1.8 turbo - Doesn't seem very popular?!

SteveTD · 4th April 2007, 13:18

The MG ZT 1.8t 160bhp seems, on the face of it, a very good option. 0-60 circa 8.2 seconds - 160bhp and a far more sporty drive than the CDTi.
Following the sterling work done by Rover Ron et al. (Ti Rich as well) the CDTi is now 160 bhp-able and lots of torque to boot. However, this is probably near the limit (yes i have seen the thread re: 171 bhp)

I have also followed the forums re: modifying the KV6, the V8 etc, although very little attempts appear to exist regarding modifying the 1.8t. VW seem to get 225bhp (modified by many to circa 260bhp) out of their 1.8 unit.

I know the K series has a fragile head gasket that would put people off mod'ing it, but it's a very good engine. Perhaps the landrover gasket and oil rail would kerb repeated HGF? Increasing the size of the cooling system, rad etc would also help. What I am saying is this - surely a reliable 200bhp (+?) is possible and worth investigating? It seems the black sheep of the ZT family. If 200bhp was possible, I think the car would be very quick from a standing start, and through the gears

However, I'm really thick and know nothing about cars really, so feel free to point this out to me!

Steve

GreyGhost · 4th April 2007, 13:26

Just had a look at Superchips sight and the 1.8T is not listed, I wonder why? All the nasp vehicles are as well as turbo charged Diesels. earlier Rovers with turbos are also listed.
Most turbo engines are getting 30+BHP increases with a chip. Maybe as they warantee parts and engine after fitting, they are not prepared to warantee a K 1.8T

SteveTD · 4th April 2007, 13:30

I'm sure they'd do it, but perhaps refuse to warantee it -after all, their concerns about hgf are founded - although as I said, with the Landrover uprated kit - would it be a problem?

Phil · 4th April 2007, 18:14

I have heard of someone chipping a 1.8t and getting 190bhp. Probably rubbish though and I didn't hear it first hand.

martin1973 · 4th April 2007, 20:07

http://www.venommotorsport.com/venom...upo/index.html

Eventually found it can remember reading about this a few years back - 300bhp from a audi s3 1.8t engine in a vw lupo, that thing must fly and then some as the lupo is aluminium body... 0-60 in 4.9 seconds

Phil · 4th April 2007, 20:10

Especially with those tiny wheels!

black olive · 4th April 2007, 20:20

Steve, as you know I wanted the V8 but was limited as I couldnt really afford to keep filling the black hole on the right hand rear wing behind the filler flap, and was looking for a towcar, so for me it had to be the diesel, the 1.8T wasnt really an option. I suspect this will apply to a few on here.

99% of the time I feel I made the right choice, until I remember the test drive of the V8 !!!

Crezzer · 4th April 2007, 21:29

With the right cams and VVC sized valves I would think 200 bhp easily available....

MartinW · 4th April 2007, 21:50

The 1.8T was restricted to 150bhp in the 75 and 160 in the ZT. You have to remember at the launch of the ZT the 190 was the flagship V6, the others being the CDTi (115bhp originally and later offered as an upgrade to 131bhp) and the 180 auto and 160 V6.

It's often been said that the 190 probably doesn't quite make the 190bhp and has a different gearbox to get the quoted acceleration. The 160 is an oddball, as it is essentially the same engine and box as a 75 which offers 177bhp. From a marketing view, you can't sell a flagship car for a premium with only 10-15bhp more than your lower spec model, so the 160 was supposedly a detuned 75 2.5 engine.

The 1.8T was introduced literally days after I got my 160 V6, but I understand the real reason was that for fleet and company car buyers, the 2.5 was too much of a burden tax-wise, and hence, the turbo was developed to allow a smaller engine with lower tax bracket. This was the first and only car (75/ZT) to receive the 1.8 turbo whereas the revvy nature of the VVC suited the ZR and TF better. Therefore, there may have been a reluctance to offer more power until further development work had been undertaken, with more test mileage on customer cars. The stories I read were that the 1.8T was capable of up to 200bhp.

There were a number of benefits, though, not least a huge improvement in fuel economy, but the lower weight of the K4 engine (by as much as 60kgs) meant that not only was performance better than the 2.5 160, it was easier on tyre wear and brakes.

It was rumoured that the 1.8T was capable of a lot more, but it meant that it was then knocking on the door of the ZT190 power rating. Some of you may recall that Rover were not new to turbo engines, though, and the T Series was used in the 200 coupe, 620 Ti and 820 Vitesse with a turbo, and was quoted as in excess of 200bhp. This was an iron block with alloy head, though, but it was often refered to as the "Poor man's Cosworth" and supposedly some tuning houses have had in excess of 400bhp out of this unit. There was also the Metro Turbo A Series which was rated at a little over 100bhp, but this was due to weak gearboxes, and was capable of in excess of 130bhp. In fact, I suspect that it would not be the engines that would cause a problem but the gearboxes as the 620Ti was renowned for chewing them up.

What would be really interesting is a twin turbo V6. Sprintex went the route of the supercharger offering 220bhp on the 190 cars, but a twin turbo could potentially offer as much as 250bhp or more I would think. The KV6 in the 75 was a better engine than the original 800 version, and with the sorting of the HGF issues that the 800 suffered, the V6 would seem an immeninently suitable engine for turbo charging! Although torque steer may have becoem an issue in the FWD format. When the RWD platform was launched for the V8, I always hoped that this would become std and that all the ZTs would have a RWD layout, but it was not to be

sworks · 6th April 2007, 06:48

Pretty much spot on Martin, the 1.8 turbo was for car tax reasons but it replaced the 2.0 v6 which wasn't a brilliant package (sorry any 2.0 v6 owners) This change also coincided with the drop of the vvc engine and there were talks of the 1.8 tubo also being used as it's replacement but never happened before Rover ceased trading.

4th April 2007, 13:18	#1
SteveTD Loves to post MG ZT 260 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Byfield, Northamptonshire Posts: 271 Thanks: 13 Thanked 12 Times in 8 Posts	1.8 turbo - Doesn't seem very popular?! The MG ZT 1.8t 160bhp seems, on the face of it, a very good option. 0-60 circa 8.2 seconds - 160bhp and a far more sporty drive than the CDTi. Following the sterling work done by Rover Ron et al. (Ti Rich as well) the CDTi is now 160 bhp-able and lots of torque to boot. However, this is probably near the limit (yes i have seen the thread re: 171 bhp) I have also followed the forums re: modifying the KV6, the V8 etc, although very little attempts appear to exist regarding modifying the 1.8t. VW seem to get 225bhp (modified by many to circa 260bhp) out of their 1.8 unit. I know the K series has a fragile head gasket that would put people off mod'ing it, but it's a very good engine. Perhaps the landrover gasket and oil rail would kerb repeated HGF? Increasing the size of the cooling system, rad etc would also help. What I am saying is this - surely a reliable 200bhp (+?) is possible and worth investigating? It seems the black sheep of the ZT family. If 200bhp was possible, I think the car would be very quick from a standing start, and through the gears However, I'm really thick and know nothing about cars really, so feel free to point this out to me! Steve

4th April 2007, 18:14	#4
Phil This is my second home Rover 75 CDT Connoisseur SE Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 12,227 Thanks: 469 Thanked 523 Times in 241 Posts	I have heard of someone chipping a 1.8t and getting 190bhp. Probably rubbish though and I didn't hear it first hand. __________________

4th April 2007, 20:10	#6
Phil This is my second home Rover 75 CDT Connoisseur SE Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 12,227 Thanks: 469 Thanked 523 Times in 241 Posts	Especially with those tiny wheels! __________________

4th April 2007, 13:26	#2
GreyGhost Banned 180+ Sport Auto Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Bedford Middle Level Posts: 17,787 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 5 Posts	Just had a look at Superchips sight and the 1.8T is not listed, I wonder why? All the nasp vehicles are as well as turbo charged Diesels. earlier Rovers with turbos are also listed. Most turbo engines are getting 30+BHP increases with a chip. Maybe as they warantee parts and engine after fitting, they are not prepared to warantee a K 1.8T

4th April 2007, 13:30	#3
SteveTD Loves to post MG ZT 260 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Byfield, Northamptonshire Posts: 271 Thanks: 13 Thanked 12 Times in 8 Posts	I'm sure they'd do it, but perhaps refuse to warantee it -after all, their concerns about hgf are founded - although as I said, with the Landrover uprated kit - would it be a problem?

4th April 2007, 20:07	#5
martin1973 Loves to post MG ZT Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kendal, Cumbria Posts: 456 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	http://www.venommotorsport.com/venom...upo/index.html Eventually found it can remember reading about this a few years back - 300bhp from a audi s3 1.8t engine in a vw lupo, that thing must fly and then some as the lupo is aluminium body... 0-60 in 4.9 seconds

4th April 2007, 20:20	#7
black olive I really should get out more....... 260 SE vin 214 ( last mark 1 260 ) Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Lancashire Posts: 2,009 Thanks: 1 Thanked 8 Times in 4 Posts	Steve, as you know I wanted the V8 but was limited as I couldnt really afford to keep filling the black hole on the right hand rear wing behind the filler flap, and was looking for a towcar, so for me it had to be the diesel, the 1.8T wasnt really an option. I suspect this will apply to a few on here. 99% of the time I feel I made the right choice, until I remember the test drive of the V8 !!!

4th April 2007, 21:29	#8
Crezzer Regular poster Jaguar STR Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Essex Posts: 55 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	With the right cams and VVC sized valves I would think 200 bhp easily available....

4th April 2007, 21:50	#9
MartinW Newbie MG TF LE500 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Chester Posts: 2 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	The 1.8T was restricted to 150bhp in the 75 and 160 in the ZT. You have to remember at the launch of the ZT the 190 was the flagship V6, the others being the CDTi (115bhp originally and later offered as an upgrade to 131bhp) and the 180 auto and 160 V6. It's often been said that the 190 probably doesn't quite make the 190bhp and has a different gearbox to get the quoted acceleration. The 160 is an oddball, as it is essentially the same engine and box as a 75 which offers 177bhp. From a marketing view, you can't sell a flagship car for a premium with only 10-15bhp more than your lower spec model, so the 160 was supposedly a detuned 75 2.5 engine. The 1.8T was introduced literally days after I got my 160 V6, but I understand the real reason was that for fleet and company car buyers, the 2.5 was too much of a burden tax-wise, and hence, the turbo was developed to allow a smaller engine with lower tax bracket. This was the first and only car (75/ZT) to receive the 1.8 turbo whereas the revvy nature of the VVC suited the ZR and TF better. Therefore, there may have been a reluctance to offer more power until further development work had been undertaken, with more test mileage on customer cars. The stories I read were that the 1.8T was capable of up to 200bhp. There were a number of benefits, though, not least a huge improvement in fuel economy, but the lower weight of the K4 engine (by as much as 60kgs) meant that not only was performance better than the 2.5 160, it was easier on tyre wear and brakes. It was rumoured that the 1.8T was capable of a lot more, but it meant that it was then knocking on the door of the ZT190 power rating. Some of you may recall that Rover were not new to turbo engines, though, and the T Series was used in the 200 coupe, 620 Ti and 820 Vitesse with a turbo, and was quoted as in excess of 200bhp. This was an iron block with alloy head, though, but it was often refered to as the "Poor man's Cosworth" and supposedly some tuning houses have had in excess of 400bhp out of this unit. There was also the Metro Turbo A Series which was rated at a little over 100bhp, but this was due to weak gearboxes, and was capable of in excess of 130bhp. In fact, I suspect that it would not be the engines that would cause a problem but the gearboxes as the 620Ti was renowned for chewing them up. What would be really interesting is a twin turbo V6. Sprintex went the route of the supercharger offering 220bhp on the 190 cars, but a twin turbo could potentially offer as much as 250bhp or more I would think. The KV6 in the 75 was a better engine than the original 800 version, and with the sorting of the HGF issues that the 800 suffered, the V6 would seem an immeninently suitable engine for turbo charging! Although torque steer may have becoem an issue in the FWD format. When the RWD platform was launched for the V8, I always hoped that this would become std and that all the ZTs would have a RWD layout, but it was not to be

6th April 2007, 06:48	#10
sworks Been absent for a while… Rover 75 Tourer, Classic mini Cooper S, Abarth 595 competizione, MG TF and a Hyundai Tucson PHEV Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Cumbria Posts: 13,065 Thanks: 1,033 Thanked 1,686 Times in 1,040 Posts	Pretty much spot on Martin, the 1.8 turbo was for car tax reasons but it replaced the 2.0 v6 which wasn't a brilliant package (sorry any 2.0 v6 owners) This change also coincided with the drop of the vvc engine and there were talks of the 1.8 tubo also being used as it's replacement but never happened before Rover ceased trading.