiple replacement parts and various positions suggested for the thermostat, water pump and hoses etc etc on this engine reflects the reality that the cooling system was not a well designed solution in this application. Equally the cross bolted method of construction, which permits much less mass in the castings and smaller webs in the crankcase, is another weakness in reliability, in comparison to, for example the strength of the Duratec engine.
This cross bolt method required much higher manufacturing tolerances than Rover were able to consistently sustain in production. That is why so few other manufacturers have attempted that technique in volume car engine production. I personally find that on song, the high output K series is a brilliant engine. Fantasticly high revving, very high torque engine. But I think it is also flawed and that in a rear mounted application, with greater cooling difficulties, it can be fragile. Particularly in the rear mounted applications. I would go for it with these engines but be aware that the slightest cooling hiccup or the slightest water loss of any sort require instant attention. The engines must not be driven if the head gasket or cooling system is showing the slightest sign of failure. I do wish you well. I am thoroughly enjoying mine!
I have a modified 160 engine in my metro, Port and polished head and reground exhaust cam to 285 profile are what I have fitted with a ZR160/janspeed manifold and I need to get a remap done by ZandF but from other people's experience, I should be expecting 180-185bhp without much difficulty.
Depends how much money you want to throw at the car and engine, my advice would be to speak to as many different experts like Dave and come up with what you want from the engine, it might be that you build up a second lump which you drop in over a few hours upto getting a K-turbo setup installed with a chargecooler etc.
Depends how much money you want to throw at the car and engine, my advice would be to speak to as many different experts like Dave and come up with what you want from the engine, it might be that you build up a second lump which you drop in over a few hours upto getting a K-turbo setup installed with a chargecooler etc.
22Rgt said:
One of the weakest unreliable engines of recent times, try tuning for more power and its just bringing on yet more problems to add to the already long list. Anything fitted with the K series whichever variant is extremely hard to move on. An engine for self harming masochists..
b
ks.22Rgt said:
One of the weakest unreliable engines of recent times, try tuning for more power and its just bringing on yet more problems to add to the already long list. Anything fitted with the K series whichever variant is extremely hard to move on. An engine for self harming masochists..
Used Caterhams seem to sell pretty quickly...ewenm said:
22Rgt said:
One of the weakest unreliable engines of recent times, try tuning for more power and its just bringing on yet more problems to add to the already long list. Anything fitted with the K series whichever variant is extremely hard to move on. An engine for self harming masochists..
Used Caterhams seem to sell pretty quickly...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff