talizman

iTrader: (1)

What part of YOUR OWN statement don't you understand?

You are talking about normally aspirated cars, and then quote Honda but claim that it doesn't really count.

HOW doesn't it really count?

It is n/a so it DOES count.

Jeez.

Your argument is about as fragile as Rover engines

BTW, you still haven't explained how turbocharging is "cheating"?

And why is "na the way"????

16vmarc

They used to do a 100bhp 1.5 , not sure if they still do.

Dream Weaver

The 205 XS was a 1.4 - 90bhp using a good old fashioned carb, so Rover have only developed 10bhp since 1989

bloke

Honda do a 1 litre engine that makes 180bhp. Ok it's a fireblade engine but...

bloke

Oh it's n/a btw, does it count?

MG ZR

[QUOTE=talizman]What part of YOUR OWN statement don't you understand?

You are talking about normally aspirated cars, and then quote Honda but claim that it doesn't really count.

HOW doesn't it really count?

it counts as a n/a engine but the v-tech has Variable Valve Timing and lift Electronic Control, the MG does not have this just like the 160 has varible valve control which the 1.4 does not have, this obviously improves performance and does not place the MG and honda engines in the same class, as for turbo cheating, well straping a modified hair-dryer on your car is hardly the greatest engineering feat since man invented the wheel. But i suppose if you want to tune up a slower engine rather than produce a better performing one then go ahead.

talizman

iTrader: (1)

Oooooooh, a lesson in how each manufacturers engine works from a Rover driver! LMAO

I am perfectly aware of how VVT and VTEC engines work, but your argument is regards n/a and turbocharged, and you are on the wrong board to start slagging off "modified hairdryers"

By the way, the new age STi's have VVT and a Turbo charger bigger than your Rovers engine!

Don't let the door hit you on the *** on your way out

16vmarc

Why would a rover driver sign up on here and moan about turbos?

lol

talizman

iTrader: (1)

All that power has obviously gone to his head!

Groundbreaking technology you see! Fastest car in its class apparently!

TheManOnTheStreet

...and the 'class' you have it in excludes any N/A engine with a wee bit of a different valve timing technology.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but most engines have valve timing technology - variable or fixed is what you're comparing....

To 'invent' some class of engine just so you can say the K-series has the most power in it's 'class' compared to others seems a pointless exercise.

After all, most performance cars these days have either VVT, or a Turbo(s), or a supercharger, or a huge **** off amount of cc's (ie, TVR!).

If they don't have any of these, they're not really "sports cars" in my book, and hence, no-one gives a toss what the engine technology is - ie, it's a 8v or 16v lump which powers the wheels.

However, should you wish to continue comparing your relatively low-tech 1.4 K-series engine (now over 15 years old) to other "performance" engines, feel free

TheManOnTheStreet

Oh, and by the way, engines are not "fast" in themselves. Speed comes down to many more factors than that.

Are you trying to say that this MG car is the fastest N/A 1.4 (non-VTEC!) car available? Of course, it could be lighter than the competition, or geared to give impressive 0-60 times etc....who knows.

...but the engine in itself is not "fast". That is an unquantifiable attribute in isolation.

MG ZR

a) because people started to whine oh it looks the same as a rover, it is a rover just the same as a scooby was designed by the same company originally in production of industrial skips.
b) Turbos because people started talking about oo but look this 1.4 can go faster because weve attached a hairdryer.
c) Scoobys are fast because they are light, which means they are probably nice and thin metalled too, drive in a merc sl, then youll know class and performance, at least they have the idea to supercharge their cars, anyway ill let you get back to wow look at my skip move on all four wheels cars..

talizman

iTrader: (1)

MG ZR,

time for you to go back to your Max Power forums.....

TheManOnTheStreet

Err...but no-one was trying to hide the fact they had turbochargers. You say it is easy to attach a turbo therefore it is lazy. However, are Honda "lazy" for developing their VTEC system which produces more power than the K-series for the same cc?


Ah, so bolting on a supercharger is ok is it? Dear oh dear. Do you actually know how ANY engines work?

Of course a Merc SL will be a class above - it costs £60k+.

You seem to have a rather big chip on your shoulder about your MG. Why? We all know what attributes all cars have.

MG ZR

//

Kev at home

Sigh!! I thought I would post my views on my car and to some extent defend it, seems like this thread is turning into a slanging match. What about good old debate and a unblinkered views?? The K is still a good engine allbeit getting on, i think its main advantage is the fact it all aluminium design, hence a good power to weight ratio, if I remember correctly a fully charged engine (with coolant and oil) comes in at 90KG, hence the reason it is used by kit car companys. Dud a caterham not set a new world record for 0-100-0. 10.3 seconds I think not bad considering it was a K. On another note, MG are doing quite nicely in the BTCC using the K, they are now using the 2l lump which hasn't gone pop all season, they are certainly killing the civic type r and chomping on the heals of the vaux's. Not bad for a decrepid old style engine.

Keep it clean lads

Kev

JDM

I would agree that the K series is a venerable unit, which has found it's place in many fine performance cars.

The 1.4 MG in question isn't one of them though. My problem isn't so much the engine as the car in comparison to its direct competitors. It's a relatively poorly built and unreliable vehicle with appalling residule values. Shame though it is, it's completely outclassed by other cars in it's segment which were designed for the most part a couple of generations after the 200/25.

Dream Weaver

I think the reason people slag Rover's is because most of us have been stung by them in the past and present. I lost £2000 on a Rover 216 a few years back after the head gasket went and the ECU locked up. I couldnt afford to get it fixed at the time so scrapped it for £100, and had bought it only 2 years previous to that for £2000 (including new clutch and other bits).

talizman

iTrader: (1)

This thread had deteriorated into a slagging match because the ZR newbie has signed up and come on here slagging everything abou the cars we all love...

Hairdryer turbos
Cheats
Skips etc etc

If he were to come on with a proper argument, as Kev at Home did above, then people would respect his views.

As it stands, we don't.

Dracoro

LMAO at the goalposts for MG ZR's rationale. Fair enough to exclude turbo's but to exclude variable valve timing is daft. What else can you exclude? Carbs? Throttle bodies? different cams? 8v or 16v only? etc. etc. I'm sure you can tune a 1.4 to have far more than 100bhp if you want to. At then end of the day, it produces 70 or so bhp per litre. not bad but not fantastic. As someone else said, a few others produce 100 bhp (vag group etc.) from 1.4's so it seems par for the course, not groundbreaking.

My 2.0 engine (1993 one at that!) does not have variable valve timing but still produces 190bhp. This is 95bhp per litre. My old S2000 was a 2.0 and produces 240bhp which is 120bhp per litre. Then there's motorcycle engines that produce 190bhp from a 1.3. thats 146 bhp per litre.

I think it's safe to say that the 1.4 K series engine is the most powerful 1.4, non vvt, non special cams, non throttle bodied engine produced by MG Rover.

talizman

iTrader: (1)

LOL! Definitely!

MG ZR

only because you started to slate the MG, remeber this only started because you slagged off the MG, anyway ill let you get back to CM4

JDM

I don't think anyone really slagged off the MG, after all the company is all we have left of our once proud car manufacturing past.

All that has been stated here is the truth, that MG's products don't compare well to other choices on the market, because they are old designs that are put together badly and tend to come out rather poorly in customer surveys and in terms of reliability and residule values.

For all those reasons I won't buy one and I wouldn't advise anyone else to either.