dickie b
|
 posted on 6/10/06 at 03:47 PM |
|
|
Rover K-series engine 1.4 or 1.6 ?
Afternoon all
Can any one offer some advice? Ive got an option of buying either a 1.4 or 1.6 k-series engine to fit in a Fury, but really need some help on which
will engine is the best choice.
After trawling the forums, the 1.4 seems very popular but logic suggests 1.6 is the way to go ('aint no substitute for cubes' and all
that..)
Can anyone offer an insight into the best size to go for? all out power not the objective, just a nice responsive engine that will buzz up and down
the rev gauge.
cheers
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 6/10/06 at 03:58 PM |
|
|
i believe all k-series use the same block so are externally dimensionally the same engine wise, variations in inlets and ancillaries but someone with
more knowledge will be able to better advise you.
Ned.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 6/10/06 at 04:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dickie b
Afternoon all
Can any one offer some advice? Ive got an option of buying either a 1.4 or 1.6 k-series engine to fit in a Fury, but really need some help on which
will engine is the best choice.
After trawling the forums, the 1.4 seems very popular but logic suggests 1.6 is the way to go ('aint no substitute for cubes' and all
that..)
Can anyone offer an insight into the best size to go for? all out power not the objective, just a nice responsive engine that will buzz up and down
the rev gauge.
cheers
Richard
Any K series 4 cylinder twin cam is a good thing. There strengths and weaknesses are well documented, but here are my own thoughts based on my own
experiences.
My GTM K3 had a stock 1.4K in it. It loved a rev but in a light car was very grunty indeed - i.e. you didn't have to rev it if you
didn' want to.
Mine eventually suffered head gasket failure after which I fitted steel dowels. Don't let the head gasket issue put you off - it's a
relatively easy engine to work on. In fact I enjoyed the whole experience.
Think carefully about your choice of thermostat.
I would go for the 1.6 as well as it share the stroke with the 1.4 and should only be marginally less revvy due to ever so slightly heavier
pistons.
(Useless fact)
Standing start acceleration in my GTM was mega. Ay Kames sprint track, there is a speed trap at the end of the first short straight. The GTM
wasn't far away from the heavier 4WD turbo cars on this initial sprint. After that they killed it stone dead of course, but light weight, a
revvy engine and traction equals acceleration.
Not as good as a Busa engined fury with an LSD and 8" wide hillclimb slicks right enough 
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 6/10/06 at 04:23 PM |
|
|
All K series 4 cylinder engines are built from the same basic casting, have the same mounting and are interchangable. 1.1 and 1.6 engines have a
short stroke. 1.6 and 1.8 engines have a wider bore. The wide bore was an after thought and was achieved by removing some of the block around the
top part of the cylinder liners and by not having much coolant round the bottom of the liners.
the 1.6 and 1.8 have quoted weights of 99kg whereas the 1.1 and 1.4s are quoted at 100kg.
Some say that the engine was designed to be a 1.4 16V 103PS engine and so it is the best of all the varients.
That said, the 1.6 makes 6 more BHP and 15 Nm more torque so will have more go. see this link for all versions:
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?enginekseriesf.htm
Try to find a 1.8. You might as well. 30% more torque = 30% better acceleration off the line even if 120 BHP isn't much more than 103 in
standard tune. Or there's the turbo or the VVC...
Lotus made a 177 BHP version of the 1.8, using the VVC head without the VVC but fitted with bigger valves.
[Edited on 6-10-2006 by smart51]
|
|
|
Hammerhead
|
| posted on 6/10/06 at 04:28 PM |
|
|
Hi, i'm using a 1.8 k series out of an elise. cant be of too much help at the moment, but there is a caterham ballhousing on ebay at the moment
which you will need. Also you can use jag e type mounting rubbers which are cheaper than caterham ones. If you go for the 1.8 you will need a 1.6
flywheel, as i have found out!!
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 6/10/06 at 04:29 PM |
|
|
1.4 is less road tax 
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 6/10/06 at 05:19 PM |
|
|
1.4 is a little smoother than the 1.6 which has a little (very little to be honest) more power as standard depending which donor you use.
Power, torque, bore, stroke etc. here ->
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?enginekseriesf.htm
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 6/10/06 at 07:13 PM |
|
|
From the 94 all K series engines were built on the same block ---- no diferences at all apart from the liners.
All standard K16 engines (including turbo) use the same valve sizes and head casting, however manufacturing changes were made in 1994 and the heads
from 1998 have the fittings for the automatic timing belt tensioner.
Ignoring the 8 vavle and the early single point injection versions, these are the power outputs - claimed outputs for each version have varied a bit
over the years.
1.4 K16 Mpi comes in 81 or 104 ps versions only difference between is the throttle butterfly opens wider in the 104ps.
1.6 K16 turns out 110 ps -- nice revvy unit
1.8 K16 turns out 118 or 135ps difference between the two versions is mainly down to cams and to a much lesser extent the throttlebody. The 45 and 75
and Freelanders have the 118ps unit --- not a good sports car engine as it comes from the donor also the 75 has a more complex security system.
1.8 K16 VVC has 160ps
The 18 K16 turbo as used in the 75 has 160ps
Personally I would go for a 1.4 Mpi from an old shape 214Sei or Metro
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 6/10/06 at 07:20 PM |
|
|
I forgot to add brochure in pdf format showing full power and torque curves are all availablr for down load on the old Powertrain site which is still
running at http://www.powertrainltd.com/
|
|
|
soggy 3
|
| posted on 7/10/06 at 12:00 AM |
|
|
go to the links page the on to dave andrews site there should be a link to dva power he is a specialist in k series heads and tuning ,dave walker of
ccc and ppc magazines used to rave about him and dave walker was always going on about the 1.6.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 7/10/06 at 01:08 AM |
|
|
If you are going to enter any motorsport events the 1.4 might put you in a lower class which may be a bigger advantage than the few extra bhp the 1.6
offers.
I'm going to put a 1.4 in my Striker. Simmilar power to my lightly tuned 1.6 xflow but lighter, revs higher and uses about 1/2 the fuel.
|
|
|
Humbug
|
| posted on 7/10/06 at 09:11 AM |
|
|
I have a standard 1.4 in my car (ECU, inlet manifold, throttle body, etc.) and it's fine. The 1.6 doesn't have much more power, is going
to cost more to run and tax... I have also heard that the 1.4 is less stressed than the larger capacity versions, so may make it a bit more robust
(head gaskets, anyone?). Probably depends on the price difference as much as anything else.
|
|
|
scotty g
|
| posted on 7/10/06 at 09:23 AM |
|
|
i have given much thought to putting in a K-series, keep looking out for cheap bell housings but they always go for silly money even on ebay
I used to have a rover 214 and it was a great engine and the car even handled quite well, better than my current escort does.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 7/10/06 at 02:11 PM |
|
|
The 1.8 and 1.6 are no weaker head gasket wise than the 1.4 --- except that some alloy sump 1.6 and very early 1.8 engines had an error in
tolerancing that mean't the (bolt through) cylinder head bolts became coil bound in the block ladder before they properly clamped the head fully
--- I have covered the topic many times. -- check the head bolt fully screwed down fitted length every time before a head is refitted even with new
head bolts. More of a problem when non-Rover head bolts were fitted be well intentioned mechanics. Rover head bolts can be re-used quite a few times
if they pass the test.
Rover Power Train caught on to the problem pretty quickly.
Another mod is fitting the "PVR" thermostat system as used on the 75 1.8 and later MGTF -- this mod came about because some drivers were
causing problems by gunning the engine very hard before enough warm coolant reached the thermostat in its original location. Of course the much
cheaper alternative is simply to dril a 1/8" hole in the original thermostat valve plate.
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 12:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
If you are going to enter any motorsport events the 1.4 might put you in a lower class which may be a bigger advantage than the few extra bhp the 1.6
offers.
I'm going to put a 1.4 in my Striker. Simmilar power to my lightly tuned 1.6 xflow but lighter, revs higher and uses about 1/2 the fuel.
This is a valid point - not much difference in bhp on the road, but the 1.4 might be more competitive in its relevant class in a hillclimb for
example.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 12:53 PM |
|
|
I used to work with somone who rallied an elise. (really!). He swapped the 1.8 for a 1.4 to be in a "more competitive class". He said
that with a rally cam it made more power than the stock 1.8 anyway.
|
|
|
