Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.
MG ZR ZS ZT Technical - Engine conversion for ZR
|I am wanting to put the 1.8 Kseries turbo engine in my ZR. i am having problems getting data on the engine. I am in the planning stage of this project and would be greatful of any input from people that may have some helpful tips.|
I think the engine mounts and such like are the same. i plan to use the 1.8 turbo ecu and engine management system. is the fuel pump larger capacity on the turbo? will it fit in the ZR fuel tank? I am going to use the gearbox from a ZR160. I plan to install the engine as standard and then tune at a later date. would the driveshafts need changing as my car is a 1.4 at the moment are the 160's drive shafts going to be strong enough?
I hope people can assist me with this conversion.
|a quick squint at the 200/25/ZR electronic parts catalogue (EPC) tells us that the same CV joint is used for 1.1 / 1.4 / 1.6 & 1.8 versions. But there are different part numbers for ABS-equipped cars and also the diesels. If you want to dig deeper for this conversion you might be best to get hold of an EPC off eBay for a few quid.....|
|There are aa few differences on the hubs,and also the 1.8k turbo isnt very tuneable.|
The engine was designed for emission and tax purposes.
A slight boost upgrade is feesible,but as for reliability...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm head gaskets galore.
Think seriously about this conversion,it could end up costing you an arm and a leg,and an unreliable car!
|g c mackmurdie|
|Probably better going the 220 turbo route, give motobuild a ring they've done a couple already.|
|<Probably better going the 220 turbo route, give motobuild a ring they've done a couple already.>|
Or even better sticking a KV6 lump in it!
|Maestro Turbo Slayer|
|Hey "Maestro Turbo Slayer" .....:O) They're an endangered species! .... only 504 plus a prototype ever escaped captivity. Of those only about half up and running now ..... which, incidently, is a pretty good survival rate for any car as old as those.|
BTW, there's several special Maestro turbos you'll have to have something exceptionally special to be able to slay .... maybe then only in your dreams ...LOL
Kv6s are crap and you know it.
|i would wait a few months and see what mgr have in stall for us. i think we may be seeing a 1.8turbo zr(200ps) before long.|
|<i think we may be seeing a 1.8turbo zr(200ps) before long.>|
LOL Ricky.Theres more chance of the Maestro being voted car of the year 2003 :D
|MM take a look at this thread |
Take a 190ps KV6 add a set of cams, chip, exhaust and air filter, and what did they get 186bhp hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
|Who cares about BHP anyway?|
It's torque, it's all about torque.
|If it was all about torque, why arent we all driving diesels???|
Do you honestly expect anyone to take seriously the conclusions of Moto-build?????
Why dont you send Dave Walker a mail and ask him what KV6's have been pushing out on his rolling road. EmeraldM3D@aol.com <EmeraldM3D@aol.com>
Dont know if you have ever heard of him but him and his company have a solid reputation with K series tuners.
but to keep on topic, do you really think all that weight of a T16 is a good idea at the front of a ZR? The KV6 has to be the better option and has already been done...
Btw ZS Slayer. If i ever see you about i'm gonna nail ya!;)
|There was a repeat of top gear GTi on yesterday where the were driving a ZS 180, CTR and a clio 172 around a track, guess which car came last................ZS, they said it handles well but just doesnt have the power.|
|Well Id like to add that here at RSM,we are currently building a zr kv6 2.5.|
We have already done a few t16 turbo conversions to the 200/25/zr.
We are also developing our own zs180 and hope to have at least 250bhp shortly.We are in close contact with a racer who is using the 2.5kv6 and at the moment it is pushing 268bhp!
So the kv6 is no slouch
So for more details,keep an eye out or see as at TRAX 2003.
|Anyone considering going to motobuild for a turbo conversion be prepared for more than just the conversion cost. A mate of mine paid £3000 for it... And had the gearbox break 3 times on him, thats workmanship for you, not to mention the state of the wiring and welding of the engine mounts. Steer clear. |
M Moore i see your still at it again, how many maestro turbo's have you killed this week?
|Its about time we had a ZR turbo K series! They can get 175 BHP no trouble! Vauxhall will be showing a 200+Bhp Corsa soon!|
Wakey Wakey MG!
|Well theres a first,Gareth and myself both agreeing on something-Motobuild sucks!|
As for any recent Maestro slayings,none that i can think of but if you let me know the next time your down Southend it could be arranged ;)
|LOL, you really think your heavier Honda Civic cast off will beat my 220 bhp/240lb ft proven on the rolling road scooby doo beater? See you at MGM, southers aint my thing! ;-)|
|<my 220 bhp/240lb ft proven on the rolling road> |
Where did you get them numbers-Motobuilds rolling road ???;)
And have you managed to get a quicker time than 15.9 yet? as 15.9 and 220 bhp dont equate to me :D
|I didnt have 220bhp when i went to Santa Pod matey...|
Spec then was just 9psi, estimate of maybe 160bhp at best? Don't forget the faster cars i beat that day, and remember it was damp....
Figures are from the rolling road at my work. and no i havent mananged to get a better time yet because last weekend it pissed down with rain. Hope to go this Saturday and then i'll mail you a copy of the time slip to prove the doubtful wrong!
|then i'll mail you a copy of the time slip to prove the doubtful wrong! |
Well i'll give you the benifit of the doubt this time but if you dont bang in a time of under 15 secs then my ZS will move in for the kill! :D
|It's a deal. If it doesnt go under 15 seconds i'm a sh*t driver. |
|"If it was all about torque, why arent we all driving diesels???"|
We are, aren't we?
|>> We are also developing our own zs180 and hope to have at least 250bhp shortly.We are in close contact with a racer who is using the 2.5kv6 and at the moment it is pushing 268bhp! <<|
Interesting, VERY interesting.
The biggest question i have with the KV6 is why isn't it more powerfull? I have a 1.8MPi in my F and with a few tuning mods, it was pushing out 146bhp, or 34bhp short of the 'magic' 100bhp per litre. The KV6, fantastic motor that it is, is way shy of the 100 bhp per litre mark, which to me says that it isn't very efficient in standard tune. Surely, if they can get a 1.8 K to within 20 bhp of the 100/litre target (TF / ZR 160), then the KV6 should be at least 200bhp as standard and in a higer spec form, around the 230bhp mark.
Bring it on, that's what i say. :-)
|SF Wrote (much snipped)|
>>The KV6, fantastic motor that it is, is way shy of the 100 bhp per litre mark, which to me says that it isn't very efficient in standard tune.<<
Or, in other words, MUCH less stressed which should equate to longevity and reliability ..... increase those "more efficient" stress levels and you'll get near or obtain that 100bhp/litre level.
|True John, but the 1.8K in Trophy 160, TF 160 guise doesn't seem to be any more unreliable than the other 1.8K engines.|
My question is if MGR can do it on a production 1.8K, why can't they do it on the KV6?
Obviously this is all hypothetical, i bought my ZS 180 as a reliable mode of transport rather than another 'project' car so it is unlikely to see any major mods (well, maybe an exhaust) or be traded for a more powerful version, still does this mean that MGR have something a bit more special up thier sleeve? (and i'm not talking about the limited edition Toca ZS lash up, too little gain IMO).
|As engine capacities increase, it seems that it gets progressively harder to reach that 100bhp/litre gold standard. "Easy" on a three cylinder 650cc, but very hard on a 7.5 litre V8...|
not sure why this is exactly, but probably has everything to do with gas flow into and out of the head. Larger ports are good for gas flow and peak power (and probably a necessity for a big-pot engine), but bad for low speed torque, where the gas flow tends to be slow and stalls... Striking a happy compromise is probably a very difficult balancing act, and gets harder as the engine capacity is increased.
|Rob Bell WROTE: much snipped:|
>> not sure why this is exactly, but probably has everything to do with gas flow into and out of the head. <<
That's only part of the story. It's reciprocating mass which also limits the BHP/litre ratio so that smaller, lighter engines are more 'efficient' than larger versions of exactly the same concept.
Back in the mid-1960s, the 50cc Honda Grand Prix motor cycles had THREE CYLINDERS and developed their peak power at about 25,000 rpm IIRC (You did read that correctly; that's three cylinders and fifty cubic centimetres capacity). That enabled the riders at the I-o-M TT races (which had Grand Prix Status back then - now only the namby-pamby circuits of today have that status ... Schumacher, Montoya - don't know theyze born ...;-) ... I digress ... back on track now: ... enabling these minute lightweight engined machines to lap the 37.75 mile I-o-M Mountain Circuit at ridiculously high speeds.
So, scale up the dimensions of that little engine by a factor of four and you should get four times the power .... err ... no ... doesn't work like that. Reciprocating mass and other laws of Physics come into play .... unfortunately. Shame eh?
|>>That's only part of the story. It's reciprocating mass which also limits the BHP/litre ratio<<|
Agreed John :o)
|it's a great shame that the VVC mechanism is only applied to the 1.8. I wonder what gains could be expected if it where applied to the 1.4. never mind the V6's and with turbos on top!!! the Double Vanos BMW system is applied to both inlet and outlet valves unlike MGR which uses the technique on the inlet valves only.|
|VVC mechanism can only be applied to a 4-cylinder engine (so V8 yes, v6 no).|
The VVC head has indeed been applied to a 1.4 (and a 1.6!) Trouble is, the VVC head is pretty expensive to produce - in fact it is cheaper to increase the engine capacity: the 1.4VVC would be completing against the 1.6, and the 1.6VVC against the 1.8...
Would you really pay extra for a smaller capacity engine?
|'Horsepower sells cars....torque wins races'|
(according to Shelby)
|yes, but...........don't smaller engines have more spin, an ideal situation for a VVC system, plus the fuel economies that a smaller engine brings, and a smaller engine can go in a smaller car. I can see the extra complexity of fitting in V configurations, not sure of the difference between a V6 and a V8, ( - though an explanation is always a welcome interest:) I suppose the extra expense of a VVC head would be reflected in the price difference between cars that have the 1.8, and the 1.8VVC|
could I order a VVC head and fit it to my 1.4?
Where would I read about the 1.4VVC?
|I dont know about the 1.4 but on the 1.8 - as fitted to the F/TF there are differences in the bottom as well, the MPi 1.8 has only one cam belt whilst the VVC 1.8 has two - one at each end of the head.|
Also the early models of the MGF had stronger bottom ends fitted to the VVC. later fitted to all 1.8s.
So I think it might be a little bit expensive to convert an engine to VVC.
|>>>>>>yes, but...........don't smaller engines have more spin<<<<<<<,|
Not entirly true. Think bore/stoke ratio...
|>>yes, but...........don't smaller engines have more spin, an ideal situation for a VVC system<<|
Yes - and no. The VVC mechanism itself has an rpm limit, as the cam system is pushing material science to its limits. To get the VVC to run faster, you'd need to use rather more exotic materials in its construction, at, obviously, extra cost.
But point taken - the smaller capacity K's spin more smoothly than the larger capacity engines, so keeping the engine on the boil in the 6.5-7k range would be no hardship. Probably a lot of fun actually :o)
>> I can see the extra complexity of fitting in V configurations, not sure of the difference between a V6 and a V8, ( - though an explanation is always a welcome interest:)<<
The VVC mechanism works on multiples of four - so a V8, with two banks of four cylinders would work well, whereas a V6 with two banks of 3 cylinders would not... it is all in the way that the mechanism is designed. I think that there is a URL somewhere that explains how the VVC works in more detail. Unfortunately, I can't remember it off hand. :o( Try http://www.mgcars.org.uk/news/news174.html for starters.
>> suppose the extra expense of a VVC head would be reflected in the price difference between cars that have the 1.8, and the 1.8VVC<<
This is distorted, through different equipment levels and differing profit margains... Probably get a better idea if you are able to find the replacement parts prices for new fully dressed heads.
>>could I order a VVC head and fit it to my 1.4?<<
Yes, you certainly could - it will bolt straight on.
Getting the thing to work would be more tricky though, unless the 1.8 VVC MEMS will work adequately with the 1.4 displacement (but that sounds somewhat unlikely to me). You might consider dropping Dave Walker at Emerald a line - to my knowledge, these guys are the only ones currently planning an after market ECU clever enough to operate the VVC mechanism.
>>Where would I read about the 1.4VVC?<<
Erm... you can't (to my knowledge) - unless you know someone in Longbridge! ;o)
Good luck Gary - do let us know how you get on! :o)
|>> and a smaller engine can go in a smaller car. <<|
1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 all have essentially the same size block. 1.4 is the 'normal' version, 1.6 has damp liners to increase capacity (a larger bore) and 1.8 has damp liners and a longer stroke. this is why the VVC head can be bolted onto the smaller cpapcity engines.
VVC has 5, yes FIVE camshafts, this is how it is set up.
There is 1 normal sized cam shaft that runs the 8 exhaust valves (1 pair per cylinder).
There are a pair of half shafts, that only have 2 cam lobes on each. These cam lobes operate the inlet valves on the two inner cylinders. The shafts themselves however are half the block long, so they extend over the outer two cylinders.
Slotted onto the ends of the half shafts are a pair of quarter length cam shafts, each with 2 cam lobes. These quarter shafts operate the inlet valves on the outer two clynders. The half length shafts act like a spindle and the quarter length shafts rotate around them.
This arrangement gives a pair of inlet camshaft lobes per cylinder on 4 camshafts, 2 half length ones and two quarter length ones. The clever part of the VVC mechanism is the way these are driven independantly, i won't go into this here (mainly because there are a few areas i don't understand!) but this is why the VVC mechanism is affectionately known as Very Very Complicated. :-)
|DOHC is dead, long live the quin cam!|
|so, using the same block, does the 1.4 engine occupy the same amount of space in the engine bay as the 1.8? If so, get this....... take one Rover Metro/Rover 100..... get the idea? How much BHP per tonne would a 160 engine produce in a car that weighs less than a tonne?|
(and with yummy hydragas suspension too)
|Gary, yes, the 1.8 K is exactly the same size as the 1.4 K.|
And there are already a number of K-series engined Metros running around with tuned 1.8 litre motors (especially on Sprints and Hillclimbs!) :o))
In fact, I thought of doing something very similar and tacking on an MG Metro nose for the MGCCSC... ;o)) Imagine a 220bhp engine in something as feather light as a Metro... monster monster monster!
|Gary have a butcher's at the Performance Metro website.|
I think the 1.8K into a Metro conversion isn't as totally straightforward as it appears.
1.8 K series units use the Honda PG1 which I understand is a bit bulkier than the R65 used in K engined Metros.
|All 4 cyl K series engines share the same block and there are 3 different liners used, in two sizes, depending on final engine spec. 75mm for 1.1 and 1.4, 80mm for 1.6 and 1.8. The third liner is currently the special 80mm liner for the turbo application which will (like the two original different bottom end specs for 1.8MGF) commonised to just the single 80mm turbo spec liner. Three crank sizes are used 63mm for 1.1, 79mm for 1.4 and 1.6 and 89.3mm for the 1.8.|
The heads are also shared across the capacity ranges so the 1.8mpi may be undervalved as the head was designed for the 1.4. Going the other way and the 1.1 is generously equiped with the same head. The point being that unless you look at the engine numer stamping or measure bore and crank throw externally the engines are all the same (VC head excepted).
Fitting the K series across the three different gearboxes uses, R65, PG1, (and now the IB5 too?), involves using the appropriate flywheel. Note too that Metro/R100 uses a 190mm clutch and the R200/25/MGZR models using the R65 use a 200mm clutch. (PG1 uses 215mm generally, although this can be increased to 228mm.) (A 1.8 mated to an R65 sits in my garage at the moment!)
This thread was discussed between 23/05/2003 and 25/06/2003
MG ZR ZS ZT Technical index
This thread is from the archive. The Live MG ZR ZS ZT Technical BBS is active now.