Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.
|
MG MGF Technical - PTP 190 Kit
Anyone have any first hand experience of owning / driving an F with this kit fitted? Just curious.... |
rich |
No, but talk to PTP. They certainly have the 165 kit fitted to a demonstrator MGF, and may have the 190 as well. The 220 is only fitted to the Elise sadly. Based on comments of others of the 165, the car should be extremely tractable, and feel deceptively fast. Unfortunately these are third hand impressions. |
Rob Bell |
Cheers Rob, In theory the 165 kit is a bit pointless - ie you might as well go get a Trophy - at 158bhp not much difference, and probably better value than fitting a 3 year old F with all the upgrades necessary... However the 190 kit is to my mind potentially a serious leap forward, not sure what it would do to the top end / 0-60 / (tyres!), but I would bet that you could seriously piss off some boxters!!! |
rich |
It's not just power to compare when finding a mod that suits for your car, the Mountune 158bhp car that the company brought down the the Essex Roadster meet a month or so would whop the Trophy & also was reported to be a much nicer power delivery.... Rob, you went out in it any comments??? Dave http://www.mgfvvc.freeserve.co.uk |
DaveB |
There is a customer of tech-speed that has a 190 VHPD engine fitted to his F. They would have some feeedback on the result. Dave |
David Livingstone |
I only got to have a ride in the Mountune car, but the impression of progressive power delivery was very good: smooth tractible power from low engine speeds up to the rev limiter. Like others said of the PTP 165, the car failed to feel as fast as it evidently was, simply because the delivery was linear; none of the camminess you get with some engine conversions. As to whether a 160 bhp upgrade is worth it depends on your outlook and your starting point. If you've got a 1.8i, then a 40 bhp boost, with a concomitant increase in torque is going to feel terrific. IMO the power delivery is much more impressive and convincing than a Trophy. But you make a good point Rich- that is a standard Trophy will be covered by a manufacturers waranty, and will be worth a premium at resale, whilst neither of these things apply to a converted car. Personally? I'd go the Mountune/ PTP route. The 190 conversion is very interesting- I'd love to have a go. No idea how this would compare with the VHPD engine. Not sure how the latter would work in a relatively heavy MGF body shell either... but might seek to find out :o) |
Rob Bell |
VHPD - um Very High Performance Diesel ? (surely not..) Ho hum 160 / Trophy would not be a close call, for the price of upgrading my MPI, I could trade it in against a Trophy, cost would be the same, the T would not only be _almost_ as fast / powerful / smooth, but would have the better wheels, styling (in Black obviously) suspension mods, plus be 3 years newer and covered by a warranty... Not really a contest IMHO... A 190, different story altogether.. |
rich |
I was wondering what the 'D' stood for. From chatting to Roy (TS), I didn't get the impression it was a Diesel ;) Steve. |
Steve Childs |
VHPD = Very High Performance Derivative. 1.8i + Techspeed suspension and gearshift + PTP 165 engine conversion. Great. 190 BHP conversion and bigger brakes... MONSTER! :o) Rob |
Rob Bell |
hehe, I'm halfway there then, the cheaper half I guess. (Susp, Gearshift & brakes, albeit not bigger, just better!) The figure mentioned for the 190 was around £9K, although that was a brand new engine as the last one was written off I think (basically, the extra cost was a couple of grand and that's why the guy went for it). Still, I'ld love to have a couple of grand going spare to spend on an engine upgrade. Ah, mind need a couple more to pay for the insurance once I had the engine tweaked though :( Still, should be interesting to see what MG have up their sleeve for 2002. Steve. |
Steve Childs |
I think if you want around 200bhp from the K series engine you would be better going for a supercharger. Altough I haven't driven a car with either 190BHP PTP or the supercharger, I know F owners with both. I get the impression that the PTP 190 is a high reving track day racer whereas the supercharger delivers more power lower down the rev range, which is more use in everyday driving. Also, the superchargere 'only' costs £5K. Paul P9 VLS |
Paul |
I was just thinking about this supercharger vs engine kits power upgrade... I felt it would have been better to go the supercharger route with little changes to the standard engine (shortened rods according to TT website). Personally I'l rather not 'disturb' the standard engine at all. But then if you want the engine to handle all this extra power maybe a conversion using higher quality components would make more sense ... Any comments ? Gaz |
Gaz |
Fro what I have heard- which is probably the same as Paul, the 190 VHPD is a peaky engine- more suited to light weight/ track day cars. I am not aware of any commonality between this engine and the PTP 190... For a car like the MGF, I thnk that a slightly more torquey engine would best suit its character. As the weight is greater than in a Lotus Elise or 340R, any lasck of low down torque will be extremely noticeable and tiresome. Which rather draws one towards forced induction- and supercharging in particular. I've seen owners RR figures from TT installations- the torque curve has a similar profile to the cliffs at Dover! >>Personally I'l rather not 'disturb' the standard engine at all. But then if you want the engine to handle all this extra power maybe a conversion using higher quality components would make more sense ...<< I hear what you are saying Gaz- and agree. Upgrade the components are are most likely to give you trouble. The shortening of the conrods on the TT conversion are essential to lower the compression ratio... they are a must. Other considerations are oil coolers and a fresh look at the cooling system. More power = more heat. It shouldn't be a problem, but it pays to take a belt and braces approach. Rob |
Rob Bell |
I would like to go for a supercharger, but in reality the only option that I would be able to afford in the future would be something like the Mountune setup. Also the Mountune car is based on an MPi, for those of us who don't like the VVC bag of bolts in a tumble dryer sound :-) Forget the Trophy if you have a VVC you can just add a decent air filter and exhaust to give the same power output. IMO, anything much more than 200 BHP in an MGF and you are talking about some really serious modification to the car for it to be safe to drive on the road. I would at least recomend for many some form of performance driving training first :-). Anyone know the cost of getting your F body shell seam welded? |
Tony Smith |
Seam welding woulf work out very expensive Tony: the car would need to be stripped nearly completely, seam welded and then reassembled. Whilst the material cost is modest, the labour rates are the killer. Rob |
Rob Bell |
There was a guy on Saturday at Silverstone who had gone the supercharged route - Power delivery sounded fantastic but at 5k - bit too much to pay. John |
John |
Well if u picked up a 8-9K car and then supercharge it for an xtra 5 ... 14K for 200 bhp ... not bad. Gaz |
Gaz |
Whilst TT say you don't need to uprate the brakes or suspension, IMO these would be necessary. Budget for another 1500-2000 UKP for these upgrades. So about 16k for a 200 bhp car that can handle the power... still a bargain! :o) |
Rob Bell |
Went in a 200 BHP Elise. It was Very Very fast and not all a high revs. Pulled excellent through all gears. I have a 150 BHP cammed F and it is quite fast but at 4000 revs onwards. I think that about 170 in an F would be fine. I think that too much heat would be generated in the F and cause problems. The 200 Elise created a lot of heat you could feel it in the cabin. It was hot |
Steve |
OK, Rob, how much for a cup spec car from Rover. I always thought it would be cheaper to get a cup car and convert it for road use :-) It is always the labour costs that get you. So, again, anyone wanting to give to the "Buy Tony a Supercharger For His MGF Fund" send donations to....:-) Does anyone know which parts are seam welded, just as a matter of interest, is any strengthening done to panels and mounts? |
Tony Smith |
I think that that is probably the best way to do it Tony- find an unused Cup car shell- which includes the additional strengthening braces anyway and build a road car into that. Still not cheap by any means, but it may work out cheaper IF you can find a shell at a competitive price. If you contact Techspeed, you should be able to get a reasonable idea as to how much a new shell would cost... Plus, it may be possible to buy a good second hand shell- but don't hold your breath ;o) How much of the work could you undertake yourself Tony? It sounds like the perfect rebuild project! |
Rob Bell |
Many comments skirt the main issue but do not address it properly. Once again there is far too much emphasis on peak BHP and no constructive thoughts on overall power band and especially torque. Reference to supercharging is directed at this but it isn't the whole story. Mega high K series BHP can be achieved, for example circa 225 for 1600 and circa 250 for 1800, however in a road going MGF either would be a complete dog. The same engines in a car that weighs perhaps 50% of the realistic actual weight of an MGF becomes far more acceptable. The reason is simple and is due to the need of the engines to reach mega high rpms to achieve these figures and to get there means severe compromises in lower rpm bands. Coming down a few pegs and 200 to 220 bhp in a car with the weight of an Elise, and importantly a close ratio gearbox with a low final drive ratio, becomes an acceptable road going package. However using the same acceptance criteria the much heavier F, even with the same low gearing, would still see it left floundering by comparison. With the F's weight the ability of a 1800 K series to produce a reasonable power band where there is enough torque to drive the car in road conditions means that you are looking at around 175 to 180 bhp with very carefully chosen cam profiles, multiple throttle bodies and a wizard on the lap top for mapping. Such a spec is a VHPD with road profile shafts. The effect on acceleration overall would be very small indeed and in fact quite large in the lower rpm area. The standard cars would still make mincemeat of all low to mid rpm acceleration though. Top speed with 200bhp would be 145mph whilst a drop of 20 bhp would reduce this by 5.5mph. (calculated) Cross country performance would show the lower peak power car to be quicker. The supercharger route alters the whole aspect and effectively acts as a capacity enhancer. Remember that the rule of thumb is that when you fit forced induction that the actual engine capacity is multiplied by 1.5 and that this gives a representation of what would be normally needed in a naturally aspirated engine to achieve the same. So 1.8 x 1.5 = 2.7, so it's the same as having a 2.7 litre engine in the back of the F. If you also look at a 2.7 giving 200bhp then this is little to write home about and you would expect perfect driveability, good response, reasonable economy and reasonable performance. The BHP per litre of the standard 1.8 K is a less than exiting 66, with the VVC raising this to a mare reasonable 80. Look at our imaginary 2.7 and you have a middle of the road 74. The reality though is that the strain is still through an 1800 so the need to ensure the engine is more than man enough to last the course, with 111bhp per litre. However unlike a VHPD or Evolution spec engine these power figures do not need revs to achieve the power, and in the mid range the torque is stunningly greater than you could ever achieve with natural aspiration, hence the need for carefull consideration with the strength of the engine. Top speed being a function of BHP and the appropraite gearing would be the same as a VHPD engined car, but that torque would mean that whilst the VHPD car is striving to reach the power band the supercharged car is simply pulling away into the distance. The importance of gearing comes in here as the lower the gearing (numerically higher when reading the specs) can be used as a multiplier and so soften some of the advantage of the supercharged car, assuming the blown car is restricted to the original gearing and standard engine operating rev range. EG 100 ft lbs torque through a direct drive gear of 1 to 1 give 100. If that gearing is lower at 1.25 to 1 then now the effect is 125 ft lbs. That 25% torque increase is very useful only as long as the engine can rev 25% faster as well. I hope to illustrate that performance isn't just BHP but a raft of factors all of which have to be balanced if the overall product is to work well. It is a very complicated subject in detail simply as there are so very many influences but if the basic need to understand that torque provides the force to accelerate your car more than a single BHP figure then there will be fewer people spending pots of money of things that will not suit nor satisfy their goals, except of course conversations round a table over a few drinks!! Rog |
Roger Parker |
Rob, maybe in another 15 years or so :-) |
Tony Smith |
This thread was discussed between 21/06/2001 and 26/06/2001
MG MGF Technical index
This thread is from the archive. The Live MG MGF Technical BBS is active now.