Zt 190 vs ZT 160 Turbo performance?
 

How does the 160 turbo rate compared to the big 190 v6?

Anyone had both?

The v6 sure does sound nice on the videos, but can the 160 Turbo be faster with some mild tuning?

Nothing over the top, remap and some breathing mods maybe?

Also, how reliable is the 1.8T when given more oomph!? :icon_question:

I imagine the 1.8T is less hassle to maintain than the v6? Head gasket issues aside.

Or is the 190 v6 really the only fast one to go for?

I'm no speed demon out on the road, but I do enjoy feeling a good shove into the seat on the odd occasion when accelerating up to motorway speeds.

Just trying to decide if I shouldn't overlook the Turbo version in my search for my first ZT. :)

I’ve no personal experience of the turbo but given Kmaps can remap it to just over 200bhp and the turbo 4 cylinder is lighter than the V6 it’s an interesting thought. I’d think the turbo would have the edge?

Bob, Flying Banana, has a kmaps tune on his turbo. I’m sure I’ve read of other members having done it too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can do more and get more from the 1.8t and cheaper as well. I have a v6 and have discovered that doing any kind of performance upgrades you need DEEP pockets for very little back. But I am a v6 snob.

200 bhp seems a nice round number. :)

And like you say, its lighter.

How reliable are these 1.8 T engines? Especially when running more boost?


Are the turbos good on them? Or a bit flakey ?

Certainly food for thought.. :)

Though there is no denying how good that kv6 sounds on full chat. :)

It is a lovely sounding engine.



Humm... Chipped 190 or chipped 1.8 T ?
Decisions decisions.

As far as reliability goes, I’m sure Bobs remapped turbo is getting on with the miles. Over 170k I think with a few headgaskets along the way. He’s really the man to speak to about that though!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A good condition remapped 1.8 will feel faster, due to the torque "hill" at mid range, which is exactly where the v6 is lacking.
I've driven both std versions, and even std the turbo feels quicker.
On the negative side, reliability of the blown 1.8? Plenty written on it, but I've seen more than one detonated, cracked liner 1.8, thats not to say this is the norm, it may be down to the driving style, cheap petrol etc. Also, the 1.8zt I've driven had soft suspension, and felt way too soft when pushed hard, not sure if this was down to the comfort spec, or the softer springs for the engine. Either way, my sport spec v6 zt is way better on the road.
So, no simple answer, all things considered.

1800 turbo is my favourite combination. Plenty of power and more reliable than you think. I’ve seen a few cracked liners but in all cases the boost pipes were detached. Turbos generally only fail if the head gasket fails without the owner realising and water passes through it. Most people know to let the car idle after a drive so it’s rare to have one fail for no reason. My first tourer was an 1800 turbo and I took a 190 on a 24 hour test drive with a view to buying. The V6 sounded nice but felt no quicker than my turbo.

18t
 

having had 180 auto and 18 turbo auto and now i have 2.0 v6 auto. the the turbo is as fast a to b and definitely got more torque and at least 10 miles a gallon better on fuel. but its not a v6 with its sound and silky smoothness. reliability of my turbo was a bit iffy. leaky coolant pipes not cheap to replace with new oem so i used silicone ones where poss. head gasket failed externally behind the turbo. which i think is connected may be to huge amount of heat given off by the turbo and the added weight of it hanging off the head. but once on top of things it was ok

ive had and driven them all and personally I prefer the 1.8 turbo plenty of power and good fuel consumption where the 190v6 can be thirsty and for a 2.5 v6 is not very quick unless you rev it hard it the gears

The Flying Banana has been re-mapped to 205bhp, the head has now been ported. And, yes she has had a few HGF's along the way. But her current mileage is 196,300. Pretty good for the 'K' series so I've been told.

On a good run she will return 40mpg plus. But will leave many a Audi or Beemer in her dust.

Never owned a V6 so cannot comment on the performance but I have owned 2 V8's.
The first one, no.155, had all the toys but was in basic form engine wise. Now sold.
However the current MG ZTT 400, no.457, has a Kenne Bell supercharger fitted and goes like stink. Poverty spec car with no toys. Less weight and less to go wrong. (However she is currently off of the road with a ECU fault). 26mpg is possible on a good run, but I have managed to get that down to 8mpg and had to change the rear tyres after only 4,000 miles.

If I'm going to be truthful, then give me the 1.8t anytime.