Rover K series (turbo) - can it be made reliable now?

[s91]

I'm considering using a turbocharged K series in a project car, but trying to find information on reliability is a bit difficult, the K series fans will tell you it's a great engine and their's hasn't ever gone wrong and everyone else will repeat the usual tales of HGF, add to that the various "fixes" over the years and the different combinations of engines and parts used, the standard 1.8 turbo lump vs turboing a 1.4/1.6 which some claim to be stronger, VVC vs solid cam, and so on.
I've always dismissed the K series but recently came across another so called "fix" which uses parts from the new N series which is supposed to be a development of the K and apparently reliable. You can buy a kit with the new oil rail, HG, and stronger bolts.
I've read about various other problems that relate to HGF such as incorrect liner heights, thermostat/cooling system design, etc, and have found some old posts on here on the same subject so I'm sure this has been discussed many times already but a lot of those posts are quite old so I'm hoping things have moved on since then.

Basically what I want to know is can the 1.8 turbo K series (R75/MGZT) be "reliable"? Not looking to run silly amounts of power, just low to mid 200's which I'm told the standard pistons and rods can cope with, it's the rest of the engine I'm concerned about.

[s91]

Ikemi said:

The more expensive option is to go the Honda Type R route, with the ability to add a supercharger and a charge cooler too, for additional power. Turbo Technics used to (might still?) offer turbo upgrades for K Series engines. Is there a distinct reason as to why you'd like to keep with the K Series?

All I'm looking for really is a cheap project, strip the car back to a bare shell, remove as much weight as possible, take the engine apart put it back together with the parts that are needed to make it "reliable", it's just as enjoyable to me to build something as it is to drive it.

I've considered an EP3/DC5 and turbo'ing it but the cost is a bit high as I only really want it as a bit of fun on the side, something to build and then use as a track/weekend car, an MG/R parts bin special seems ideal as ZR/ZS shells are cheap, as are most of the parts for them. Most people would probably go with the T16 but it's a heavy old lump and I quite like the power to weight ratio of the K series, as long as it can handle around 230-250bhp.

[s91]

Limpet said:

This. The casting quality was so patchy that some engines left the factory as ticking timebombs, while others never hiccuped throughout their working lives. If you're saddled with a bad one, it doesn't matter what you do, it will never be reliable.

It was an engine that needed far tighter production tolerances and more careful assembly than Rover were willing or able to give it, particularly later on when the cost cutting started to bite.

I've seen various comments about engines from certain years are more reliable than others, is there any truth in that or is it just pot luck?

Does anyone else other than those already mentioned have any experience with the 1.8 K turbo? And what's the deal with VVC vs solid cam, I see a lot of the high performance versions of the K series use a solid cam, is that because they are more for race applications where revs are continously kept within the powerband where VVC isn't really necessary or is there a problem with it? It seems daft to not bother technology like that when it's available.

Edited by s91 on Monday 12th March 18:38

[s91]

I'm interested to know what sort of power a totally standard bottom end could handle, wouldn't need to make a huge amount of power somewhere around 230-250 would be fine, on a smallish turbo, something like a T28R or GT2554R.

[s91]

Max_Torque said:

The question for me is why bother?

Sure you can make a K series reliable, and if you need to use a K series for some reason (original car used one and you want originality, then great, use one.

That's partly the reason, and I'm well aware of other engines being a better base to work from and I'm much more familiar with them than I am with the K series hence the question, if it can be made reliable then a lightly boosted K series will be fine for what I want.

[s91]

turbotoaster said:

stock bottom end



286bhp/236ftlbs@14psi
382bhp/341ftlbs@25psi

if you tune properly as set the clearances correctly for the application you can make alot of power

keeping the torque out of low rpm also helps keep them alive

Is that on OEM pistons rods and liners from a totally standard 1.8 turbo bottom end or some other combination of OEM parts?

[s91]

That's impressive, what turbo and supporting mods was it running, something like a GT28/30 I'm guessing?

I'd be interested to know how repeatable that reliability is, you say yours has been through multiple track days at that sort of power and yet other people go on as if the blocks are made of chocolate, how many of these engines have you actually built then, do they ever come back with problems related to too much power? What sort of ECU did you have on it, I'd imagine mapping plays a huge part in keeping these things reliable, well that goes for any engine but the general opinion seems to be that uprated liners and pistons are a must for these engines.