Engines : T16 NASP v K Series 1.8 VVC

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:29 pm

VVC a worthy successor? Better than the NASP or even turbo?

Post by **Stu** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:35 pm

Definately a worthy successor to the NASP engine. Especially in the 160 trim. Seems to be the way most manufacturers are going now.

Good performance with economy.

Not a touch on the turbo though.

MGTurbo · Post by **MGTurbo** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:41 pm

Apart from it's relative complexity and head gasket problem even worse than the T series, the 1.8 VVC is a sweet engine, not as strong IMO, especially in the torque department. Alright for those that like revving their motors...

Gareth

Neil F · Post by **Neil F** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 10:12 pm

Hi,

2 totally different nasp engines here, a bit like the comparison between the old Ford Pinto and the x-flow. If you want a big old strong boat anchor that will chug away forever get a T, if you want the nice lighter weight revvy little rhubarb, go for the K-Series.

Of course the VVC is streets ahead in terms of technology, materials used and construction, but can it produce the same kind of lazy torque that a T-Series can?

On balance, for me, I'll take the K and develop the shite out of it

Now what can you do about that lack of torque...... :roll:

Cheers

Neil

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 10:32 pm

Neil F wrote:
Now what can you do about that lack of torque......

TUUUUUUUUUURBO

Mark

Grant620 · Post by **Grant620** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 9:53 pm

Mark wrote:
Neil F wrote:
Now what can you do about that lack of torque......

TUUUUUUUUUURBO

Mark

VVC is a nice engine for sure, but can't be as drivable as the T-16 as you have to "work" it by revving it loads...

ADSVVCCOUPE · Post by **ADSVVCCOUPE** » Sun Jun 15, 2003 10:42 pm

I've had my vvc coupe now for about a month and i must say that it is easily as drivable as my old 220gsi. it feels alot quicker and i've had a better top end out of it. pluss it revs past 7200rpm.

Ben Cole · Post by **Ben Cole** » Sun Jun 15, 2003 11:48 pm

It doesn't need to be worked THAT hard!!!
It has 128 lbft of torque...what was the T series 2 litre? About 140?
Not that much of a difference.

Jonny 5 · Post by **Jonny 5** » Sun Jun 15, 2003 11:57 pm

The VVC torque curve will be nice and flat i bet too, dunno what 220 nasp's are like in that respecy

Certainly the 'butt dyno' gets confused as the extra push at revs makes the bottom end feel hard work.

Never driven in a VVC though so cant reall comment too much

tomcat · Post by **tomcat** » Mon Jun 16, 2003 10:19 am

Driven both

NASP T16

Heavy lump not so good for handling -great torque though -nothing above 5000rpm, athough I recon though with cams would be much better as the duration is really short on the nasp engine -
Eve fitting turbo t16 cams on a nasp would be good mod I recon.

KSERIES: vvc

Very flat power band -
Very light,good for handling
Not that much torque,and has to be reved to 6000+ for good power (just a good airfilter seems to help a lot)
Sounds quite harsh when pushed to its limit, complicated and expensive to repair in comparison.

poss best bet 220 nasp with cams I recon..
If handling your priority go for the k-series

Scott

marko · Post by **marko** » Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:28 am

T-Series nasp (in 800 trim) is 136lbft *peaking* at 2500rpm, but fairly flat from there to 5k revs. Has got something above 5krpm - peak power is still up at 6k and it will pull harder in 1st at 6k than 2nd at 4.5k, but you do feel the torque falling away as you go past 5000rpm. VVC will have the same shape torque curve from 2500-5000 but not fall off after that like a T will.

Nice old-stooge drive is a normally aspirated T-Series, happy enough to trickle in traffic in 2nd or pull away in 2nd without much fuss, reasonable economy from it, but no great slouch for its capacity either. I haven't driven the VVC (anybody offering :wink:

) but would imagine its pretty similar, except keeps pulling for longer/would certainly have the performance edge.

"Problem" with the T-Series is its a bit ruff - really wants lighter better balanced internals, two more cylidners or some balancer shafts, its a working engine rather than a refined car engine.

You don't want cams; you just want a carefully ported head w/3 angle seats and balancing of both internal weights and volumes, an exhaust sans-cat and a revision of the airbox sock for bias towards performance rather than silence. That'd take you the right side of 145hp without sacrificing anything. After that a low-blow turbo setup would suit the T-Series better than cams - a T2 sized trubo running ~4psi boost on 10:1 compression for 160hp and another wedge of torque. (IMHO!)

Personally I think the car makers have lost the plot a little - I'd much rather see compact (sizewise) 3 litre V6s and 4 litre V8s, single OHC and 12 or 16v with 5500rpm rev limits, low power-capacity numbers and the associated lightweight (under naff all stress) internals, running leanburn with no cats and variable lift inlet valving (no throttle losses/weight, plastic inlet manifolds and airboxes as they're under no vacuum) in 800-1200kg cars... 40-60mpg, brilliant driveability, low complexity (and cost) etc etc etc. When I say low-output I'd be talking 180-200hp from a 4.0 and 140-150hp from a 3.0 but nice wedge of torque. When I say low cost I'd be thinking these thigns costing less to produce than say, a VAG 1.9Tdi.

Ben Cole · Post by **Ben Cole** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 8:20 pm

marko wrote:

Personally I think the car makers have lost the plot a little - I'd much rather see compact (sizewise) 3 litre V6s and 4 litre V8s, single OHC and 12 or 16v with 5500rpm rev limits, low power-capacity numbers and the associated lightweight (under naff all stress) internals, running leanburn with no cats and variable lift inlet valving (no throttle losses/weight, plastic inlet manifolds and airboxes as they're under no vacuum) in 800-1200kg cars... 40-60mpg, brilliant driveability, low complexity (and cost) etc etc etc. When I say low-output I'd be talking 180-200hp from a 4.0 and 140-150hp from a 3.0 but nice wedge of torque. When I say low cost I'd be thinking these thigns costing less to produce than say, a VAG 1.9Tdi.

Interesting standpoint. When I was in Oz I had a F*rd Falcon with a 4litre straight 6, big car, only about 140hp I believe, loads of torque and not too bad on petrol for a big car. I agree that european car manufacturers are set on one approach.

Post by **MarkCoupe** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 1:21 pm

Yeh, different types of engines.I thinkit also depends on what you've done to it.With a repositioned filetr/fse/full exhaust and de-cat my old nasp revs forever it feels happy to go to 6500 and pulls all the way,my peak 153 bhp was at 6254 and 151lb/ft at 3823.Very very useable.

Tahiti · Post by **Tahiti** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:31 pm

having driven both, I though the N/A T-series was pretty lifeless in comparison to the VVC. But then again, the gearing comes into it too!

Post by **MarkCoupe** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:51 pm

I reckon with a decat, the right inlet mods, the correct exhaust, the T series will take you to the moon, and with such alarge power band it does give you a grin.But as has been said befgore, you cant really compare them one has power from 2k -5500 the other has it form 5500-7k.

Rich R · Post by **Rich R** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:42 am

i tested both nasp versions when i was looking for my coupe.

the VVC's lack of torque is not noticable provided the engine is close to 100% since the 50kgs of weight loss makes up for it.

it's all about torque/weight ratio. the VVC is much nicer to drive all-round, and revs it's nads off if you ask it to.

however, when they go bang........the VVC is insanley expesive to repair or replace.

Post by **MarkCoupe** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:17 pm

I THINK the VVC is ever so slightly quicker to 60, but i dont think its just about the actual torque or power to weight, look at the power bands, the T series holds 185NMs of torque over 4000 rpm (from like just under 2 to just under 6.

But like i said its difficult to compare.
Had my firsr drive of a dohc GTi yesterday (ive had a crx) it seems the weight just takes all the oomph away

NZ Rover 220 · Post by **NZ Rover 220** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:43 pm

Ben Cole wrote:Interesting standpoint. When I was in Oz I had a F*rd Falcon with a 4litre straight 6, big car, only about 140hp I believe, loads of torque and not too bad on petrol for a big car. I agree that european car manufacturers are set on one approach.

They love their V8s down here (both Oz and NZ). Both Ford and Holden are market leaders and have some seriously grunty motors - were talking well over 300bhp for some top of the range factory models. Not just saloon cars but also Utes.

Back to subject though - I've driven both (VVC was a TF) and still prefer the T16 turbo purely for its grunt and the fact you don't need to rev it much. Though I'd have to say I'd love to have the K series weight purely for handling alone. Hmmmm, wonder if I can get a T series block made from ally? Now, where did I put the Yellow Pages.....
Gary

Neill · Post by **Neill** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:55 pm

NZ Rover 220 wrote: Though I'd have to say I'd love to have the K series weight purely for handling alone. Hmmmm, wonder if I can get a T series block made from ally? Now, where did I put the Yellow Pages.....
Gary

I have an engineering firm bout 5 miles away from me that makes the blocks for a few F1 teams.

Shall take a T16 block down to them????

NZ Rover 220 · Post by **NZ Rover 220** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 1:15 am

Neill
No harm in asking :wink:

And it'll be much cheaper to send an alloy block rather than a cast iron none by mail :twisted:

Gary

Berger · Post by **Berger** » Fri May 04, 2007 5:57 pm

Few years down the line, but after having a play with a ZR160 last night i can say that a 1.8VVC would chuff all over a T16 NASP.

My tub was quicker than the VVC, but the VVC would destroy a nasp for straight line speed and probably handling too since its a good bit lighter.

(I had a 220 nasp before my turbo so know how quick it is, and mine made standard power)

Glynn · Post by **Glynn** » Fri May 04, 2007 6:54 pm

Owned a vvc in Brm for a while, Was rapid engied, but you did have to get it past 4k,

Got VVC engine forsale if anyone interested

C2K · Post by **C2K** » Fri May 04, 2007 7:01 pm

Glynn, how much would you want for the head if separate, or whole engine?

Got a mate after a VVC head.

richard moss · Post by **richard moss** » Fri May 04, 2007 9:03 pm

Hardly a straight comparison, is it? One has a straight forward 16v head and the other a complex (and not particularly reliable) variable valve system.

A more realistic comparison is the 2 litre T series NASP vs 1.8 K series NASP. Despite all the talk about what a high tech, very powerful engine the K series is, it produces LESS power and torque per litre than the T series. The M series does even better than the T.

The same applies to the turbos of course, with the M and T beating the K series turbo on BHP/litre figures.

Dear NAC, can we have the T series back, please?

chazjenkins · Post by **chazjenkins** » Fri May 04, 2007 9:10 pm

richard moss wrote:Hardly a straight comparison, is it? One has a straight forward 126v head and the other a complex (Sand not particularly reliable) variable valve system.

126 valves?!! My god, that's a lot of lapping in of valves!

BlueRover · Post by **BlueRover** » Fri May 04, 2007 9:16 pm

Let's talk long term engines .... no, wait, I've yet to see a K series engine on 286,000 miles..

richard moss · Post by **richard moss** » Fri May 04, 2007 9:18 pm

chazjenkins wrote:
richard moss wrote:Hardly a straight comparison, is it? One has a straight forward 126v head and the other a complex (Sand not particularly reliable) variable valve system.

126 valves?!! My god, that's a lot of lapping in of valves!

OOOOPS!

ChrisD · Post by **ChrisD** » Sat May 05, 2007 9:33 am

Despite all the talk about what a high tech, very powerful engine the K series is, it produces LESS power and torque per litre than the T series.

How do you work that out please? I'm seeing that thats not true just wondering if im doing something wrong.

K has 128ft/lb 143bhp - 1.8 (in 143 form)
T has 136ft/lb 136bhp - 2.0

richard moss · Post by **richard moss** » Sat May 05, 2007 10:34 am

You are not comparing like for like. If you read my post, I said that the K VVC vs T16 was not a fair comparison as the K had a "trick" inlet system.

However, if you compare the 136bhp 2 litre T series against the 120bhp 1.8 K series (both normal 16v engines) you will see that the T has a better bhp/litre figure. I wonder what a VVC T series would be like?

If you look at the 180bhp T turbo and the 150 bhp K turbo you'll see that the same applies.

ChrisD · Post by **ChrisD** » Sat May 05, 2007 10:40 am

Ok fair enough I was skim reading. Thats getting into all kinds of literal takingness anyway as the T16 turbo runs more PSI than the K turbo. The VHPD 1.8 k runs 190odd claimed bhp without the VVC etc and then there is the caterham versions, or even the 135bhp Tf version 1.8.

Post by **Punx0r** » Sat May 05, 2007 12:15 pm

You could always compare the T16 nasp to the 2.0 K-series Judd engines

richard moss · Post by **richard moss** » Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm

ChrisD wrote:Ok fair enough I was skim reading. Thats getting into all kinds of literal takingness anyway as the T16 turbo runs more PSI than the K turbo. The VHPD 1.8 k runs 190odd claimed bhp without the VVC etc and then there is the caterham versions, or even the 135bhp Tf version 1.8.

Maybe all that is true - but factory spec puts the K series DOWN on bhp/litre figures compared to the T series. The T series wins on torque and (in my opinion) refinement - and as for reliability the K series is more West Ham United than Manchester United!

I just don't think that the K series is the wonder engine people make it out to be - apart from low weight (which contributes to the lack of refinement) just what does it do better than the T series? It's not even any better on emissions.

By the way, I have owned and run K series powered Rovers and was rather underwhelmed by the engine.

ChrisD · Post by **ChrisD** » Sat May 05, 2007 2:36 pm

Its a debate we all have our own views, but there is a reason the K is used in a lot of motorsport applications, where as you don't see many people tune a T series NASP. The T series is a good out the box workhorse but the K is so much more optimised in my view where as the T series is over engineered.

How do you chose which version is factory spec is my point, it comes out the factory in a lot of variants. 120bhp 135bhp 143bhp 158bhp from rover up to around 230bhp 155lb/ft from caterham.

It is more fragile granted but it warms up faster I presumed this made it more economical and efficient. Cars with it in handle better.

The reason the 120hp version in my eyes doesn't really have much power as it was designed as a 1.4 and as such to make it a 1.8 they just changed the internals (and a few other small bits) whereas the T series was designed as a 2 litre.

In what way are you comparing emissions, looking on parkers for a 420 (only t series they seem to have emissions for) they claim 210g/km compared to the K's 179g/km (in Euro 2 spec). I don't claim these figures are 100% there only what I quickly looked up.

richard moss · Post by **richard moss** » Sat May 05, 2007 2:57 pm

ChrisD wrote:Its a debate we all have our own views, but there is a reason the K is used in a lot of motorsport applications

Indeed there is, weight.

How do you chose which version is factory spec is my point, it comes out the factory in a lot of variants. 120bhp 135bhp 143bhp 158bhp from rover up to around 230bhp 155lb/ft from caterham.

Well, you start by comparing like with like - not putting a VVC against a standard 16v, for example. Straight 16v vs 16v, the T wins. Turbo vs turbo, the T wins. You have to monkey around with fragile, and expensive to build, VVC systems for the T to get ahead. Once you get to Caterham, you are talking about third party mods and that is a whole different kettle of fish.

It is more fragile granted

Hardly ideal for a production car, is it? As bluerover said - you'll struggle to find a K that will last 285,000 miles without several rebuilds! The T series never made it onto Watchdog - despite it, and the engines it was based upon, being in service for 50 years!

However, as you say we all have our opinions - I just maintain that the K series was not the wonder engine it was claimed to be, with the much publicised reliability problems offsetting many of the gains. The T is also much more forgiving for the DIY engineer, too.

Post by **Punx0r** » Sat May 05, 2007 6:33 pm

I only have experience of the 1.8 VVC (145PS) and it is wonderful engine.

Comparing like to like the T16 is better in terms of power. It is a dinosaur of an engine though. The K16 is a great peice of engineering, let down by gasket and thermostat design.

The K-series is also much more economical and takes 1/2 mile instead of 5 miles to get up to temperature!

Power per litre of the 1400 was also well ahead of its time.

That said, the 1800 K16 Vs. T16 nasp isn't an easy call.