Engines : T16 NASP v K Series 1.8 VVC

[ChrisD]

The 135bhp isn't a VVC its a standard 16v and has night on the same power as the 2 litre T. I cannot fathom how you can say the k16 isn't a wondeful engine.

The K16 turbo is a low blow turbo to give a bit more torque, Put the T16 on a low blow setup and i sure it will be a lot closer.

When I say fragile I mean less forgiving to people who can't look after it properly. My VVC is on 112k and there is nothing wrong with the engine still as quick as it ever was and not needed any fixing. The T series just has an extra about 70kg is it of meat around it.

The zr-x 210 for example is NASP and well outpowers the T. (not sure if it was ever dyno'd and prooved at 210bhp but I can believe it was well possible).

I'm also sure if someone built a 2 litre turbo K at 11PSI it would beat the T Turbo.

Its a tricky comparison as there is no common engine Ie 1.8 T or 2.0 K apart from the judd circa 300bhp 190ft/lb beast.

Why does Bhp per litre mean better? its a whole different story comparing bhp per kg.

[richard moss]

The 135bhp isn't a VVC its a standard .

Which MGR car carried that engine, then?

As for the ZRX 210 - not something that ever made it to production, so it hardly counts, does it?

As for why I say that I don't think the K is a wonderful engine - I just don't think it lives up to the hype!

Power to weight wise, it does well, ditto warm up and economy - but it is just too fragile and harsh sounding to qualify as "wonderful". The slavish persuit of light weight and low coolant capacity, coupled with a poor HG design, created an engine that is just not up to real world use.

In the 21st century we should not have to cosset a production car engine - that sort of attitude went out in the 1950s. If a car engine can not stand up to normal use (and the K series clearly can't, given its head gasket history) then it may be "good" but simply can not be wonderful.

If you want a wonderful engine, look at the Dolomite Sprint. 2 litres, mechanical ignition (points), 2 SU carbs and a cast iron exhaust manifold - but turning out 140bhp when Classic Cars dyno tested an unrebuilt, standard spec, 30 year old engine.

[C2K]

The 135bhp isn't a VVC its a standard .

Which MGR car carried that engine, then?

TF135

K series is a cracker of an engine. Had 4 now.

[richard moss]

The 135bhp isn't a VVC its a standard .

Which MGR car carried that engine, then?

TF135

Must go nicely between gasket failures, then!

[C2K]

I've never had a HGF, and i've put sh!t loads of mileage on K's. I couldn't really care if I do, there's worse things in life to worry about. I can fix it myself, and work for an engineering company if it needs skimming. If you look after it, and maintain it well there's nothing much to worry about.

Besides it's not like the T series is the pinnacle of engineering feats is it. Fcking thing leaks oil everywhere.

Like it or not, thread says VVC vs NASP, since it was intended to BE the replacement for the SE Coupes. I love the growl of the K series, same way I love the turbo shove from my T. Both have benefits.

Put the two in a Coupe 200, and what does the T do the K doesn't?

[Punx0r]

I'd forgotten about the 135, that evens things out a bit...

I can't agree that the K-series is "hyped". 99% of what's said about it is slating it for unreliability... I also can't agree that they are harsh. My VVC made peak power a 7000rpm and sounded ace, like a race car, vroom, vroom

The average T16 nasp complete with noisey tappets sounds like a tractor. Even without noisey tappets they just sound "enginey", not bad like a diesel, but unremarkable IMO.

One thing about the K-series is that I don't think it was designed to lug around heavy cars. The original prototype was apparently displayed in a lightweight bonded aluminium chassis (on which the elise was based). I think the engine only had 3 cylinders too.

God knows why they put it in the freelander, and it seems that more blew headgaskets in that "car" due to the high loads from cold.

[Stevo135+]

I've driven a 220gti briefly, and i have owned an MGTF135 for 4years.

I would say that comparing the power between the 1.8K (135bhp) and the 2.0T nasp engine's is fair, but the torque difference masks this somewhat. The 143bhp VVC and the 136bhp T, is therefore a more even match and better comparison.

The 135bhp K-series loses alot of the the low down torque and pull below 3k that the 118bhp version has. In fact in a lightish car the low down grunt of the 118bhp engine is quite impressive, and it never feels peaky or needing to be revved hard. In fact the power delivery tails off as quickly or quicker than the T-series engine does, and for 1250rpm past peak power it's dropping fast all the time. The T-series pulls well to over 5k, and just gets a bit harsh approaching peak power 6k. It can rev above this, and i belive that the bottom end is well balanced enough to rev happily to nearly 7k? The engine can't breath enough to get though, such is the way it's tuned/developed.

The TF135 has a clever mismatch of the characteristics of the VVC and the Mpi K-series engines, You lose alot below 3k, but then it pull's really nicely to around 4500rpm, before going flat again at 5k (peak torque), and then it pulls well if not as hard to 6.8k as the VVC does.

Unfortunately despite the lighter weight of the TF, and the almost equal quoted power, it never feels as quick off the mark as the 220gti, and around town in the lower rev range the 220 will clear off every time! The TF needs to be kept above 5k to feel fastish or quicker, and in general driving your just not that far up the rev range in time, so the 220 always feels faster. Also bear in mind that the 140bhp M-series 220gti's were quoted as having a 7.9sec 0-60time, and i think felt faster than that! The TF is 0.3sec to 60mph slower and i suspect the in gear times are slower too!

Lastly it's said that the T-series engine's cylinder head castings and tolerences varied quite a bit from good to bad, and i suspect that alot of std T-series engines that were good ones from new, were putting out over 140bhp. Wake a T-series up with breathing mods, maybe even a custom 4-2-1 exhaust manifold, and a set of Throttle bodies, and you would be lucky with a VVC160 in the same car to be able to keep up!

[ChrisD]

To be fair I havem't driven a nasp t series but a vvc pulls very well from everywhere, I can;t see a t nasp t series beating it. 0-60 is 7.8 or 7.4 depending on box/engine on the VVC's. In gear it may be I don;t know but revving it I'd have a VVC anyday. (and do) It quite happily accelerates in 5th from 1000rpm.

[Berger]

Having now owned a T16 nasp, a T16 turbo and a K series VVC.

The VVC in the coupe, is miles miles better than the T16 nasp in my hatch ever was.

Better MPG by quite a long way, power is better, and its a lot lighter, makes the front end actually handle.

[mattyf]

cnt forget the metro gti lump tho bit of work they can be tools

[stefaclese]

You really can't compare the T series turbo to the K series turbo, the T16 turbo was a performance engine, the K16 turbo was an economical engine for the big heavy 75/ZT, and has a totally different turbo.

You really can't compare the T with the K as they were designed for different applications, the K series was originally designed for small cars like the Metro and 200, the T series was designed originally in O series form for bigger cars, like the Montego, and the M series originally for the 800, then as more of a performance engine for the R8 GTi/GSi and Coupe's.

The K series IS more efficient and cleaner than the T series, but then again the T series wasn't developed to meet EU3 requirements.

The T series takes a hell of a lot longer to warm up over a K series, thus burning more fuel. Granted the T series can match MPG on long runs, but its a lot easier to get good MPG in a K. Also remember that gearing comes in to this a lot, if a K series had the same gearing as a 220/420 turbo, it'd cruise at 70mph at a lot lower revs and burn a lot less fuel I would imagine.

At the end of the day it comes down to personal preference, I prefer the K, and there will always be those that prefer the T (those that look back at the "good old days" while sat in their armchairs and complain about young people :P )

[dubyoo]

I'd quite like a comparison between the 2.0 T and 1.8 VVC-S (Turbo Technics supercharged). Unfortunately, the aircon on mine means someone else will have to fork out the £4k+

[VVC MINI]

Ive just read though everybody s comments and the people who don't support the vvc have never owned one.

You don't have to rev a VVC what aload off rubbish

110ftlb-130ftlb between 2k-to nearly 7k

NASP T16 is in a league below the VVC. The VVC is closer to a Turbo T16 than a Nasp.


VVC is the best engine rover made and also the best mass production engine made for engine power to weight.

VVC engine 96kg and 160 bhp
T16 engine 150kg and 197 bhp

Thats why lotus used it.

[VVC MINI]

A Mgtf is not a light car. The coupe and the BRM, VI etc are lighter.

Also the 135bhp K series is nothing like a VVC. VVC has flat power a 135 k series is peaky power.

[Berger]

If you love it so much why did you put a T16 Turbo in your ZR shell then?

I would hope the VVC was better than the T series nasp, the T series had a 15 year old engine development when you trace it back to the O series!

The K was a brand new engine for more modern times.


Given the choice I would rather drive a T series around town as it has uber comfy lazy torque and will run forever.

For a thrashing engine the VVC is a better choice.

Out and out power, T16 Turbo as you need a money tree to tune a K series.

[VVC MINI]

I put a turbo T16 in my ZR not a NASP T16. That would of been a school boy error doing that.

[Berger]

[quote="VVC MINI"]I put a turbo T16 in my ZR not a NASP T16. That would of been a school boy error doing that.[/quote]

Er, thats what I said?

I was asking why you did it since in your opinion the K is the best engine Rover made.

[Punx0r]

Title of this debate thread is T16 NASP Vs. 1.8 VVC, not T16 turbo

[VVC MINI]

[quote="Punx0r"]Title of this debate thread is T16 NASP Vs. 1.8 VVC, not T16 turbo ;)[/quote]

Exactly

Best engine Rover made was VVC.
Not the fastest but the best.

VVC wins on everything but Out right BHP.
Light weight good on fuel and flat power and torque.

NASP is fail as its Iron and it leaks oil and head gaskets go.
Only fail on a K series is head gasket.

Ive had both i and the best car ive owned is my VVC coupe.
T16 Zr was good but a 100 miles to a tank of fuel is FAIL.

[bjrespect]

driven both vvc hands down but for pure lazy 1st gear to 5th on a hungover drive to the shops lol t series wins everytime

[KeithMcKeith]

Fantastic debate LOVE IT!!!

basically the best way to sum these two engines up is the way they were made.

T series turbo was researched and developed with love and passion for a flagship car to represent rover. A 220 turbo coupe race series was made (that could only be described as a blood sport) and the car broke a number of world records in development as the tomcat (at the time and has since been beat).

K series VVC was rushed through production to replace the aging t series and during the relationship breakdown with honda. They wanted a multi functional engine that could be rammed in as many different chaises as possible. Hence VVC rover and VTEC honda being very similar even if they argue they are not.

Both have served there time very well.. the T when BL had lots of money and could research and develop a higher market engine and the K when they needed a multi tasking long-lasting modern engine when money was more scarce. Both are as reliable as each other if they are looked after properly. The T needs more expensive petrol and shorter service schedules the K needs belts / leads / gasket attention quicker than the T.

I own both a 220 turbo coupe and a 1.8 vvc coupe. The newer K handles better and has many many more safety features but is not as powerful and the turbo is fast but in the hands of an inexperienced driver will find a tree and kill quicker than a 911 turbo.

In answer to the how do you solve the power problem in the vvc engine? Lotus did a supercharging kit for the vvc engine in there cars that will obviously fit an mg or coupe. Like the S60 vw (spit on floor) corrardo was quicker 0-80 than the vr6 storm im sure the supercharged coupe would out pull and beet a turbo round a track easily. but it would set you back around 2k (back in 99 and im sure you would be hard pressed to find it now) plus for a while before the administration problems they were developing a supercharged coupe as a last good bye before ending the wedge shape.

On other gossip anyone know if BMW are still going to develop the Triumph TR8 or have they scrapped that with the recession?

[richard moss]

[quote="KeithMcKeith"]Both have served there time very well.. the T when BL had lots of money and could research and develop a higher market engine and the K when they needed a multi tasking long-lasting modern engine when money was more scarce. Both are as reliable as each other if they are looked after properly. The T needs more expensive petrol and shorter service schedules the K needs belts / leads / gasket attention quicker than the T. [/quote]
K series = long lasting? Funny.

Both as reliable as each other when looked after? Perhaps. K series as reliable as a T series if the owner is less than scrupulous about maintenance? Not a chance.

[Din]

Both as reliable as each other when looked after? Perhaps. K series as reliable as a T series if the owner is less than scrupulous about maintenance? Not a chance.

Only in as much as te T wont actually kill itself.... but it will leak oil like nothing, and still give ignition problems, sticky valves etc, the K is fine maintinance free, you simply have to check the coolent level, bar that its a bloody good engine imho.

[KeithMcKeith]

quote 'K series = long lasting? Funny'

Well yes fair enough good point. I should have said they ‘intended’ the engine to be (blah blah) that in development. People can use there own opinion as to the overall success.

[targatop17]

[quote="Mark"][quote="Neil F"]

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

[/quote]

TUUUUUUUUUURBO :)

Mark[/quote]

if the only replacement for displacement is technology.. what happens when the ecu does it's own thing.. ie needs an upgrade, or burns out, go back to carb's, they can at least work without a laptop

ecu's were only developed so car's chuck out less co2's.. a take it that's the line of thought..

[greenfli]

my sister had the t16 nasp, she loved it but sold it once she drove my turbo, i think the k has to be the better option the t is so dated now very heavy and this has an impact on the handling as well as many other things, so k all day.

I cant remember where i read it but an article i read said the k series was 15 years ahead of its time and toyota and bmw not to mention a few others tried making there own versions and failed, i think they have probably cracked it since but this was many moons ago.