MG-Cars.net

Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.

Recommendations

Parts

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 - TF vs. MGF VVC

Dear all,

Which one goes quicker ? The fastest top modified TF or a MGF VVC? Are they both the as quick?

Cheers

Philly
Philip

Do I detect someone attempting to restart the F vs. TF war?

If not then I would have thought the answer is that the TF is going to be faster as that is what the numbers say and the engine is more powerful. But, but the seasoned F owners will say, if you had an after market exhaust and a K&N filter then you are back on a level playing field with a possible advantage to the F. But, but will retort the TF owners, when you reach these very high speeds the superior handling and aerodynamics of the TF will mean the TF is a more practical proposition. But, but will retort the F owners if you had a splitter and lower the suspension you have a level playing field again.

In reality both cars will take a long time to reach the flat out speed and you will be travelling at nearly twice the speed limit which would be insane on the UK roads. If travelling fast is your want, get a crappy old repmobile as it will be quieter and more comfortable!

Cheers

Patrick
Patrick Beet

How about a TF160 with Maxogen and Daytona?
Faster than a VVC, due to the internal improvements on the TF?
I seem to remember Chris mentioning a noticable improvement on his Trophy with the Maxogen, anyone confirm this with RR results?

Darren.
Darren

TF 160 has "the same" engine as the VVC does it not?
Improvements are only with new throttle body, exhaust and revised inlet design.
All of which most of the VVCs in this BBS have.
Might be mild changes to ECU, but not for preformance I'd have thought.

P.
Paul Nothard

AFAIK, if you have a stock 'F Trophy and stock TF160, speed performance will be the same.

Out of curiosity, when my Trophy was delivered to the dealer it had a standard exhaust which was replaced at the dealer with the Trophy exhaust. I believe this was something to do with getting round some emmisions rule or something. How does the TF get around this now?

Again, IIRC, there were some MEMS mods to the Trophy, and indeed TF160, and would be interested to know more about these.

In the near future I will be replacing my Trophy exhaust with a Daytona, more for the noise, though I must confess!! Hopefully other fun side effects as well!

I agree with Paul, any VVC (which Trophy and TF160 are) could be modified pretty much the same way.

Then there's always the MS VVC head..
Chris

The 160 Ps K16 VVC engine has a re-machined cylinder head which increases the compression ratio to maximum tolerance above nominal.

Bruce
Bruce Caldwell

Having an original VVC, I would expect the new TF160 will well outperform the 145bhp of the original VVC.
However as Paul N. states they are basically the same heads and blocks with slightly improved breathing on the TF, plus the mems upgrade hence an extra 15bhp.
Mike Satur is fitting a new ported head,high flow valves,worked inlet and exhaust manifolds,52mm throttle body and the latest viper 2 (a really big forced induction filter) to my original VVC.
Should get the car back soon and will delight in letting you all know how much better than the original these mods make the VVC.
If Mikes test MPi is anything to go by both the original VVC,1.8i and any of the TF's will really enjoy this upgrade!
Terry

Terry,I'd better get back to work then;-).
Mike.
mike

Are you getting the re-profiled exhaust cam as well Terry? Sounds if you'll have a great engine there :o)

BTW all mods that apply to the original VVC also apply to the 160.

What are the detail differences between the VVC and the 160? Well, yes it's in the detail. Apparently, the 160 heads and manifolds are better finished than the 145 castings. This added to improvements to the airbox and the exhaust give the standard 160 more power than the 145 VVC.

So to answer Philly's original question - the TF160 is the quicker car, no question, when you compare a standard car with a standard car.

I heard rumours that someone was working on a replacement, reprogrammable ECU to replace the MEMS. Until this technical hurdle is breached, big power gains are going to be denied to VVC owners...
Rob Bell

I don't think that big power gains are gonna be possible on a VVC car. If you want to go above about 160bhp you have to scrap the VVC mechanism. This has always been the case in the past & I've not seen anything to suggest that it will be possible in the future. If it was possible I'm sure someone would have done it by now!

I'm more than happy to be proved wrong though :o)

FWIW, my old Elise VVC was tested at 160bhp with only minor changes (exhaust/160 throttle body & Hurricane airbox). Just how much of that gain was due to the mods, and what was due to the car merely being well run in I don't know.

Porting the head would give bigger benefits I think - but at a price if it's done properly - and even then I'm not sure that for the VVC it would be worth it.

If you increase the power of a K engine beyond about 160bhp then you start needing a new ECU too.
Dot

Exactly my point Dot - unless a replacement ECU is available for the VVC management, then there is no point porting the head for huge power gains - MEMS simply cannot take advantage of it.

So, for the time being, the only way to get a car equipped with a VVC mechanism to exceed 160 bhp is to replace the VVC cams with solid, conventional cams (kit available from Piper). Sad, but true.
Rob Bell

Rob,
T Garnick

Rob, sorry about the technical glitch it must have been my MEMS. Chatting to Mike we came to the same conclusion that 160 is just about the limit for a standard cammed and MEMS equipped VVC.I am hoping for a smooth and progressive power delivery from the head work. I have opted to stay with the standard cam but go for an enlarged viper air filter.Am I right in thinking there is little or no power gain in changing the exhaust and manifold? Would the TF's offer any improvement over my standard 6 year old rover item.
T Garnick

Sounds like a sensible progression of upgrades you have planned Terry.

There are gains to be had by modifying the exhaust manifold and exhaust (but not from swopping them with TF 160 spec items). The exhaust manifold in particular is most inefficient - with messy welds inside the pipe obstructing gas flow. Grinding these down and external circumferential welding of the manifold to maintain strength helps (Andy G is very happy with the results when Mike performed this work on his car) - but the ultimate manifold is the EBD. Depending on state of tune regarding the power and torque gain (circa ~10%) is significant. Problem: no flexipipe. If you are not fussed about running with a cat, then this can be replaced with a flexi cat pipe. Cost is approximately the same as a good performance exhaust (about 400 quid all in).

The exhaust (such as Mike's Daytona system) gives an additional 5 bhp and 5 lb.ft - a modest, but useful gain.

Of course these can all be added at a later date, should the desire arise. But be careful, as the MEMS may start to fail to cope with the new fueling and new ignition demands that an interceptor chip and an FSE fuel pressure regulator can only partially compensate for.

Let's hope that there will be a plug-in, MEMS plug compatible, programmable replacement ECU available soon.
Rob Bell

This thread was discussed between 23/07/2002 and 24/07/2002

MG MGF Technical index

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