There really isn't much point swapping the engine over to be honest. The 1.4 pushes out around 103ps and the 1.6 around 109ps IIRC so its really more hassle than its worth, if anything just save for a faster car or think of a different engine conversion ie 1.8/vvcskanking pete said:109 ish methinks
i thought it was more like 120 ish.skanking pete said:109 ish methinks
Thats the non VVC 1.8 mate.dac said:i thought it was more like 120 ish.
Yeah its torquier and will have a bit more top end poke.Phil_216sli_Mk3 said:Im surprised because the amount of power the 1.6 gives out isnt that much more than the 1.4 really, it still does 0-60 9 tenths of a second quicker according to parkers. Must be down to the extra torque the 1.6 has 145nm compared to the 127 in the 1.4
Its more the fuel econmeny I was thinking of. I can't keep the petrol coming to the 1400cc. I was hoping the 1600cc would put out a bit more power and the weight of the car wound put less strain on the engine. But I can see the isn't really much difference in powertommihayes said:There really isn't much point swapping the engine over to be honest. The 1.4 pushes out around 103ps and the 1.6 around 109ps IIRC so its really more hassle than its worth, if anything just save for a faster car or think of a different engine conversion ie 1.8/vvc
Or even tune the 1.4 with exhaust good air filter chip or whatever your budget can stretch to. Will get more power per pound than the cost of the 1.6 upgrade.
Although if your engine is totally broken and you can get a cheap good 1.6 engine and can afford the insurance for the mod then i guess why not
Eh...? Smaller engined cars usually have better economony not bigger. The 1.4 K series has no problem pulling it's weight.Muldrew said:Its more the fuel econmeny I was thinking of. I can't keep the petrol coming to the 1400cc. I was hoping the 1600cc would put out a bit more power and the weight of the car wound put less strain on the engine. But I can see the isn't really much difference in power
http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=130509&page=19 are you going to join in ashy?ashy said:Eh...? Smaller engined cars usually have better economony not bigger. The 1.4 K series has no problem pulling it's weight.
Drive more econonomically if you want to save fuel.
LOL... what does that have to do with this thread mate?dac said:http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=130509&page=19 are you going to join in ashy?
Driving economically bearly gettin 230 miles to the tank. The small engine is gettin it tight pulling the 17's aroundashy said:Eh...? Smaller engined cars usually have better economony not bigger. The 1.4 K series has no problem pulling it's weight.
Drive more econonomically if you want to save fuel.
dont tell me you have spent all this time trying to find a way to explain how a smaller engine is more efficient?.....lol.Muldrew said:Driving economically bearly gettin 230 miles to the tank. The small engine is gettin it tight pulling the 17's around