Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.
MG MGF Technical - KV8
|OK this is my Friday RANT|
I know the ZT260 has a V8 in it but it's a reworked lump of Detriot Iron, not a quad cam sophisticated gem the K series could have spawned. 2.8 -3.6 V8's 210 to 320+ bhp many more with superchargers etc.
What a missed opportunity! I know the Mustang engine is cheap but really!
Bloody BMW stopped the KV8 project when they took over MGR, what a bunch of teutonic to55ers! They just couldnt face the competition a KV8 would have created!
Issue is, we know MGR are utterly skint, you only have to look at the recent and hysterical ZT/75 facelift to know that all the decent stylists have long gone due to lack of opportunity for them at MGR. But if a teeny company like Radical can make a V8 out of two 4-cyl Kawasaki bike engines by joining them at the crank, why the hell cant MGR?
Or is the memory of the Stag V8 ( two dolomite engines) still too painful to bear?
Surely all the lessons to be learned about K series and this type of development have been learned!
I just think they arent being creative, and creativity and passion is what fires desirability and demand!
Any comments gentlemen?
Is this the sort of engine!
|A KV8 would be fantastic, obviously. Mate two K2000s together, and you'd get a 4-litre V8!|
We know the reasons why not: too much development cash/ too small volumes to make the project viable.
I bet Rover Group was developing the KV8 for installation into the Range Rover to replace the venerable Buik V8. But now there is a BMW unit in that car - and this is sure to be replaced in due course with a Jag V8!
How many V8 powered cars can MGR make? How many MG ZTV8s? How many SVs? How many Rover V8s? Less than a 1000 cars a year in total? MGR would never see a return on their investment to homologate the engine UNLESS they could sell the finished V8 to another mass market car maker.
The Ford Mustang V8 makes more sense.
Now, if you'd asked "why isn't there a decent 3 cylinder K-series in the CityRover?" - then I'd be more animated - not least because such an engine is only half a KV6, and would have a huge market in both City cars (blow those daft Smart cars out of the water) and potentially also in a new MG midget...
Given that the K4 exists, or did exist, in 1100cc form as used in the Rover Metro and 111, I don't see the point in developing a 3 cylinder version. The unit cost saving would not justify the investment. I seem to remember that the original K series project inculded a 3 cylinder version but was dropped from the line up early in development.
A friend of mine has worked in engine development for many years. He went the other way when BMW sold the 2 halves. Some time ago he told me that whilest they had done a lot of "shelf engineering" in the BAe era they never did a KV8. However, they did play with a 4 valve per cylinder dohc per bank development of the Rover V8. The heads owed more to M/T16 than K.
|>>Is this the sort of engine!<<|
That looks very promising ! A very good case for MG forgetting about KV8s. Is that the same engine that will appear in the Vauxhall (Holden) Monaro ?
|>>Now, if you'd asked "why isn't there a decent 3 cylinder K-series in the CityRover?" - then I'd be more animated - not least because such an engine is only half a KV6, and would have a huge market in both City cars (blow those daft Smart cars out of the water) and potentially also in a new MG Midget... <<|
and the City Rover is a hidious contraption, more evidence of MGR's skintness.
There could have been some sense in fitting the K4 into the Sity Rover but would that be diluting the brand even further if that is even slightly possible... (I tell you for a marketing Consultant all this MGR stuff is very dissapointing)
|>> Given that the K4 exists, or did exist, in 1100cc form as used in the Rover Metro and 111, I don't see the point in developing a 3 cylinder version. <<|
True David - but a three cylinder 850cc engine would drop another tax bracket would it not? Look at the Smart car: it too uses a three cylinder motor - albeit turbo charged.
A light pressure turbo three cylinder *could* make commercial sense - but only if the engine were fitted into a high volume city car and a low-cost sports car - so I'd have to disagree with you on the premise that you make that it wouldn't make financial sense. But with power train's work load already heavy with the K2000 etc, then I don't see a 3-cylinder K ever being made... :o(
>> friend of mine has worked in engine development for many years. ... he told me that whilest they had done a lot of "shelf engineering" in the BAe era they never did a KV8.<<
That's interesting - and it doesn't entirely surprise me. Thanks for that snippet of info David :o)
|I thought the Rover V8 was a reworked lump of Detroit iron. Well, aluminium.|
At the end of last year, I noticed that Land Rover (Ford) was selling off the design and the production facility. Were there any takers?
Perhaps Powertrain could snap it up and develop the 32 valver that was mentioned earlier on in this thread.
On the subject of now discontinued engines - whatever happened to the A series production facilities?
It just strikes me that in the years to come there'll be a fair few Midget, Mini, and Minor owners who might jump at the chance to buy a new A. Supplies can't last forever.
And if the Ford Kent engine is still being manufactured by Burton Engineering then there's no reason why an enterprising outfit couldn't build new A series motors. Perhaps even a developed version along the lines of OHC A series that BL developed in the 70s, or even a 16 valver a la KAD, JKD. That'd go nicely in a Mini.
|>I thought the Rover V8 was a reworked lump of Detroit iron. Well, aluminium.|
Correct, the engine came from Buick. Hence the B suffix on the P5B and P6B. Similarly, the Rolls Royce jet engines have a RB prefix to indicate their Rover origin.
This thread was discussed between 26/03/2004 and 29/03/2004
MG MGF Technical index
This thread is from the archive. The Live MG MGF Technical BBS is active now.