Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.



MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.

MG MGF Technical - i need more power

Hi all, Me and my mates go to santa pod quite oftern. up untill now ive not taken any of my cars coz the were slow. Now i have my mgf vvc. i thought i might be able to race them. I want to beet my mate 225bhp audi tt. when im in his it feels alot more controled with the 4wd system. how can i make my vvc quicker.

See Turbo Technics and get a Super charger!

A good place to start is Dave Andrews :

I agree, the TT conversion is the best way to muller your chum's Audi TT :o)

Hope you have a reasonably deep pocket Gee...
Rob Bell

Kingsley, have you started on engine mods yet?
Rob Bell


What you also need is a better power/weight ratio - empty the boot before going to the Pod.

Back to the past: I first went there when it was still RAF Poddington to see the likes of Nero and Super Nero when it was still called Sprinting and you didn't have to wear a dress to race.

thanks a lot i'll have a look. Is a superchip any good. he put one on his and its been rolling roaded, now he's thinks he got 275bhp. all form a chip.

Rob, from my other thread...

Clue - maximum score with 3 darts!

hmm what fun!
Went over to DVA's last week to see how easy it will be to work on the engine, there's enough space for the DTH throttles and the airbox, access to the cambelt area looks a bit tricky tho. and the exhaust's path's a bit arduous (sp?) as a result of the alternator location from having airconditioning, other than that all looks good for some serious power/torque!

>now he's thinks he got 275bhp. all form a chip.
I guess he has a turbo charger, and the boost has been incressed, with the life of his engine decressed and the warrenty voided. On the F there is no boost to regulate so you cannot stuff your engine with a chip. You want to get an emerald and some fine tuning (then loose the spare tyre and jack)

Will Munns

"so you cannot stuff your engine with a chip" - a certain mainland European convert to BMWs would disagree with you!
Jason H
Jason H

OK, but he did other stuff as well as the chip, and he didn't do anything to map his chip. = Very lean = very hot = molten k series.

The point is the massive power gains are not there unless you can abuse your engine by messing with the boost settings.
Will Munns

Gee, you cannot expect to see serious power from only a couple of hundred quids expenditure. Multiply that figure by 10, and then you're talking!

Chips work best with turbo engines, as Will has explained. Superchips can be used reliably on non-aspirated engines (they NEED to be rolling-road set up by Superchips themselves), but the max gain you can expect to see is 5% - so about 7 bhp on a VVC. We've RR tested MGFs with these chips fitted, and then un-plugged them and repeated the RR run to see absolutely no gain whatsoever.

Other cheap mods include replacement air filters (from 30 quid) and replacement exhausts (250 quid and upward).

Then you want to look at the exhaust manifold. A decent 4-2-1 manifold will cost 400 quid.

For non-VVC engines, Piper BP285 cams are a good bet. For VVC engines, go for a solid cam conversion. You'll need to invest in a decent replacement engine management system at this stage, and the Emerald M3D seems to be one of the best available.

Then get some DTH or Jenvey direct to head throttle bodies.

If determined to continue down the normally aspirated route, then the head can be ported by DV Andrews (link near top of this thread). This is Kingsley's choosen route - nice one Kingsley! Looking forward to hearing how you get on! :o) Any dates set for the work/ idea on completion date? I for one would like to see your car on a RR when you've finished!

Up to 200 bhp can be had via this approach, Gee.

But sprinting down the pod is all about torque and mass.

Loose some weight from the car if you are really serious: seats can be replaced with light weight racing items. A lot of interior is just ballast. Remove it. Take out the spare wheel and brace before the runs too.

For serious gains in torque, you're looking at a TT Supercharger conversion (hence my initial suggestion). But that'll be close to 5 grand.

You pays your money, and you makes your choice!
Rob Bell

so wot we r saying is that im not gonna get as fast as his car without spending alot of money. so i may as well by a faster car thats standard like a subru wrx. There again l like poodling along in my f seeing every1's reaction to it and generaly they love it. let the rest of them carry on with there 1/4 mile runs. i like my car the way it is.........

>non-aspirated engines
eek, what would that be? nucular?
Will Munns

You could probebly loose a lot of weight by loosing some sound deadaning material the stuff under the carpets is very thick and heavy.


Will Munns

Hi Rob,
Dave's so busy it will be march time!! :(
Will def be getting it on the rolling road once done, i think it gets set up by emerald after the work is completed anyway.

What happened to the NOX option ?
This should be much simpler than forced induction and give similar figures - may still need work on the engine's bottom end tho'



1.8 K series engine is effectively a 'tuned' 1.4 lump.

From the factory, it is a bored out, 1.4 K series engine with a longer stroke to give a 1.8 litre displacement. The VVC mechanism continuously adjusts the valve timing to give an extra 15 or so bhp, effectively making it feel more like a 2.0 litre. 2.0 litres of performance from an engine that weighs as much as a 1.4 is a pretty good power to weight ratio.

The upshot of all this is that, as it is already 'tuned' when you buy it, there are limitations on what you can do and this means that any serious power increases are a lot more complicated and therefore more expensive. There is also a question mark over reliability as any serious modifications are definitely pushing the envelope on an engine that can be a bit fragile even in standard tune.

The Elise gets around this by serious weight reduction, typically an Elise weighs in at around 75% of the weight of an F. This strategy has produced the 2 seconds + difference in 0-60 times and there are a lot of 'comfort' components in an F that could be sacrificed if need be (sound deadening material, spare wheel replaced with a can of IMS 'goo', some lightweight body panels are also available, even the hood could go, the frame is heavier than the GRP hardtop!), bear in mind though that even a lightweight F will still be heavier than an Elise due to the differences in construction ( i.e. steel vs fibreglass). MGF Cup cars are a good example of how much can be jetisoned, they are bare shells with the odd carbon fibre panel - an extreme, but coupled with a 190 bhp VHPD engine, very quick.

The most cost effective increase in bhp on a standard VVC s vs bhp is an air filter replacement. The K+N 57i is less than 100.00 and has been independently proven to give up to 15 bhp above standard. This is because the standard set up has some very poor flow dynamics and suffers from a lack of cold air. The Trophy 160 MGF and the TF models have had this area revised and are now a lot more efficient, thus reducing any potential gains.

There are loads of sports exhausts available, but, of the ones that have been independently tested, none of them give more than +5 bhp. Power gains should not be a significant factor in your choice of system then, looks, sound and longevity are more important.

Other breathing modifications can be done, a cat bypass is believed to have no significant bhp benefits, but a decent 4:2:1 exhaust manifold has shown useful torque increases when fitted to an Elise - this is worth considering, if you can get round the flexible joint problem on an F (the Elise doesn't have one).

Gas flowing the head has shown significant increases, but although a Stage 1 head can be had fairly cheeply, the installation costs tend to make this a bit more pricey.

From there on in, you are looking at spending fairly large sums of cash. Chipping isn't a huge benefit unless you completely replace the standard MEMS and combine it with something else like direct to head throttle bodies or supercharging, both of which are at least 4 figures price wise and produce large enough gains to raise questions about long-term reliability.

Scarlet Fever

Don't forget that the MG is quite a bit lighter than the TT so BHP /ton is perhaps what you should be aiming for..... MGF a hair over 1 ton TT is somewhat more - I don't have the figure at the mo but would think 1.3 tons.

On a similar note a standard scooby wrx is about 185 BHP/ton (or 215 quoted) so a MGF with 190BHP should be able to give it a bit of stick ... :0)
tim woolcott

Good-oh Kingsley - keep us posted! :o)

Tim, good point well made there. Power to weight is indeed what counts. A standard pre-2000 MGF weighs in under 1075kg. Audi TT 1395 kg.

So a 225 bhp TT has a power to weight ratio of 161 bhp per tonne.

A 160 BHP MGF has a power to weight ratio of 149 bhp per tonne.

Or, to put it another way, to match the 225 TT, the MGF would need about 174 bhp.

Quite a lot of work for a 1.8i (cams, M3D chip, multiple throttle bodies and suitable exhaust manifold and back box should get you close to this figure for about 1500 quid?)

Fairly expensive to achieve on a VVC too... although that might change once the VVC M3D chip is 'on-line'

Point is, yes, it would be cheaper to start with a more powerful car Gee!

Enjoy the MG as it is - and maybe think about a few mods here and there, as and when you fancy a little bit more 'go' ;o)

(PS Andy, Elise's DO have a flexipipe in their exhaust system - it's the same as the one used on our cars. The Elise owners get over the flexi-pipe issue by replacing the standard engine steady bar/bush with something stiffer. Not necessarily an ideal solution IMO).
Rob Bell

I can suggest 2 options A) Keep the F and live with the slower car. Spend the upgrade cash on an old fast car........B) Sell the F and with the upgrade money buy a TT
D Jamieson


A 1.8 isnt a 'tuned' 1.4, its specific output per litre is *lower* than the 1.4 by some margin which isnt that surprising since it has the same sized valves and throttle body.

Not all 1.8s are VVC, all thing considered there is plenty of scope for improvement on both the regular 1.8 and VVC engines so dont be put off. Outputs of 175BHP+ can be had on the VVC by a proper porting job on the head, a decent exhaust and a trophy TB, a better exhaust cam will yield more. There is a sweet spot at about 175-180 over which the stock bottom end is near its limit. On a regular 1.8K a decent porting job, TBs and reasonable cams together with a programmable ECU can raise the output to this level or above with a substantial increase in torque, there is plenty of background reading and explanations of what does and doesnt work here

All of the documentation is based on real world examples with proven outputs.

Have a read and make your own mind up.

Dave Andrews

so if i was to put a K&N this would give me an extra 15bhp on my vvc then put a good backbox on 5bhp. This means i should have 165bhp in total, so then i only short of 10bhp which is wot rob was saying. am i correct.

Another solution for the flexipipe is to replace the cat with a flexible cat replacement pipe! or cat+ flexipipe. these are all available from elise parts stores online.
There's always something specail about having a tuned normal car rather than a stock faster car. a feeling your car is individual? special? better? i'm not sure, but i enjoy the feeling:)

"Or, to put it another way, to match the 225 TT, the MGF would need about 174 bhp."

Que Dave Livingstone who has such a beast posrted by Dave Andrews..... Dave (L) took me for a 'spin' around Rockingham on Saturday and It's hellishly fast, it does have great brakes too.

tim woolcott

>>so if i was to put a k&n this would give me an extra 15bhp on my vvc then put a good backbox on 5bhp. This means i should have 165bhp in total, so then i only short of 10bhp which is wot rob was saying. am i correct. <<

Yes, that is pretty much what we are saying, although the standard VVC is starting off with 145 bhp. Also we are all moving towards airfilters in cold air boxes - the two best performers are the ITG Maxogen and the Pipercross Viper. Which of the two of these is best is going to be subject of a RR test, hopefully in the near future.

Back to your point, and yes, a decent filter + decent exhaust = 160 bhp (we saw this nicely verified at the Emerald RR day). Add a decent exhaust manifold, and a few more horses can be liberated. Also ensure that all castings are well matched - machining work that need not cost all that much to have done :o)

Then you start entering the realms of head work - not necessarily fiendishly expensive, but something that you might want to give some thought to first. Dave, as you see from the posts above, has a terrific car that everyone has been impressed by :o) I'm sorely tempted too! :o))
Rob Bell

Although if you mate's TT really does have 275 bhp, you'll be looking at needing about 212 bhp from your F in order to complete. A dream of many on this BBS ...

What kind of racing is it, anyway? Track, or straight-line? If it's straight line, I reckon you don't stand a chance :-(, but if you've got some bends in there, then you might be better off investing in suspension upgrades and tuition.


1/4 mile racing Nigel

Well, you can ditch the anti-roll bars for a start then! ROFLMAO!
Rob Bell

Dave wrote...

>> A 1.8 isnt a 'tuned' 1.4, its specific output per litre is *lower* than the 1.4 by some margin which isnt that surprising since it has the same sized valves and throttle body. <<

Are you saying that it isn't a 1.4 size block with damp liners to give 1.6 litres of displacement and a longer stroke to bump it up to 1.8? I understood that generally on an engine, 'tuning' options include re-boring and lengthening the stroke to give a higher capacity, as this has been done already by MGR themselves, 2 'tuning' options have been done already and therefore removed from the options list.

Or are you saying that determining whether an engine is 'tuned' or not is entirely down to specific output per litre and has nothing to do with whether anything has been done to the engine. It is possible to 'tune' an engine and not make the gains in proportion to the original output.

Either way, maybe the choice of the word 'tuned' was inapropriate in my posting, i was aware of this at the time - hence the apostrophies. This is exactly the reason i rarely post on the Technical board - the need to be very specific as there are people waiting to jump down your throat at the slightest provocation. Once here and once on the general board this month by people who have a track record of being overly pedantic all time or have a chip on thier shoulder and need to let of steam - hey guys, that's what flame wars is for - muppets the lot of them.

My appologies to Dave, who i have rarely corresponded with, he is an authority on the subject of the K series and his advice is welcome and should be listened to. It's a shame that it was him who provided straw that broke the camel's back. I have been seething about this for ages now, twats like Meagre and the odd Troll are bad enough without petty little postings picking holes in everything you say. Finally, they have succeeded in making me exactly like them - ranting and hijacking someone elses thread even though i have little to say on the original subject matter. :-(

Congrats guys - you know who you are. I'm out of here...

SF <---fuming at the moment, feeling unappreciated and unlikely to come back until i have calmed down. >:-(



Dont take it to heart mate!

There are people on these boards who are so engrossed in what they are doing - undoubtedly good work in most cases - that they can not see that your intentions are good, because you call a 'groundnut' a 'peanut' (or the other way round) they then think you have to be stupid.

Also one of the reasons why I am tending to post far less often, unfortunately the days of friendly banter on these boards are a thing of the past, the prime object of some of our 'colleagues' seems to be to cause as much offence as possible.

Ted Newman

Andy my old friend (and I hope you do not mind me calling you a friend after all these years) BUT I think you are over reacting.

I have read and reread Dave's post and can see no malice or intent to wound in it. I think all he was attempting to do was develop the discussion by picking up on a point you made.

You were suggesting that Rover had squeezed most of the performance available out while Dave was suggesting their was further to go.

It is this type of thread that makes this board so much more interesting than the competition - there is a richer range of contributions!

The ultimate test of malice - if Dave had spoken his post to you in a pub with a pint in his hand and a smile on his face, would you have taken offence - quite right, of course you wouldn't!

On the topic of the post, I am not sure trying to match a Titty is a great idea. While you might be able to squeeze a bit more power out of the F at the expense of a few k and (I suspect) a shorter working life and higher premiums, the Titty can also be tuned.

In the real world on a sunny day and some empty country roads, where would you rather be, in an F or a Hungarian Golf?

No bleeding contest!

If your interest in life is wasting Titties get a TVR, if you want to enjoy your driving and are happy to be able to only waste 99% of the cars on the road keep the F!


Patrick Beet

Andy, I think that there is implicit agreement with the vast majority of your post mate! :o) Don't be disheartened!

Dave's post simply expanded on the 'tuned' 1.4 point that you made (and I know where you were coming from there, and agree that the 1.8 can be regarded as a 'tuned' 1.4!). Educational for all of us, I believe that DVA simply points out there is further tuning potential in the 1.8K - which of course you know about already!

Don't regard the posts here on the Technical board as pedantry - more points of argument in a debate amongst friends (as Patrick says). I've personally learnt loads from many such exchanges - both here and on the Elise Tech BBS (and things get very 'challenging' over there from time to time! LOL)

Rob (who's feeling a bit guilty now for mentioning the Elise flexi-pipe problem...)
Rob Bell

My advice is to get a TVR, Lighter, more powerful, loads of Torque.

I understand that Turbo Technics give a figure of 215 BHP for a VVC with the Supercharger which should give you enough power with loads of Torque.

A recent'ish TVR will cost about the same as a new TF 160 + a supercharger. The TVR will be fastest and the Supercharged F and TT will be around the same.

The TT gets most of it's power from the Turbocharger, without it the extra weight would really be noticed. To get anywhere near with an F you would need a supercharger ideally.

1.8 is about as much capacity you can get out of a K series, I think this is what Andy was trying to say. As far as I know nobody has tried to fit another engine in an F so I think 215 BHP is about the best you could do, maybe a bit more with a ported head and decent cams as well as the supercharger.....

To do it properly a big valve head on an MPI and a supercharger may be the best route to go as I would have wories about the VVC setup lasting very long with a supercharger. Mind you, what do I know.....

I remember about a year ago, someone posting here, who swapped the 1.8MPI for a Rover 2.0 turbo engine.
No hard prove like RR of pics though.Id call out for a countrywide search for a bl**dy fast *F*

Got to search the archives to get name and date of post(er).


David, I remember the post - and also recall a follow-up post (perhaps on the general board?) mentioning that the car was suffering from heat-related problems?
Rob Bell

For the once with patience:
Here it is the original post:

Thread: MGF Engine Swop
Posted 12 May 2002 at 13:24:53 UK time
Peter, Banbury
I have just bought an early MGF which has a faulty engine, HGF+++.
What is the potential for MGF engine swops.
Can you squeeze a V8 in the back, has it been done already?
How about a 620TI engine 2litre turbocharged 200BHP?

Please give your suggestions, this car will become something very special when I have finished with it.

Posted 12 May 2002 at 15:07:00 UK time
Neil, Stokenchurch (M40/J5)
Very little other than a K series engine will fit in the space available - you'd have to go to the rear to find more space, which would destroy the balance of the car.

There have been some ideas bandied arround in the past, but as far as I know, noone has done it.

Have a read through the archive....

Posted 12 May 2002 at 15:15:14 UK time
David, Elversele, Belgium
I think Mike Satur was working on an *F* to install a VW VR6 engine, so I guess this will fit in. Dont know at what stage of the conversion he is at now.


Posted 12 May 2002 at 15:34:41 UK time
Dieter Koennecke, Dormagen + Hersfeld
Don't forget to search at the Elise and Caterham scene as well. They will for sure have more experiance.

I heard of a *crazy* english engine design (HS Performance Products in Ware Herts) with a 2 litre V8 Engine, 40 valves. Good for up to 300bhp ;)
(two bike engines combined) Done already to a Caterham and a mad german guy is just working on converting it to the Elise.

English Newspaper Article !!


Posted 12 May 2002 at 16:04:14 UK time
Peter, Banbury
I have sourced a Rover 620 turbo engine.
We think it will be the easiest to install, since it uses the same gearbox and engine is similar (relatively).
By the end of the month my new MG will get some serious turbo charged grunt.

Posted 12 May 2002 at 22:32:15 UK time
JH Gillson
What about the 2.3 litre Honda Vtec unit? Used in the Prelude, innit?

Posted 12 May 2002 at 23:15:27 UK time
David, Berkshire,
Peter, I would be concerned at the additional weight of the iron block T versus the all-ally K. Have you done any maths to see if you will need stronger rear springs etc ?

Posted 13 May 2002 at 19:31:57 UK time
Peter, Banbury
Yes, time will tell.

Posted 14 May 2002 at 21:32:48 UK time
Nik & Anita, Shrewsbury
Sounds like a great project. Good luck, and give us a go when it is complete.

Posted 18 May 2002 at 22:57:36 UK time
Roger Parker, Tamworth,
T16 is too long and will extend through the end of subframe alloy engine support/mounting, through the steel bodywork into the wheel arch and too damn close to the suspension and wheel. That is when keeping the PG1 gearbox in the same plane. Move this and you have a chance!!

It is no coincidence that the engine from EX257 which powers the MGF XPower 500 was chosen as this is a very compact unit and fits where the K series does. Unlike any of the O, M and T series family.

Keeping to the K series theme the simplest engine change is the KV6 as it too uses a version of the PG1. It has no length conflicts, only width conflicts as it has a wide 90 degree Vee construction. Again with the gearbox dictating where the engine sits the problem is that you have to move forward for the front bank of cylinders and this encroaches through the bulkhead and into the space current occupied by the fuel tank.

This can be got round as relocating a fuel tank is something that can be done of a one of special and you can then use the position of the fuel tank to help with weight distribution, but keep in mind the vulnerability of the tank to impacts.


Posted 18 May 2002 at 23:18:11 UK time
Mr Peebles
What about a supercharged K?

Posted 20 May 2002 at 03:01:10 UK time
George B., Wildomar, Ca.
Because you souldn't turbocharge an engine that has head gasket problems when naturally aspirated.

Posted 20 May 2002 at 10:20:37 UK time
Rob Bell, North London
When leafing though a copy of 'Which Kit?' I noticed an advertisment for a company that specialises in Rover parts, and had KV6s... This stuck in my mind for very obvious reasons!

I recall discussions with Scarlet when he was considering a KV6 conversion - including the use of a Porsche Boxter fuel tank! I think that a modified K is the best and most 'economical' route forwards.

With properly sorted water and oil cooling, head gasket longevity should not be a problem.

Posted 25 May 2002 at 12:58:11 UK time
Scarlet Fever, Essex (UK),
KV6 engine in the rear, Boxster slab tank in the front, IMS instead of a spare. Fuel pipes run within the transmission tunnel (same route as gearbox cables).

This is AFAIC perfectly feasible and is a good way of obtaining a reliable 190 or so bhp in an F. Relocating the fuel tank is the biggest problem, but not insolvable. I looked at this quite seriously for around 6 months and reckon it will cost all in around 4500.00 to 5000.00 UKP including the price of a new(ish) ZT spec 190 KV6.

Uprated ancillery items to be considered are (in order of importance):

Brakes - Trophy Spec / Mike Satur
Suspension - Techspeed / Mike Satur
Aerodynamics - Front Splitter, KH and/or Trophy spec

Add these in and your looking at around another 1500.00

Also, you need a 'runaround' to drive while the work is being completed.

All in a major project and this is why i didn't go any further with it. Much better IMO to go the gas flowed head and multiple throttle bodies route. May not be as reliable, but you can do this 3 times financially before you get near the KV6 costs!


Posted 25 May 2002 at 16:14:08 UK time
RichieR, London,
Guys, Why not consider a turbo or supercharger conversion for some healthy torque/BHP gains?

Cheers RichieR

Posted 26 May 2002 at 13:37:04 UK time
Scarlet Fever, Essex (UK),
Supercharger is WAYYYYYYY to expensive, cheaper to replace the engine with a KV6!!!!!

Turbocharger is potentially another heat source in the (already too hot) engine bay.

Gas flowed head essentially is an efficiency improvement and with the head removed you can uprate the gasket, dowells, cam bolts and make any cooling system amendments such as alloy underbody pipework and larger capacity radiator. The head work on it's own will show a significant improvement in performance, but to get the best from the head work, you need to increase fuelling as well. This could easily be done with a turbo, a cheaper alternative is to go with multiple throttle bodies. This is less fuel efficient, and is a less elegant solution, being quite crude technology, but it will give an instantanious throttle response with no turbo lag and therefore as the extra power is progressive, will produce less stress on the engine as there is no sudden power increase.

Generally power = heat so any serious engine upgrades should also bear in mind engine bay temperatures and some bodywork alterations may also be necessary.


Posted 26 May 2002 at 15:17:29 UK time
<but keep in mind the vulnerability of the tank to impacts>Rog said, Front locations have chosen for a number of production cars ,Hillman Imp, Porsche, beetle ,etc. so although there is a danger of frontal impact damage this could be reduced if suitable protection is considered, look at the MGB with its' tank visible from the rear ,it looks vunerable but it has never been a safety issue AFAIK. The KV6 engine in the F seems a logical progression but the weight and size seems it would be easier to build a stronger more powerful 4 cylinder IMO ;-)This could be achieved with a modified/revised VVC head mated to a stronger bottom end, 190-225BHP springs to mind. I hope to have some Dyno figures available soon on a modified dry sumped engine I have prepared for team, versions of this could be duplicated for road use. Remember though it is not just the engine it is cooling ,brakes etc. that have to be considered as well to make any conversion sucessfull.


Anyone from Banbury?


read "ones" i.s.o. "once". Those ones might actually read it only "once",


If you are contemplating engine swaps, look carefully at the VW/Audi 1.8 turbo engine in 225 form, beat the TT at its own game. A friend is currently installing one in an Elise which has less room than an 'F', his one has a mere 320BHP.

The plan is to market the bits neede for an Elise install as a kit, the good part is that the basic engine and box was only 600...

Dave Andrews

Now there's an idea Dave... what gearbox is your friend planning to use?
Rob Bell

The 6 speed Audi box...

Dave Andrews

Theres a German company who offers the VW V5 swap to. unfortunately only for Elise owners.

Search the archives, its in there. I might get the URL tonight in case someone is interested?


I think I'd prefer to go down the K-series tuning route, but I am courious to hear more about this TT converion. Will the Audi transaxle fit within the confines of the MG rear subframe I wonder? Would the engine and ancillaries clear the passenger cell bulk head, and the axles appear in the right place? If one were lucky, this could prove to be a very easy conversion. Alternatively, it could work out to be rather complicated! I guess there is only one way to find out... LOL
Rob Bell

we should all have honda vtec lumps in our mgf's the one from the s2000

Gee, i thought about that one, but unfortuanlty as was pointed out to me, they rotate in the opposite direction to the K series. Great for reverse but thats about it!
R Baker

This might be usefull in your aims


*S2000 in Elise

*audi/VW V6 bi-turbo
(I was wrong stating the V5)

* More Pictures ID=5&ForumID=22

* translation services


TT conversion sounds tempting but judging by the space taken up under the bonnet of my former S3 (same engine) for a 1.8 lump - with all the ancilliaries it looked more like a 2.8 V6! - there is no way you would fit the turbocharged VW/Audi 1.8 T in the MGF's rear compartment. It has two intercoolers, and an impressive number of thick aluminium and rubber pipes. Judging also by the heat generated (the exhaust manifold glowed bright orange after hard driving) there would be serious cooling problems.

But it is good for 300 plus bhp with just a bigger turbo and modified chip. No changes to the head, cams, valves, etc. Someone at an S3 meet (yes, they do exist) had one. He showed off a bit and put it into a four-wheel powerslide (on the dry!) from standstill (it's 4wd).

But for that kind of power I'd rather have a flat or vee six :-)
Anthony Braham

What about the VR6, the angle between the cyl rows is only 15 IIRC. I thought MS was once working on such a project. Wonder if he has given up or not?

>>What about the VR6, the angle between the cyl rows is only 15 IIRC. I thought MS was once working on such a project. Wonder if he has given up or not?<<

I don't think that Mike ever gives up ideas like this! But I suspect that he is waiting for someone else to approach him to get their car converted to get the project off the ground. Otherwise, other projects will always occupy his time...
Rob Bell

This thread was discussed between 27/01/2003 and 31/01/2003

MG MGF Technical index

This thread is from the archive. The Live MG MGF Technical BBS is active now.