02GF74
|
| posted on 5/10/07 at 09:44 AM |
|
|
thanks mnuchly to all who took time to respond.
the rover 1.4 16 V sounds like the front runner.
I've measured 360 mm from centre of crank to underside of bonnet, allowing 10 mm clearance - I'll probalby need to measure again to double
check - but it loooks like I will need to drop cranke centre by 40 mm. hmmmm, wonder if that is possible.
I'll see if any F27 owners have this engine.
incidentallyt whcih rovers had this engine 1.4 (214, 414? year/model? - time to searcvh ebay)
[Edited on 5/10/07 by 02GF74]
|
|
|
|
|
Memphis Twin
|
 posted on 5/10/07 at 10:06 AM |
|
|
Sorry, but I think it's ridiculous to choose an engine capacity below 1500cc just because it saves you a paltry £65 a year. That isn't a
satisfactory criterium for choosing a power unit. It's just over a quid a week...
Get real; choose the power unit that best does the job you require.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 5/10/07 at 10:27 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Memphis Twin
Sorry, but I think it's ridiculous to choose an engine capacity below 1500cc just because it saves you a paltry £65 a year. That isn't a
satisfactory criterium for choosing a power unit. It's just over a quid a week...
Get real; choose the power unit that best does the job you require.
why should I fund this government more than I need to?
criteria for engine selection is to retain the same gearbox and not put bulges in bonnet so a small engine; otherwise I'd go for a 2.0l zetec or
maybe even v6.
... and if it is good enuf for caterham, then what more can I say?
[Edited on 5/10/07 by 02GF74]
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 5/10/07 at 10:37 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
why should I fund this government more than I need to?
criteria for engine selection is to retain the same gearbox and not put bulges in bonnet so a small engine; otherwise I'd go for a 2.0l zetec or
maybe even v6.
... and if it is good enuf for caterham, then what more can I say?
[Edited on 5/10/07 by 02GF74]
The government will take it out of you one way or another. Dont build the car at all and you'll save having to pay any additional road tax.
Dunno why you dont go for the 1.8 K-series if you are going to go that route - more power and torque which will make a big difference. Loads of tuning
bits too for when you decide it isnt fast enough - used in the Elise for starters.
Hands up who wants more power 
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 5/10/07 at 10:43 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul TigerB6Dunno why you dont go for the 1.8 K-series if you are going to go that route - more power and torque
which will make a big difference. Loads of tuning bits too for when you decide it isnt fast enough - used in the Elise for starters.
hhmmmm - this is same bolock and engine height/size?
changing my mind quicker than I can post
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 5/10/07 at 10:56 AM |
|
|
Well a pinto fits, as does a Vauxhall 2.2L ecotec and Ford Duratec so cant see why a Zetec wouldnt fit also. Looks like you have loads of options
without needing to fit any bulges from what i can see
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/218665.htm
http://www.imagesportscars.co.uk/clubman/tech_spec_clubman.htm
As to the K-series - the 1.8 is just a longer stroke version so same block i believe. Some light reading for you here (just to make your decission
harder )...
http://members.aol.com/dvandrews/kengine.htm#engine
[Edited on 5/10/07 by Paul TigerB6]
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 5/10/07 at 12:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
hhmmmm - this is same bolock and engine height/size
The engine is the same size. However the 1.8 is a long stroke engine which is nowhere near as free revving as the 1.4, and in stock form the power
difference is negligible (118bhp from 1.8, 104bhp from 1.4).
The 1.8 is obviously more torquey, and has the most potential for power if tuned. The early VVC version has 143bhp, and the later one as used in the
MG TF etc had 160bhp. If you have a very deep wallet the K series can be persuaded to produce up to 250bhp.
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/DVandrews/kengine.htm
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 5/10/07 at 12:28 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul TigerB6
The government will take it out of you one way or another. Dont build the car at all and you'll save having to pay any additional road tax.
Dunno why you dont go for the 1.8 K-series if you are going to go that route - more power and torque which will make a big difference. Loads of tuning
bits too for when you decide it isnt fast enough - used in the Elise for starters.
Hands up who wants more power
The 16 vale version of the K series was optimized as a 1.4.
The power outputs are
Restricted mpi 1.4 81 -- Rover 25 1999 on
Normal mpi 1.4 95 up to 1995 104 after 1995
Normal 1.6 109-to 116 depending on year
Normal 1.8 117-118-120 depending on source of info.
MGTF 135 1.8 (2002 onwards) 136
1.8 VVC 145-150ps
!.8 Turbo 150-160ps
The cylinder heads cams and valve sizes and ports are all the same across the engine sizes this makes the 1.8 much less free revving than the 1.4 or
1.6 ---
Of course the VVC has bigger valves and a 140 (actually 135) bhp version of the 1.8 also exists.
So fitting the standard 1.8 as found in the 75 and 45 and Freelander dosen't gain much
power.
The 1.8 also has a heavier dual mass flywheel with will require changing to a 1.4 unit to fit a Ford gearbox.
Also the security and engine management systems on the Rover got more difficult to deal with as the years went on.
[Edited on 5/10/07 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 6/10/07 at 11:11 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
If you have a very deep wallet the K series can be persuaded to produce up to 250bhp.
I know someone who had a k-series built by Judd for a mid engined racecar, similar spec to touring car engine and was making 270-280bhp 
Ned.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 6/10/07 at 12:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ned
I know someone who had a k-series built by Judd for a mid engined racecar, similar spec to touring car engine and was making 270-280bhp
Ned.
Wow. Mighty impressive for an engine that was originaly designed for a maximum capacity of 1.4 liters. I bet that wasn't a cheap engine
|
|
|
mawmaw
|
| posted on 6/10/07 at 07:33 PM |
|
|
I would like to speak up for the ford engine. I have raced a 1600 zetec se for 18 months and have taken apart around 6 engines. The engine is very
simple, very light and very cheap. For 1600's i have paid between 160 and 250 quid. This is for a full engine with all the bits. THe 1400 is a
very similar engine. Ford have downplayed the BHP for insurance purposes and the reason they feel gutless in a new car is because these cars are so
damned heavy.
The 1600 allegedly produces 100BHP
ECU and exhaust only = 135 BHP
Twin 40's 150BHP
Mine on twin 40's 175BHP (head and cams)
Next year 195?BHP
The main problem is oil surge. Because these engines have such tiny recirculating parts (so are therefore easy to tune) they are very susceptible to
oil surge. We have just developed a sump to cure this and will test it next year but in road/ track day cars baffling of standard sump should
suffice.
Bellhousing from Shawspeed and if you have any sense a manifold for DCOEs or injection and even on a 1400 you are away. Don't worry about the
mileage as as long as they have had oil in them they run for ever.
Any questions please ask
|
|
|
