There isn't a VVC MG ZS. Currently (petrol wise) only a 1.8 120 and the 2.5 v6 180. Historically the vvc engine was not seen as suitable for the 400/45 only for sportier models such as 200 vi, ZR and MGF.

Anthony.

 

I'm afraid not and from what I hear the VVC will soon be gone forever.

It is rumoured the next generation ZR will use the 1.8T for it's top of the range model, however the ZS will stick with the 2.5V6 although the 1.8T will be available.

I expect lots of news regarding the 1.8T and VW 1.9TDi in the not too distant future...................perhaps October 20th ?

 

Why is the vvc disappearing? Is it because it is so expensive to produce? It's a shame because it's a superb engine and, according to some, technically superior to Honda's acclaimed VTEC.

Didn't Rover have problems with the 1.8 turbo k series to begin with?

Anthony.

 

I can't see the VVC being used in the ZS/45 replacement as they will hopefully have a 2 litre engine or the turbo for that.

I can see it continuing in the smaller cars though. It is a better alround performer in the smaller car than the low blow turbo.

 

i herd from rover that the vvc documents wont be arround for years because of the success they have had with the engine... ie they wont release the docs till they stop making it.

The engine gives a real racing feel, and i dont think the turbo will surpass it.

see what happens

 

I think historically the VVC wasn't in the 400/45/75 because it needed to be revved hard to get the most from it, indeed that's what makes it such a fun engine to use. However, the larger cars were seen as refined, relaxed cruisers, hardly the car you'd put a screamer of an engine into.

As for the ZS, probably the similar power outputs from the 160 (VVC) and 180 (V6) meant that only the V6 made it. I think it just probably suits the smaller cars better.

As for loosing it... I wouldn't have thought so, I would have thought its a good selling point verses other manufacturer's VVT systems.

 

I've driven a 416 and this had to be revved very hard to get anything out of it, whereas the 1.8 VVC in my Vi is a lot smoother (it does like to be revved though ). Because the VVC is such a smooth engine I think it would have been the perfect engine for the "refined, relaxed" 400. I think a car with the class of a 75 shouldn't do with anything less than a V6 (V8 would be better though :naughty: )

 

I think its more to do with torque. That is, the bigger the car the more torque you need. The VVC only puts out 128lbft in 160or145 guise. Perfect for light sports car not for bigger lumps.

 

how come the vvc is 145 and 160 formats, where did they get the extra 15bhp from, is it ecu re-program or somet?

 

Hmm i agree that the vvc would be ideal option for the 400/45 (might make a good mod infact heh)

is there that much of a difference between the weight of the 25 vs 400 ?

 

how come the vvc is 145 and 160 formats, where did they get the extra 15bhp from, is it ecu re-program or somet?

The differences between the 145 and the 160 version are the throttle body (52 mm instead of 48 mm), different airbox and exhaust down pipe.

is there that much of a difference between the weight of the 25 vs 400 ?

25 is 1030 kg, the 400 is 1080 kg. So I don't think the torque issue is relevant here.

 

how come the vvc is 145 and 160 formats, where did they get the extra 15bhp from, is it ecu re-program or somet?

Small bits and pieces really. The throttle body, Inlet Manifold, air intake and head are all slightly different, along with the engine management.

The TB, manifold, air intake and mems are reasonably easy to do and gain about 12bhp back.

 

25 is 1030 kg, the 400 is 1080 kg.

u sure? my brm weighs 1100 and my vi weighed 1060.

col

 

The above weights are for the 25 1.6 & 416, so it's better to compare, because there is no 400 1.8 VVC. My Vi is 1070 kg.